Educate me

In an earlier post, "Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive" I concluded that a large segment of the protestors in the current Iranian crisis has resulted in international pressure mounting especially from the United States.

However, at the commencement of the G8 Summit this week in L'Aquila it has been argued by Russia that the violence in Xinjiana and in Iran are 'internal matters' and therefore should not be considered as a matter of discussion at the G8 summit. However, this has been opposed by US President Barack Obama, as well as the leaders of both France and Britain who want to increase international pressure against Tehran.

In a statement on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behaviour of the regime".

Clinton's statement reiterates similar sentiments made by President Barack Obama during his visit to Russia earlier this week in which he stated that the issue of Iran's capabilities need to be resolved through 'diplomatic means'. However, he also stressed something else important:

"the United States reserve(s) the right, and I as commander-in-chief reserve the right, to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States."

The perception of Iran as a perceived threat to the United States as a result of their nuclear weapons build-up is a highly complex issue. But I'm sure wondering whether the United States has really vital interests in Iran that are at stake? I mean, the perceived threats of North Korea's missile tests and now Iran? Are the current tensions on the streets of Tehran exercabating public perception of a possible intervention in Iran if other diplomatic channels fail?
Educate me.
Spowf.

Related news articles:

Obama urges Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'