Response paper #2

Zakaria and Friedman both make points about the possibility of democracy in the middle east. Some of these points are better supported than others (such as the fact that lower oil prices would make for a more democratically inclined society) and some make fine points for multiple options. Zakaria says that it is more likely for the Middle East to have not become democratic because of the Arab heritage, and NOT because it is primarily Muslim. He backs this up with the explanation that the Koran never says anything about democracy one way or the other. Interestingly enough, neither do the old or new testaments of Judaism and Christianity.
The economy is a big part that is also questioned by both Zakaria and Friedman, although Zakaria makes a good point that the price of oil is almost directly connected to the amount of influence that democratic ideas can have on the Middle East. Knowing both positions on the matter, I feel like it is safe to agree more with Zakaria's idea about the economy playing a big part on the amount of influence (and therefore possibility of installment) of democracy in that part of the world; consequently, it is going to mean a long time for the eventual change in Iraq to occur, and a lot of things will have to go right (ie change in us demand for oil, greater economic stability, a reliable system of government, and the acceptance from the people) for the change to democracy to occur successfully.
As for Iran, it is more likely that the resistance lies much more in the economy than was the case for Iraq (where ethnicity also played a huge role). The US and other countries will have to find an oil substitute and decide to use it along with the oil that they already use from Iran so that the demand for said oil will decrease, otherwise the price will remain the same, and the economy (zakaria's opinion) will continue to flourish on the money received from it ruling out the need for a more democratic society.