During the Cold War, Qaddafi's Libya got very close to the USSR. The Soviets sold him MiGs, for instance. The Islamic Republic of Iran never got that close to either the USSR or the USA.
Now, Iran is developing its own fighter planes: <http://www.payvand.com/news/07/sep/1232.html>. A really endearing habit of mind.
> Certainly, the US saw Iran and Libya as identical, each bent on "exporting
> terrorism" and pursuing WMD programs. You'll recall that the US's Iran
> Sanctions Act, prior to Quaddafi's 2003 policy reversal, was formally known
> as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act.
>
> The Europeans and other US allies - and a large part of the Iranian ruling
> class - still see a parallel. They think Iran could be persuaded to follow
> the Libyan road if only the US would deal with them in the same way.
>
> It may be that US-Iranian geopolitical interests are uniquely irreconcilable
> and will lead to war. Things are still very unclear and in flux at the
> present time. But we do know that, as in Iran, a large part of the US ruling
> class is also pushing for a political solution, so perhaps it may transpire
> that - rather than Iran being a unique historical phenomenon, the the "only
> authentically Third-World nation", as you suggest - the Bush and Ahmadinejad
> governments have simply delayed a Libya-style accomodation.
> I know you don't rule this out.
<http://montages.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-hate-all-iranians.html>
"I Hate All Iranians"
Some on the Left wonder: why doesn't Washington deal with Iran as it dealt with Libya? The answer: Iran is not Libya.
Neither East nor West
The Iranians are the only people in the world who successfully defended themselves when their country was invaded by an enemy equipped with Soviet hardware and backed by all the major Western powers. These are people to be reckoned with!
The Iranians paid dearly for their independence, and they will not give it up and submit themselves to the domination of the US-led multinational empire easily.
Still Very Much Rebellious
Qaddafi didn't come into power through social revolution, like the one that convulsed Iran from bottom up. Instead, he won state power through a bloodless coup d'état. It's easier for Washington to deal with a dictator who rules the passive population, whether to depose him (as in Iraq) or work with him (as in Libya), than with the collectivist leadership who lead the historically revolutionary and still very much politically active population like Iran's.
Let's say Washington offers a deal, and Khamenei, et al. take it. Washington can't rule out that the people of Iran won't, sooner or later, undo it, either restoring the status quo ante or even taking their revolution to a new, higher stage.
Washington's enemy is not Khamenei or Rafsanjani, or even Ahmadinejad -- its enemy is the people of Iran.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On 10/1/07, dredmond at efn.org <dredmond at efn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, October 1, 2007 10:48 am, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> > To take the most obvious example, if the US had already totally lost
> > its hegemony, Iran would not have become an object of international
> > sanctions, which Washington has been gradually expanding and intensifying,
> > formally and informally.
>
> The Empire hasn't collapsed, that's quite true, and I don't mean to
> minimize the hair-raising violence the Empire is still capable of
> inflicting on the world.
>
> But it is definitely losing its grip - Iran can still buy pretty much
> whatever it wants and needs from China and Russia,
We'll see what Moscow and Beijing will do in November. I hope they will continue their passive-aggressive resistance.
> while Brad Setser over
> at RGE says the US is increasingly dependent on the central banks of the
> BRIC countries to finance its current account deficit.
Cf. Stephen S. Roach, "Save the Day," <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/opinion/25roach.html>.
> A really stunning
> change from 1953, when the Empire could assassinate Iran's democracy
> without even lifting its little finger.
Iran in 1953 was much less developed than it is now. After the withdrawal of Western technicians, it had trouble running its oil company for months. Perhaps memory of that in part leads the Iranians to fiercely defend the right to scientific development of their own, including nuclear development.
More generally, the Islamic Republic has a stronger political foundation and more legitimacy in the eyes of the population than the Mossadegh administration did. Mossadegh faced too many opponents -- especially in the military but also on the organized Left and Right. The Islamic Revolution changed that. It's still a (sometimes worrisomely) fractious nation, but less so than in the times of the tragic Prime Minister. -- Yoshie