In the recent week or so, one has not been able to turn on the news without seeing grainy, turbulent cell-phone video depicting the protests in Iran regarding the obviously fraudulent election there. Despite many polls showing a tie in the race and even some in favor of moderate candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, incumbent Mahmoud Ahmidinejad was announced the winner of the election, by a questionable margin of 62.6% of the popular vote. This sparked nearly immediate protest from moderates, unfortunately culminating in violence in the capital city of Tehran and generating international response.

As a symbol of democracy across the world, it is clearly the obligation of America to stand for justice in the democratic process and condemn this national hoodwinking of the Iranian people, but then one must beg the question; namely, how important is the defeat of Ahmidinejad to American interests? The answer, surprisingly, is not very much.

The greatest concern to America right now coming from Iran is the nuclear threat. Iran’s reasons for the program are obvious; a country that literally sits on a sea of oil has no need of uranium for energy. This, combined with their threats towards Israel, our nation’s great ally in the Middle East, makes the prevention of Iranian bomb possession a key element of American interest. Our second concern has thankfully been minimized, but remains a grave threat: Iran is suspected of ( and in some cases proven to) giving arms, both physical and financial, to terrorist cells in Iraq and Afghanistan, waging a shadow war against U.S troops. As stated before, vast improvements in ground conditions in Iraq has lowered this fear on that front, but certain upheavals in Afghanistan provide a new opportunity for Iran to provide money for a common interest.

Oddly enough, the powers of nuclear determination and international financing do not fall within the president of Iran’s power at all. It is important to remember that Iran is an “Islamic Republic”, or a thinly-veiled theocracy. Major decisions of foreign policy therefore rest with the clerics of Iran and, ultimately, the Ayatollah himself. Being that these figures control the programs that provide the greatest threat to American security, a regime change in the presidency would have little effect on the country’s threat to the United States. A new president, however, would possibly improve relations with our country slightly, by perhaps being more open to talks with President Obama on certain issues. However, it is unlikely that they will succeed in the long run to disarm Iran.

What does this mean to you and me, then? In short, don’t hold your breath. Even if international pressure causes an Iranian recount assuring a Mousavi victory, it is likely Iran will remain a grave threat to the United States. In the meantime, we must stand firm as a country in support of democracy, and while for now diplomacy is the way to deal with Iran, it must be tough (but fair) diplomacy.

Check out Charles Krauthammer’s most recent column on the Obama administration’s stance on the Iranian elections and subsequent protests. Here’s an excerpt: 

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration’s geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear “file is shut, forever.” The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That’s our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of “meddling.” Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror — and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America’s moral standing in the world.

I found this movie site surfing yesterday. The Third Jihad uncovers the radical Islam’s manifesto for destroying Western Civilization as we know it. Narrated by Dr. Jasser, a Muslim U.S. Navy veteran, the movie connects thwarted attacks on Fort Dix, the PATH tunnel plot, and other attempted terror attacks to radical Islamic plot to attack America from within. This film is not an attack upon Islam, but rather the radical terrorists that kill in the name of Islam.

http://thethirdjihad.com/