Quote:Yeah, well, when I called that kind of government 'irrational' in my last post, I did specify that I meant...from the perspective of realpolitik. And that...isn't purely a Western thing...yeah, it's an extension of the old European system, but the Soviets played that game as well, as do the Russians today. China's approach to international relations can also be (arguably) viewed in this context.
The problem with Iran is the leadership is rational. Their just not the kind of rational that the western world is. They go off theyll kill everyone they can. This is Allahs will. This is the path of the enlightened.
I'm not saying the foreign policies of China aren't coloured by their own cultural context. China doesn't act like a Western nation...but it's still easier for us to understand them. I note, I use the word "us" fairly loosely. I'm Singaporean, raised in Singapore, so my own political perspective is not strictly Western. But that's precisely what I mean...there's some common ground, I think, that is seperate from culture.
The question is...whether this is true for Islamic nations. It certainly is, for some. I'd say Turkish, Malaysian and Indonesian politics are largely comprehensible from a Western point of view. Of course, some would argue that's because those nations are more Westernised, or more secular. Maybe...maybe not. Depends on whether Westernisation is the same as Modernisation. Historically they have been the same, but many thinkers believe it is quite possible to Modernise without Westernising.
Which doesn't mean the resulting governments will like the West any better, as you pointed out...
-- Acyl