What do you think? Does Iran have what it takes to be the regional hegemon of the Middle East? Opinions, please.

Oh yea, and I don't care what you think about whether they should be the major regional power of the Middle East, only if you think that they can. Thanks.

Nobody is capable of uniting any significant percentage of the middle east... not at least while there are two or more major factions of islam at each other's throats.

Iran has a large enough population, plenty of resources beyond oil, a distinct ethnic nationality that goes back thousands of years and has the infrastructure to not need any allies on it's borders. Iran is not Iraq or Kuwait with recent colonial occupation, false boundary drawing and subservience to the imperial powers.

Nobody is capable of uniting any significant percentage of the middle east... not at least while there are two or more major factions of islam at each other's throats.

I said nothing about uniting the Middle East. I don't think that is Iran's goal, despite whatever rhetoric they espouse. Let's be realistis. It seems clear to me that what they are aiming for is influence, not direct control. Personally, I think Iran is on the path to becoming the major power in the Middle East, which is what their nuclear program is all about. I doubt that they seriously want to use those weapons to, say, annihilate Israel. They want to use them to gain respect on the world stage, and to make themselves preeminent in the region itself.

I never liked the President's characterization of Iran as a "rogue" state. Sure, they are ruled by the mullahs, but they are far more reasonable than, say, North Korea, or Iraq under Saddam. This, of course, is what makes Iran a real threat to U.S. interests. Not because of a military standoff, but because Iran's lead is much more likely to be followed in the Middle East (despite it's Shi'a majority and Persian ethnicity, which doesn't endear them to the Arab Sunni's) than the United States', or any other non-Middle Eastern country, for that matter. If Iran's influence increases to the point where it overshadows the United States, then U.S. oil interests could be hampered by Iranian political tampering (if they so choose), and the Arab states that are tolerant of Israel's existence at the moment (like Jordan, or Egypt) may be swayed by the word of Iran, and countries like Syria may be emboldened by their ally's newfound political clout.

I, for one (and I know I said I didn't want to hear people's opinions on whether Iran should be the major power in the Middle East), would actually support Iran's rise to power, because if they want to be the regional hegemon then they will be forced to deal with the rest of the world diplomatically, because if they don't then their influence will be quickly lost once again. In order to keep their new power, they will have to become more moderate in their rhetoric (their actions are actually very rational, it's just what they say that sounds crazy), and they will have to start abandoning proxies like Hezbollah. This doesn't mean that organizations like Hezbollah would disappear, only that they would lose the support of Iran, because once Iran has become the major power in the region they will have no need to exert their influence through paramilitary groups since they will be able to exert their new influence openly and with success upon the groups in that part of the Middle East.

Interesting outlook. What about the clerics, the real power in Iran?

What role do you see them playing in this scenario?

Interesting outlook. What about the clerics, the real power in Iran?

What role do you see them playing in this scenario?

Well, I would imagine that their power will become greatly diminished over time. It's clear that a majority of Iranians actually want to have relations with the rest of the world, and the clerics are very much hampering that. I could be wrong, but hasn't Amadinejad (sp?) taken a couple of steps (very, very small steps) away from the mullahs towards at least a modicum of political independance?

I'm really not sure what will happen with the clerics. I realize that they won't want to lose their grip on power, but it's going to happen one way or another. Either it will happen gradually and peacefully, or there will be a scramble at some point in the future when they realize that Iran is caring less and less about the old religious rhetoric, and more about their position on the world stage. I'm not Iranian, have never spent time talking to Iranians, and I'm not a Muslim, so I really can't say. That's part of the equation that's slightly beyond my ken.

Perhaps you could offer some enlightenment on the subject, Sam?

I am just hoping that we come up with an effective replacement for oil by then.
That way, Iran will merely be lord of the goats.

I am just hoping that we come up with an effective replacement for oil by then.
That way, Iran will merely be lord of the goats.

How long will that take? There doesn't seem to be any haste in developing alternatives. I'm sure everybody wants alternatives to oil but its not going to just appear out of nowhere. Governments have to act, and is the US acting?

Would Iran really stop funding organizations like Hezbollah? Or would they only stop doing it publically?

What do you think? Does Iran have what it takes to be the regional hegemon of the Middle East? Opinions, please.

No nation which limits the basic ideals of freedoms for it's citizens, that much of the world enjoys, can survive for long in this modern era of high-speed communication and knowledge. No nation which forces it's people to worship in only one way can survive long. No nation which limits the freedoms of one segment of it's population (women) can survive long. No nation that openly and violently advocates the death of another nation can survive long.

And last but not least, no nation can survive for long as a totalitarian dictatorship (even if that's not what you call it!) in this modern era of high-speed communication.

Baron Max

No nation which limits the basic ideals of freedoms for it's citizens, that much of the world enjoys, can survive for long in this modern era of high-speed communication and knowledge. No nation which forces it's people to worship in only one way can survive long. No nation which limits the freedoms of one segment of it's population (women) can survive long. No nation that openly and violently advocates the death of another nation can survive long.

And last but not least, no nation can survive for long as a totalitarian dictatorship (even if that's not what you call it!) in this modern era of high-speed communication.

Baron Max

Yea, ok... this was the kind of rhetoric I was trying to avoid in this thread.

Would Iran really stop funding organizations like Hezbollah? Or would they only stop doing it publically?

Well, first comes the loss of public support, and then after a certain point, (from the Iranian point of view) who needs Hezbollah? I mean, seriously, they're a liability. Even if you stop supporting them publicly, everyone is still going to know whether or not you're supporting them, and it's destructive towards the image of Iran. I think they'd leave them out to dry in much the same way that the CIA has left American proxies out to dry. It may take a while, but it will happen, methinks.

Yea, ok... this was the kind of rhetoric I was trying to avoid in this thread.

Interesting in that your last post, you resorted to the same/similar rhetoric to respoond to someone else's answer. You don't want a full answer with reasons, but you want to argue about someone else's response??? Duh? ...LOL!

So ...you're only seeking a "yes" or "no" answer?

"...I don't care what you think about whether they should be the major regional power of the Middle East, only if you think that they can. Thanks."

No! They can't ....sorrry that you couldn't read thru my answer to assertain that basic answer, but ....no, they can't.

Baron Max

Interesting in that your last post, you resorted to the same/similar rhetoric to respoond to someone else's answer. You don't want a full answer with reasons, but you want to argue about someone else's response??? Duh? ...LOL!
What are you talking about? My last post was in answer to baumgarten's question as to whether or not Iran would actually stop supporting Hezbollah, rather than just halting their public connection with them. There was no rhetoric in there.

So ...you're only seeking a "yes" or "no" answer?
Actually, I am seeking a yes or no answer, accompanied by reasoned analysis. What you provided was a "no" based upon opposition to Iran's ideological stance. That was rhetoric.

I already threw out the statement about not wanting "should" or "should not" answers, but implicit in my own "should" answer was the expectation that the stance would be for pragmatic rather than idealistic reasons. In other words, I don't want American conservatives saying that Iran shouldn't be the regional hegemon of the Middle East because they're "evil", and I don't want Muslims coming in here saying that Iran should be the major power in the region because America is the "Great Satan" and Iran needs to be strong enough to stop them from interfereing in the affairs of the righteous, blah... blah... blah.

I am just hoping that we come up with an effective replacement for oil by then.
That way, Iran will merely be lord of the goats.Iran has many more resources than oil. :rolleyes: