...
Because they're a "rogue" state if you ask Clinton's administration or part of "the axis of evil" according to the Bush administration. What does that mean?
It's not so much even that they're non-democratic or what their history is or any of that- those are just the things people toss on the fire.
The most dangerous thing about Iran, pre-invasion Iraq, North Korea, Syria, and sometimes Libya, is more correctly described by the "rogue" analogy because they are outside of the loop. They have little stake in the international community and the leaders don't seem to want a stake in the international world. The leaders rule on charismatic leadership rather than a sustainable bureaucracy (though Iran has an underlying democracy), so the well-being of the people is more a tool of the regimes than a goal. All these things set up these countries to be more dangerous. Like nothing-left-to-lose kind of dangerous.
Of course a lot of countries in Latin America and subsaharan Africa meet this description. But we don't seem to care about them because they aren
t acquiring WMDs.
__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside
|