The following article (text below) was in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page: http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB113703123729444450.html It is from an Iranian journalist who is forbidden to publish in her own country and is pleading for America, as "the only superpower in the 21st century" to "realize its full potential in diplomacy, economic leverage and, as a last resort, military action -- not just to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, but to speed up democratization in the region."

It's a powerful plea to a powerful country. But, is this in America's best interest? Americans clearly care about others, in our own country, and all around the world, and we are the most prosperous, freedom-loving country, perhaps in human history. Another question besides whether it is in our interest is, is it our RESPONSIBILITY as the world's only superpower to help oppressed, impoverished peoples around the world? Is this America's providentially-designed role in the world?

Enjoy the article below and leave your thoughts behind.


COMMENTARY
Help Us, America . . .

By FAROUZ FARZAMI

January 12, 2006; Page A12


TEHRAN -- On the surface, it would appear that pressure from the United Nations and the United States has little effect on the mullahs who rule Iran. The opposite is true.

The best current example is the standoff over Iran's nuclear program. Fearing that the mullahs are secretly developing nuclear weapons, the U.N. wants strict limits on Iran's nuclear program. The country's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, and Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have refused to consider any such limits, even after Russia offered a compromise that would permit Iran to enrich uranium on its soil. The president and the top negotiator have been defiant -- on state-run TV recently, Mr. Larijani, thinking several steps ahead, pledged a "crushing response" to any military attack by the U.S. or Israel.

But if you look past this headline-generating bluster, you see that Western pressure is having an effect. The hard-line position of the Iranian government has begun to splinter. There are now three minds about this issue in the Majlis, the Iranian parliament:

• A categorical rejection of the Russian proposal to allow Iran to enrich uranium at its facilities, a compromise that would deny Iran the privilege of enriching uranium on its own soil.

• Modifying the Russian proposal to allow for enrichment to occur in both Russia and Iran.

• Suspending all enrichment until further notice or even to some agreed-upon future date, to defuse tension and rebuild confidence with the European Union.


The existence of these more conciliatory positions in a Majlis completely composed of religious hard-liners is a surprise. (A fourth point of view unrepresented officially, since reformers have been thrown out of the government, calls for Iran to comply with the U.N.'s demands and give up on enrichment of nuclear fuel altogether.)
There is only one reason why these divisions have appeared within the formerly monolithic Majlis: the tough stand by the international community backed by American and Israeli military might. I understand the opposition of liberals in America and Europe to America's military moves in the Middle East, and they are right to be concerned about the continuing loss of life. But they should also appreciate the importance of American power in enforcing global standards. Without U.S. military, economic and diplomatic pressures, the leader-for-life of Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi would not be behaving himself today, and the people of Afghanistan would still be under the thumb of the Taliban.

Iran is, of course, not comparable to Libya or Afghanistan, but everyone in Tehran's bazaar knows that any flare-up of tension between Iran and the West has an immediate adverse impact on the Rial, the country's currency, particularly against the U.S. dollar. The slightest Western pressure and Tehran's stock market nose-dives.
Why won't the U.S. take advantage of this? Why not impose smart sanctions on Iran instead of smart bombs, and apply strong international pressure for the formation of independent and secular political parties? Currently, the only parties allowed are Islamic ones approved and subsidized by the authoritarian, theocratic regime. We desperately need a push from America and the West to separate church from state in Iran.

If I were an American, I would probably be content with the well-being of myself and my own family, and would be inclined to oppose my country's involvement in Middle East politics -- but I am not an American. I am an Iranian. I am a subject, not a citizen, of a Middle Eastern country with a long history of despotism. My country will not change without help from the West. I wish the only superpower in the 21st century would realize its full potential in diplomacy, economic leverage and, as a last resort, military action -- not just to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, but to speed up democratization in the region.
I am impatient for it. We have those like Shirin Ebadi, Iran's Nobel Peace Prize winner and prominent reformer, who call for allowing democracy to evolve. But Ms. Ebadi is a rich woman, a member of the country's small elite that has never had to struggle to make a living. Maybe she and those patient ones like her can afford to wait another century for democracy to materialize out of the blue.

Not me. I need help. If America could accept its power and potential, it could begin forcing change right now.

Ms. Farzami is an Iranian journalist who is forbidden to publish in her own country.

It would seem that furthering the cause of Democracy in Iran would be in America's best interest. With Iran's persistence towards the goal of nuclear weapons, and the Iranian president's promise to eradicate Israel there is potential for serious global conflict. The greater question of whether it is America's responsibility to help oppressed, impoverished peoples around the world is harder to answer. My first inclination would be to answer that it is not America's responsibility to be a global charity, which is neither practical nor possible. One of America's strengths is the ability to be pragmatic while achieving humanitarian results. It is also arguable that if America does not take the initiative to help countries in need than the desperate will turn to countries with questionable intentions. Certainly the U.N. plays little functioning role, and Europe is in a sad state of affairs, which leaves America as the only country with the means to spread democracy and help those in need. Certainly in the case of Iran it is in America's best interest to act, yet globally each case must be looked at with a certain pragmatic goal so that America does not become the worlds watering well.