By: Thaddeus S. Kaczor, Jr.
Much is being written about what is snarkily referred to in the media as Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's 'dangerous' foreign policy. Most are using the current 'bad actor' on the World stage, Iran, as their favorite sounding board to misrepresent, then knock down the 'Straw Man' creation that they unfairly allege represents Ron Paul's foreign policy. Most times, they fail to interview or even QUOTE Ron Paul or his campaign, then proceed to present a near-total fabrication as if even remotely resembled Ron Paul's ACTUAL Foreign Policy! We are told that 'Iran wants to attack the U.S. (and, of course, Israel), and closing the Strait of Hormuz is an 'Aggressive' and 'antagonizing' act of defiance (and of course, that Ron Paul would 'do nothing'). While the policies and tactics of the Iranian Regime are despicable in so many ways As are many of the regimes in the Middle East- many of them our 'close allies!), when you strip away the domestic American political rhetoric from this story, and examine it purely from a geopolitical, diplomatic and strategic viewpoint, an entirely different story emerges.
In most accounts of this situation in the American Mainstream Media, you consistently seem to only hear the standard political talking points about 'Iranian Aggression', most always calling it 'unprovoked'. But what they intentionally (or incompetently) always forget to mention is the most important geopolitical action that has precipitated this whole 'Strait of Hormuz' incident. This entire 'confrontation' in the Strait of Hormuz has been spurred primarily by one event: The European Union, backed by the United States, has threatened a 'Death Penalty' sanction on the Iranian Central Bank (as part of the Massive National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) in response to it's Nuclear Program'. Even Conservative Republican sites like www.gopusa.com agree with Ron Paul's view on the nature of this crisis, and how dangerous it is for the US to engage in economic and military brinksmanship like this. By taking this serious economic action, the US and it's allies will effectively shut down Iran's ability to not only sell oil, but will effectively make it impossible for Iran to maintain ANY banking relationships on the world markets- precipitously collapsing the Iranian Economy, and forcing their hand militarily. Threatened with this economically unacceptable possibility, most informed observers find that Iran has responded in a predictable and wholly understandable (and economically balanced) manner to this overt (let's put it bluntly) act of Economic War. In essence, the Iranian Regime said that if The West cuts off their ability to sell oil, they will respond in like kind by shutting off the straits of Hormuz, so NO ONE can sell oil from the Gulf. SO this 'confrontation can actually be seen as a DEFENSIVE measure in response to the overtly aggressive economic threats made by the U.S. and it's European allies.
Strip away the emotionalist sabre-rattling and American Political manipulation of this story, and you can boil it down to cold-hard geopolitical and economic facts, backed by predictable diplomatic and military strategies and outcomes. Unfortunately, most in the press are pliantly following the Propaganda lead of the Establishment War-Monger/Profiteers and are using their fear-tactic talking points to demagogue this story in an unfairly manipulative and emotional way in order to further THEIR interests- which are at odds with the interests and safety of the American People, who oppose unnecessary and dangerous wars of aggression. Many Americans are listening to Ron Paul, who accurately points out that these Unconstitutional, undeclared wars and 'conflicts' benefit not the American People, but instead those like the manipulative Internationalist Banksters and the War-Profiteering Military/Industrial Complex. These people and entities- and NOT the American People- are the ONLY ones who benefit from War, the Instability and distortion of markets and economies, and the pre-emptive use of force to insure that their interests are pre-eminent, if not moral or even lawful.
In the coming days and months, Americans are being asked to answer one question: Are you going to believe the demagogues running for the GOP nomination who use emotion-heavy and fact-light arguments like 'they hate us because we're free' and other simplistic bumper-sticker Foreign Policy statements designed to inflame emotions and obscure or stifle rational debate? The ones who viciously and personally attack ONE other candidate by misrepresenting his ACTUAL policies and positions? Or are you going to LISTEN to Ron Paul, who looks at foreign policy as a STATESMAN, refuses to engage in personal attacks, but instead forcefully highlights policy differences and factual differences between himself and his GOP opponents, and (in the specific case of the 'Iranian' situation, as with all foreign policy decisions) would, coolly and rationally taking into account all the underlying facts and motivations of ALL the players, then making an assessment based on NOT not what's best to advance his own political future, but instead what's best for AMERICA'S future?
Just make sure you make an INFORMED decision. Ron Paul ALWAYS does.