Is the fact that Iran is governed by an apparent lunatic who doesn’t believe the Holocaust occurred and wants Israel wiped off the face of the map the biggest factor in why the U.S. is rattling its saber against the country? If a moderate “Westernizing” reformer like Ahmadinejad’s predecessor Khatami had been elected in 2005, would America’s actions toward Iran over the past three years been the same irregardless? If Ahmadinejad is replaced by a more sensible leader who isn’t given to making asinine proclamations and embarassing his country, would that change in anything with regard to the apparent drift toward conflict between the U.S. and Iran?
The President of Iran only has as much power as the Clerics allow him to have. If Ahmadiniwhatist had actual power by virtue of being the elected leader, I think we (or at least I) would have less of a problem with Iran.
But he’s a sideshow. The decisions that actually matter (nuclear program, Hezbollah, actions taken in Iraq) are made over his head.
Ahmedinejad’s predecessor Khatami was definitely much more moderate/reformist. His “2nd of Khordad Movement” proposed some unprecedented liberalizations of government policy, including greater freedom of the press and liberty to criticize government and religious leaders. A lot of the younger and more pro-Western Iranians were strongly in favor of his approach, although he clashed with the more conservative and theocratic elements and didn’t really get much accomplished.
But Khatami’s moderate stance did not prevent the US from labeling Iran part of the so-called “Axis of Evil” (and this after Iran had provided quite a bit of help to the anti-Taliban allies in the post-9/11 Afghanistan war, too). Iranians in general were pretty cheesed off by the US’s hostility (not to mention what they viewed as the insult of aligning them along the same “axis” as their neighbor and recent enemy Iraq). I think Frank’s right that the US attitude contributed to the anti-reform backlash in Iran that helped elect Ahmedinejad.
This administration’s policies have little if anything to do with reality, and everything to do with what they want reality to be. I doubt it matters who’s President of Iran, or what Iran does or is like. Saddam’s lack of WMD didn’t stop us from invading after all.
What exactly did Ahmadinejad say that has been translated as wanting to “destroy Israel” or “wipe Israer off the face of the map”? Is everyone positive that he was announcing an intention to attack Israeli cities with nuclear weapons? Or to invade Israel and drive all the Jews into the sea?
Or was it something more along the lines of predicting that history is on their side and will produce eventual regime change, similar to Khruschev saying, “We will bury you”. That wasn’t the threat of an immediate, full-scale attack either.
I don’t know why I should care about Ahmadinejad. I mean, if people want to condemn him for the things he says, go ahead (I’ll probably join you). But he doesn’t control the Iranian military, intelligence, or nukes. At least he’s not supposed to. All of that is supposed to be under Khamenei.
I suppose its possible that there’s been a secret coup of some sort, and Ahmadinejad is really pulling all the important strings. Or maye Ahmadinejad is being used as a run-the-flag-up operation by Khamenei. But I notice that the people pointing at Ahadinejad as the causus bellli for war never make those connections. Instead, they just make what amounts to a half-argument. Anybody who attempts an analysis of Iranian actions by solely focusing on Ahmadenijad is somebody who can’t be bothered to pick up a book about the Middle East–in short, his analysis is likely to be shallow and uninsightful.
Given that, the Bush’s administrations focus on Ahmadinejad with little to no analysis of the other power players in Iran indicates to me that the Bush administration just wants a foil to make a case for war. To that extent, it doesn’t matter who’s the President of Iran.
If I were more conspiracy-minded, I’d think the Bush Administration secretly wants Ahmadinejad as President of Iran since having a batshit insane leader of that country makes their case case for agression considerably easier than if a moderate Westernizing reformer like Khatami was in place.
Yes. Ahmadinejad is President as a direct result of the Axis of Evil speech. Iran was bending over backward to help the US after 9.11 and Bush made that erroneous speech. Ahmadinejad wouldn’t even be President today if that speech hadn’t been made.
As has been pointed out a million times the first speech he made explicitly referenced the demise of the Soviet Union as an example of what he was thinking. The Soviet Union became a variety of states without its populance being killed.
The disappearance of the State of Israel into a wider political entity - Palestine, was what he meant. Nothing about nuking Israel. That’s all lunatic-right blogosphere spinning.
He also talks about the European immigrants and their descendants returning to Europe.
Iran supports the Palestinian right to their own homeland and so quite obviously they are not planning on converting it to a radioactive wasteland in the process.
Nope. Iran was helping Iran after 9/11. It had, for instance, been in deep conflict with the Taliban for years before the US went into Afghanistan. That Iran would then continue its conflict with the Taliban once it found someone to help it is hardly surprising, and hardly altruistic.
And during the time that they were ‘bending over backwards’ to help us… they were still supporting Hezbollah.
Anything specifically about nuking Israel? No… that what he was suggesting was a totally peaceful transition?
Which is a nifty little fever dream fantasy that not even that thug could actually believe. That an entire sovereign nation, whose citizens consider themselves to be part of parcel of said nation, could somehow be “wiped off the map” without violence and with all those citizens just returning to where their ancestors from is laughable. Especially since the groups that Iran supports in this campaign are openly genocidal.
And yet they don’t support a two state solution. They do support genocidal violence. And when the discussion is one of wiping a sovereign nation off the map, do you really think it will be done without violence, whether or not nukes are used? And all the citizens of the nation that’d been ‘wiped off the map’ would all just pack up and move over to Europe? Even those who could trace their lineage back to people who never left the land for thousands of years?
Just because it wasn’t an overt threat of nuclear war doesn’t make it a good thing.
Now, of course, Iran’s current thug-in-chief doesn’t have any power that the Supreme Leader doesn’t give to him. For the most part, he’s a figurehead. But Iran’s support for various groups shows what their intentions are.
Finn - Nothing you quote here in any way contradicts what I said. He wants Israel gone in the same way the Soviet Union went. And of course he won’t support a 2 state solution. As far as he and millions of others are concerned Israel is a European colonial outpost squatting on the land of Palestine.
And of course his ‘they should all fuck off back to Europe’ is nonsense. But haven’t you noticed that religious nutters, whether they be getting advice from God Presidents of the USA or Islamic fruitcakes don’t let reality get in the way of their fantasies.
And I’ve watched an interview with the lunatic where he made that point explicitly clear. He is not proposing wiping out all the Jews, he entertains a fantasy about it disappearing that he has no power to bring about.
And he’ll be thrown out in elections in 18 months anyway due to his incompetence and doesn’t control foreign or military policy. He’s about as much a threat to Israel as the Cowardly Lion.
The only thing that will save the stupid little shit is if we bolster his support by giving him grandstanding opportunities or attack them.
That there are Jew-hating Muslims around is not new. None of them have any power to act on their fantasies against the mightiest power in the region and a nuke capable one at that.
Except that, as we agree, it’s a fantasy that Israel could be eliminated as a sovereign nation in the same way that the Soviet Union became Russia. I suppose we disagree on whether or not the Iranian theocracy knows it’s a fantasy and uses it to conceal darker desires.
I see it as much the same way that racists these days don’t admit they’re racists. Even David Duke is afraid to admit that he’s a racist, so he talks about how he’s just alerting people to the real dangers of blacks or Jews or what have you. Racism isn’t respectable. Neither is genocidal Jew-hatred, so they need to talk about how it would be awfully nice if Israel would just vanish in a puff of smoke.
I’d rather not get into a discussion on their perception…
What is significant to me is that it would be impossible to remove Israel from the region without carnage. And nobody, least of all those in control of Iran, are likely to believe that Israel will just go away if they hate it enough.
Could be. Myself, I don’t believe that he or his puppetmasters are really quite so ignorant that their stated dream is pure fantasy and that it would require blood to accomplish.
For what it’s worth, I’d go with Iran’s own official translation. Is there a reason you prefer the other ones? Or believe that, given the chance to change it to one that’s supposed to be more accurate, the official Iranian translators kept it the way they’d done it?
And in tandem with that thought, does it really make any difference if he’s talking about a sovereign nation whose citizens don’t want it to vanish being wiped off the map or wiped off the pages of history? To me it seems to be a distinction without a difference, but I’m curious as to how you see it. Would you mind elaborating?
I suppose we can agree to disagree on this point. I see it as being a bit analogous to, say, the KKK in America. They may say that they want “all the blacks to go back to Africa where they belong.” But they also know it’ll never happen. They’re not that deluded. They are content to get in their murder and/or cross burnings where and when they can, however.
I don’t, for instance, believe that thug actually believes that “there are no gays in Iran”. I think he hates gays and supports his government’s program of murdering them. Likewise, I don’t think he actually believes that Israel will simply vanish without massive carnage and ethnic cleansing. And neither do his puppetmasters.
Never said that he personally was a threat. Iran’s support of groups like Hezbollah, on the other hand… or as Jane’s Defense confirmed recently, Iran’s (or rogue Iranian engineers’, take your pick) efforts to help Syria develop viable chemical weaponry
Agreed. Iran’s thug-in-chief is fairly inconsequential. But Iran’s military policies are not.
I wouldn’t agree with that. They do have some power. Do they have the power to realize their genocidal goals? Highly unlikely, even with a global boycott in place or something of the sort. But do they have the power to act on their desire for carnage? Certainly.
Oh, without a doubt. The Iranians are not some evil horde. They’re not the Mongols returned. And, the vast, vast majority of them are sane ,rational, decent people. Their leadership, however, is a far greater concern.
I do have to disagree with the final sentence of your pulled quote, however. I would say that Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc… is far more indicative of their real policy, despite what their rhetoric is.
I think that the greatest thing that could possibly happen to the entire region would be for the decent and non-racist-warmongering-genocidal tide of Iranian citizenry to deal with their oppressive theocracy and rejoin the community of nations as a modern state. How we get there from here, however, is something I do not have the answer to. Containment from without and aid to resistance groups from within might be the best bet, as long as we don’t repeat mistakes like the Shah.
The Iranians themselves deny the western spin translation or interpretation of their translation. The man himself denied it and reiterated the Soviet analogy. And the very worst thing we can do is interfere in their internal affairs. Being aided by the Great Satan is a ticket to electoral oblivion.
We should stop encouraging and enabling terrorists in Iran and stop interfering in their political process. Just makes matters worse.
And it is worth noting Iran has not launched an aggressive war. It has been the repeated victim of US and UK aggression and militarily is perfectly entitled to defend itself. One of Bush’s great crimes is he has made it irrational and treasonous for the Iranian leadership not to want a nuke. Only way to keep the US wolf from their door as the example of North Korea and Iraq shows.
Why this seems important too some folks is a mystery. After all, they (the Iranian government) supports and has supported very aggressive and violent external terrorist organizations. The fact that they haven’t launched an ‘aggressive war’ directly…well, so what? It’s a meme that seems too be about showing how peaceful and fun loving the Iranians REALLY are…while ignoring the fact that the Iranians support aggression and violence in other ways than direct military confrontation.
Sort of like saying that the US was peace loving during the cold war…after all, WE didn’t launch an ‘aggressive war’ either until I suppose the second Gulf War (maybe Grenada would count…not sure if it qualifies as a ‘war’ though).
:dubious: Poor little defenseless Iran?
Didn’t Iran sign the NPT? If so, then I’d say it IS both irrational and ‘treasonous’ for the Iranians too attempt too develop such a weapon.
I’m also not seeing the whole ‘crime’ aspect of Bush’s rhetoric on this. Maybe you could clarify why it’s one of his ‘great’ crimes?
Complete horseshit. The way too keep the US wolf from your throat is too simply join the community of nations and not support terrorist organizations and do other Bad™ shit. I seriously doubt that Egypt is bracing for a US invasion any day…or France or Belgium. Israel doesn’t seem too be sweating bullets about it either…nor does Libya these days.
Nope, sorry, FinnAgain. Still not scared of Iran. Still not scared of its leaders. Still not scared of Hamas or Hezbollah. (They strike me as more a threat to Israel than to the US.) Not scared of secret nuclear programs. Not scared of Iranian-sponsored cells within our midst! (Which, even if they are here, are likely intended as an asymmetrical response option in the event of a US attack on Iran.)
In fact, I’m not scared, period. And I sure wish our politicians (with assistance from conjurers like you) would stop trying to control us through fear.
And I’ll be damned if I want my country drawn further into the quagmire of never-ending conflict that is the Middle East.
Altruism is irrelevant in national politics. There is no such thing as an altruistic nation. They helped us, their motivations are irrelevant, we should’ve used that good will to our advantage, even if like every other action of every other nation that has ever existed it was motivated by self-interest.
Well, Finn can speak for himself, but I don’t see him as saying we/you should be scared of Iran. Concerned though…are you saying you have no concerns at all? That there is no reason too be alert and watchful wrt Iran? Really?
Interesting. Are you scared of OUR leader(s)?
I suppose ignorance is bliss. Or, I guess you figure that it’s someone else’s lookout if they get the shit blown out of them in a cafe somewhere, or a mall…or if some of these wonderful non-scary folks decide too drive a tanker full of LNG into a port somewhere.
Certainly. I wish THEIR politicians would stop trying too control them through fear as well. I wish I had a pony too.
Sure…I completely agree with you there. I REALLY hope my country isn’t drawn into yet another conflict in that gods forsaken region. This is no reason too bury our collective heads in the sand though and be militantly unafraid and ignore any reason for concern just because of past fuckups.