# If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not President of Iran, would America's policy be the same? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484 "2007-10-29T19:16:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/1 "2007-10-29T19:16:48Z")
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? Let’s discuss. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/2 "2007-10-29T19:19:48Z")
A case could be made - without too much heavy lifting - that U.S. sabre-rattling was largely responsible for Ahmadinejad’s election. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/3 "2007-10-29T19:25:01Z")
If Iran is backing Hezbollah, I assume that relations between Iran and the U.S. would always be a little frosty… ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/4 "2007-10-29T19:37:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/5 "2007-10-29T19:40:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2007, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/6 "2007-10-29T20:03:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/7 "2007-10-30T18:51:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/8 "2007-10-31T07:21:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2007, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/9 "2007-10-31T23:46:21Z")
[QUOTE=BrightNShiny] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2007, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/10 "2007-11-01T02:26:50Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/11 "2007-11-02T11:53:56Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/12 "2007-11-02T12:45:50Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. [QUOTE=tagos] 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. [/QUOTE] Anything specifically about nuking Israel? No… that what he was suggesting was a totally peaceful transition? [From that unatic-right blogosphere paper, the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) > [@](#): > > If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation — Israel should be wiped off the map — is accurate. > > But translators in Tehran who work for the president’s office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than “vanish” because the Persian verb is active and transitive. > > The second translation issue concerns the word “map.” Khomeini’s words were abstract: “Sahneh roozgar.” Sahneh means scene or stage, and roozgar means time. The phrase was widely interpreted as “map,” and for years, no one objected. In October, when Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini, he actually misquoted him, saying not “Sahneh roozgar” but “Safheh roozgar,” meaning pages of time or history. No one noticed the change, and news agencies used the word “map” again. > > Ahmad Zeidabadi, a professor of political science in Tehran whose specialty is Iran-Israel relations, explained: “It seems that in the early days of the revolution the word ‘map’ was used because it appeared to be the best meaningful translation for what he said. The words ‘sahneh roozgar’ are metaphorical and do not refer to anything specific. Maybe it was interpreted as ‘book of countries,’ and the closest thing to that was a map. Since then, we have often heard ‘Israel bayad az naghshe jographya mahv gardad’ — Israel must be wiped off the geographical map. Hard-liners have used it in their speeches.” > > The final translation issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s use of “occupying regime of Jerusalem” rather than “Israel.” > > To some analysts, this means he is calling for regime change, not war, and therefore it need not be regarded as a call for military action. Professor Cole, for example, says: “I am entirely aware that Ahmadinejad is hostile to Israel. The question is whether his intentions and capabilities would lead to a military attack, and whether therefore pre-emptive warfare is prescribed. I am saying no, and the boring philology is part of the reason for the no.” > > But to others, “occupying regime” signals more than opposition to a certain government; the phrase indicates the depth of the Iranian president’s rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel. He has said that the Palestinian issue “does not lend itself to a partial territorial solution” and has called Israel “a stain” on Islam that must be erased. By contrast, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, said that if the Palestinians accepted Israel’s existence, Iran would go along. > > When combined with Iran’s longstanding support for Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah of Lebanon, two groups that have killed numerous Israelis, and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust, it is hard to argue that, from Israel’s point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. > > So did Iran’s president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question. > [@tagos](#): > > He also talks about the European immigrants and their descendants returning to Europe. 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. > [@tagos](#): > > 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. 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. [ > [@](#): > > “The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities,” and argued, “Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history… Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment.” Nasrallah has made his aims clear. That anyone would intercede to enable someone whose goal is genocide to continue is irresponsible, if not hateful. Nasrallah later provided an answer to those progressive tempted to argue the problem to be Israel’s existence. To the Hezbollah leader, Israel is just one part of the fight. On October 22, 2002, Hassan Nasrallah told Lebanon’s Daily Star, “If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.” ]([http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmY2E1YjY3YTRlOGYwN2IzNGEzODU2ZDNiMmJiM2I=](http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmY2E1YjY3YTRlOGYwN2IzNGEzODU2ZDNiMmJiM2I=)) ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/13 "2007-11-02T14:13:10Z")
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. [Lost in translation](http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html) > [@](#): > > If the Iranian president made a mistake and used “safheh” rather than “sahneh”, that is of little moment. A native English speaker could equally confuse “stage of history” with “page of history”. The significant issue is that both phrases refer to time rather than place. As I wrote in my original post, the Iranian president was expressing a vague wish for the future. He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem. > > Two other well-established translation sources confirm that Ahmadinejad was referring to time, not place. The version of the October 26 2005 speech put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute, based on the Farsi text released by the official Iranian Students News Agency, says: “This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.” (NB: not “wiped”. I accept that “eliminated” is almost the same, indeed some might argue it is more sinister than “wiped”, though it is a bit more of a mouthful if you are trying to find four catchy and easily memorable words with which to incite anger against Iran.) > > MEMRI (its text of the speech is available here) is headed by a former Isareli military intelligence officer and has sometimes been attacked for alleged distortion of Farsi and Arabic quotations for the benefit of Israeli foreign policy. On this occasion they supported the doveish view of what Ahmadinejad said. > > Finally we come to the BBC monitoring service which every day puts out hundreds of highly respected English translations of broadcasts from all round the globe to their subscribers - mainly governments, intelligence services, thinktanks and other specialists. I approached them this week about the controversy and a spokesperson for the monitoring service’s marketing unit, who did not want his name used, told me their original version of the Ahmadinejad quote was “eliminated from the map of the world”. > > As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the “off the map” section: "The monitor has checked again. It’s a difficult expression to translate. They’re under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be “eliminated from the page of history”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/14 "2007-11-02T14:36:30Z")
Further info: [A sober analysis of Iran](http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3459623,00.html) > [@](#): > > While the former Tehran mayor questioned the veracity of the Holocaust in New York, ordinary Iranians were glued to their TVs to watch a completely different drama – an Iranian series about the Holocaust, the suffering of the Jewish people and the heroic efforts of Iranian diplomats to help French Jews escape the Nazis by providing them with Iranian passports. The contrast with Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric could not have been any clearer. Apparently, the Iranian President even lacks the power to enforce his Holocaust theories on Iran’s state-run TV. > > The contradiction between Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust rhetoric and the Iranian TV-drama exemplifies the dangers of the media’s infatuation with the Iranian hardliner – and all hardline statements coming out of Tehran. Not only does the unwarranted media attention make Ahmadinejad appear more powerful than he is, it also takes attention away from another side of Iran; one that doesn’t question the Holocaust, that understands the dangers of playing the anti-Israeli card to score points on the Arab streets and that is far more concerned about making friends with the US than making permanent enemies with the Jewish state. > > Iran’s National Security Advisor Ali Larijani has carefully avoided echoing Ahmadinejad’s fiery rhetoric. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki’s has denied that Iran seeks the destruction of Israel. Their posture is far less sensational than Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, yet much more indicative of Iran’s real policy. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/15 "2007-11-02T14:51:26Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] Finn - Nothing you quote here in any way contradicts what I said. He wants Israel gone in the same way the Soviet Union went. [/quote] 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. > [@tagos](#): > > As far as he and millions of others are concerned Israel is a European colonial outpost squatting on the land of Palestine. 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. [QUOTE=tagos] 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. [/quote] 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. [QUOTE=tagos] [Lost in translation](http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html) [/quote] 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? [QUOTE=tagos] 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. [/quote] 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. [QUOTE=tagos] 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. [/quote] 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](http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070918-missile-test.htm) [QUOTE=tagos] The only thing that will save the stupid little shit is if we bolster his support by giving him grandstanding opportunities or attack them. [/quote] Agreed. Iran’s thug-in-chief is fairly inconsequential. But Iran’s military policies are not. [QUOTE=tagos] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. > [@tagos](#): > > Further info Oh, without a doubt. The Iranians are not some evil horde. They’re not the Mongols returned. And, the vast, [vast majority](http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iran.poll/index.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/16 "2007-11-02T16:39:09Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/17 "2007-11-02T17:39:41Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] And it is worth noting Iran has not launched an aggressive war. [/QUOTE] 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). [QUOTE=tagos] It has been the repeated victim of US and UK aggression and militarily is perfectly entitled to defend itself. [/QUOTE] :dubious: Poor little defenseless Iran? [QUOTE=tagos] One of Bush’s great crimes is he has made it irrational and treasonous for the Iranian leadership not to want a nuke. [/QUOTE] 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? [QUOTE=tagos] Only way to keep the US wolf from their door as the example of North Korea and Iraq shows. [/QUOTE] 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. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/18 "2007-11-02T17:49:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/19 "2007-11-02T17:56:42Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2007, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/20 "2007-11-02T18:10:12Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Nope, sorry, FinnAgain. Still not scared of Iran. [/QUOTE] 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? [QUOTE=spoke-] Still not scared of its leaders. [/QUOTE] Interesting. Are you scared of OUR leader(s)? [QUOTE=spoke-] Still not scared of Hamas or Hezbollah. [/QUOTE] 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. [QUOTE=spoke-] 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. [/QUOTE] Certainly. I wish THEIR politicians would stop trying too control them through fear as well. I wish I had a pony too. [QUOTE=spoke-] And I’ll be damned if I want my country drawn further into the quagmire of never-ending conflict that is the Middle East. [/QUOTE] 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. -XT [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484.md?page=2)