re-addressing the issue of Iran in general, and its position relative to events in Iraq, and quickly dismissed the thought after recalling how little participation the subject previously garnered.
To what extent such was due to simple lack of interest I cannot say; but, I can say that, given the rate at which new discussions are opened, and the relatively short time that they therefore remain visible on the landing pages that are most viewed is short indeed, it is the case that many discussions languish owing to mere lack of visibility.
As for the matter at hand, it remains to be seen whether Ahmadinejad turns out to be the puppet or the puppetmaster. Important points to bear in mind are:
1) It appears that he advances only with the consent of Ali Khamenei, to whom he has publicly deferred;
2) Much of what he says publicly is in response to Iran's economic quagmire, and the resultant growing public unrest;
3) Iran deeply needs to be an important player in the Middle East in general, and re. Iraq in particular, if it is to have any real sense of security;
4) Iran's geopolitical stature as a leader in the Islamic world is greatly diminished from that which it once was; and,
5) In a global market, Iran cannot expect to remain culturally isolated to an extent sufficient for a wholly effective clerical rule on the one hand, while being economically successful in an open market on the other.
In short, Iran has reached a crossroads in the path to its future advancement as a world class nation. On the one side lies the choice of clerical rule, and a continued self-imposed isolation; on the other, secular rule, and the risk of further diminishing its power to play a role of any real import in the Islamic world. It's only viable long term option is to seek to achieve a workable amalgam of shared clerical and secular powers.
Whether or not it is this that Ahmadinejad seeks, and, if so, if he succeeds or fails remains to be witnessed.
