excellent remarks 1] Your point is that Iran has enough revenue to finance its foreign policy. You might be right. The percentage of national income, that can be spend on foreign policy by a western government is tiny in comparison with the percentage an undemocratic government can spend at its discretion. However if a relatively poor country [you describe it as 35th world largest economy] within few years develops a foreign policy worth of superpower it's bound to rise suspicions about financing. Increased oil revenues can explain a lot, but oil was more expensive [in real terms] few decades ago, and that fact didn't allow Iran to indulge its ambitions then. 2] No offense, but you can't compare Iran to Stalinist state. Stalin created a state completely cut off the rest of the world. You couldn't even leave your village without special permission. And after obtaining permission to visit for example you sister in nearby town you had to inform that you were really there on your arrival. You might go to gurlag if you failed to do so. In Gurlag you could meet people, whose only crime was to listen to foreign radio station [it was forbidden by law]. After saying or writing something stupid for example "Truman a friend of young people" [ it really happened] a young boy wasn't allow to complete education [I mean he was banned from every school for ever]. Stalin created a state of terror. I'm not a particular fan of the Mullahs, but their state is a Disneyland by comparison. Soviet Union wasn't a developed country by any means, but it certainly wasn't a third world country. It was a strange mixture of both. It wasn't able to develop technology to feed its own people, but at the same time was able to send a man to the space. People working for military complex were given extraordinary privileges so up to a certain point they were churning out pretty good stuff. I don't believe that any comparison between USSR and Iran is valid. However as far as Cuba is concerned You have a point. 3] I know too little about China to argue. As far as Russia is concerned, however, I believe, that you are looking at Russia deals from the Western point of view. In the West political power is used to obtain economic gains. You might not believe, but in the case of Russia is the other way round. Maybe it's simply an example of long-term investment. Authoritarian governments don't have to think about the next election. Whatever is the reason the Russian deals make a lot of sense from political point of view, form the economical point of view Russia is frequently missing the best opportunity. The private ownership in Russia is an illusion. One businessman wanted to be independent. His name is Chodorowsky, he used to be one of the richest people in the world, now his company is bankrupt and he is in jail. If Russia signs a deal with Iran, it certainly makes a lot sense from political point of view. What's more I'm inclined to see short-term economic gains as a byproduct.
Increased oil revenues can explain a lot, but oil was more expensive [in real terms] few decades ago, and that fact didn't allow Iran to indulge its ambitions then.After Khomeini and the mullahs hijacked the Iranian Revolution, they did start funding global terrorism around the world, e.g., Hezbollah. The eight year war with Iraq consumed large amounts of resources, but they still funded global terrorism. Again, they set the priorities and use their considerable resources to pursue them.
2] No offense, but you can't compare Iran to Stalinist state. Stalin created a state completely cut off the rest of the world. You couldn't even leave your village without special permission... I'm not a particular fan of the Mullahs, but their state is a Disneyland by comparison.
It is all relative. The Mullahs have implemented controls on the Internet, smashed satellite dishs, and jail members of the press who stray from the accepted party line. Women are stoned to death for adultry. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [Iran] - 2005
Soviet Union wasn't a developed country by any means, but it certainly wasn't a third world country. It was a strange mixture of both. It wasn't able to develop technology to feed its own people, but at the same time was able to send a man to the space. People working for military complex were given extraordinary privileges so up to a certain point they were churning out pretty good stuff. I don't believe that any comparison between USSR and Iran is valid.
I visited the Soviet Union a number of times. The standard joke in the USG was that the Soviet Union was the most developed under developed country in the world or the most under developed of the developed countries in the world. My comparison between Iran and the Soviet Union was meant to show how despotic countries can "afford" to devote huge amounts of scarce resources to specific areas. You were arguing that Iran could not "afford" to be a nuclear power, funder of global terrorism, etc.
Russia has still not developed the democratic institutions to be considered a democracy. Some believe that the form of government is superfluous. Russia remains Russia from the days of the Tsar to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin to Gorbachev to Putin.