There is a moral/ ethical component when examining the situation in Iran in a number of fields. In terms of weapons of mass destruction, which Iran possesses and is continuing to build, there’s always a moral and ethical issue because they are incredibly destructive. Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the international community as a whole, as they have unforeseen consequences once they are used. When is it morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons? What action is morally acceptable in combating the use of/ or building of nuclear weapons?
No aggressive action has been taken by the United States in Iran. We are currently fighting two other wars where American lives are being lost, and which aren’t highly supported by the American public. We don’t want to kill any more American soldiers than we already have, because killing our men is morally reprehensible and could be deemed unnecessary, and we don’t want to kill innocent Iranians. However, it is important to note that morality has also been used as a reason we should intervene in Iran, in an effort to preserve the human rights of the Iranian citizens, who have suffered abuses at the hand of the Iranian government. As R. Nicholas Burns, Secretary for Political Affairs in Washington, D.C., said on March 27, 2007:
“The [Iranian] regime recently celebrated the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. But the history of the past 28 years has been a betrayal of the aspirations of the Iranian people. The regime’s record of human rights abuse remains among the worst in the world. As our recently released annual Human Rights Report emphasizes, this record has worsened over the past year. The regime denies its people freedom of expression by cracking down on journalists and bloggers, closing independent newspapers, censoring internet use and blocking satellite dish ownership—all in an effort to control its citizens’ access to information. These actions prompt a basic question: why is this regime so afraid of its own people? We believe the Iranian people deserve better from their leaders. To counter the regime’s abuses, we are promoting greater freedom in Iran by funding a variety of civil society programs.”
Thus, morality can also, arguably, be used as veil for U. S. intervention. If we do act, are we really acting because of our moral concern for Iranians, or are we acting to uphold our reputation as a superpower, or to promote our own (other) best interests in the country…?
