Fool me twice...
As many of you know, I've spent a great deal of time here in months past decrying the belligerent stance of the Bush Administration toward Tehran, and defending the inherent, sovereign right of the Iranian nation to develop a civilian-controlled nuclear power program as part of its move toward peaceful modernization. I've argued against U.S. saber-rattling, called for more globally nuanced diplomacy, and have even contended that a large degree of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric was actually a logical consequence of American bullying.
And while I'm still relieved that cooler heads at the IAEA (and calmer attitudes in various nations including Russia, Germany, and India) have prevailed upon the White House, and managed to block escalation of the tensions between Iran and the U.S., I'm nevertheless forced to concede one increasingly obvious point:
Ahmadinejad is dangerously unhinged.
The Iranian leader's latest deplorable outburst that the Holocaust is a "myth", fabricated by European powers as an excuse for creating the Israeli state, is a clear sign that the ruling powers in Tehran are so divorced from reality that they simply cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, regardless of Ahmadinejad's continual pledge that his intentions are peaceful in nature. Again, I do believe that the development of a civilian atomic program should be an absolute right of the moderate segment of the Iranian population, and that such a program, carefully monitored by the U.N. and the IAEA, could significantly benefit the day to day lives of Iran's citizens.
But I can no longer believe that those goals will be accomplished - or even attempted - with this fanatic at the helm.
Fortunately, the "EU3" still plan to move forward with diplomatic approaches to containing Tehran, and the more militant stance of our Administration has not yet convinced the global community of the "need" for harsher, more immediate, or (God help us) military intervention there. Sadly, however, if moderate voices within Iran don't rein in the reprehensible and irresponsible actions of their President soon, Ahmadinejad will do the convincing all by himself.
And while I'm still relieved that cooler heads at the IAEA (and calmer attitudes in various nations including Russia, Germany, and India) have prevailed upon the White House, and managed to block escalation of the tensions between Iran and the U.S., I'm nevertheless forced to concede one increasingly obvious point:
Ahmadinejad is dangerously unhinged.
The Iranian leader's latest deplorable outburst that the Holocaust is a "myth", fabricated by European powers as an excuse for creating the Israeli state, is a clear sign that the ruling powers in Tehran are so divorced from reality that they simply cannot be trusted with nuclear technology, regardless of Ahmadinejad's continual pledge that his intentions are peaceful in nature. Again, I do believe that the development of a civilian atomic program should be an absolute right of the moderate segment of the Iranian population, and that such a program, carefully monitored by the U.N. and the IAEA, could significantly benefit the day to day lives of Iran's citizens.
But I can no longer believe that those goals will be accomplished - or even attempted - with this fanatic at the helm.
Fortunately, the "EU3" still plan to move forward with diplomatic approaches to containing Tehran, and the more militant stance of our Administration has not yet convinced the global community of the "need" for harsher, more immediate, or (God help us) military intervention there. Sadly, however, if moderate voices within Iran don't rein in the reprehensible and irresponsible actions of their President soon, Ahmadinejad will do the convincing all by himself.
posted by Bob P @ 9:28 PM
3 Comments:
Bob, before you go all nuts all over Ahmadenidijad, explain to me where all that you described him as saying is wrong exactly how he is wrong, because the truth is the European Powers were in an extremely powerful position to push for a Zionist state after World War II. Now of course that doesn't mean that they inflated the number of Jewish casualties, but it could mean that they exaggerated the ongoing danger to the Jews in order to influence their removal to a strategic site in the Middle East.
Did you know that Israel wasn't even the first choice of Herschl and the other early Zionists?
Truth is, Ahmadenidijad is looking to curry favor with the Jew-hating, wife-beating intolerant Muslims on the right wing of his country's political spectrum and he figures he can do that by repeating lies he knows they've been told. It's a lot like what happens in this country. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, or throw a gift horse out of your mouth (or whatever) If you look more deeply into the history of Israel, you will find that democracy and freedom were very low on their list of priorities. Even their perks provided by their present form of state socialism are heavily influenced by race, rather than being divided equally among the classes. And given that the white gene in mankind was the result of a mutation that popped up 200 thousand years ago with the last big Exodus from Africa, it seems to me that race shouldn't even be a factor. It seems to me that one race which develops fifty thousand years after another one isn't necessarily better or worse. Just different. And the total human being is less than 1 tenth of a percent different genetically, which makes the difference practically nil. So what's going on in Israel is really a crime against humanity, from the way it affects Ethiopian Jews and settlers trying to survive in the Occupied Zones, to the crushing brutality meted out to the Palestinians on a daily basis.
If you agree with my thesis, that state-sponsored inhumanity is real and alive in Israel and Palestine, then you owe it to yourself to learn more about what Ahmadenidijad is talking about. (I hope I wrote his name right)
Again, TA, you make several excellent observations. And I'll admit that my knowledge of Israel and Zionism is woefully thin.
I guess my primary concern with Ahmadinejad's behavior, whatever his political (i.e. poll-driven) motivations, is that it is a fairly clear indication that his demand for membership in the nuclear club will not necessarily be used for the good of his people. And you're right in pointing out the similarities of that behavior with an administration closer to home.
Which is exactly why I've grown as skeptical and untrusting of Ahmadinejad as I have.
Nevertheless, my disappointment doesn't mean that I'm jumping on the shrill U.S./Israeli bandwagon. My thoughts on our behavior toward Tehran haven't changed, primarily because that behavior is so reminiscent of the run-up to Iraq.
I'm also mystified, as I've written before, that at the precise moment when world opinion had shifted to Iran's side, thankfully quieting the belligerent stance of the U.S. and Israel, Ahmadinejad did, and continues to do, everything possible to alienate those very allies he was beginning to gather on the global stage. It's as if he's playing into the hands of the hawks in Washington, proving them right - and we've seen what they're capable of doing.
We know first hand how efficiently the Bushies can use any excuse for further intervention in the Middle East. Because the consequences (especially with a nuclear Iran) are so potentially grave, I'm disturbed that Ahmadinejad is handing out those excuses left and right.
Thanks for the info, as always.
It is eerily reminiscent of the run up to Iraq. War is not about words – it is about actions. Bush (thinks he) excels in one, but (knows he) is woefully inadequate with the other. North Korea and Iran ARE dangerous. Until Bush came along, America always relied on strategic dominance to keep us out of the fray. The conflict in Iraq tipped our hand – all of the other world bodies now know what we will, and will not do. We were much safer when rogue nations thought we would nuke them if they messed with us.
Iran will not be a push-over like Iraq, and we already have some experience with North Korea. I have no doubt that Bush will have us in it with one or both of them before we have a regime change of our own.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home