Iranians in Space

[Patroklos]

Ham/Hem/Taliban are real political organizations who stand for principles that many Western states reject. They are not just devoted to destruction.

[GePap]

"Doomsday cults" don't last thirty years in power. If the Iranian regime was truly suicidal, why did they make peace with Iraq in 1988 instead of continuing to bankrupt themselves in order to spread the revolution? If the Iranians are suicidal, why don't they openly arm groups like Hezbullah instead of trying to hide and deny their activities?

Actions speak louder than words, and while Iran is a clearly a revisionist power, it has also been around long enough to show that this innane idea that it is somehow suicidal is based on what could most charitibly called shallow thinking.

[SpencerH]

I cant be bothered to search for it, who in this thread said the Iranians were suicidal?

[Kuciwalker]

Ham/Hem/Taliban are real political organizations who stand for principles that many Western states reject. They are not just devoted to destruction.

So was the Communist Party of the USSR, but it still really sucked when they got nukes.

[Saras]

Ham/Hem/Taliban are real political organizations who stand for principles that many Western states reject. They are not just devoted to destruction.

So was the Communist Party of the USSR, but it still really sucked when they got nukes.

As far as my (and others in countries occupied by Soviets) situation is concerned with hindsight it's probably a good thing they had nukes. Otherwise there was a high risk we'd be nuked by NATO.

Or liberated, as Sovs cave in to nuclear threats without having a credible deterrent ...

[Unimatrix11]

Saras, this point might be pointless to make. Across the atlantic, the impression that both sides of the cold war were heavily propagandized and that the east feared the west just as much as vice versa apparently never surfaced. To some there, across the iron curtain, they were all ready and waiting for their invasion to start (just like the Iran is today), while in fact, a western invasion of the east was at least as likely as an eastern invasion of the west - and had been a lot more probable had the USSR not possessed nukes (and ICBMs).

Patraklos, i wrote an extensive answer to your reply on my last post, but, thanks to poly, it went to nirvana. Cant be bothered to do it over again. Just that much:

a) The majority sometimes acts immorale (eg: election of Hitler - as Stokesbury puts it: ´With the advent of Hitler and Stalin, vulgarity was crowned king´). A directly elected body is obviously unsuitable to prevent this. Thats why the german president is not elected directly anymore. To have the members of this safeguard made up from spiritual guys doesnt seem to me the worst of all ideas, since one should expect from them to be less prone to corruption. Maybe (!), its the only thing, that prevented the Iran from becoming another economic colony of the west...

b) The temporal confusion about my question and your answer is due to a cross-edit. Since my post was still the most recent one, when i wanted to supplement it, and it took me a while to do so, the edit got posted after your reply. Sorry for that.

So, now we have the argument of a ´suicidal´ regime in Teheran, whereever that may come from. This implies, that if Iran will have nukes, it will use them even when threatened by its own destruction. I think such an assessment is indeed rediculous. If they do have nukes, they will use them for political purposes alright. Just like any other country does (/would do). This propaganda of a mad regime with nukes there, will only play in their hands, once they acquire the weapons, since their threat to use them will put everyone in panic, because people will believe their own lies.

What do people expect, once Iran has nukes? That it will throw them around like booze on mardi-gras? The leaders there are not dumbasses (and now i feel almost a little sad, for i miss the legit ´like...´ in todays world politcs, that was so readily avaiable for the last 8 years) and are fully aware, that this would be pretty much the last they´d do. Now, if they got invaded OTOH, and they are about to do the last things they can do anyways, since tomorrow they will be toppled by an invasion, then, maybe, they´d do that. And that is what needs to be prevented. Any ´military option´ towards Iran would vanish with it having nukes, and thats the only true ´fear´ one has to have when it comes to it having them.

EDIT (sorry if it overlaps with answers given when i am done): I guess it can be argued that the same people who would attest Iran a suicidal policy of fundamental madness are the same, who advocated a conventional strike against a country that alledgly possessed the ability to destroy London within 45 minutes. Now, if that aint suicidal politics based on fundamental lies...

EDIT II (same applies as to the one above): Electoral forms of government tend to overrate short-term benefits and lobbyism. That this was apparent even to the designers of their constitutions shows in the fact that most, if not all, of these constitutions feature split-ups of the dates when the representatives are being elected (like the members of senate in the US (1/3 every two years IIRC), the Bundesrat in Germany and so on...), in order to prevent ´affectual´ majorities and too much fluctuation and instability of politics. Short term benefits can make an elected government tempted to do what is a) unbeneficial in the long run (say, debts) or b) immorale (start a war, threat minorities...). And while the most beneficial course of action can change quite rapidly, due to exterior circumstances, morale doctrines usually only change very slowly. Yet they can be easily overshadowed by short-term benefits in the reception of the electorate (the people). To me at least, and i do not propose this as the one true faith, and call anyone dumb who disagrees, it makes perfect sense, to have an institution that watches over ´desire for short-term benefit´ not overruling morality. But to be able to do this, such an institution may not be direct subject to the will of the majority, with its members dismissed on short notice, when the majority so desires. It´s members must be highly respected within the society though, because it´s reputation has to be strong enough to stand up against potential dictorial ambitions. If people dont give a **** about what the council says, because they regard them as old, wicked men, then whoever wanted to overrule them just had to say this loud and get rid of them. The council in Iran, in my perception, is some sort of mix, between the pope of the middle ages, crowning the (elected!) emperors of the holy (! - theocracy!!!) roman empire, and the supreme court, making sure, politics never leaves the ´right tracks´ (laid out by the morale principles of the society) regardless of what the majority desires.