The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should 'Holocaust Revisionists' be Jailed?

Scroll to see replies

Bismarck
Who needs proof when the actions of the Iranian leader can be unambigiously interpreted as being hostile to the West?

*waits for the Arabs in Khuzestan to start a secessionist movement*

Most bombs in Iraq are killing Iraqis. Most Iraqis are Shias. Iranians are also Shias. It doesn't add up.
Socrates
Most bombs in Iraq are killing Iraqis. Most Iraqis are Shias. Iranians are also Shias. It doesn't add up.


Firstly, you assume that there is some monolithic Shi'a movement in Iraq. The fact is that some groups in Iraq are more friendly towards Iran than others and it's in Iran's interest to support these groups. Secondly, the fact that Iran was Shi'a didn't prevent the Shiites in Iraq from willingly participating in the Iran-Iraq war. Thirdly, you pay too much attention to religious loyalties. It's in Iran's interest to have the US chased out of Iraq, even if this means funding groups that are hostile to both Iran and the US (enemy of my enemy is my friend). Iran supported Christian Armenia against Shiite Azerbaijan a decade ago and I see no reason to think that Iran is any less pragmatic today than it was then.
Bismarck
I see no reason to think that Iran is any less pragmatic today than it was then.

Mad president :wink:

Still its all speculation.

Your other points are valid I agree but
Secondly, the fact that Iran was Shi'a didn't prevent the Shiites in Iraq from willingly participating in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Shias weren't in government then - that moustached man was still around :wink:
Socrates
Mad president :wink:

Still its all speculation.


The Iranian president has a very limited amount of power. His only real source of power is the bully pulpit, and all he's doing is bullying himself into early retirement.

The Shias weren't in government then - that moustached man was still around :wink:


The Shiites could have allowed the Iranians to conquer south Iraq without resistance without fear of reprisal from Hussein. They're Iraqis first, Shiites second.
Bismarck
They're Iraqis first, Shiites second.

That I agree with. But for Iranians - being Iranian and Shia is synoymous - it goes hand in hand. For them, every Shia interest is their interest. (You can tell I've just finished an essay on Iran :wink:)
Reply 125
Avatar for Adam83
Adam83
12
should this thread be a poll?
Socrates
That I agree with. But for Iranians - being Iranian and Shia is synoymous - it goes hand in hand. For them, every Shia interest is their interest. (You can tell I've just finished an essay on Iran :wink:)


Not really. As I already mentioned, the Iranians didn't show much sympathy for the Azerbaijanis, and Iran's greatest allies are Sunni Pakistan and atheist China.

Furthermore, when Khomenei appealed to Islam during the Iran-Iraq war, his appeals failed miserably. Iran only started turning the tide in the war once Khomenei started appealing to Iranian nationalism.
Adam83
should this thread be a poll?

Seems almost unanimously no to me....

--------------

Bismarck
Iran's greatest allies are Sunni Pakistan and atheist China.

China is prolly economically but Pakistan aren't particularly chummy with Iran, especially given Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Of course its naturally going to oppose military action in Iran because it would be too close for comfort. The Americans have been known for stabbing their "allies" in the back, so Mushy is merely watching his back.
Socrates
China is prolly economically but Pakistan aren't particularly chummy with Iran, especially given Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Of course its naturally going to oppose military action in Iran because it would be too close for comfort. The Americans have been known for stabbing their "allies" in the back, so Mushy is merely watching his back.


Who do you suppose helped Iran start its nuclear program? What actions has Pakistan taken against Iran since it joined the US in the war against terror? You don't give Musharraf enough credit.
Bismarck
Furthermore, when Khomenei appealed to Islam during the Iran-Iraq war, his appeals failed miserably. Iran only started turning the tide in the war once Khomenei started appealing to Iranian nationalism.

According to most of the books on the Iranian revolution I've read, religion is a key part of the whole revolutionary zeal. Sure nationalism was in there, but that was a sly technique to keep the Marxists on side during the revolution and later the war.
Socrates
According to most of the books on the Iranian revolution I've read, religion is a key part of the whole revolutionary zeal. Sure nationalism was in there, but that was a sly technique to keep the Marxists on side during the revolution and later the war.


Islam was the dominant part of the revolution that's for sure. The problem is that the revolution ended the second Iran was attacked by Iraq (just like all other revolutions to be fair).
Socrates
As I say, Pakistan isn't going to do anything to Iran because
a) it is its neighbour, any military action there directly could affect Pakistan (the US might even invade to spread "democracy" :rolleyes:)
b) Wasn't there a whole inquiry about A.Q. Khan selling off the secrets? And in any case they were sold back in the day when Iran and Pakistan were chums, thats like saying America wouldn't attack Iraq because it has once been pals with it. :rolleyes:


Why do you assume that Pakistan can't maintain good relations with Iran and the US simultaneously? Turkey has been doing just that for the last 20 years.
Bismarck
Who do you suppose helped Iran start its nuclear program? What actions has Pakistan taken against Iran since it joined the US in the war against terror? You don't give Musharraf enough credit.


As I say, Pakistan isn't going to do anything to Iran because
a) it is its neighbour, any military action there directly could affect Pakistan (the US might even invade to spread "democracy" :rolleyes:)
b) Wasn't there a whole inquiry about A.Q. Khan selling off the secrets? And in any case they were sold back in the day when Iran and Pakistan were chums, thats like saying America wouldn't attack Iraq because it has once been pals with it. :rolleyes:

--------------

Bismarck
Islam was the dominant part of the revolution that's for sure. The problem is that the revolution ended the second Iran was attacked by Iraq (just like all other revolutions to be fair).

...on foreign instruction (to be fair America wasn't the only backing Tikriti). They, and most of the world, secretly thought, the revolution might die. Ironically, it merely radicalised it even more (Dr. Laleh Khalili, SOAS) :cool:
Socrates
...on foreign instruction (to be fair America wasn't the only backing Tikriti). They, and most of the world, secretly thought, the revolution might die. Ironically, it merely radicalised it even more (Dr. Laleh Khalili, SOAS) :cool:


Khomeini didn't need foreign instruction to see that he would be kicked out of power if he didn't replace Islam with Iranian nationalism during the war. Coincidentally, Stalin invoked Russian nationalism during WWII and Napoleon invoked French nationalism during the Napoleonic wars.
Bismarck
Why do you assume that Pakistan can't maintain good relations with Iran and the US simultaneously?

Because Mushy has more interests with America than he has with Iran. He also abhors extremism and is trying to silence all the mullahs in Pakistan. He wouldn't be too popular if he went and supported the mullahs in Iran.

--------------

Bismarck
Khomeini didn't need foreign instruction to see that he would be kicked out of power if he didn't replace Islam with Iranian nationalism during the war.

He didn't replace it all. All American propoganda. :rolleyes:

Islam was always there. He merely "added" nationalism to it, in order to get those pesky marxists (class conflict this and bourgoeise power this) to fight Tikriti.
Bismarck
I don't see your point. Just because he has more interests with the US (I disagree, but anyway) doesn't mean that he can't maintain good relations with both.

What about when interests clash?

--------------

Bismarck
And we know that 100% of Iranians are either devout Muslims or fervent Marxists. :rolleyes:

Well the majority were (or even are) anyway. The marxists have probably died out, and been replaced by some other mullah followers who just disagree with Khomeini's velayat-e-faqih system and want another one. Still Islamic.

--------------

Hehehe....Holocaust denial hijacked into Iranian politics.

I blame englishstudent. :p:
Socrates
What about when interests clash?


Work together where interests coincide. Where do their interests clash?

Well the majority were (or even are) anyway. The marxists have probably died out, and been replaced by some other mullah followers who just disagree with Khomeini's velayat-e-faqih system and want another one. Still Islamic.


The majority were united in their opposition to the Shah. They didn't have a coherent ideology. Nationalism tends to get the support of all parts of society though as all revolutionary leaders were forced to admit at some point.
Bismarck
Work together where interests coincide. Where do their interests clash?


For example, the US wants to attack Iran, needs Pakistan's bases as a launch pad. Do Pakistan allow the use of their bases and risk enmity with Iran, or oppose the potential war and risk an attack on itself?

The majority were united in their opposition to the Shah. They didn't have a coherent ideology. Nationalism tends to get the support of all parts of society though as all revolutionary leaders were forced to admit at some point.


I'm not disagreeing. Nationalism has a key role to play. But Iran is probably unique in that religion plays such a significant role in politics, and in the revolution, probably played the most significant role.

Here's a quote I quite like:
"Fooled by history, deceived by their ideologies which promised the inevitable decline of religion, they [National Front, a nationalist org] formed a coalition with Khomeini based on the rash assumption that the "enemy of my enemy is a friend" and that he was a "useful idiot" on whose shoulders they could climb to the pinnacles of power. They gambled that the Ayatollah would lose, but they lost."
-Mohsen M Milani (1989)

I think you don't give Khomeini enough credit.
Socrates
For example, the US wants to attack Iran, needs Pakistan's bases as a launch pad. Do Pakistan allow the use of their bases and risk enmity with Iran, or oppose the potential war and risk an attack on itself?

Or publicly condemn the attack while secretly allowing the US overflight rights? There are always more than two options. I'd hate to use the Turkish example once again, but Turkey did manage to avoid allowing US access to its bases without overly antagonizing it.
Bismarck
Or publicly condemn the attack while secretly allowing the US overflight rights?

And that would make Iran jump with joy! :rolleyes:

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you