I agree that the current situation there is partly a by-product of past American actions as well as the history of European colonialism in the region and that in a sense, we are reaping what we sowed. Be that as it may, neither you or I or the current administration supported the Shah, nor did many of those currently in power in Iran suffer under him. Vietnam and America, two bitter enemies, have moved on and are experiencing diplomatic if not cordial relations. Former arch enemies Japan and Germany are now close allies. But it is in the Middle East that they still talk about the glories of Saladan and the Christian crusaders as if they themselves suffered the indignaties. In the middle east they issue death warrants for authors who have insulted their prophet (I can only imagine the number of corpses if we at TFP issued fatwas on members who've insulted Jesus). And that leads to my second response.
Arab (ok ok, Persian as well) culture is certainly different from Western culture even as is Eastern culture (read: North Korea) in how rhetoric is used. I remember a special (Bill Moyers?) on modern Iran in which those on the street regularly denounced the "Great Satan" and called for "Death to America" while privately expressing no hate or even a liking of western and American culture. Such rhetoric is a tool even as brinksmanship is a tool for North Korea.
And yet.
"Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you."
Once again, the history of the region shows that not all rhetoric is just that.
Tensions in the 1920's between Palistinian Arabs and Jewish land owners lead to riots and a slaughter of the local Jews.
Consider the 6 day war:
Quote:
|
Israel and it's Arab neighbours had been hostile towards each other since 1948. For many years before the war tension was growing between all of the Arab Nations and the Jews. When Israel finally declared its statehood, several Arab countries started to attack it. The Arab countries refused to accept that Israel could be a Jewish state. The President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nassar, called for the destruction of Israel and started to mobilise for war. In the beginning there were just occasional civilian attacks, but then the attacks became more frequent and more destructive and violent. Because of the tension the president Nassar closed down the most important trading link between Israel to the rest of the world, the Strait of Tiran. This was an act of war, but they did not know that Israel would strike back with such ferocity.
|
(
http://www.ourtimelines.com/zsixdaywar.html)
The Iranian president is not the first one to call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Nassar and a string of other Middle Eastern leaders have called for the same thing and have proceeded to try exactly that.
Finally there is the point that I have made repeatedly: Why on earth does Iran, who sits on billions and billions of gallons of crude oil, suddenly need a nuclear plant for energy?
Nuclear technology is expensive to do safely, requires a huge infrastructure and has a high cost associated with waste disposal.
Yet they need nuclear energy.
Seriously, I think the North Koreans, with their poor natural energy resources have a better argument.
So I agree that what you say is possible, that it might just be saber rattling, that the nuclear program might be peaceful, but even if it's just a 10% chance that it's not, do you want to take a 10% chance on world war 3?