Democracy

The threat to Iran is commercialisation, a political reply to economic growth that undermines westernisation and economic depression. The global response is divided by region, but in Iran the dilemma is urban against rural politics on this issue. The economy is divided between a politics of dissolution and a realist ideology behind growth. The religion is orthodox and is in charge of the state, the leaders threatened by political change and this may lead to continuity. The recent threat from nuclear issues is a threat to the opposition, which made itself known after democratic credentials were undermined.

The western issue is an ideological threat to neighbouring countries, the new Iraq a threat to Iran. The economic growth in these countries worries traders who must depend on the Iranian government. The regions to the north Israel and Syria seem to dominate its outward authority, but the religion is based on north African approaches to ideology, less globalisation or ideology of revolution. The threat is from the cohabitation of secular politics and religious veto, which threatens growth and undermines solidarity. The economy is stalling and the nuclear issue may be attempting to disguise it.

The superpowers have been prevented from public interference except as onlookers, the regional powers like Israel more routine in their response. The religion is arguing from economic isolation, while the social dialogue is delivering no freedom to change the politics of growth. This depends on nationalism and opportunity for political rule and depends on continuity. The ideology behind secularism is a belief in authority for leaders to increase leverage against dictatorship, but no obstacles are put in its way.

This victim mentality is neither ideological or religious, but a blend of liberal elites and authoritarian instincts. I suggest the west is attempting to find a peaceful Iran, while knowing that Iraqi strategies like it failed. Iran is not a terrorist nation either, but a kind of western influenced dictatorship, that now has gone it alone. The lessons from Iraq are significant, but not necessarily the remedies. These depend on the view of opportunities for democracy and the risk of sympathetic neighbours. The history more like civil war in near-by countries.

The community in Iran is more friendly to the west, and there is a communication not found in more Soviet style groups.  The religion may die out, but the secular powers are ideological in their aims and reinforce the veto. Nuclear power may undermine the opposition, because it is both symbolic of the two sides of government and may start a debate about the limits of the state. The religious dimension is threatened by defeat in its public strategies, but lays blame on the secular side for its home failings. The economy is more of an ideological approach, a sort of domestic undercurrent that threatens continuity.

This approach divides the leaders and the nation, and the west also falls for it. Conflict with other nations are part of both private aims and public strategies. I suggest division on the military and welfare areas is more of a concern and the economy reinforces it through cohesion. The global impact of this threat is of more concern, it suggests a global response to Iran is unlikely and authority leading to a more secular leadership is undermined because of isolation. The growth of influence is economic in origin and political in impact, but democracy is a concrete result. The threat from the economy more of a philosophical dilemma, combing region and state in a strategy of anti-politics. I argue the political side is more of a typical North African state. But globalisation may alter the divisions and political strategy of it.