Cold War Diplomacy
With the world on the brink of destruction where leaders of certain countries continue to flaunt their intentions whether they are benign or cancerous is not so much the question. It is their antagonistic attitude that continues to ignite the furor of wrath of other nations. We have to go back to the 1950's when Fidel Castro came to power. the United States was in the middle of the cold war, the McCarthy era was in full swing, and the relations with the Soviet Union were strained at best. In 1962 at the height of the Cuban missile crisis then President Kennedy took a firm stand against the deployment of any type of weapons especially Nuclear weapons in the Western Hemisphere by any eastern country particularly the Soviet Union. The dominance of the American military, the resolve of President Kennedy and the ensuing blockade around Cuba were the determining factors that forced Khrushchev to desist arming Cuba. If Khrushchev hadn't pulled the military out of Cuba a very precarious situation which could have erupted into a much more serious outcome where major hostilities between the world's biggest superpowers that could ignite a world war was adverted.
Since the early 1960's the United States has always enforced the policy that JFK held during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today with so many countries using Nuclear energy and with so many that have Nuclear capabilities it is time to reassess the positions of Nuclear Nations. The mounting tensions with Iran today over whether they are allowed by other nations that already have Nuclear capabilities either in weapons or energy isn't on the same level that what happened in 1962. In 1962 the Soviet Union who had already acquired Nuclear capabilities sought to arm Cuba who had none. Now, Iran today is gaining the technology that will enable them to acquire Nuclear power. Whether or not it is for weapon systems, to generate electricity, or both questions abound as to why other countries that already have nuclear energy or weapon systems have the audacity to impose their will on a country who is trying to gain the energy that other countries already have. It is this type of attitude that starts conflicts with other nations. To forcibly impose their will and purposely impose their directives on a particular country, in this case Iran, only encourages open antagonism which could escalate into major conflicts.
History is valuable tool. The lessons learned from the mistakes of the past inevitably raise their ugly head every so often. When World War I ended the allied countries imposed such harsh terms for which Germany never did recover. This contributed immensely to the rise of the Nazi party and of course the ascension of Adolf Hitler. When a nation or nations are so immersed in such economic strife open up opportunities for individuals to capitalize on the misfortunes of the masses. A nation beguiled by the promise of prosperity hidden behind cloaks of deception and deceit only to ignite a world war, yet again could be a very real scenario today.
Now with Iran and even N. Korea the world is again on the brink where hostilities for which there may be no return could ignite another world war, yet again. Antagonistic nations whose self proclaimed right to sovereignty have long indicated a reluctance to commit to embracing other nations attempt at selfulfilment. Israel, today, whose leaders openly defy and even encourage the wrath of other nations do so in the name of self preservation. For over 50 years the United States has had the same type of foreign policy. There again lessons learned from history should influence the decisions made in Washington. When global economic conditions arise that curtail the ability of a nation or nations to prosper with due diligence there will always be those who literally hide behind cloaks of deceit and deception in order to gain their selfish ends. Such was the case following World War I.
The United States must not allow sanctions, embargos, or even outright blockades of countries who are trying to improve their internal economic conditions. That includes their development and deployment of new energy sources that other countries already have. When this happens it is an open invitation for increased animosity. The one thing that the United States must follow through on is to not let global economic conditions deteriorate to the point where someone will use those conditions, beguile populations and actually continue a deterioration of economies. That old saying " Give a person a fish they will have food for the moment, but, teach a person how to fish they will have food for a lifetime," the connotation of that phrase has to apply in foreign as well as domestic policy decisions that are made today.
When any country whose leaders condone and sanction actions that prohibit other countries to improve their economic conditions is a prelude to repeat history. What America must not allow to happen is for individuals to use existing diminished economic opportunities to capitalize on, manipulate events or circumstances to create an illusion that hides the true nature of diabolical plans to achieve very selfish ends.