In a message dated 2/7/07 10:52:36 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And then there is another perspective. This could all be a bunch of BS meant > to put Ahmadinnajad on the hot seat among his own people. He already has a > bad economy and is criticized by his opponents for too much military spending > and not enough social programs, sound familiar? He doesn't have a very popular > government right now and Iranians would welcome a change. Ahmadinnajad has > ruined Iran's credit with this Nuclear stuff , western banks are refusing to > lend him money and his economy could very well be on the verge of collapse. > Yeah, but you're giving the USA under BUsh too much credit, I think. And while the current government may not be popular, dont fool yourself. Any attack by the US or Israel will unite them far more than the US invasion of Iraq did Iraqis. Odd as their government may seem to us, it WAS democratically elected. No I don't think I'm giving Bush too much credit at all. It is he that is pushing as many international banks to suspend Iran's credit which is a burden on their economy. And Because of the tuff talk Iran is spending it's resources on military build up instead of it's own infrastructure and bettering it's people's lives. It's called economic war and it makes him very unpopular. Iranians in general want better relations with the west but they know it's not possible with their current president and his policies. But you are right that a military attack would unify the Iranians behind their leader, at least for a while.
