On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 kjkhoo at softhome.net wrote:
> Lovely! Iran's rulers are being quite rational -- regime change in Iraq
> and Afghanistan has been good for Iran, and now the US is bogged down in
> Iraq, and intentions notwithstanding, not quite in a shape to take on Iran
> as well. There's likely little stomach elsewhere for another war.
I don't think that's true actually, but you can see why Iranian hardline rulers would think this for exactly the reasons you say.
But their fear that "Democrats are tougher on human rights" is an old Iranian belief that ironically goes back to the Shah -- most Iranians believe that Carter's emphasis on human rights is part of what convinced the Shah to (fatally) loosen his grip. Be that as it may, they're entirely wrong about how that would work now. Nowadays it is Republicans (and neocon Democrats) who emphasize human rights violations in Iran and Democrats who soft peddle them as they try to find a modus vivendi.
More importantly, the Iranian hardliners are entirely wrong about stomach for pressure against them. The neocons may not want a war, but they definately want regime change through subversion and are raring to start that going. The Dems would not. The Repugs are also more likely to torpedo any European cooperation initiative on trade and nuclear power, and would be much more likely to bomb their facilities, or encourage others to do so. They may be running out of means, but the Repugs have lots more stomach left for wars beyond Iraq. And certainly more than the Dems.
So Iran would be safer under a Democratic regime. But the hardliners would be happier under a Republican one. The Great Satan is great for them. If it hadn't been for Bush invading Iraq, Khatami and his allies might conceivably have overthrown them. Now Khatami's a nothing. Pressure from the US makes all internal pressure for reform into treason.
Michael