Some interesting thoughts there. One question given the rational/ irrational dichotomy proposed by the author; Iranian demographics are not favourable- the country will become poorer in the future and its population will decline. Why then the obsession with Israel and nuclear weapons? To keep the US at bay at all costs?
Hi Saul, I think the rationale of regime survival is not always aligned with what's best for the country as a whole. When America has regime-changed two of your neighbours and openly considers doing the same to you, acquiring nukes is rational at almost any cost. Would you rather be Kim Jong Un or Muammar Gaddafi?
The resulting sanctions are awful for average Iranians, but they have very little power to change the country's direction. By contrast, regime insiders can generally weather the hardship and sometimes even profit from it (the IRGC has a very profitable line in smuggling, for example).
The obsession with Israel *is* irrational, I think. This is an area where theology outweighs politics.
I read with great interest. I would add additional perspective: the particular geopolitical situation of Iran is more result of American politics rather than Iranian politics. The Iranian society is much westernized, highly literate and with strong democratic tendencies (suppressed by government), which can be contrasted with the Saudi society - very foreign to Western ideals. Saudi political system is no better than Iran. Yet, it is the Saudis, not Iran, who have been chosen by America as their key Middle East ally - not because of cultural affinity, of which there is zero, but because of money, oil and strategic location. Due to this, Iran slowly drifted into international isolation but we cannot attribute this solely to its political system (Saudi is worse) or its attrocities to neighbors (see Saudi involvement in Yemen) or societal freedom (Iranian women can drive). The choice to ally with Saudi and Israel, and isolate Iran is an American decision. In addition to this, we should also regard the Iran - Israeli conflict as the narration which is purposely inflated by media (on both sides), because every totalitarian regime needs an enemy, and also America needs an enemy to keep its society alert. In fact, this conflict does not make much logical sense - first, Iran has no border with Israel, and second, Iran would not achieve any important strategic goal by destroying Israel. They would not become richer, they would not get access to anything they don’t already have. People in Iran laugh a lot of this and told me it was a conflict propelled by government media in Iran, rather than real conflict. Interestingly, some Israelis told me the same, also highlighting that historically Persians were Jewish allies - since Darius around 300 BC.
Some interesting thoughts there. One question given the rational/ irrational dichotomy proposed by the author; Iranian demographics are not favourable- the country will become poorer in the future and its population will decline. Why then the obsession with Israel and nuclear weapons? To keep the US at bay at all costs?
Hi Saul, I think the rationale of regime survival is not always aligned with what's best for the country as a whole. When America has regime-changed two of your neighbours and openly considers doing the same to you, acquiring nukes is rational at almost any cost. Would you rather be Kim Jong Un or Muammar Gaddafi?
The resulting sanctions are awful for average Iranians, but they have very little power to change the country's direction. By contrast, regime insiders can generally weather the hardship and sometimes even profit from it (the IRGC has a very profitable line in smuggling, for example).
The obsession with Israel *is* irrational, I think. This is an area where theology outweighs politics.
I read with great interest. I would add additional perspective: the particular geopolitical situation of Iran is more result of American politics rather than Iranian politics. The Iranian society is much westernized, highly literate and with strong democratic tendencies (suppressed by government), which can be contrasted with the Saudi society - very foreign to Western ideals. Saudi political system is no better than Iran. Yet, it is the Saudis, not Iran, who have been chosen by America as their key Middle East ally - not because of cultural affinity, of which there is zero, but because of money, oil and strategic location. Due to this, Iran slowly drifted into international isolation but we cannot attribute this solely to its political system (Saudi is worse) or its attrocities to neighbors (see Saudi involvement in Yemen) or societal freedom (Iranian women can drive). The choice to ally with Saudi and Israel, and isolate Iran is an American decision. In addition to this, we should also regard the Iran - Israeli conflict as the narration which is purposely inflated by media (on both sides), because every totalitarian regime needs an enemy, and also America needs an enemy to keep its society alert. In fact, this conflict does not make much logical sense - first, Iran has no border with Israel, and second, Iran would not achieve any important strategic goal by destroying Israel. They would not become richer, they would not get access to anything they don’t already have. People in Iran laugh a lot of this and told me it was a conflict propelled by government media in Iran, rather than real conflict. Interestingly, some Israelis told me the same, also highlighting that historically Persians were Jewish allies - since Darius around 300 BC.