Hi Rob
....gets you so far in terms of what......could you expand a bit on that comment?
I think that if you look back in Iranian history, the Shah had a good grip on power and had full backing by the United States, but he was unable to stop the Islamic Revolution. While Khamanei is powerful and controls the Revolutionary Guards, the army remains its own separate entity. While he technically controls this as well, it is important to remember that the army is made up of young people in Iraq, who have been adopting a more pro-Western outlook. So while Khamanei retains power, he is not immune to the growing distaste for the domestic situation. I agree that he is playing politics to attempt to get his person in and maintain his dominance, but it is a sticky situation in my view and could blow up in his face, much as it did to the Shah.
......Rob I'd like your thoughts on this as I'm sort of confused about this relationship that exists with Iran and Isreal, I can't see a clear reason why Iran takes such issue with Isreal! I understand where and how Khamanei' views on the US were formed and to a certain extent his rhetoric is consistent but not with Isreal. I don't even think he follows Khomeini's views – what are your ideas on this?
I think that Iran has the goal of becoming the regional power in the Middle East. Since they are not Arab, this presents them with another potential challenge. I think that much of their anti-Israeli rhetoric is fueled by these causes:
1) In order for Iran to actually achieve regional hegemony they will need the support of the Arab nations. One great way to do this is to be a big enemy to Israel. So, the Iranian rhetoric on Israel could be to curry favor with Arab states to help their bid for regional hegemony.
2) Another reason could be that they simply want good relations with the region. This could be one way to do it.
3) Historically, you could look back to the Israeli involvement in Lebanon as a reason. It was largely seen that Israelis wanted to prop up the Christian regime in Lebanon which had routinely excluded the Shia population in Lebanon.
4) Religion could be an issue. While Iran is not Arab, they are mostly Muslim, and (fairly or not) Muslims and Jews have not had the best relations for awhile.
5) Another reason however that they could be so openly attacking Israel and the West is because they want to shift the focus off their domestic problems. If they see that many young people in Iran are growing up more moderate with semi-pro western views they could shifting the focus to keep pushing anti-west rhetoric. If they are able to use their nuclear program (weapon or not) to point out to the young people that the West tries to dominate their society unfairly, it could shift the opinion back in favor of the religious leaders as the Iranian population rejects the West (if they buy into the rhetoric). Their domestic situation is pretty bad as well, inflation is high, especially on food, and people are getting fed up with it. They wonder since Iran is loaded with oil, why can't the economy get moving and better their situation. If the leaders can shift the blame to the West, then they are accomplishing their goals, if they can't, then they will have a problem.
Iran has no connection with Isreal it has not come into conflict with them - Iranians are not Arabs. The only connection is Islam and Iran's indeed Khamenei's revolutionary aspirations of being the supreme Islamic leader indeed he describes himself thus “Islamic Revolution Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei” personally I think he is using the palastinian conflict as a way to give himself legitamacy within a wider Shi'i and Sunni audience. By attacking Isreal is gives the appearance of a common enemy a kind of rallying cry to Islam and Iran as the vanguard of the revolution. However, that said I doubt that dispite the rhetoric if Iran would ever do anything precipitate against Israel and I think Israel knows that too!
Iran comes into contact with Israel through proxy groups as well however. Hezbollah is largely back by Iran (and others) and many times these groups are used to carry out small wars (as seen in Lebanon) to cause problems for the others.
That said, I agree with your comment here that Iran is trying to use rhetoric to benefit themselves and 'rally around the flag" etc. That said, Iran could also be trying to get close to other states in the area to prevent any Israeli attack. Israel will defend themselves, as we have seen. (Bombing at Osirak, and recently in Syria, invasion of Lebanon on multiple occasions etc). I think Iran is playing a gamble if they think all this rhetoric will not provoke Israel, which I think is why they are locking up huge oil deals with China, Russia, and playing nice to the rest of the Middle East.
... I confess as to being a sceptic on the weapons development front I do not believe they are developing a nuclear weapon, that said in a number of years hence I am quite prepared to face the choruses of “well I told you so”.
I think evidence points to the fact that they are. That said, we do not know for sure. They could just be using the nuclear program to gain popularity in the area and "rally around the flag" domestically. However, they need to play it carefully since Egypt (the most accepted hegemon in the region) has been weary of a nuclear Iran as well.
Of course it could be another situation like we got in Iraq. Saddam had to play a delicate line on that issue as well. Regardless of if he had weapons or not he had to make it seem like he did to his neighbors and seem like he did not to the UN. The reasons for this are obvious, especially for why with the UN. But with his neighbors, coming on the heels of the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam needed to create the idea to Iran that he did have the weapons to not appear weak. Iraq also had goals of regional hegemony and having a stockpile of these weapons is hard to ignore.
And yes its good to talk but you have to talk to everyone including the Iranians.
)
