Iran's Ahmadinejad says Israel should be moved to Europe

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/15/iran12245.htm

The rhetoric seems apropos.

 

lodui

Well it seems to me that you were trying to misrepresent history (that you didn’t seem to know) to defend the brutal, illegitimate tyranny of the Shah over the elected legitimate government headed by Mohammad Mossadegh.

Why, because the legitimate government had the audacity to demand for a fair share of it’s own resources rather than the greater share been robbed by the west.

Now that this rather stupid ploy has been made clear you have run away.

**

As to your dissent what is it you are dissenting against? You seem confused to me, one moment you claim you support democracy the next you seem to defend its overthrow if it doesn’t do as the west demands.

What is you position, who are you dissenting with, just what is your viewpoint?

**

As to being ‘insulted’ oh please if you think anything I’ve said is insulting I’m surprised you ever leave the house or survived past kindergarden. To me this is just an excuse so you can seem like the noble injured party rather than a tyranny lover running away with his tale between his legs, because he has been shown as such.

**

I don’t like people that defend murdering bastards, call it a weakness of mine, you seem to fall into that category, if you wish to say you are not I’m willing to hear you out.

 

yup...they are a bunch of corrupt, power hungry individuals...mmmm....sounds familiar....
:H
*looks at own government*

what was that saying about glass houses and stones?
really there are as many serious issues that my own government members have to deal with in terms of corruption and dodgy decision making and such. We just don't have the death penalty but there are many of our allies that do so since we support our allies then I suppose we are open to criticism on the abuse of the death penalty in those countries too...it's definitely true tha bad shit happens in Iran especally to those who seek to overthrow their government...but I think the same case could be made in our countries...

it's like watching a bunch of three year olds having an argument about whose badder "you're bad...no you're badder than me. nah you're really really bad, well you're so bad...."

 

Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping
AP - 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room.

yep, got that right ..very positive provision this one. wonder why it's classified though ..you could just tell everyone its for their good innit ?

i'd say !!

where do you draw the line though ? how does it compare with your freedom values ? the values a democracy supposedly gives its citizens

no eh ? how about you get your house in order before tellin, yea tellin others what needs to be fixed in their system!

can you let us in on one such story ..any link ? bogus one too ?

the good news is ..muslims dont have an authority like christians have a pope ie, no single representation. the ayatollahs are politicians ..and you can deny as much as you may want to, fact is your government is responsible for the events leadin upto the ayatollahs in power!

give me a break already ! which nuclear war ? didnt find any in iraq, didnt find any in afghanistan, didnt find any in syria and for sure you wont find'em in iran

why are the indians, pakistanis, israelis your closest allies ? is that another strategy for avertin a nuclear war ? or the messin about with the iranians, syrians, afghanis, iraqis the only way to do it ?!

past ?? are we not livin in the present where these "bad decisions" continue ?

if you're really interested in stoppin the nuclear arms race in this unstable region ..how about pressurisin your government to get israel to give up theirs ?

besides, the region and most of the sane world trusts the iranians more than americans 'coz the double standards and short sightedness and the destruction by your leaders have left little for us to believe the americans rhetoric of "iranians are committed to buildin nuclear weapons" to the iranians "we are buildin nuclear technology for peaceful means"

can you even get your government to allow parts for their 30 year old planes to be given for safety of the iranian people ? how very concerned you are for the iranians eh

say your government paid writers who slipped these (brainwashin) stories even in the iraqi papers ..pathetic!

i musta been livin under a rock when this happened! it didnt ..! there is one american intervention that has been welcomed for far too long, the palestinian cause, sadly ..to this day there's no success there ..only failure! oh yea, palestinians were supposed to have had their country by 2005 ..13 days more ..and countin !

i could go on and on ..but you really need to take a step back and think what you believe in, if you do believe or have been messed about with and brainwashed ..and have forgotten to QUESTION ..the right that was central to your forefathers who wrote the constitution of your country. dont allow the short-sightedness and sickness of your politicians take away the rights that they fought for. you've been brainwashed enough ..and until you've been able to get yourself sorted, please dont bother about anyone else. the damage your government has inflicted upon countries and millions worldwide is more concernin for the short, medium and long term than the syrians, iranians and everyone other "evil" that walks this planet

when in doubt, just look up the history books on the deaths of civilisations, includin the romans.

you have the choice today,

make that choice

 

Alright screw it.

No, once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm simply saying Human Rights weren't any better under the Mossagegh government, which was oppressive, and caused severe economic problems for Iran in the 50's, and was more concerned with his legacy then the ruin of Iran.

http://www.payk.net/portal/payk/politics/payk-repositoryDoc/politics/1951TimesManOfTheYear/

The Shah was as violent and oppressive, but also allowed for much prosperity for Iranians, allowed women to vote, and decreased the cleric influence on Iranian politics.

Since the Iranian revolution, human rights abuses have been just as grave, if not more so, and has caused severe economic and social problems for the Iranian population.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=23
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/15/iran12245.htm

I find this history discussion asinine when compared to the reality of Iran seeking nuclear weapons. So the US and England propped up a bad government in the 50's and no we shouldn't be activly trying to stop a more agressive replacement government from building nuclear weapons for agressive purposes.

Irans really close to getting kicked out of the UN for it's death to Israel talk, that's pretty much the basic rule of the UN, no public declerations of genocide aginst another member nation.

If that happens, there will be a war. No maybe, if Iran is not in the UN, there will be a war with Israel. Do you really want to risk a Middle Eastern nuclear war? We should be activly engaged in the abolishion of any Iranian nuclear program.

Using past mistakes in the region to not avert a potential catastophe is Lethargic,counter-intuitive and extremly dangerous.

I'll spell it out slow for you, I would not have supported the Shah's coup, but I don't see that as a reason for not getting activly involved in stopping a catastrophe.

No, I just don't feel like getting in a name calling match with someone twice my age over the internet who has the words super mod printed under their name. Particularly when several people have been banned for having disenting opinions in the past few weeks. If theres an instance of tail between the leggery it's banning people for having opinions that conflict with oneself.

I've never defended the Shah, i've simply compared him with the other governments of Iran in the past century saying they were morally equivalent.

You haven't approached any of the human rights abuses in the Ayatollahs government, and barely mentioned the entire point of how they should in no circumstances come to posses a nuclear weapon.

If you wan't me to admit that the government of the Shah shouldn't have been propped up, and that he was a murdering bastard, I will readily admit that.

My thesis: In no way should mistakes of the past have any bearence on the fact that, Iran cannot be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.

 

Yeah, that is bad, but it's also being investagated to see if anything illegal has been done. If there was a crime broken, he would be impeached, but since it down't look like anything illegal happened under provisions of laws passed, it may result in a change of laws.

It's also a positive aspect that our government opperates in a fashion that he will be held responsible if he did break the law. The provisions he did use to look authorise those investigations were under prior law, not the Patriot act.

Like I pointed out, those provisions just expired.

We should allow Iran to aquire nuclear weapons to use aginst their neighbors, and not adress their government ministers for murdering thousands of dissidents because we wire tapped suspects of terrorist activities?

That doesn't even resemble logic.

Have a mouse in your pocket?

The ayatollah is a theocrat. He is a religiously self apointed unquestioned authority, not a politician. The US in no way helped the Islamic revolution in Iran.

You're denying Iran has a nuclear program? We never said Afghanistan had nuclear weapons, and we never said Iraq had nuclear weapons. We said Iran had illegal weapons, which is very different from nuclear weapons.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/15/content_3927069.htm

We've never searched Syria for nuclear weapons, and Iraq did have illegal weapons. Iran's president has publicly talked about destropying Israel while they are working on a nuclear program. Do you want me to draw you a chart?

Once again, you're oversimplifying. This isn't about our relastionships with other countries, this is about making sure a regime which's stated foreign policy is the destruction of a neighbor country doesn't get it's hands on weapons that could do so.

Israel should be persuaded to abandon their nuclear program, but they've also haven't talked about the complete destruction of Iran while engaging in their nuclear program.

It's also much easier to halt a burgenoing nuclear program then to erase an existing one. Israel has had a nuclear program for a long time and hasn't dedonated a weapon. Iran has talked about destroying Israel while developing theirs.

Please feel free to cite up opinion poll or define the sane world before you makes claims like that. Your saying something doesn't make it true.

Almost all member states of the UN have publicly condemned the Iranian nuclear program, and if it we're a civilian nuclear program, they wouldn't have a problem letting in UN weapon inspectors.

So if facts don't agree with youu're predetermined conclusions the papers must have been made up. These are consistent with UN election observor reports.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132646/

Or now do you only consider sane countries ones outside the UN?

 

this guy is a bad man. let's get em.

this is a cue to you, rusty.

 

Ok Lodui I think there is a problem with your methodology.

Rather than doing the research then forming an opinion, you seem to have started with an opinion and tried to find things that will support it, while ignoring those that seem to contradict it.

For example you have formed the opinion that the democratically elected government of Mossagegh was no great loss to the Iranians because it was as bad as that of the Shah and the mullahs. You say “Human Rights weren't any better under the Mossagegh government” and claim that they were “morally equivalent” but you have been unable to back these statements up. So why do you have them?

For example you cite the Times ‘man of the year’ article as seemingly some type of ‘proof’ of your viewpoint.
http://www.payk.net/portal/payk/pol...esManOfTheYear/

It is however a very lopsided opinion piece strong on character assassination but mostly weak on anything of substance. It is also written from a very American standpoint and it of it’s time (1950’s communist paranoia). It comes across as being a lot better on US affairs than those of Iran.

But let us to instance look to another source –

Iranian.com “Founded in July 1995, Iranian.com is the largest online community for
Iranians residing in North America. With more than 575,000 unique
visitors and nearly 5.5 million page views per month (November 2005
stats <http://www.iranian.com/stats112005.html>)”

This website rather than giving Mossagegh a half hearted endorsement as ‘man of the year’ in 1951 gave Dr Mohammad Mossadegh the resounding accolade of ‘Iranian of the century’ in 2000.
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2000/January/Century/mossadegh.html

Here are some of the comments of people that voted for him –

“He did more for Iran during his short-lived service that any other individual during their lifetime”

“Because he was the only Iranian prime minister (leader) chosen by the people, and he was the only ruling leader who really thought of people's interests before his own”

“Paved the way for any future thoughts and movements for independence and freedom in Iran”

“Mossadegh was democratic, educated, humble, and hard working with a genuine interest in Iran and its future”

**

The problem with putting the opinion before the research is that it is a recipe for continued ignorance.

By the way, have you got a copy that book I recommended yet? (“All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/04...glance&n=283155


**

Also Lodui you seem to have a tendency to be contradictory in your statements and when I try to sort out the muddle of your posted statements you accuse me of ‘putting word in your mouth’. All I’m tying to do is understand your viewpoint.

For example you say “I would not have supported the Shah's coup” you also claim to support democracy. However you have made a number of statements that seem to defend the Shah’s unelected dictatorship over the elected government of Mossagegh. I know you have made a number of unsubstantiated claims about the Mossagegh but they remain unproven while those against the Shah are many and documented. But you continue to close your eyes to the crimes of the Shah while seeming to wish to exaggerate the misdemeanours of Mossagegh.

In the same way you don’t seem to mourn the loss of the Iranian democracy or freedom and seem to be always negative about the democratic government while taking a number of opportunities to praise the Shah's dictatorship.

You don’t call Mossagegh government democratic you call it much more ambiguouly “populist”. You go on to claim that his democratic government was “was ruled by the priesthood” then go on to opinion that by contrast the Shah’s bloody regime was in some way progressive? You say that the democratic government “caused economic problems” and “ruin” while by contrast in your opinion the Shah brought “prosperity for Iranians”.

Please Lodui rather than saying this is misrepresentation on my part or has been taken out of context please explain why without seeming to have any evidence, you seem to favour the unelected Shah’s regime over democracy?

**

You say this discussion of history is asinine, but if you had thought about it rather than dismiss it out of hand you would have seen it isn’t stupid or silly at all. If anything you are the one that could come out looking like an ass if you dismiss it without seeming to understand its importance.

First up I think you need to re-read part of an earlier post

“Iran and the US, have a history, an Anglo-American plot overthrow the legitimate government and installed the rather brutal regime of the Shah. The US supported that regime in all it torture and murder. A popular revolution overthrow the Shah and (unluckily) the mad mullahs gained power. Since then US policy has been working toward toppling that regime (and as many Iranians believed or still do believe re-install another Shah). This policy led the US to assist Saddam to invade and to continue with one of the most costly wars of the region the Iraq-Iran conflict in which it is argued that from 1.5 to 3 million people died.

For these reasons many people in Iran especially the older ones hate and fear the US. They have also been educated to hate Americans and Jews by schoolroom indoctrination and public propaganda (just as American’s were taught to hate communists).

The leadership and many Iranians believe the US has had a loaded gun pointed at them for nearly 30 year and now they have a US dominated Afghanistan on one side and a US dominated Iraq on the other. Do you think you would be nervous?”

The think is that both outside and inside Iranians are seeking to change or reform the Iranian government. But an aggressive US especially one that doesn’t seem to understand their joint history is likely to make a bad situation worse.

You say “Using past mistakes in the region to not avert a potential catastophe is Lethargic,counter-intuitive and extremly dangerous”

Now I’m not sure what you actually mean but I would say that many of the problems that the US has encountered in Iraq have to do with ‘past mistakes’. In fact the situation in Iraq has a lot to do with an understanding of the history of the area.

Then once more I return to what I said earlier, the more aggressive the US gets the more obvious it is to the Iranian leadership that there is another in the ‘axis of evil’ the US is not so aggressive toward and is very unlikely to invade, North Korea. What does North Korea have that Iraq and Iran didn’t have?

**

As to bringing up those that have been banned as some excuse for not getting into a debate. I would have to say that I don’t think I’ve banned anyone in over a years so if you have any complaints or believe that it was their ‘dissent’ that brought about their banning you will have to take it up with the people that did the banning.

 

The only difference I see in your methodology is you post some opinions from a website.

A male decided election is only kinda democratic, and a rave reviews on the net don't make him a great leader. I've never once appoligized for the human rights record of the Shah dsespite your insistance otherwise. I've never heard you mention Ayatollahs human rights record.

I only have so much energy to debate history, and while understanding Iran history is important to the region, the fact is it has very little to do with the governments seeking nuclear weapons today.

Saying that Iran is scared of the US and UK because of a revolt in the 50's doesn't justify an agressive nation which uses hate rhetoric in the international community to aquire nuclear weapons.

Whats the difference between Iran and North Korea? Well North Korea is isolationist and the DMZ is well established. North Korea is reaching out economically and somewhat diplomatically to South Korea and Japan. North Korea sees it's nuclear weapons program as defense, and while its still unnerving having an abusive dictator become a nuclear power, particularly when theres danger of a coup like North Korea or Pakistan, they still aren't going to start an agressive nuclear war.

Iran is much less predictable, and if the Ayatollah decided that god wanted to destroy Israel *which he's said* he could edict it and Irans president would be more then willing to do it. Iran's leadership isn't directed by lust fod power like most diuctators, they're bound by what they see is the word of god, which in their case looks like the destruction of Israel.

Iran is close to getting kicked out of the UN for saying things like this, and theres no way we should allow a nation like this to get nuclear weapons. This should be amongst our foreign policys highest priority.

I propose immediate sanctions aginst Iran and Russia, and refuse to lift them till Iran signs a non-nuclear weapons accord that specifys that UN weapon inspectors will be along for every step of the way.

Do you have any solution? Theres no reason to be sympathetic to a brutal war hungry theocrat getting his hands on nuclear weapons because of a coup half a century ago.

Idolise Mossagegh if you'd like, but that doesn't change the reality of Iran being dangerous and ambitious for nuclear weapons, which is unnaceptable foreign policy.

I'll check out the book though, and I didn't mean to accuse you of banning any dissenters, I've just been on edge about disagreeing with hip authorities.

 

"The only difference I see in your methodology is you post some opinions from a website

A male decided election is only kinda democratic, and a rave reviews on the net don't make him a great leader"

Oh er get you, LOL, Lodui lets face it you discovered that your opinion didn’t fit the evidence, no need to get all sassy about it.

**

I only have so much energy to debate history, and while understanding Iran history is important to the region, the fact is it has very little to do with the governments seeking nuclear weapons today.

Hadn’t you noticed but that is exactly the debate we are having?

**

Saying that Iran is scared of the US and UK because of a revolt in the 50's doesn't justify an agressive nation which uses hate rhetoric in the international community to aquire nuclear weapons.

I have never said it justifies the aggression of the present leadership. What I’m trying to get people to understand is the impact the removal of Mossadegh and the years of the Shah have had on the psyche of many Iranian people along with the knowledge that the US was deeply implicated in both events.

As to it having happened in the 50’s, some important events linger in the consciousness of a people. They may be remembered correctly or through a prism but they still have an importance and a resonance for many years afterwards.

For example in the debates over support for the Iraq invasion there were many Americans on these forums who told me that Europe should support the war because Europe ‘owes’ the US. The reason was that if it hadn’t been for Americans “you would all be speaking German”. They are taking an event from the past to justify a way of thinking over 60 years later.

Another example is the US’s foreign policy history in regard to Latin America which fuels a lot of the anti-American politics of that region in the present.

When someone like Bush or Cheney hint of ‘regime change’ in Iran many Iranians are drawn back to the US imposed and supported Shah, and the Shah, whatever the repression of the Mullahs, is to many Iranians the big bad bogeyman.

The hard-line leadership can then use that fear (and try and increase it) to drive forward their own policies one of which is the nuclear programme. The moderates that council caution and negotiation can be smeared as appeasers in exactly the same way as those that were opposed to the Bush Admins invasion of Iraq were smeared as appeasers.

And the US is not a country far away any more it is right next door in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Theodore Roosevelt said in relation to US foreign policy that the US should "speak softly and carry a big stick." The problem is that the Bush admin in relation to Iran have been shouting threats and shaking the stick in the Iranian’s faces.

**

I thought you would understand what I meant in mentioning North Korea? Do you actually remember the ‘axis of evil’ speech, North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

The US trumped up charges against the Iraqi regime and brought it to the UN Security Council and with only the fig leaf of UN agreement it invaded the country and changed the regime.

The US has been trying to get a Security Council resolution bought against Iran.

Meanwhile I believe the US has cut the number of troops on the North Korean border.

**

But while some in the Iranian leadership might use the threat of US action to gain support there is another factor they realise as do others, the US government finds itself over-stretched and in many quarters not trusted. If the Iraq adventure had gone the way the neo-cons had wished it to go they would have been in a perfect position to intimidate Iran as it is now it has difficulties.

You call for sanctions to be placed on Iran and Russia? Russia has a place on the Security Council so if you tie the two together its not going to pass. So let us say you gets sanctions against Iran alone but how close are the Iranians to a bomb and wouldn’t such a move make them more committed to getting one. At the same time how is this going to play with the pro-Iranian shia’s of southern Iraq?

As to forcing them to sign a “non-nuclear weapons accord that specifys that UN weapon inspectors will be along for every step of the way” how, military action? Against what, against whom?

**

 

Does it really matter how we get ourselves into these messes? Im sure America had a hand in it somewhere, they seem to have a hand most of the great cock ups in the latter half on the 20th century. Though it makes great watching for the neutral viewer we've got Iran making very aggressive remarks. Israel seems to think the best way to get rid of a wasps nest is to hit it with a stick, while America supplies the sticks.

Anyway physics is more my area and I dont really like the idea of Iran developing nuclear weapons because I believe they'd use them. The thing about a democracy is even if you have a moron at the top people below can usually assert enough influence to stop that person doing too much damage, while id rather Bush didnt have his finger on 20'000 warheads I think there enough people in the background who do know what these things do. In Iran (and possibly Isreal) I dont know if this is the case. Icidentally someone earlier said you could make a nuclear bomb without a nuclear reactor, technically I guess it maybe possible, but im not sure its ever been done.

 

I post Time Magazine and you post an Iranian E-zine and that makes your story evidence? Nice.

It's a debate you started... you seem to think that the case of Iran's past relates how we should deal with Iran in this specific instance, although you've never implicitly pointed out corollary, and instead mentioned other cases of which reviewing historical evidence should shape our policy, which admitedly there are thousands.

I have a differenct perspective. While I do find it understandable that Iranians may have reservations to the US and UK due to the rise of the Shah, I believe the present state of Irans hostility has much more to due with the priesthood.

Why would the preisthood take such a stance? It's because they fear the evolution of Muslim culture and the cultural effects of globilization on Islamic fundamentalism.

Iran has a very young population, and they are more persuaded by the aspects of globilization. The fact is that Iranian kids love hip-hop. The priesthood considers this trend so alarming that they onnce again banned western media.

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=4920

Still the major complaints I've heard from the priesthood (not Iranian refugees) about the Shah's reign invovled the westernization of Iran .(including the womens voting amendment)

The theocracy feels that western media is a threat to Islam, and they see the west as a secular influence that threatens their way of life. The priesthood hates the very best aspects of western culture.

Calling on Iran to end their nuclear program seems fair, I don't think that simple negotiations will end the nuclear ambitions of a hostile regime, their must be sanctions.

The US has never proposed an invasion of Iran, and I don't think clear opposition to Irans nuclear program is hard line.

Calling them evil a few years ago doesn't seem that threatening to a country which has officially reffered to the US as the great Satan since '79.

We need to be diplomatic in the sense of geting Irans nuclear weapons program to end, but calling a tyrant a tyrant isn't shouting threats.
*

You think US policy needs to be completly consistent when dealing with every nation that violates human rights? I pointed out just a few fundamental differences that effect our policy descions in North Korea, including their reaching out to their neighboors.

We are activly trying to get North Korea to give up their nuclear program. Another difference is Iran's rhetoric towards Israel, which does refelct fears about Irans nuclear program

But you said earlier that Iran was 'afriad because of US position in Afghanistan and Iran' and now you seem to be saying the opposite.

We don't *especially you or I* know how close Iran is to a bomb because of lack of transperancy.

Of course the UN couldn't impose sanctions aginst Russia due to its position on the security council, but that doesn't mean the US and EU couldn't impose sanctions.

Iran should face santions for not allowing IAEA inclusion in their nuclear program

Russia shouldn't immediaty be under the threat of sanctions, but it should agree to not aiding Irans civilian program be turned into a weapons program in any fashion (which includes tools for refining uranium.) This would make Irans nuclear program much more difficult for even civilian purposes which would idealy make them much more copasetic towards the idea of IAEA inspections.

In exactly what manner these investigations should commence is not my forte, I'm not a UN weapons inspector, but they should have the means they need to investigate Irans nuclear program for dangers of weapons conversion. The IAEA should also be along to endure saftey of any civilian nuclear program.

 

I think this is pertinent to the thread -

Ahmadinejad on Israel: global danger or political infighting?

Simon Tisdall
Tuesday December 20, 2005
The Guardian

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hostile jibes at Israel have caused almost universal offence. But Iran-watchers are divided over whether the president's statements mark a dangerous shift in Tehran's international outlook or form part of an internal power struggle.
Mr Ahmadinejad's threat "to wipe Israel off the map" should be taken seriously, said Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel working at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "Should Israel be satisfied that he scored an own goal, further isolating Iran?" he asked. "The answer to my mind is clearly no."
Mr Indyk said the president's threats were consistent with a decade-long "war by proxy" waged through Hizbullah in Lebanon and Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Nor was Mr Amadinejad alone in his views. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, declared in September that "jihad is the only way to confront the Zionist enemy".
But Iran's military capacity is limited - and no match for nuclear-armed Israel. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran is developing an upgraded Shahab-3 ballistic missile capable of striking Israel. Its acquisition of nuclear weapons would radically alter the strategic balance. But Iran denies any such ambition; and talks on the issue are due to recommence in Vienna tomorrow.
Despite its anti-western rhetoric, the Islamic republic had no history of state-to-state aggression since the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah, a British official noted. Nor could Mr Ahmadinejad suddenly change its military posture. "In Iran's supreme national security council, he is but one voice among many," the official said.
One explanation is that Mr Ahmadinejad, a disciple of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, is trying to resurrect Iran's role as a revolutionary beacon, uncontaminated by contact with the west.
"He sees himself as a pan-Islamist leader speaking on behalf of the oppressed Muslim masses everywhere," said Karim Sadjadpour, an International Crisis Group analyst. "There is intense debate on Iran's radical right about the extent of any diplomatic accommodation over the nuclear issue. A younger generation of hardliners to which Ahmadinejad belongs opposes this. They are opposed by the pragmatists.
"Perhaps he is trying to curry public support for his position. But most Iranians will not react favourably. They see Israel as an Arab issue. Unemployment and the measures Ahmadinejad promised to improve the economy are what they care about," Mr Sadjadpour said.
Ray Takeyh of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations said Mr Ahmadinejad was "largely indifferent" to outside world opinion. But Iran could not afford to abandon its post-Khomeini efforts to open up to foreign trade and investment, particularly in the energy sector.
Key partners Russia and China joined the criticism of his anti-Israel statements. "What he said about Israel delighted the American neo-cons, it delighted our Arab rivals, it delighted the Israelis... But it was totally against Iran's national interest," an informed Iranian source said. But US hostility was partly responsible for Mr Ahmadinejad's rise. "Your hardliners have created our hardliner."
By claiming (like George Bush) to be on a mission from God and by predicting the second coming of the Twelfth Imam, Mr Ahmadinejad has shocked some observers. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative American columnist, called him a "certifiable lunatic".
But the most likely rational explanation for his behaviour was domestic political weakness, the British official said. His bid to purify the revolution had stirred up stiff opposition from old guard conservatives, reformists (who call his policies delusional) and corrupt "clerical oligarchs" who run the powerful bonyads - lucrative semi-official business enterprises which Mr Ahmadinejad wants to rein in.
Mr Ahmadinejad was trying "to be more religious than the mullahs", the official said.
"But he is very naive. He has thrown away a lot of support by not delivering on his promises to ordinary people. This is all about internal dynamics. It's not Iran versus the west, it's Iran versus Iran. And the more it goes on, the more likely the whole awful regime will come crashing down."

 

wow lodui, what is it with you, are you up to this, I mean am I going to have to explain everything to you in words of one syllable or something? Please man take your blinkers off, clear your head and at least try and keep up.

“the Iranian leadership might use the threat of US action to gain support”

What I’m trying to explain is that some in the Iranian leadership can us the fear of US interference (based on the historical events of the coup and installation and support of the shah) to push their own agenda (eg the nuclear programme).

For example the neo-con faction in the US used the American peoples genuine fear after 9/11 to push for a completely unrelated agenda of their own, the invasion of Iraq.

Do you get that, politicians can misrepresent or manipulate what seem like the legitimate concerns of a people for their own ends, you have to realise that there are some royal bastards in politics.

**

I post Time Magazine and you post an Iranian E-zine and that makes your story evidence? Nice.

You should really read the posts not just react to them mate.

I’d explained the history and even pointed you in the direction of a book on the subject so you could learn about it. It was you that decided to try and back up your claim that the democratic government of Mossadegh was as “morally equivalent” to the Shah’s and had as bad a human rights record with an opinion piece from the Times magazine from 1951?

As I had to point out at the time that piece actually didn’t back up your assertions and in fact didn’t have anything of substance to say.

I then countered the Times opinion piece with the opinions of people from Iranian.com from 2000 that had voted Mossadegh ‘Iranian of the century’.

Can you grasp that?

Also what do you mean by “that makes your story evidence” what ‘story’ are you talking about? Are you actually sure you understand what we are discussing?

**

“It's a debate you started... you seem to think that the case of Iran's past relates how we should deal with Iran in this specific instance, although you've never implicitly pointed out corollary, and instead mentioned other cases of which reviewing historical evidence should shape our policy, which admitedly there are thousands.”

What?

Please explain?

Are you saying that a country’s recent history should never be taken into account when thinking about foreign policy?

There is a president for this in US affairs and that is the invasion of Iraq, when the neo-cons didn’t seem to pay any attention to the history of Iraq before setting off on their adventure. Do you believe that was a great success?

**

“Calling them evil a few years ago doesn't seem that threatening to a country which has officially reffered to the US as the great Satan since '79.”

OOH you get so close then you just slip on by.

Ask yourself why was there so much hatred shown toward the US by the Iranian people in 1979?

Think also why so many people carried pictures of Mohammad Mossadegh during the 1979 revolution?

Do you think that there could just be a connection to the US involvement in the coup and support for the Shah?

Do you think those feeling were lessened or exacerbated by the support the US gave to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the 1980’s which resulted in the bloodiest wars in the region?

What did the Iranian people do to the US that they deserved having their democratic government removed and replaced by a bloody handed tyrant in 1953?

Can you see where I’m coming from yet or is it still too difficult?

**

You have a problem that seems common to many in the US in that you seem to think that my opposition to your views on how to treat Iran is in some way an endorsement of the mad mullahs and their dire regime. That I in some way my plea for understanding is some desire on my part to give this group control of atomic weapons.

But what I’m trying to get lodui and others to understand is the background to US-Iranian relations and why an aggressive US policy only results in an Iranian aggression, US threads result in Iranian defiance, US demands result in Iranian stubbornness.

So the more the US pushes for the cession of atomic research the more the Iranians are to continue.

So what could the US do. Lodui wants to impose sanctions, and force in inspections. But the Iranian leadership can claim that is what the US did to Iraq and still it invaded that country, you can see them saying and thinking that that just makes it more imperative that they get nuclear weapons.

Does the US attack targets inside Iran? Do you think that the Iranian people and leadership would see that as reasonable or a prelude to ‘regime change’?

Got to go will return to this later.

 

I think this is an often overlooked part of why the different parties react in the ways they do....seriously I am not sure that the word bloody does enough to describe the long term damage this war inflicted on both countries....

 

the beauty of history...by looking at the past we can learn and improve on what we do in the future, we can also understand why people act certain ways...
:H

 

W can use the past to learn but somehow we always seem to end up saying 'oops, that wasnt clever was it, oh well at least we learnt.'

 

The problem with learning from history is that you can only learn from it if you are willing to discuss it.

Some people feel that they don’t need to do research as they ‘know’ they are right and others would rather not do it and find out their views might be wrong.

As I pointed out Lodui seemed to have got an opinion then tried to find evidence to back that opinion up. That is a common complaint especially amongst those with an agenda of their own.

For example the neo-cons misrepresented and manipulated the evidence to go to war with Saddam and invade Iraq. But they also seem to have taken no account of the historical framework of the area when making their plans. What they then discovered was that it was this historical framework that drove events and shaped policy in Iraq not them.

The thing is that they might not have found themselves in that position if they had listened to reasonable advice.

Lodui’s viewpoint and evidence in this debate has (I hope) been shown to not stand up to scrutiny and therefore cannot support his opinion. However in the American mainstream discussion of evidence and historical debate seems to be stifled to the point sometimes of non-existence.

The only way that lodui could continue to have his opinions was by dismissing anything that opposed it as being irrelevant.

It was the same with those that supported the Bush admins Iraq policy, time and again they found they could not defend their views against reasonable argument so they would just dismiss them or leave.

I would say that this inability to enter into reasoned and reasonable debate is one of the major factors in the US making so many bad decision in its foreign policy over the past fifty years.

 

Reading through the arguments, I dont so much see right and wrong so much as different sources. To be honest the whole thing has rather descended into a history lesson over US and UK foreign policy over the latter half of the 20th century. Much of the information strikes me as speculatory, at best secondary. Take the exchanges about the US envolvement in the rise of the Shah I just see the same situation seen through different tinted specs. Though it was argued about as if it in some way has any relevance to the current situation. The current situation is that the US has a massive array of nukes but is unlikely to use them, Isreal almost certainly has nukes and probably will use them, Iran doesnt but could in the next decade, and I imagine would use them. How we got here maybe interesting but is largely irrelevant. We are left with one question do we want to risk a nuclear war between Israel and Iran? Then we have secondary questions such as well, if we're going to stop Iran having them, should we also stop Isreal having them? My personal opinion is that, yes we probably should.

 

Tony

When you say that “Much of the information strikes me as speculatory, at best secondary” what are you comparing them against? What sources are you using?