IRAN

Timmer said...

I think you are partly right about the weapons program, but where is this brash and antagonistic sentiment coming from?

This should come as no real surprise to any of us. This past election in Iran was a chance for the people to return to a modern, viable nation with western-like freedoms. Despite a huge movement among young Iranians, they failed to make that happen - whether by an actual lack of a majority or (more likely) a fixed election.

Ahmadinejad gained his momentum with this strategy: He is a self-described principlist (acting politically based on Islamic and revolutionary principles). One of his goals is "putting the petroleum income on people's tables", referring to Iran's oil profits being distributed amongst the poor.

The biggest advantage, perhaps: Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who spoke out against future relations with the United States. This went over well with middle-aged and elderly islamists and patriarchal conservatives, who fear a return to the days of female near-equality back in the Shah's 1970's Iran.

Thanks Timer for joining our discussions. Its good to see someone from the Gov't responding.

Iran's problem started when they let the Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini return from exile while the Shah was in the United States seeking treatment for cancer. Many of the older Irani people were upset that the Shah had veered away from Islamic beliefs and had instead taken a capitalistic view. SO they took the opportunity of his absence to invited the Ayatolla to come back and lead the Islamic Revolution.

Its not the politicians that rule in Iran, its the Islamic leaders. And they have a narrow vision of Iran's future with little or not compromise. Until the people of Iran break the control of the Islamic leaders, they will always be looked at as radicals and possible threats to the region.