There have been several disputes lately in the media about the U.S.-Iran relations in the wake of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s misleading statements about Iran’s nuclear program.As a matter of fact, U.S.-Iran relations are a rich subject for political analysts and historians. These relations are full of controversial trades of provocative “diplomatic” statements and sanctions. It is not my intention to speculate about the veracity of the affirmed “non-belligerent” purpose of that program, but especially after his re-election, it’s becoming harder to believe in Ahmadinejad’s words and intentions.Ahmadinejad’s speeches have already painted the initiative as a lesson of Iran’s sovereignty to the West (I understand “West” here as U.S. and Europe) despite Iran’s right to develop technology for a more efficient energy-generating matrix. If George W. Bush were still president, I personally believe a military reaction would be strongly considered — if not already in effect — as a result of the lack of transparency in Iran’s nuclear program.But let me tell you something from my foreign point of view: I’m certain a significant part of the international community is not willing to fully believe in the U.S.’s reasons to militarily interfere in another country — especially after the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (oops!). The American economic and military leadership is often seen as bossy and invasive. Nobody likes to be told what they can or cannot do, right?Ahmadinejad doesn’t like it either. And here lies the problem. For those of you writhing with the thought that I’m defending Ahmadinejad, I think he’s a crazy dictator who doesn’t give a nickel (or anything else) to the United Nations’ IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) resolutions or to the American geopolitical and economic leadership. Watching Iran’s Revolutionary Guard actions and Ahmadinejad’s intentions is crucial to the U.S. security. Moreover, it is even more crucial for Israel’s security. I’m not going to argue on that.But let me pick on the fragile image the United States has for common people in Latin American and many other countries not in the U.S.-Western Europe axis.Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva recently welcomed Ahmadinejad in a visit to Brazil for business meetings and commercial agreements. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several political commentators severely criticized the visit despite President Obama’s approval of the meeting and the intended role of President Lula as a mediator between Iran and other countries.Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t mean anything for Brazilians. It obviously should — a nuclear war is a threat no matter where you are from — but in Brazil, people are not afraid of Iran. We are not a target, and the last war we fought was more than 150 years ago. War is just not a strong part of our culture and history. So I’m sure the U.S. reaction to Iran’s nuclear program is seen as obnoxious by most Brazilians and by a lot of other countries.Well, I will have to disagree with most of my Brazilian friends on that. The sanctions now proposed by the United States to Iran are specifically directed to       businesses, services and individuals related to the development of their nuclear program. I agree with that. And I hope it has the effect intended, that of restraining any mad and belligerent purpose of the program.But on one point I’ll have to agree: Another American invasion and subsequent war on a Middle Eastern country will cost not only the lives of soldiers and colossal amounts of tax money, it will also bury the already feeble belief by the international community that the United States stands for a peaceful and free world. Marcelo Vieira is a 32-year-old jazz cello graduate student from Brazil. Follow him on Twitter@TDR_marcelovieira. —-Contact Marcelo Vieira at [email protected]