<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>RE: Iran/Iraq</title></head><body> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Michael Ellis wrote:<br> <br> >> "...the real threat to U.S. hegemony that Iran presents is democracy<br> occuring only after the U.S. was kicked out. which might present some sort<br> of example for future revolutions in other arab states."  <<<br> <br> --<br> <br> Michael,<br> <br> 1. Iran is not an Arab state, its Persian.  It has a history of antagonism<br> with the Arab world related to its imperial legacy.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>i didn't say that it was an arab state...much of that antagonism has to do with</div> <div>pre revolution regimes</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br> 2. Iran is Shi'a not Sunni, therefore it has a different basis for Islamic<br> legitimacy.  The basis of Iran's legal authority is derived from a different<br> foundation than Sunni Islam, which predominates in the Arab world.   So as a<br> result the example of Iran is not exportable.  Democratic institutions are<br> possible in a Sunni state, but will and do look different from those in</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Iran.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>i am well aware of the differences between shi'a and sunni muslims. the iranian</div> <div>revolution was a successful one in regards to kicking the u.s. out. i didn't say</div> <div>any thing about exporting it just that it poses a good example of achieving</div> <div>self determination......despite differences in beliefs there would have to be alot</div> <div>of similiarities between any successful islamic revolution. it proves that</div> <div>the U.S. can be kicked out. there are numerous reasons of how it altered U.S. policy</div> <div>towards the region etc. too numerous to go into here.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>3. Iran never intended to export its revolution, so I don't see how their<br> democratic institutions are a threat to US hegemony. Khomeini and his</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>successors have each been clear on this point.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>well i don't know despite pakistan being mostly sunni have they not developed</div> <div>a closer relationship to Iran, once Musharraf ditched support of the taliban?</div> <div>again i didn't say anything about exporting revolutions. plus the iranian</div> <div>thing has been a huge cog in the U.S.s claim that they are promoting</div> <div>democracy and idependance in foriegn countries.</div> <div><br></div> <div><font face="Times New Roman" size="-2">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.</font><tt><font size="-2">''</font></tt></div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br> You are correct that if Iran ever threatened the US with nuclear weapons,<br> Iran would be destroyed.  However, Iran's development of ICBM's must be<br> viewed as a challenge to US hegemony as a hegemonic state is not comfortable<br> with even remote challenges to its authority (why would the US even gamble<br> with the prospect of losing L.A. or N.Y. sometime in the future, if it can<br> completely wipe out the threat right now?).  In my opinion, the military<br> challenge is much more threatening to the US than the "spread" of Islamic</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>democracy.</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div> pakistan is developing a long range missile capable of reaching israel and that hasn't</div> <div>stopped israel from exporting it's terrorism policy to India infact that is pretty much the</div> <div>reason why israel is doing that.  so ICBMs will only prevent a full scale invasion of Iran</div> <div>which  wouldn't happen anyway icbms or no icbms. " during the revolution there were no</div> <div>icbms and no large invasion or whatver. i see that as largely a neutral</div> <div>effect as nukes may prevent a large scale war but they also increase the justifications for smaller</div> <div>conflicts and sanctioning etc.</div> <div><br></div> <div>~M.E.</div> </body> </html>