|
I'm really not 100% sure what to think. There is so much confusion revolving around Iran's collective intent. It's still perfectly obvious to me that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and they are seeking to find a more stable solution for energy. The thing is: it's not a stable nation y any means yet. They are still proned to religous sectarian violence and even zealotism (is that a world?), though not as much so as some of their neighbors. The biggest problem Iran has is the worst PR ever, being completly outclassed by the western propoganda machine, which is still in overdrive trying to convince the world that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and needs to be stopped. Neeways, how will this effect Iraq? Well, that's really more up to the western propoganda machine more than anything else. Iran could effect violence levels in Iraq, though probably not as much as an invading military. I think the biggest problem would be the people of Iraq calling for a theocracy....which I'm honestly not sure is a problem at all. Democracies are not any less likely to be extreemist than theocracies so long as the democracies aren't able to seperate church and state (I doubt that will happen in Iraq for a long time). I do think that Iran has a lot more in common with Iraq than the US, UK, or UN, Uknow? If anyone understands their culture, it's the culture next door, even if they were at war for a while before I was born.
I t could help, it could hurt. We'll just have to wait and see.
|