This is incorrect.
A “Holy War” might well have served the Mullah’s purposes back in 1979-‘80 and on, when Iran was attacked by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Since then, the only time Iran has been on the brink of war was in 1998, when the Afghan Taliban slaughtered a handful of Iranian diplomats. There is absolutely no indication that the Mullahs are angling for a "good ol’ down-home Holy War."
As a pessimist, I like being wrong. From your lips to the Ears, as far as I’m concerned.
However
suggests that there is at least some resistance.
Do you think he is getting more backlash for this than Obama is?
In both cases, they are hassled by the conservatives, it just means something entirely different, yet very much the same. How much? Who knows. But I gotta at least suspect that even tho he looks like a Muslim munchkin, he rattles brass globes when he walks, clank clank.
OK, so they obviously have a word for it.
Now, what would be the american word? Is it such an outlandish concept that you use a foreign word for it?
There’s no french word for entrepreneur.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”
–James D. Nicoll
Why create and English word for something when it is so much faster to take one off the shelf from someone else’s language.
Accord?
Of course there’s resistance. The coup, the Iran-Iraq war, the CIA arming fanatic-ass mujahideen in Afghanistan that would later try and blow up Iranians, none of that is ancient history. It’s not even WW2-era history, and boy are people all over the globe still pissed about this or that part of it. There are still plenty of Iranians around who remember the bad shit the US did to or directly caused in Iran, because they were there. We’re not talking old incontinent farts in retirement homes either, but people pushing 40.
Much of the opposition to the West in Iran has zero to do with religion, mullahs or Israel. We (all of “we”, including us Yurows) fucked them but good and with precious few reasons to. Can’t blame some, even many of them still feeling ever so butthurt about it.
It’s always better to talk than to stonewall each other into war. Whether it will be productive still remains to be seen. I’m not exactly leaping with happy anticipation that this will solve everything (or anything for that matter), but am cautiously optimistic that it MIGHT.
We have a lot more in common with the average Iranian than we do with the average Saudi, that’s true enough…and (ironically to some I suppose) probably more of a groundswell of positive feelings from the average Iranian than the average Saudi as well. However, we aren’t dealing with the average citizen of either nation, but instead with their governments, and in that light we have a LOT more in common with Saudi than Iran. No contest really.
Certainly this is true, but irrelevant in the situation that has existed and still exists today wrt relations between the Iranian government and the US. Really, the sea change has to come from Iran if relations are to thaw, since they have been completely antithetical to the US. I think that they have a chance, today with Obama at the helm, to try and bridge that gap, but as with Cuba it’s going to mainly have to come from them and they are going to have to demonstrate they are willing to work and play well with others, especially on the regional stage, not to mention the world stage. It’s not JUST the US that has issues with Iran after all, nor is it JUST us who distrusts them and their motives. And it’s not JUST the nuclear issue that’s in contention, but also their support of terrorist groups.
Again, irrelevant since, as a nation state we are dealing with other nation states, not with the average citizen.
No, it’s really time for them to rejoin the community of nations and start showing that they CAN work and play well with others. If they do that then I suspect that relations between the US and Iran will thaw. Until then, we aren’t on their side, and are still in direct opposition to their aims and goals. I think this gap COULD be narrowed, but it’s going to have to come mainly from Iran if it is to be. Otherwise they will be Cuba or North Korea wrt relations with the US pretty much indefinitely…which hurts them a hell of a lot more than it does us.
Excellent long-form article from the The New Yorker about Qassem Suleimani, Iran’s Kissinger (sorta kinda?), and his Game Of Thrones-worthy political maneuvering from Baghdad to Bangkok. Great stuff.
My impression from the article, which gels well with everything I know about Iran, is that they (by which I mean the leadership) intend to become the top dog in that part of the world. They’re not crazy, hysterical, apocalyptic or anything of the sort; they’re cold, calculating and in it to win it. A bunch of turbaned-up Kissingers, more or less.
And in that, they are much like every other nation-state ;). Except maybe North Korea and that one post-Soviet country where the crazy President wants to turn every citizen into a chess grandmaster. I want to say Turkmenistan ?
Fake EDIT : Nope, it appears Turkmenistan had a run of the mill crazy dictator (who nevertheless banned opera, apparently. One sympathizes). I was thinking of Kalmykia.
This is also another time to recognize that the whole world doesn’t revolve around us and our needs. The Israelis have a shorter fuse than we do wrt Iran getting the bomb, and I don’t doubt they will take action if they think Iran has crossed their “red line”. Because of our greater military capability, their “red line” gets crossed before ours does.