Originally posted by Rasputin13
reply to post by budski
I'd hardly call the regime in Iran a "democratically elected government". While it is true that Iran holds elections and that the current government was elected by the people, it is hardly a legitimate democracy. Hundreds of potential opposition candidates are banned from running. For all intents and purposes, there is no opposition. It's no different than the elections held in Iraq where Saddam Hussein would receive 99.9% of the vote.
And furthermore, the real power in Iran belongs to the unelected Mullah's. Iran's "democracy" is a farce. So in that regard, your comments are nonsense.
Thanks for the extended insights. Most Iranians in and out of the country shre the same feeling. When the Shah was ousted as a response to his corruption there was hope for something better replacing him. The mullahs and their Islamic Revolution have undone virtually all advancements Iran saw in the 20th Century, and have arranged the politival mechanism so there's no way to legitmately get rid of the present administration.
I genuinely doubt the Shah's son has much if any influence on the US policy towards the county, more the Saudis who are the real target of the mullah's wrath.
With the oil infrastructure in serious disrepair, and no one prepared to invest heavily in upgrading, Iran is facing a grim economic collapse, the first signs of which we are already seeing.
he type of imposed regime changes the US has maneouvred in the past
may be objectionable, but who is offering a better alternative? The current situation with the present government running the show at a budget of $90 a barrel for oil, when the international price is half that, is a collision course with grim reality.
Mike F





