Ahmadinejad/Iran

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by niceneasy, Apr 9, 2007.

  1. I am curious to get some insight on why Ahmadinejad/Iran are being so boisterous and provocative about their nuclear progress. What purpose does being aggressive like this serve? I don't get it...If they truly want nuclear power and the right to enjoy it peacefully - why are they being so openly antagonistic?

    Thoughts?
     
  2. It's a fascinating topic indeed.

    As an exercise, it can be interesting to think about things if roles were reversed i.e. how would one respond or behave in the following situation:

    1) Out of about 200 countries, you are one of a handful to be branded as an "Axis of Evil". How do you feel as a citizen of that country?

    2) You are "either with us or against us" - how do you feel about being made the enemy of the world's only superpower when previously you (as an ordinary citizen - not part of the government) may not have had any ill-will towards it.

    3) Two of your neighboring countries have subsequently been invaded and are currently occupied by forces not friendly to you. In addition, those forces are in close proximity to very large parts of your coastline. There are constant "noises" about possible invasions or strikes on your country by these forces that now virtually surround you. How do you feel about being surrounded by forces that have demonstrated their willingness to invade?

    What deterrent do you have to prevent a nuclear power that surrounds you from invading your country? What do you do? What is your leverage?

    It's certainly an interesting strategic problem.

    If you were in the situation described would you just put up the white flag? If the answer is no, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that Iran isn't about to put up the white flag either.

    What kind of qualities do you want in your president/leader and government?

    1) If another country tells you to do something, do you want your government to just give in and do it?

    2) Do you want a leader who is strong and stands up to countries who have demonstrated aggression towards you?

    3) Do you want a leader who isn't afraid of making plain-speaking direct and often controversial speeches that demonstrate strength and single-minded committment to a goal or objective regardless of what the rest of the world thinks?

    4) Do you want a leader who is willing to do what it takes to defend your way of life?

    Some would say that US citizens have elected a leader who fits the criteria if the answers to those questions are yes.

    What if Iranian citizens have done so too?

    I fully expect people to chime and say the usual "it's not the same" or "it's different" because of xxx. As for being antagonistic, although it's tempting to start the clock from now, it's a little misleading not to include the historical context and build up to where we are today.

    I look forward to reading other people's thoughts on this interesting topic.
     
  3. The Shia have been the prime beneficiaries from the fall of the Baathists. Rather than bathe in the moment, Iran has done everything in their covert power to spoil the chances of a secular Iraq. Iran is intent on treating Iraq's Sunni's in commiserate manner to how Shiites were treated by Saddam.

    Iran is actively backing extremists in Africa and Asia including Hezbollah. (not that I view Hezbollah as intrinsically extreme. After all aren't they primarily a social service institution?)

    Confronting Israel is risky business.

    Edwards, Obama, Dean and Hillary have all commented on how they will stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    Anyone who thinks this is exclusively a Bush "issue" is mistaken.


     
  4. Agree, it is no more a Bush issue than it is an Ahmedinejad issue. It is my fault for a poorly worded post if you thought that was the main thrust of what I was getting at.

    In reference to Edwards, Obama et al, naturally, they, like the vast majority of the world would prefer Iran not to further it's nuclear ambitions.

    They will have to deal with what the situation is when they inherit it - not with how we got to the situation we are in now.