i didn't say that it was an arab state...much of that antagonism has to do with pre revolution regimes
>
>2. Iran is Shi'a not Sunni, therefore it has a different basis for Islamic
>legitimacy. The basis of Iran's legal authority is derived from a different
>foundation than Sunni Islam, which predominates in the Arab world. So as a
>result the example of Iran is not exportable. Democratic institutions are
>possible in a Sunni state, but will and do look different from those in
>Iran.
i am well aware of the differences between shi'a and sunni muslims. the iranian revolution was a successful one in regards to kicking the u.s. out. i didn't say any thing about exporting it just that it poses a good example of achieving self determination......despite differences in beliefs there would have to be alot of similiarities between any successful islamic revolution. it proves that the U.S. can be kicked out. there are numerous reasons of how it altered U.S. policy towards the region etc. too numerous to go into here.
>3. Iran never intended to export its revolution, so I don't see how their
>democratic institutions are a threat to US hegemony. Khomeini and his
>successors have each been clear on this point.
well i don't know despite pakistan being mostly sunni have they not developed a closer relationship to Iran, once Musharraf ditched support of the taliban? again i didn't say anything about exporting revolutions. plus the iranian thing has been a huge cog in the U.S.s claim that they are promoting democracy and idependance in foriegn countries.
Nov. 30 - Iran and Pakistan, saying the downfall of Afghanistan's Taliban rulers had removed "clouds" in their ties, pledged on Friday to work together for a broad-based government and reconstruction in their war-ravaged neighbour. "The sun is shining," a smiling Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar told a joint news conference with his Iranian counterpart Kamal Kharrazi in Islamabad. "Pakistan and Iran today are rid of the shadow that existed over our relations.''
>
>You are correct that if Iran ever threatened the US with nuclear weapons,
>Iran would be destroyed. However, Iran's development of ICBM's must be
>viewed as a challenge to US hegemony as a hegemonic state is not comfortable
>with even remote challenges to its authority (why would the US even gamble
>with the prospect of losing L.A. or N.Y. sometime in the future, if it can
>completely wipe out the threat right now?). In my opinion, the military
>challenge is much more threatening to the US than the "spread" of Islamic
>democracy.
>
pakistan is developing a long range missile capable of reaching israel and that hasn't stopped israel from exporting it's terrorism policy to India infact that is pretty much the reason why israel is doing that. so ICBMs will only prevent a full scale invasion of Iran which wouldn't happen anyway icbms or no icbms. " during the revolution there were no icbms and no large invasion or whatver. i see that as largely a neutral effect as nukes may prevent a large scale war but they also increase the justifications for smaller conflicts and sanctioning etc.
~M.E. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020213/e9c0cbc9/attachment.htm>