PakPrinciples
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Iran's current government came about through a revolution that was hard won. Don't discount the sacrifices of your own people to put in place a government "for the people by the people" (ex. US was forged out of a war of independence and then a civil war, China war forged out of a civil war, Japan was forged out of a civil war, etc...).
However, I will say that the Shah in many respects was better when it came to engagement with other Muslims (particularly Pakistan) and did exemplify Muslim brotherhood/solidarity on various levels while the current leadership seems to be fixated on a fictitious "Sunni vs. Shiite" war that doesn't exist outside of the GCC leaderships views of Iran (ex. in consideration of approval ratings for Iran from Pakistan and Indonesia). However, on the other hand the Shah did act as a tool of the West to try and keep down Islam in Iran.
Friendship with the West comes with a heavy cost and it's usually increased interference (ex. overthrow of Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah) and decreased independence (usually resulting from a reliance on their economies which they use as leverage to force obedience or if you don't obey they'll arm your enemy - ex. Iraq under Saddam in Iran's case or India in Pakistan's case - and have them wage war on you). The countries which weathered the 2009 economic crisis the best were the very countries that had the fewest dealings with the West (ex. Iran and Syria).
Trade with the West means nothing when it comes to economic growth. India has strong economic relations with the US and Europe and J.P Morgan has now reduced it's growth prospects for the remainder of the year fiscal year (to March 2014) to 4.1% after achieving growth rates of around 5% or less since the end of 2012 (well below the once lofty ambitions of achieving continuous 9+% yearly growth) regardless of the trade incentives they have been afforded because of their ties. Iran's government above all else is honest, far more honest/dedicated to the country than governments in other Muslim nations.
These countries aren't interested in your success or security they're interested in their own prosperity. Just like they abandoned Afghanistan post USSR-Afghan war they abandoned Iran, or then Persia, post 1930s even though Iran requested assistance sorting out it's financial affairs and wanted engagement. I posted a response to a highly flawed strategic policy view Aeronaut made which suggested Pakistan become "non-aligned" (even though he wanted us to be a part of SCO which itself is a military/economic alliance) and what I said was that alliances are good but what countries/forces you ally with is are important (Muslims need to form an economic/military bloc out of the OIC). Iranians supported the N. Alliance in Afghanistan instead of working with Pakistan (which has the highest approval rating of Iran in the world at around 76%) and now that very group has not only sided with Americans but partnered with the Indians to cut off Iran's access to water via the Salma dam. Those same Indian "allies" who at the first chance they got jumped aboard US sanctions against Iran (only now are thinking of violating them because their own economy is in tatters and they feel it's in their own interests to do so) even voted against the country three times at the IAEA.
I have my own views on how Iran and all Muslim nations in general can become more economically secure and increase the capabilities of their armed forces.
