Not if international pariahood gets him sodomized by a bayonet.
What Iran “wants” is all the current governments in the area replaced by radical Islamic governments.
I’m not sure why we’d want Iraq run by Shia theocrats who take orders from Tehran though the US has very dramatically increased Iran’s power in the region.
Nor do I think the ME would be better off with the Hezbollah in charge of Lebanon.
Iran wants:
[ul]
[li]To sit at the grown-up’s table - be considered a power in the world.[/li][li]To be able to do what it wants - not to have to ask permission or demand it (see - what does a Woman want?).[/li][li]To not have others chattering on about What does Iran want? which is actually quite patronizing to them.[/li][/ul]
That’s pretty much it. I’m in no way defending their actions, supporting them, etc. I’m simply trying to adjust the perspective of the dialog.
I’m not sure why you think radical Sunni governments surrounding Iran is a win for them.
Wil;d specualtions regarding the desires of other posters do nothing to promote rational discussion.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, I suppose that depends on how you define “net good.” is it strictly speaking, profitable? Perhaps not. But I believe the alternative will be far, far worse, both for use and many other nations around the world. Despite the fact that I want America to lead, the interests of the many peoples of many nations of the many continents are of no little interest to me, and I note that for the first time in history, war has actually decreased and become less horrible. That’s no small thing.
I should been more clear. They don’t want governments run by Salafists(whom westernors wrongly refer to as Wahabbis) but they’d be delighted with Sunni governments modeled after Hamas.
Relations between Sunnis and Shia are considerably more complex than many believe.
They’re only complicated because their leaders make it complicated for political gain. I figure a Jimmy Breslin quote (rendered to the best of my recollection) is appropriate:
What about what Iraq is now (or is, still, shaping up to be) – not an Islamic Republic, but a more-or-less democratic secular republic, dominated by Shi’ites simply because they’re the numerical majority in the country? Does that satisfy Iran, for qualities desirable in a neighbor?
Excellent! Anyone else into double-dactyls?
Huh, this is a different thread than “What does Iran really want, gastronomically?” that my eyes first saw.
There are several conceivable alternatives to American global hegemony – another hegemon, a concert of powers, a multipolar world, steps toward world federation, etc. – are you seriously contending American hegemony is necessarily far, far better than any of them? Because if so, America is the first great power in human history of which that can truly be said. And we really ain’t that special.
:o We all experimented a little in college . . .
The leaders being of the generation of the revolution or the one of the Iraq war, I’d guess
- safety from Sunnite interventions
- safety from American interventions
- spread of the revolution
- status as regional power
- enough of international trouble to make their people forget democracy.
The nuke program was initiated by the Shah, so I guess it was originally about status. Of course, it helps with all the others. The revolution thingy they should drop, because their brand of shia pseudo-democracy can’t possibly compete with the Arab spring. But we’re all soft on our past glory days, so they’ll continue to dream about leading the Muslim masses to “freedom”. I don’t think they want any new territory. They are one of the more coherent states of the region.
Those are all logical desires but is there any basis to think that they think this way?
Some might suggest that they simply want a more effective way of killing infidels … or a deterrent while they keep killing infidels the old fashioned way.
Whether it’s good or bad,
Still, Ahmadinejad’s
Certain to act like a c…omplete jerk.
Frankly, this seems to be your major reason for saying or doing anything around here, so I can’t much consider your opinion. “Not being special” seems to be your opinion on anything we do. America could develop immortality technology and you’d still be saying that. A nation is great if it chooses to be, and I’d prefer to teach children a partial myth to live up to than pretend we’re just another ordinary nation.
America has singlehandedly changed the culture of the entire world, altered how people view their governments, kicked the balance of power inside every single world nation barring North Korea, and kept global conflict down.
At the very worst, we’re the young Michael Jackson of nations.
But back to your less interesting statement, yes, American hegemony is better than any other option, barring the Second Coming of Christ.
Even in those generations of Iranian leaders, does anybody really believe in that, any more?
Canadian kids, I have no doubt, learn a mentally-healthier form of patriotism.
:eek: Please pick somebody who should have been allowed to grow older!
Iran wants leadership of the Muslim world in preparation for the 12th Imam. Nuking Israel will get them popular support from Indonesia to Morrocco resulting in their rightful role as the capital of the most powerful region in the world, the Ummah.