Iran is still in turmoil and unsettlement as a result of its revolution post Shah Pahlavi. Pahlavi had a close relationship with the US and was deeply supported by the CIA. The CIA intervened in Iranian affairs and it caused the liberal leftists to mount an internal revolution against the Pahlavi regime. It was not based on Islamic fundamentalism, but rather on pragmatic desires for change, openness of government (reform) and self destiny, sans American/CIA influence. Not too different from Chileans opposing Allende and Pinochet jumping into the power vacuum with CIA support, overriding the Chilean revolution. The same thing took place in Iran. After the Shah was deposed, the islamic fundamentalists led by Ruhollah Khomeini trumped the liberalists by jumping into the vacuum by promising Payama-e Shalid: Message of the Martyr. After Khomeini died there has existed a kind of unsettlement where different political philosophies have co-existed in a back and forth struggle for national identity. The Iranian majority is no different than in any other country, the loudest and more strident voice gets the most attention. Though Ahmadinejad got voted into office is not indicative of how the mainstrean Iranians view their position within the international community. Taking a hard and intransigent position on Iran, right out of the gate, can be viewed as destructive leading to harsh words, counter challenges/attacks and leads to unpositive results. Walk softly and carry a big stick diplomacy needs to apply more than stomp hard with making threatening demands.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by roidattack
