Outside Interference

I have been wondering for quite some time now about an interesting phenomenen I have been observing in the media. It is based around reports like this one, where we accuse others (Iran, Al Qaeda, etc.) of "interfering" in Iraq. The "interfering" parties defend themselves, like Iran does here. While we are trained to think that this should be the way of things, it seems that our blaming others for interference is odd - given, of course, that we are are doing nothing if not interfering in Iraq ourselves. Our condemnation of others for interference is to be expected. The obvious interpretation of this is that when we do it, it is not "interfering", but merely helping to guide the poor, backward Iraqis toward the glorious light of American-style democracy. Incidently, this style of democracy also makes the new Iraqi government much more agreeable to certian economic policies, such as oil rights. but I digress... The more interesting part of the analysis stems from the fact that the Iranians seem to be content to debate within this operational framework. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made some veiled comments regarding American interference in Iraq, but has never (to my knowledge) come out and said it directly. Some of Ahmadinejad's comments: "These comments are the result of their domestic competition. Our stance on Iraq is quite clear, but they (the US) made a mistake and keep repeating it..." "Iran has no need to interfere in Iraq. The Iraqi government and nation are close friends of Iran" "We are the country that gets damaged a lot by Iraq's insecurity" "We can help solve many problems in Iraq; we can help secure Iraq; we can help the attackers and insurgents go out of Iraq if the American and British governments correct themselves..." These comments do not seem to be the type of sentiments that we should fear. What then, is the major source of consternation among US leadership that leads us to be concerned? I believe that one of Ahmadinejad's other comments is the true source of the issue: "If the U.S. leaves the region, there will be more friendship, and Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia would fill the power vacuum" Ah, power. Currently, the US fills the power vacuum in almost all areas of the world. We seem to believe that this is our divine providence, because we are "right" and they are "wrong", we are "good" and they are "evil". We cartianly cannot allow such "evil" people as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to fill the power vacuum in the Middle East and manage their own affairs. After all, they may not do it the way we want them to, and that would be completely unacceptable. Even the anti-war crowd in the US falls into the strange boundaries of "us = good, them = bad". When answering to the President's accusation of Iranian interference, the response is to ask for proof - as if proof made any difference. Even if the President offered incontrovertable proof, the fact of the matter is that Iranian interference is no more or less justified than our own interference. Why then, do we feel justified in this endeavor? An internet search on this issue turns up our old friend Noam Chomsky, here. I guess he really has had an effect on my thinking and perspective, because his article couldn't possibly have been closer to explaining the situation above. In his terms, the only possible justification for our position is the implicit assumption that "we own the world". This may seem brash, but it perfectly shows how we can feel fully justified in interfering in almost every corner of the world, and yet become angry and defensive when another country does likewise. If there is a better explanation - apart from the "we're right, they're wrong" one, I'd like to hear it.