amled,
Quote:
Your are probably correct in this if Mr A and the Mad Mullahs were rational pragmatic politicians.
So the big question must be …are they?
In the closing days of WW II, when Japan’s cities were being wiped out by constant fire bombs, the leadership refused to give in. Even after Hiroshima was turned into atomic ash, they refused to give in. It was only after Nagasaki that a modicum of reason filtered through.
So one cannot always depend on reason winning out!
|
the leadership refused to give in because of the belief that if they just held on a BIT longer, and forced the americans to come to shore, they could inflict enough casualties for the americans to take a conditional surrender as opposed to the unconditional surrender the americans were demanding.
a mistaken calculation as opposed to an irrational act (although it is true a LOT of the IJA officers were irrational. but the very top honchos, including the ones in the navy and the diplomatic corps, weren't- after all, they surrendered).
but i'm veering off-topic. where i was going with this was, based upon past history, do we see irrationality? iraq was the one that invaded iran, after all; iran has yet to "pull a japan" and go around invading other countries left and right, irrespective of their own capability for doing so. the mullahs are hardly in the middle of the same "emperor cult" that infected so much of japanese culture/politics of the time...
you are right in that we cannot always depend on reason winning out. but in iran's case, unless you have other evidence to show me, it seems to me that their actions have been dangerous, yes, but rational.