English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-28 14:19:07 · 2 answers · asked by dumbblond 3 in News & Events Current Events

2 answers

Wouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the many things the American public has been denied by the media is the truth that Iran, despite its bombast, has been a rational nation. They have little to gain and much to loose with chaos in Iraq. It is unlikely that Iraq would become a puppet of Iran under a Shi'ite government. Iran sees itself as a regional power and views the non-Iraqi protagonists (USA and radical Islam) as threats to its security. The USA wants a stable Iraq that won't attack its neighbors and will not use oil for blackmail (ie, will abide by international norms). It is only natural that the USA and Iran temporarily put aside their disagreements to stabilize Iraq. After all, Iran's status as a regional power was only possible thanks to the USA vanquishing its enemies (Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban) for them. The rules have changed and both counties realize that. President Bush's belief that foreign policy should be realistic has caused a lot of anti-Americanism. He only supports UN agencies that do what they are supposed to be doing. He believes foreign policy should be flexible so goes with temporary national coalitions for specific proposes rather then large international organizations that say much and do little - again causing anti-Americanism. It has been successful and boy has that caused anti-Americanism. He won't be successful in Iraq because time is too short and there is too much domestic and international interference but he is laying the groundwork.

2007-05-28 15:47:50 · answer #1 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0 0

What makes you ask that? It seems highly improbable.

2007-05-28 15:31:13 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers