Regardless of who wins Iran’s elections, he will not be as beneficial for Israel and for the rest of the civilized world as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The departing Iranian president has been the best PR Israel could have hoped for. He made an incredibly compelling case for not letting Iran acquire nuclear capability. He was the ugly façade that made all intelligent people pay attention to Iran’s bullying, conspiring and directing global terror activities, rewriting history, and telling all of us how much he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Read more here.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s handpicked successor, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, in addition to several reformist candidates including former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, have been left off the list of approved presidential candidates by Iran’s Guardian Council for the June election. Read more here.
By ISRAEL TODAY
CAIRO – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the first Iranian leader to visit Egypt since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979, is trying to re-brand himself as a pragmatic president who wished no harm to the Jewish state.
Following the Islamic Revolution, Egypt gave sanctuary to Iran’s deposed shah, straining relations between the Cairo and the new Islamic regime in Tehran. The rift was made wider by the fact that Iran was the new epicenter of Shia Islam, while Cairo had long been one of the primary centers of Sunni Islam.
But the two sides have been drawing closer together since the hijacking of Egypt’s pro-democracy revolution by the Muslim Brotherhood.
After appearing hand-in-hand with the clerics who run Cairo’s famed Al-Azhar University, Ahmadinejad told Egyptian media that Iran is already a nuclear power.
“From now on, the world should treat Iran as a nuclear state,” Ahmadinejad told the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram. He refused to say whether or not Iran was building nuclear weapons, or simply possessed the ability to do so.
Whatever the case, Ahmadinejad insisted that his nation was “not planning a military strike” against Israel, but would respond severely if Israel attacked first.
Israelis viewed the Iranian leader’s remarks with much skepticism, considering that on numerous occasions over the past several years he has openly called for the removal of the Jewish state.
On Monday, Ahmadinejad told Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen TV that “the time of the Zionists is over.”
At Sunday’s cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his nation simply “cannot live” with a nuclear Iran, and stressed that the main focus of his new government will be preventing the Islamic Republic from attaining nuclear weapons.
According to a report produced by five American nonproliferation experts, Netanyahu and Israel might not have much time to act.
The experts explained that within one year, “based on the current trajectory of Iran’s nuclear program, we estimate that Iran could reach critical capability,” meaning it would have enough enriched uranium to produce one or more nuclear bombs without detection.
Former Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin said there could be even less time than that.
Speaking at the Institute for National Security Studies on Monday, Yadlin noted that Iran is already in possession of “all of the necessary means to manufacture a nuclear weapon as soon as it chooses to do so.”
The moment Iran makes the decision to field a nuclear weapon, it will be able to do so within 4-6 months, Yadlin stated.
But, Yadlin argued that Iran has yet to cross that red line, and until it does, Israel should continue to help the West to pursue a diplomatic solution.
Yadlin said Israel must take into consideration that US President Barack Obama is even less likely to join or even support an Israeli strike on Iran following the appointments of John Kerry as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Both Kerry and Hagel are opposed to the use of military force to halt Iran’s nuclear program.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while in Egypt as the first head of state from the Islamic Republic to visit the country in more than three decades, said relations between the two nations — which have been frayed for more than three decades since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution—are “entirely possible.”
“The Egyptian leadership, however, must accept our position regarding the liberation of all of Palestine,” Ahmadenijad told the Lebanese television channel Al Mayadeen on Tuesday, according to Reuters.
The Iranian president’s comments come at a time when Egypt is led by a new president, Mohamed Morsi, who is from the Muslim Brotherhood party—the parent organization of the Iran-funded terrorist group Hamas.
In addition to his historic Egypt visit, Ahmadenijad said he would also “go ahead and visit Gaza” if he were allowed to do so.
“The land of Gaza is sacred because it is on the road to Al-Quds [Jerusalem],” Ahmadenijad said. “I hope the day of Al-Quds’ liberation comes soon, and I can go to the holy city and pray at Al-Aqsa.”
Regarding the reported Israeli airstrike on Syria last week, Ahmadinejad made his usual anti-Israel remarks.
“The Zionists attacked Syria out of weakness,” he said.
By AVI PERRY
It is a fact. The present Iranian regime poses a great threat to Israel’s and to the world’s security. Its Islamic agenda calls for a holy war resulting in the annihilation of the Jewish state. Its rhetoric is not an empty talk. This evil leadership has been hammering its way tirelessly on the road to a nuclear status, and some of its high officials, including former president, speaker of parliament and commander in chief, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, have mused loudly about the icy arithmetic of a nuclear war with Israel: “The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while (the same) against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable,” said the former president.
When contrasted with Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani is perceived as a moderate and as a supporter of human rights. Following the latest fake presidential elections in Iran, he became a backer of the “Green Movement,” his daughter was arrested by the existing regime and he was told to “behave” lest his fate would resemble hers.
Rafsanjani is not alone in this group of “reformists” look-alikes. An even more conspicuous actor is Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh. Mousavi was the Iranian candidate for president whose victory in the recent (2009) Iranian elections was stolen by the incumbent president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mousavi, a former Iranian prime minister, headed the Green movement in Iran—a movement that attempted to introduce reforms while protesting the 2009 elections fraud.
In recent US elections debates, leaders and supporters of the Republican Party accused President Obama for standing by the sidelines in 2009 rather than actively supporting the Iranian Green Movement’s protesters headed by Mousavi, who demanded the removal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from office.
This criticism aimed at the American administration may be an appealing elections tactics, but it fails to recognize a fundamental flaw in a strategy calling for replacing Ahmadinejad with a wolf dressed in a lamb’s coat.
Had Mousavi become president of Iran in 2009, he would have continued Iran’s clandestine quest for a nuclear bomb, which he had initiated and managed in 1980, while serving as prime minister. He even confirmed his intent to pursue that objective during his own presidential debates. Had Mousavi become president of Iran in 2009, he would have supported Palestinian terrorism against the state of Israel or against any other state as long as it was serving the revolution’s purpose. After all, he said so, while also referring to British diplomats as spies, and defending the taking and holding of American hostages by Iranian militants in 1979.
But there is a more imperative argument against rooting for an Iranian president who may be perceived as a moderate by the west, only because he does not come out of his leech-filled closet. In a state where the top-job is carried by a right wing extremist, Ayatollah Khamenei , the president can only serve by implementing policies outlined by that Supreme Leader. In other words, a Mousavi win could have enabled Iran to break the isolation, avoid western sanctions, grant legitimacy to the Ayatollah’s regime, then move it more rapidly toward the nuclear bomb. If you are smarter than a chess player who could conceive only one single move ahead, you could see the teeth of that jaw trap.
Ahmadinejad is a much preferred Iranian president than any other make-believe moderate because he is merely telling the truth of what the Iranian regime is all about, devoid of any camouflage makeup to cover its ugly imperfections. His bold rhetoric must have convinced himself and his followers that Iran can defeat America, can wipe Israel off the map, that the Holocaust is a Zionist plot, and that he is the smartest man next to Muhammad.
Most Americans are unaware of the upcoming danger Iran is posing to the world. Many Americans oppose any military action against the Iranian regime and its nuclear factories. Many Americans do not understand that Iran presents a great threat to the US economy and to US security. Some view Iran as merely an Israeli problem, not an American problem.
Ahmadinejad makes good where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has seen only a limited success —convincing many Americans that the Iranian regime is dangerously irrational, that the US could become a victim of its hate-driven, insane Islamic objectives — that it’s time for preventive action.
In addition to raising awareness of the upcoming Iranian threat to the US, Ahmadinejad is successful in stirring up emotions. His flaming rhetoric, lies, hypocrisy, denial of facts and history, his genocidal threats, and his annoying demeanor serves to convince the American public of the ugly truth — that the Iranian regime and its leaders are evil.
The only effective regime change in Iran is a replacement of the whole system of government. This includes the Supreme Leader (and the way he is elected) as well as the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards, with a democratic secular system. Removing the religious minority of the mullahs and the ayatollahs from their unpopular powers is a major requirement wished for by the majority of Iranians.
Replacing one loud-mouth Iranian president with a soft-spoken lipstick-wearing pig can only contribute to a faster growing untreated cancer. Masking a problem does not make it go away; it only wards off treatment; it only speeds up the emergence of its ugly end.
Avi Perry is the author of 72 Virgins—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is also the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks. For more information, visit www.aviperry.org.
By DANNY SCHECHTER
Sometimes, major media is the last to recognize, shifts in policy positions. Iran is a case in point.
In the lead up to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s annual speech to the General Assembly, the American TV stations were preparing their audiences for another provocative Israel-hating rant.
Brace yourself, we were told; it is his last appearance in office so he would go off and all out in denouncing Israel and world’s Jews.
Secretary General ban ki-Moon cautioned him publicly to restrain his rhetoric even as right wing media outlets like Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, that has never seen a far right wing Zionist cause it hasn’t embraced, went into full deionization mode with a front cover featuring his picture and the words, “Piece of Sh*t.” (It was reminiscent of the Saddam baiting in US media in the run-up to the Iraq War.)
The rhetoric of the well orchestrated anti-Iranian crowds outside was even bloodier than the Iranians had ever been with former Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calling for immediate U.S. airstrikes. Gingrich sounded like his main financial backer, right-wing casino mogul and supporter of Israeli settlers, Sheldon Adelson, who poured millions into his failed campaign before shifting his resources to Mitt Romney.
But, surprise, surprise, the Iranians shifted tack, and offered a subdued and non-inflammatory, even analytical speech indicting big power pressure and capitalism but with no quotable excesses. Its tone may have reflected the fact that Iran is now leading the Non-Aligned Movement.
What is going on?
The latest Iran Review, a respected policy journal carries an article calling for dialogue with The US, not more diatribes. The magazine describes itself this way:
“Iran Review is the leading independent, non-governmental and non-partisan website – organization representing scientific and professional approaches towards Iran’s political, economic, social, religious, and cultural affairs, its foreign policy, and regional and international issues within the framework of analysis and articles.”
On Monday, just as UN week was beginning, Nasser Saghafi-Ameri wrote:
“After talking to several top diplomats and international security experts from different countries in a couple of meetings that I attended during the past two weeks, I am now more convinced than ever that the normalization of relations between Iran and the U.S. should be a top priority of the leaders of both countries if they wish to avert a military clash that could easily turn into a regional or international conflagration. These direct and comprehensive talks could also set a better understanding between them to work more effectively in bringing peace and stability in the crisis ridden region of the Middle East.
“Focusing only on Iran’s nuclear program as premise for confrontation with this country has practically deprived the U.S. to seek Iran’s much prized assistance on some critical issues that both countries have shared interest such as the stability in the post-occupation Iraq and Afghanistan, peace and stability in the wider Middle East region following the Arab Spring’s upheavals, and preference for a ‘soft landing’ of revolutionary fervors in the region and especially if it spreads to Saudi Arabia with all consequential effects including on the world oil markets.”
Note, also, that the new Egyptian President Morsi suggested that Iran could play a valuable role in dampening tensions with Syria. When Kofi Annan, suggested something similar, the idea was rejected by the United States and he later stepped down as a mediator.
I was recently at a TV appearance by a negotiations expert on Saudia Arabian TV. He told me that he is involved in two back channel negotiations on the issue.
Iranian nuclear experts are also offering compromise proposals reported by IPS journalist Gareth Porter but not yet any major media outlets:
“Iran has again offered to halt its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, which the United States has identified as its highest priority in the nuclear talks, in return for easing sanctions against Iran, according to Iran’s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, who has conducted Iran’s negotiations with the IAEA in Tehran and Vienna, revealed in an interview with IPS that Iran had made the offer at the meeting between EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and Iran’s leading nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Istanbul Sept. 19.”
And so, there are clearly initiatives underway to build bridges, but so far, media outlets, eager to fan the flames of confrontation and polarization, have ignored them. Is it ignorance or something worse?
News Dissector Danny Schechter blogs at NewsDissector.net. His latest books are Occupy: Dissecting Occupy Wall Street and Blogothon (Cosimo Books.) He hosts a show on Progressive Radio Network (PRN.fm) Comments to email@example.com
TALK RADIO NEWS SERVICE
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney weighed in on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech before the UN Tuesday, saying that the Iranian President’s incendiary rhetoric against the U.S. and Israel highlights why the U.S. cannot allow the country to develop nuclear weapon capabilities.
“His threat to eliminate Israel and the disdain he expressed for the free world add to a long list of belligerent and disgusting statements,” Romney said in a statement released by the campaign. “The United States must lead with resolve to ensure that the Iranian regime never obtains the means to realize its genocidal designs.”
Both President Obama and Romney have stated that Iran must not develop a nuclear bomb, calling the possibility a red-line for military intervention. However, Romney has accused Obama of taking too soft a stance on Iran, thus leaving the country emboldened after four years.
The administration has noted that they have put comprehensive sanctions in place limiting the current regime’s economic activity.
By DAVID SWANSON
I had dinner with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday night in New York, along with dozens of other peace activists. This is an annual event, and I’ve taken part in it more than once.
There’s some divergence of opinion on Ahmadinejad. The New York Daily News on Tuesday called Ahmadinejad “a pure evil crackpot Holocaust denier who wants to see Israel obliterated from planet Earth.”
In contrast, a Jewish lawyer addressing the dinner gathering said that a friend had told him not to come on Yom Kippur when he should be home atoning for his sins. “I’m going to go,” he said he told his friend, “and atone for the sins of Israel.”
The media tells us that Ahmadinejad is “an existential threat to Israel.” Let’s consider that.
I start from the assumption that an existential threat to a human being is a greater concern than an existential threat to a government. Denying a past existential threat to millions of human beings is offensive and dangerous. Creating a new existential threat to millions of human beings is worse — is, in fact, the danger we try to avoid by properly remembering the past.
President Obama said on Tuesday that no speech, not even a video attacking Islam, should be censored, and no speech can justify violence. But the absence of speech, in Obama’s view, can justify war. The Democratic Party Platform calls for war on Iran if Iran does not cease violating the nonproliferation treaty. Obama declared on Tuesday that if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons it would destroy the nonproliferation treaty. It would start a nuclear arms race. Iran would be, or rather it already is, a threat to Israel’s existence.
But how exactly can Iran stop violating a treaty that it is not violating? What can it say to prove it does not have what even the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates say it does not have and is not working to produce? How can Iran prove a negative? Many of us still recall that impossible task being assigned to Iraq in 2003.
As Ramsey Clark, the U.S. attorney general at the time the nonproliferation treaty was created, argued at the meeting with Ahmadinejad, the United States is itself violating the treaty — a treaty that would be better called the nonproliferation and elimination treaty, as it requires the elimination of nuclear weapons. Iran is a party to the treaty and in compliance with it. Israel has refused to sign the treaty or to allow inspections. Iran received its nuclear power technology from the United States, which also gave it the plans to build a bomb — this through a CIA project that might fairly be characterized as pure evil crackpotism. The United States has also spread that technology to India and Pakistan. The nukes in Western Asia are in Israel and on U.S. ships off the coast of Iran.
U.S. and Israeli forces have Iran surrounded, and are threatening war in violation of the UN charter. Israel and the United States have attacked Iranian computers, assassinated Iranian scientists, flown drones over Iran, imposed sanctions on the Iranian people (including cutting off oil supplies and clean energy technologies). The United States has organized a massive military exercise off the coast of Iran, and has just taken the terrorist label off an Iranian terrorist group, opening the door to funding its operations. The very real threat of war on Iran is an existential threat to millions of human beings, a threat – in other words – of mass murder.
What kind of threat is Iran to Israel? According to Ahmadinejad, his religious and political leaders have made the possession or use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons a terrible sin. When attacked by Iraq with chemical weapons – some of them supplied by the United States – Iran refused to use such weapons in response. Iran, which remembers chemical weapons as an argument for peace in the way that Japan remembers nuclear weapons, makes a distinction between defensive weapons and weapons that indiscriminately kill the innocent. The latter are forbidden. Iran this month persuaded 120 nations of the world to back a plan to do exactly what the nonproliferation and elimination treaty requires: eliminating nuclear weapons.
Talking about the nuclear question, Ahmadinejad told us, has grown tiresome and repetitive. Iran is in compliance with the law and has put the IAEA in charge of inspections. The root cause of U.S. aggression toward Iran, he said, has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Why did the United States back Saddam Hussein in a war against Iran? Because the Iranian people had overthrown a U.S.-backed dictatorship. Why has the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran in the past, he asked, when nuclear enrichment was not an issue? In the past year, he noted, the United States has sold over $70 billion in weapons to nations in the Persian Gulf, while Iran spends less one-fifth that amount. How, he asked, is Iran the aggressor?
When U.S. headlines tell us that Ahmadinejad will destroy Israel, we picture Hiroshima, or Dresden, or Fallujah. That’s how we think of a nation ceasing to exist. We think of its people destroyed from above. But Ahmadinejad says he wants to end killing and injustice. He speaks of peace and love, fairness and kindness. How does this make sense? Well, look at what he says on Israel:
“During a historical phase, they [the Israelis] represent minimal disturbances that come into the picture and are then eliminated.”
The Wall Street Journal follows that paragraph with this: “Note that word – ‘eliminated.’ When Iranians talk about Israel, this intention of a final solution keeps coming up. In October 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad, quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini, said Israel ‘must be wiped off the map.’ Lest anyone miss the point, the Iranian President said in June 2008 that Israel ‘has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain.'”
But in fact, when pressed on this, what Ahmadinejad has said is: “Our proposal is for everyone to allow people to freely hold elections and choose their governors. It’s been 6 ½ to 7 decades during which the people of Palestine have been dislodged from their homes. And their territories are under occupation, and an occupying regime has been bullying them and forcing them into the current conditions. If such a fate would have come into the lives of ordinary Americans, what proposal would you have had for them? I am sure you would propose for their elimination of international bullying and occupation. Imagine in your mind that the occupation of Palestine has come to an end. What would there remain? So this is the essence of what we are saying.”
In other words, were Palestine freed of apartheid and occupation, were all of its people permitted to freely determine their future, that future would not include a government that gives superior status to Jews. Such a future could be horrible, or it could be more democratic and respectful of individual rights than Israel is, or than Iran is, or than the United States is.
“If there are other inhabitants there,” Menachem Usshiskin said of Jewish plans for Palestine in 1930, “they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land.” The occupation of Palestine is not so much an existential threat as an existential fait accompli. The state of Israel was created through ethnic cleansing. It was created as a state to privilege one religious group, something that states should not be.
But two wrongs cannot make a right. Evicting Israelis from their homes, inside or outside the Green Line, is not a solution. Much less is killing them a solution or anything that Ahmadinejad is proposing.
Yehouda Shenhav’s new book, “Beyond the Two State Solution: A Jewish Political Essay” tells the story of Israel’s creation. The language of the Green Line, Shenhav writes, is “a language through which Israel is described as a liberal democracy, while the Arabs (and Mizrahi and religious Jews to boot) are described as inferior and undemocratic. This is the language of someone who came to the Middle East for a short while, not to integrate but to exist here as a guest. The position it expresses is not only immoral with regard to the Palestinians, but also potentially disastrous for the Jews. It commits them to life in a ghetto with a limited idea of democracy based on racial laws and a perpetual state of emergency.”
This is an Israeli suggesting that the worldview of Israel agrees with Ahmadinejad’s prediction for Israel. Israel is not behaving as if it means to settle down and become part of the region it inhabits. Shenhav wants to restore awareness of 1948, but not to try to reconstruct the world of 1948. He does not propose eliminating Israel. He does not propose uniting the people of Israel and Palestine into a single nation. He does propose allowing Palestinians to return to their homes in a manner least disturbing to Israelis already living in those villages or buildings, including with compensation paid to residents evicted by an agreement with returning refugees. He proposes a bilingual society, with a fragmented political federation. He expects this to be very difficult, while preferable to any other approach. And he rightly sees the first step as recovering honesty with regards to not-so-distant history.
Another book just released by Brant Rosen, a rabbi in the United States, is called “Wrestling in Daylight: A Rabbi’s Path to Palestinian Solidarity.” Here we have a brand new genre: the transformation of a website, including blog posts and the comments under them, into a work of literature on the printed page. Here we have an example of civil discourse, of diplomacy, of people with the views of the New York Daily News and the views of the Iranian government ceasing to speak past each other, coming to understand each other, realizing that neither wants to destroy the other. I highly recommend reading it and emulating it.
A Mennonite speaking at Tuesday’s meeting with Ahmadinejad said he wished others could travel to Iran, and that more Iranians could visit the United States. He said that after decades of visiting Iran frequently, he not only viewed Iranians as friends but understood the source of tension to be the Iranian government’s insistence on remaining independent of U.S. control. As if to prove the value of his recommendation for personal interaction, the next person to speak, an evangelical pastor from Texas named Bob Roberts said that he used to be afraid of Muslims. Then he met some in Afghanistan, and they became his friends.
Exiled critic of the Iranian government Shirin Ebadi released a message on Tuesday worth reading and signing on in support of.
I discussed these matters on New York’s WBAI on Tuesday. Here’s that audio.
David Swanson’s books include “War Is A Lie.” He blogs at http://davidswanson.org andhttp://warisacrime.org and works as Campaign Coordinator for the online activist organizationhttp://rootsaction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson andFacebook.
It was his final speech before the UN General Assembly – this is his last year in office – and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was as fiery and controversial as ever and as expected.
He called for a “new world order,” and lashed out at the “uncivilized Zionists” of Israel. But he made no mention of Iran’s controversial nuclear weapons program.
The Israeli delegation was not present to hear his latest verbal assault. Today is Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.
Nor was the US delegation in attendance. The Americans electing to boycott his address.
By AVI PERRY
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to deliver his venomous speech to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday — Yom Kippur. While in New York City he is being sought by the American media whose thirst for headline-grabbing and favorable TV ratings exceed journalists’ contempt for the man.
There have been calls by various organizations and numerous individuals to limit Ahmadinejad’s exposure, to impose bounds on the time allowed for his UN speech and to have him temper his rhetoric pertaining to the US and Israel. There were even appeals for banning him from coming to the US.
Boycotting Ahmadinejad, restricting his access to the American media, imposing constraints on his UN speech may be emotionally satisfying to all those disgusted with this man. At the same time, it would be a commonsensical mistake.
There is absolute value in letting this evil soul, cynical antisemite speak as much as he feels like. One minor reason is intelligence. Another — of even greater consequence — is Public Opinion.
Let me explain.
The more we encourage Ahmadinejad to deliberate, the more information we gather concerning the Iranian regime’s attitude, reactions and intentions resulting from the world’s pressure concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Although Ahmadinejad is a professional facts-denier and a persistent liar there is, nonetheless, a decent chance that if he talks an adequate amount, some of what he reveals might open a window into a new Iranian landscape not contemplated until now. It may make us more aware of Iranians plans and intentions; it could prepare us better for our next step.
Still, more importantly is the fact that Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric maintains the capacity for turning a peaceful, civilized discussion into a rage-filled ambiance. The bare hypocrisy, the hatred, the insults, the outright lies, the unmasked chutzpah this person spills out on his audience in the name of his regime surely makes many people’s blood run cold.
War-fatigued Americans are trying to avoid another costly military conflict in the Middle East. President Obama has effected strong economic sanctions on Iran, believing that a growing economic hardship would convince any rational regime that the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons while disregarding the world’s disapproval is simply too high.
It has not worked. The Iranian regime has not followed this course of rational behavior. They have not abandoned their destructive path; they have challenged western way of thinking; they have made it clear that the only way to stop their quest for nukes is the military way.
The Iranian regime is suffering from a macho syndrome — a product of Middle Eastern Islamic culture. This syndrome clouds their rational reasoning; it prevents the Mullahs from ending their quest for nuclear weapons even in the face of severe sanctions and possible military action.
Ahmadinejad’s bold rhetoric must have convinced himself and his followers that Iran can defeat America, can wipe Israel off the map, that the Holocaust is a Zionist plot and that he is the smartest man next to Mohammad, “the great prophet.”
Problem is — most Americans are unaware of the upcoming danger Iran is posing to the world. Many Americans oppose any military action against the Iranian regime and its nuclear factories. Many Americans do not understand that Iran presents a great threat to the US economy and to US security. Some view Iran as merely an Israeli problem, not an American problem.
Luckily, Ahmadinejad, will clarify this issue. He will make good where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has seen only a limited success — convincing many Americans that the Iranian regime is dangerously irrational, that the US could become a victim of its hate-driven, insane Islamic objectives — that it’s time for preventive action.
In addition to raising awareness of the upcoming Iranian threat to the US, Ahmadinejad may be successful in stirring up emotions. His flaming rhetoric, lies, hypocrisy, denial of facts and history, his genocidal threats and his annoying demeanor would serve to convince the American public that the Iranian regime and its leaders are evil. And if there is a need for military action designed to end this regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, then watching this man’s speeches and interviews during his latest visit to our free-speech country might hit the nail on its head and convince the peace lovers that time is running out.
Go watch this evil creature. Go watch him and get mad!!!
Avi Perry is a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is the author of Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks, and more recently–72 Virgins–a thriller. For more information, visit www.aviperry.org.