Former US congressman Ron Paul[/caption]While Iraqi forces continue an assault on the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), many US lawmakers have expressed a strong distrust of Irans role in fighting the terrorist network. Many would prefer Washington to play a larger part in the fight. But as Ron Paul points out, its Irans corner of the world; let them handle it.
Writing onthe website ofthe Ron Paul Institute forPeace and Prosperity, former presidential candidate Ron Paul notes that while many ofAmericas neocons would push the United States towardanother never-ending war inthe Middle East, perhaps its better forregional players totake the lead onthis one.
"They want Americans [to] believe that only another US invasion ofIraq and Syria aswell can defeat ISIS," Paul writes. "But what is wrong withthe countries ofthe region getting together and deciding tocooperate ona common problem?"
Paul points outthat while sending Iranian Shiite militias tobattle the Islamic State is sure topresent sectarian problems, its preferable toreintroducing American troops tothe region.
"Our bombs will continue tomake the problem worse because it was our bombs that helped create the problem inthe first place," Paul says. "What the neocons who lied us intothe Iraq war dont liketo admit is that there was no ISIS problem and no al-Qaeda problem inIraq and Syria beforewe invaded Iraq."
Fighting the Islamic State, according toPaul, is a war onideology, not an easily identifiable nation state. For the United States todeclare a war onsuch an amorphous enemy "makes no sense."
"What if the US had not gotten involved withIraq in1990 when Saddam Hussein went intoKuwait aftergetting what he thought was a green light fromthe first Bush administration?" Paul asks. A question worth asking asthe American public still suffers fatigue frominvolvement inthe wars inIraq and Afghanistan. "Maybe Saudi Arabia would have made a move; maybe Israel would have taken care ofthe problem. Why does it always have tobe the US?"
If, asmany policy makers say, the Islamic State is the number one threat facing the country today, then why would interventionists object tohelp fromIran or any nation, forthat matter? For Ron Paul, the answer is simple.
"Because they desire the rest ofthe world tobelieve that the US is the only indispensable nation," he says. "They want the rest ofthe world and especially the American taxpayer tobelieve that no problem anywhere can be solved withoutUS involvement."
"Perhaps if people overseas begin tosee that they can solve their own local and regional problems withoutthe US military involved, more Americans would come tosee the neocons asthe real threat toour national and financial- security," he adds.
If true that Irans role asa military presence inthe fight againstthe Islamic State presents a threat toUS hegemony, perhaps thats a good thing, Paul suggests. Being free ofsuch global responsibility would allow Americans tofocus ondomestic issues.
"Instead ofbeing angered atIranian help toaddress the problem ofISIS, perhaps we should send them a 'thank you' note," Paul says.
On the other hand, given the actions ofthe US Senate this month, Iranmay be tired ofreceiving US mail.
By Sputnik News
