Quote:
|
This only to put your remark back into perpective that Iran only is interested in Iraq from a position of self-defence. It's exactly the opposite.
|
The point of this discussion was to debate whether Iran could feasibly have some sort of war with (presumably) an American-led coalition force. And the point of the announcement from the Iranian Defence Minister (apart from gaining public support from waverers with a rallying cry) was that it was a response to the gathering military 'show of force' in the region, ostensibly as part of the coalition efforts in Iraq. So that was what I was responding to, by pointing out that such a statement was probably geared towards garnering the support of the populace as much as it was 'trying to sound like a badass' on the international stage.
With that in mind, their interest in Iraq and the coalition efforts is hardly 'exactly the opposite'. The US political hawks have been sabre-rattling and mooting some sort of military action against Iran for a long time. I never said it was the only reason Iran were interested in Iraq, just that the leaders and more militant religious heads in Iran can co-opt more soft-line members of their populace with a 'backs against the wall' attitude to the US threats.
This has been a proven tactic of leaders throughout history. Most notably in Nazi Germany, where the Allied bombing of civilian population centres actually had the effect of stiffening people's resolve to fight, even if they had no great love for the Nazi leaders and what they had brought the country to. As evidenced by the fact that even as the Second World War drew to a close, production rates for fighter planes etc actually went up.
That was my point.
Chock