Its not what you say, but how you say it and you are the epitome of that….

You may find it interesting to visit some relevant pages on 480

For example, for years the US has been blocking pipeline projects that would run through Iran to the Subcontinent (India; Pakistan) and the Caspian sea (Azerbaijan; and then eastern Europe).

I’m not arguing this policy is good or bad. I’m simply calling your attention to it for two reasons–which I’ll get to in just a moment.

For the record, I have lived and worked in the http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.htmlâ€?>United Arab Emirates (UAE), just say an hour flight from Tehran, Iran. Since the population of UAE is 80% expatriate, I’ve had the opportunity to talk with many Iranians who lived and worked in the UAE. So although I can’t claim to have surveyed the entire Iranian nation, and I don’t speak Farsi, I do have some sense of how this issue plays on the Persian street, as it were.

1. Although the US regularly cuts deals with dangerously repressive governments in the Central Asian and Persian Gulf regions, the US works to limit Iran’s economy by sanction and law, policy and practice, and other more indirect means. This includes pressure on the EU and more. The theory being that a weak enemy is better.

Although US citizens seem generally not aware of this (you could get http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sanctions/sanctguide-iran.shtmlâ€?>most of the legalese here), many Iranian citizens are: and it–the hindering of Iran’s economic development–is a cause of resentment.

2. When the US does do a deal with Iran or allow other nations to do so, the “free market” is a non-factor: credit these deals to power politics, not textbook capitalism, although as always huge sums of money are involved.

This also causes resentment particularly among Iran’s elite and the educated aspiring middle class. First, it seems that the US says one thing, and then does another. Second, it seems that the US has to approve every pie that gets baked, and then get a preferred slice. Again, hardly textbook capitalism.

Okay. End my two points. So why is this a problem? Keeping Iran relatively weak and economically underdeveloped is good, right?

Maybe yes, maybe otherwise.

Just please consider the following:

1. We’re putting a big-time squeeze on the middle class: we’re making life much harder for the reformers and moderates.
2. The resultant inflation and high unemployment thus far has not encouraged regime change, but has instead helped sustained the religious reactionaries.

The lessons of history aren’t unambiguous: but in general, a prosperous nation with a strong middle class not only offers its citizens more social freedom but also behaves much better towards its neighbors. (Canadians, for example, are more interested in sending trucks loaded with beer, not bombs, into the USA).

Now, maybe this prescription for growth is hopelessly naive, outdated, and completely wrong for Iran.

Fair enough.

So let’s say that the current US policy is right. Keep Iran weak, contained, underdeveloped, Indirectly, as much as possible, control their economy. Otherwise, as soon they get money they’ll put it all into weapons of mass destruction.

That’s what we’re all hearing so it must be true.

You still should know more about what’s really going on.

You should also know—despite the neocon media blitz to the contrary—that the “free-market” get ignored the moment it presents the slightest inconvenience. (Remember those “no-bid cost-plusâ€? contracts?)

And finally, you should know the implications that US policy and practice, this perceived double-dealing, is having in the region.

After all, this is being done in your name, my fellow American citizen, and presumably for your benefit.