They are either sensitive to it and won't give the order that won't be obeyed ore they are and won't. Either way whether they know it or not they are not fully and securely in charge. Since so long has passed without them giving such an order, the evidence is that they are aware of the limits on their power.
Let's share the research, it should not be all that hard.
Perhaps we can start discussion from this point:
M Have you ever been a first line supervisor in an secular organization where it is difficult to "fire" people? Have you ever been a "faith" oriented leader? I have been both and prefer the former. How about you?
at
I have been the former and not the latter, but this has nothing to do with the Iran question.
at
It has to do with the perception of having power. And that is part of the question in dealing with both Iraq and Iran.
hinted at
top.
I don't see how it has any real import on that subject. The fundamentalists in Iran are not in a situation anything like that. They are in the situation of the general who dare not give an order. They are not fully in charge. They know this and thus will not give the order that will cause the loss of power.
The trend in Iran is back towards democracy and away from theocracy. The main reason that the theocrats gained so much power in Iran was that the shaw had managed to kill off all other rivals. He had killed off the leaders who would lead in the democratic direction. A new generation of leaders is growing up in Iran.
hinted at
top.
I suspect that you are looking at the other side of the same coin.
isn't
hinted at
top.
have
:> :>
Perhaps or maybe it is you who is looking at the other side of the same coin. :> :>
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required