posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 02:58 PM
I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion based on the ideas put forward in this article:
Iran's leaders need enemies like Bush.
The basic premise is that the actions of the upper levels of the Bush Administration are inadvertently propping up Iranian hard-liners by giving them
an excuse for their bellicose foreign policy and clampdowns we've seen in recent months (on 'un-Islamic' dress, on Western music and movies, on
Iranian academics attending debates and discussions outside the country and so forth) and diverting attention away from the dire economic situation
and repressive culture inside Iran at the moment (the stagflation, high fuel prices/low oil productivity etc.)
To what extent do you think the West is responsible for saving the Ahamadinejad government from what might otherwise have been a very short-lived
presidency for the Iranian leader?
I think it's difficult to deny that we haven't played some part (I would argue an important part) in giving Ahamadinejad political ammunition with
which he can divert the attention of ordinary Iranians from the oppression and economic hardship they suffer at home. From the perspective of the
West, it's too late to back down now since to do so would look like a huge sign of weakness. We may have unintentionally trapped ourselves into
another war that I'm not yet convinced has to be fought. Of course we should keep our options open but attacking Iran (or anyone, for that matter) is
a last resort, not something you steadily march towards using diplomacy to keep the public on-side.