 "Photo: Web")
In regards to how the U.S. can find a solution concerning the temperamental relationship with Iran, President Barack Obama declared in his recent State of the Union address "no option is off the table."
Of course, what he means by that is he is willing to take the country to war to advance America's international interests.
What he does not mean, however, is that "no option is off the table." Lost somewhere in the various considerations, the diplomacy option has been overlooked.
Instead, the relationship between the two nations will continue to deteriorate as the U.S. continues implementing its aggressive foreign policy of blockades and backing sanctions enforced by the United Nations.
The above are just two of the approaches that have been taken by the current and past presidential administrations and have been the catalysts of anti-American sentiment in the Middle Eastern nation.
Yet, nobody ever seems to openly question how effective these actions we take are.
Does our federal government's foreign policy, particularly its positions on Iran, make us safer? Does it even have the desired impact on Iran?
Examine the situation a bit more closely and the answers to the above questions become apparent. No and maybe, respectively.
The actions the United States takes abroad don't make us safer. Many experts agree the various actions it takes in the Middle East breeds further hatred and spreads anti-American feelings across the region.
"America is being attacked because of its foreign policy in the Muslim world," said Michael Scheuer, a 20-year ex-CIA agent who was in charge of the Osama bin Laden unit. This, of course, extends to Iran, who reportedly funds some of the anti-American terrorist groups in the region.
Our positions and actions against Iran perfectly explain the Iranian government's negative disposition towards us.
It doesn't take an expert on foreign policy, such as an ex-CIA agent, to understand why a nation who suffers tremendously from U.S.-backed sanctions and blockades would harbor some anti-American hostility.
It's pretty much common sense.
Imagine if any country (ballsy as they may be) attempted the same things here. We wouldn't take kindly to that sort of behavior.
As for whether or not they have the "desired effect" on the nation, the answer is maybe. To my knowledge, the Obama administration has not stated out loud the goals of its foreign policy are to impoverish Iranians.
However, considering in 1996 former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the death of half a million Iraqi children as the result of sanctions was "worth it," it can't be far from true that the current administration would feel the same should that fate befall Iran.
When speaking of Iran and the measures that must be taken against it, it is an unfortunate consequence that many of America's policies regarding the regime do not openly take into account the actual effects on the country and the citizens.
The reality is, intended or not, the sanctions placed on Iran hurt the people and not the government. Instead of weakening the theocratic regime, the effects are passed on to the Iranian people.
Americans get mixed up on the topic of Iran and often confuse the country's government and a handful of radicals in the region, be they Iranian or not, with the general Iranian populace.
Our foreign policy, aimed at deterring an anti-American government, is inconsiderate of the rational, average Iranians who make up almost the entirety of the country's population.
We can examine the data and see how our policies harm the Iranians and make a judgment call on whether the effects are good or bad. I argue they're bad.
Through a less humanistic approach, we can discern the sanctions are, however, not altering the Iranian regime's plans and have not made them friendlier toward Israel.
The U.S. can take two actions from this point: Continue the same policies into assured war or seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution.
I know the "P word" and "D word" are ugly to Americans who are hostile toward Iran, but they're the only rational way forward.
People who think another war at this point in time is affordable are overlooking simple financial reality.
The country is recovering from the second-largest economic downturn in U.S. history and is trillions in debt, with more to come.
Even if you don't care about the innocent Iranians who are harmed through our foreign policy, another war simply is not feasible.
I'll repeat; we're broke and we can't afford it.
Another war would be disastrous for our economy and simply not winnable with America being in such dire financial straits.
Because the same policies in place will inevitably lead to an unaffordable conflict with Iran, the only sensible way forward is peace and diplomacy.
Once upon a time, Iran and the U.S. got along. It is not unfathomable that, with time and patience, we could reach that point again.