The Myth of the All-Powerful Ahmadinejad

[tony mitra]

This is from the current issue of the "National Interst"

-----
Inside Track: The Myth of the All-Powerful Ahmadinejad
by Philip Giraldi

10.03.2007

In the wake of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s much-publicized visit to New York, we are hearing renewed calls for a “tough on Iran” agenda. But before Washington makes policy on the basis of his bizarre and often offensive statements, they should consider one important fact: his actual authority as Iranian president is very limited. Contrary to the assertions of Columbia President Lee Bollinger last week, Ahmadinejad is no “petty and cruel dictator.” He is an elected president with very little power, frequently at odds with the country’s religious leadership and its parliament. Even if Iran had a nuclear arsenal, which it does not, his finger would not be on the trigger. Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons; if he runs for president again in 2009, he will almost certainly be defeated. He does not command the Iranian armed forces and he does not determine Iranian foreign policy. Far from being a belligerent expansionistic power, the last time Iran attacked a neighbor was in the seventeenth century.

This is not to say that the United States does not have genuine issues with Iran. They include containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, determination of its legitimate and possibly illegitimate roles in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, reducing its involvement with groups like Hamas and Hizballah, and improvement of its generally unsatisfactory human rights record. All of those bones of contention should be on the negotiating table with the ultimate objective of encouraging a peaceful and democratic Iran that has full and normal relations with all other countries, including the United States. But the Bush Administration has preferred the stick to the carrot, starting with consigning Iran to the “axis of evil” in January 2002.

The White House currently insists that it is exercising the diplomatic option with Iran, even though it is not. Bilateral sessions in Baghdad have consisted of little more than staking out adversarial positions. The United States is demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment program as a precondition for serious negotiations, but Iran is legally entitled to carry out enrichment as part of an energy program and both the Iranian public and the government are strongly supportive of that right. The U.S. insistence on Iranian capitulation in advance of any talks means that the negotiations are intended to be a non-starter, leaving only a military solution to the Iran problem.

Many of the claims of Iranian interference in Iraq and Afghanistan are based on unverifiable assertions by the Defense Department or have been contradicted by the Iraqi and Afghan governments, both of which insist that they have positive working relationships with Tehran. Iran has every reason to favor a stable Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of its own self-interest. While Iranian military equipment has shown up in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no real evidence of Iranian government involvement due to the large gray and black arms market in central Asia.

Nor is there any solid information at the present time suggesting that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, even though the intelligence services of a number of countries agree that there most probably is a concealed program. Most analysts agree that an Iranian produced crude nuclear device is years away and may never be achievable given the technological problems that Tehran has reportedly been experiencing. U.S. media reports and commentary by American politicians suggesting that Tehran has been actively targeting American soldiers and is hell bent on becoming a nuclear power should be examined carefully and skeptically.

And it is particularly unfortunate that Congress has proven unwilling to do anything to slow the march to war. The passage of a more punitive Iran Sanctions Act in July, coupled with last week’s approval by a 77 to 22 Senate vote of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense Procurement bill, have provided a virtual carte blanche for the White House to attack Iran at will. Kyl-Lieberman called for classifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group and provided the White House with language to justify the use of military force against Tehran. The unwillingness of the Senate and House to insist on a bill forbidding a new war without Congressional approval demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans alike have difficulty in seeing past Ahmadinejad to consider the genuine downside that would result from another conflict in the Middle East.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is the Francis Walsingham Fellow for the American Conservative Defense Alliance.
-----------

Now, what do you think about that?

I personally agreed with the ex CIA man that USA is particularly targeting Iran without giving the subject due diligence, and at least gives the appearance of being driven by some pre-determined agenda of a strike against Iran on similar lines to Irag. I also fully agree that Ahmadinejad does not wield power and is being used as a scapegoat, and this incessant screaming against the man, no matter how rural and strange his comments might seem, is in essence either a smoke screen against something else, or else the American think tank, its administration and its media are incredibly stupid, which I doubt.

I did not however agree with the man's assertions that Iran's nuclear program is absolutely unacceptable. I find it unacceptable myself, that the world should deny Iran what it blindly allows Israel, Pakistan, India along with China, Russia, France, UK and USA. I shall never understand why Iran is to be singled out. Therefore, the only plausible reason, in my mind, seems to be that Iran is in the middle east and unlike Israel, does not have a strong lobby inside the US, and to complicate matters, it sits on a lot of oil and gas, and could influence what is going on in Iraq.

But, what do you think about it?
Cheers - :)

[lily]

I also fully agree that Ahmadinejad does not wield power and is being
used as a scapegoat, and this incessant screaming against the man, no matter
how rural and strange his comments might seem, is in essence either a smoke
screen against something else, or else the American think tank, its
administration and its media are incredibly stupid, which I doubt.

I really have no idea why everyone, and that includes the Democrats running
for office are putting so much importance on Ahmadinejad. I have some ideas,
but no cold hard facts.

Fear is a great motivator and elections are starting early this season.

If we're talking about Iran..........we're not talking about Iraq......and
if we're not talking about Iraq and talking about Iran........we forget that
there is still a war in Afghanistan.

.........and last but not least........since we have the battle ships in position in the Gulf........[hr]I did not however agree with the man's assertions that Iran's nuclear program is absolutely unacceptable. I find it unacceptable myself, that the world should deny Iran what it blindly allows Israel, Pakistan, India along with China, Russia, France, UK and USA. I shall never understand why Iran is to be singled out. Therefore, the only plausible reason, in my mind, seems to be that Iran is in the middle east and unlike Israel, does not have a strong lobby inside the US, and to complicate matters, it sits on a lot of oil and gas, and could influence what is going on in Iraq.

I have no doubt that oil is part of the reason..........but if you look at Pakistan and India both who got their nukes with this administration's blessing, despite not being signers of the NPT........it makes my head spin...........

[Trish]

I suppose no one read any of the news reports about the Iranian celebration of Al-Quds day last Friday? Where thousands of Iranians celebrated and chanted slogans like "Death to Israel" and "Death to America"??? While Ahmadinejad was certainly his usual bellicose and inflammatory self, and while some of what he said can certainly be attributed to grandstanding, he is hardly the only Iranian to be concerned about.

"In the capital Tehran, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets as they chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel". Some protesters also burned American and Israeli flags.

State television reported similar large rallies in all other provincial capitals and smaller towns across Iran." http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071005/world/iran_jerusalem&printer=1

Now, correct me if I'm wrong here....but I really don't recall Israeli government officials or citizens calling for the death of America - or even Iran for that matter. I suppose my view could be considered "fear", but I see it as just plain common sense. I'm a lot more concerned about the "possibility" of those thousands of Iranians deciding to nuke someone than I am of Israel doing the same. I mean if someone threatens to kill me once or twice, I might just think he or she is just blowing off steam. However, when my death is repeatedly stated as an objective, by not just one person, but thousands, well then I begin to take the stated objectives as serious intent. If I thought that some of those thousands were in the process of actually obtaining the wherewithal to accomplish those repeated objectives, I am quite certain I would not only be concerned, but actively working to prevent them from even attempting to accomplish their objectives. But hey, that's just me. I suppose it could be preferable to actually wait until I'm dead to object to someone wanting to kill me and try and prevent it, although I'm not quite sure how that would work.

There have been claims for what - two years now that the US was going to attack Iran? Hasn't happened yet. We keep plugging away at all those "diplomatic" efforts along with how many other countries? And Iran, with its extraordinary repeated demonstrations of peaceful intentions is proving itself to be so very worthy of global confidence that those diplomatic efforts are actually going to be successful.

I sure as heck don't want to go to war with Iran or anyone else. But I'm not about to hide my head in the sand and ignore the possibility of danger either. Reminds me of that homily, about the man who is walking through the woods one winter day. He finds a rattlesnake frozen on the ground. Moved to compassion he picks up the snake and places it inside his cloak to warm it. The snake is warmed by the man's body heat....and bites the man, killing him. So no thank you.....I don't object to the snake living, and am more than happy to give it all the room it needs to live out its life, but I'm not about to put it in a position to bite me.

[Pogo]

Trish, seems to me that Iranians have some legitimate reasons for hating the US. We did, after all, rape their sovereignty, you know?

[Scorpion]

I did not however agree with the man's assertions that Iran's nuclear program is absolutely unacceptable. I find it unacceptable myself, that the world should deny Iran what it blindly allows Israel, Pakistan, India along with China, Russia, France, UK and USA. I shall never understand why Iran is to be singled out. Therefore, the only plausible reason, in my mind, seems to be that Iran is in the middle east and unlike Israel, does not have a strong lobby inside the US, and to complicate matters, it sits on a lot of oil and gas, and could influence what is going on in Iraq.

But, what do you think about it?
Cheers -[/color][/i] :)


The US is trying to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability for several reasons. First, to stem nuclear proliferation, particularly in the middle east and south asia. Second, because the power in Iran rests with religious leaders whose agenda includes intolerance of western values and the destruction of Israel. Lastly, Iran's support for terrorist organizations, several of which have expressed a desire to obtain nuclear weapons.

[Trish]

Pogo,

That's a valid point. But I ask you this. Is guilt/shame/remorse/regret about what happened then a reason to not protect ourselves now? Is perfection the required measure for self-protection, or as in this instance currently, for acknowledging a "possibility" that self-protection might be needed?

If perfection is the requirement - who can assert the "right" to protect themselves or the "right" to consider possibilities?

[Pogo]

Pogo,

That's a valid point. But I ask you this. Is guilt/shame/remorse/regret about what happened then a reason to not protect ourselves now? Is perfection the required measure for self-protection, or as in this instance currently, for acknowledging a "possibility" that self-protection might be needed?

If perfection is the requirement - who can assert the "right" to protect themselves or the "right" to consider possibilities?


Well, perhaps it would help the situation if we had a gov't that was able to move forward by working to achieve a consistent policy re nuclear weapons in the Middle East. As things presently stand, our policy is rather one-sided. And it would also be of tremendous help if we were to pressure Israel to accept a fair agreement with the Palestinians. This would steal quite a bit of the thunder of the Islamic extremists who presently hold sway and would allow for more moderate voices to come to the fore.

IMO, there's quite a lot that we can do to protect our best interests, but everything that I can think of requires that we have a gov't that isn't beholden to Israel's hardliners.

[Trish]

Well, perhaps it would help the situation if we had a gov't that was able to move forward by working to achieve a consistent policy re nuclear weapons in the Middle East. As things presently stand, our policy is rather one-sided. And it would also be of tremendous help if we were to pressure Israel to accept a fair agreement with the Palestinians. This would steal quite a bit of the thunder of the Islamic extremists who presently hold sway and would allow for more moderate voices to come to the fore.




Fair agreement with the Palestinians? You mean something like this:

Israel Signals Shift on Jerusalem Split
Oct 8 03:17 PM US/Eastern
By KARIN LAUB
Associated Press Writer

Israel Changes Opinion On Jerusalem Split

JERUSALEM (AP) - Two senior Israeli politicians, including the prime minister's closest ally, talked openly Monday about dividing Jerusalem, signaling a possible shift in Israeli opinion about one of the Mideast's most contentious issues.

The dispute over Jerusalem has derailed negotiations in the past, and the latest comments come at a time when Israeli and Palestinian teams are trying to agree on principles guiding future peace talks.

The ideas raised by Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon still fall far short of Palestinian demands to establish their capital in all of the city's eastern sector, annexed by Israel after the 1967 Mideast War.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, meanwhile, told his parliament he will not be deterred from seeking a peace deal with the Palestinians. He said Israel has missed opportunities in the past, and warned that continued failure would mean a "demographic struggle steeped in blood and tears."

Olmert was unusually impassioned but short on specifics. He made no mention of Jerusalem.

Later Monday, Israeli and Palestinian teams met for the first time to start drafting a joint declaration of principles that would guide negotiators if peace talks were to resume after a seven-year freeze.

The document, which is to address the key disputes—borders, Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian refugees—will be the centerpiece of a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference in November.

Olmert's speech appeared to be a careful balancing act—sending an encouraging message to the Palestinians, while not giving his hardline critics at home too much ammunition by going into detail.

His central theme was a pledge not to miss an opportunity to reach a long-elusive peace deal, even if it requires costly concessions. Olmert said Israelis will have to led go of some of the beliefs that "fed the national ethos for many years," a reference to giving up West Bank land.

Olmert praised Mahmoud Abbas, whom he has met six times since the spring, as a trustworthy partner, but at the same time portrayed the Palestinian president, known as Abu Mazen, as weak. "I know that the gap between the honest and fair intentions of Abu Mazen and (Palestinian Prime Minister) Salam Fayyad, and their ability to translate that into reality is troublesome and arouses concerns," Olmert said.

Olmert was heckled occasionally, but interruptions were mild for Israel's freewheeling parliament. "Is Jerusalem a dream?" legislator Reuven Rivlin shouted when Olmert, a former Jerusalem mayor, told parliament Israelis would have to forego some of their national dreams and aspirations.

It's not clear whether Olmert could muster the political support to push through a peace deal. His popularity dropped sharply after last summer's war against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, and he is the target of several corruption probes.

On Tuesday, he is to be questioned by police about allegations that he fraudulently bought a Jerusalem home well below market value, while serving as a Cabinet minister. Indictment would force him to step down.

Palestinian officials largely stayed out of Israel's internal debates Monday, including over Jerusalem.

Abbas adviser Nabil Abu Rdeneh took issue, though, with Olmert's reference to Abbas' purported weakness. "We hope that these statements are not meant to place obstacles in the way of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that started today," Abu Rdeneh said.

Earlier Monday, Olmert's closest ally, Ramon, raised the idea of a possible division of Jerusalem in interviews on the two main radio stations.

Later in the day, Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the hardline Israel Beitenu Party, a member of Olmert's coalition, told a news conference he is ready to hand over some Arab neighborhoods of the city.

The proposals of Ramon and Lieberman would fall far short of a Palestinian demand to set up their future capital in all of the Israeli-annexed eastern sector of the city. The eastern part contains the Old City, home to major Jewish, Muslim and Christian shrines.

Still, the public debate was remarkable. Ramon suggested that there's been a shift in the Israeli consensus, noting that the three main parties in Olmert's coalition all favor a division, and disagree only about where the line should be drawn.

Israeli leaders have proposed possible solutions for the city in the past. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak was harshly criticized for raising the idea of division in failed 2000 peace talks.

Ramon said that under his plan, Israel would not hand over the Old City and neighboring areas—known as the "holy basin"—but he spoke of a special arrangement in the Old City. He did not elaborate, but the term would suggest less than full Israeli sovereignty there.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S585JG1&show_article=1

Or how about the 2000 Camp David Summit? Barak offered great concessions to Arafat. While not a final solution, it could have been the starting point for a real peace negotiation. Arafat turned it down cold. No negotiation, no counter-proposal, just no. Barak was offering more than Israel had offered before, and there appeared to be real room for negotiation. But because it did not include ALL of what Arafat et al wanted, rather than accepting the offer as a foundation for future endeavors, Arafat rejected the offer completely.

And who was brokering that failed deal? The US/Clinton. We have, and we continue to encourage Israel to work for a peaceful solution and to a lasting peace. It is not the US, and it is not Israel who consistently block progress. Rather, it is "primarily" a Palestinian demand for ALL or nothing that is perpetuating the violence and suffering. Israel has proven time and time again that it is willing to negotiate. Certainly they aren't going to give up everything, but they have proven willing to "deal." The Palestinians on the other hand have not. Since 1921 when Britain divided "Palestine" into 2 separate entities 75% to the Palestinians and 25% to the "Zionists", it's been an all or nothing attitude for the Palestinians.

One can lead a horse to water, but one can't make it drink and it doesn't matter if it's the US trying to do the leading - the Palestinians aren't about to drink a glass full if the Israeli's have even a sip.

[jafar00]

The US is trying to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability for several reasons. First, to stem nuclear proliferation, particularly in the middle east and south asia. Second, because the power in Iran rests with religious leaders whose agenda includes intolerance of western values and the destruction of Israel. Lastly, Iran's support for terrorist organizations, several of which have expressed a desire to obtain nuclear weapons.


Well it has yet to be proven that Iran has a Nuclear Weapons program. The whole idea appears to be purely based on a US vision that Iranians look a bit shifty to them more than anything else. Iran is a member of the NPT and have done nothing to violate that treaty unlike the US who help the Indians get their bomb together and also continue to test new weapon designs.
Anyway, since the US has nukes, is designing more, and also supports terrorist organisations, in what way does that put you in a position to criticise Iran for your perceived notion that Iran is doing the same?

[Scorpion]

Well it has yet to be proven that Iran has a Nuclear Weapons program. The whole idea appears to be purely based on a US vision that Iranians look a bit shifty to them more than anything else.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

There are more links which support the contention that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I'll be happy to supply them if you wish.

Iran is a member of the NPT and have done nothing to violate that treaty unlike the US who help the Indians get their bomb together and also continue to test new weapon designs.

In fact, Iran has violated the NPT.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11544
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/index.html

Anyway, since the US has nukes, is designing more, and also supports terrorist organisations, in what way does that put you in a position to criticise Iran for your perceived notion that Iran is doing the same?
[/quote]

The United Sates is in the process of decommissioning a substantial number of nuclear warheads. It is true that new warheads are being designed to partially replace the older decommissioned warheads.

I'd be interested in which terrorist organzations the US supports.

Iran is known to have supported Hezbollah and Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4191-2004Jul21.html[/quote]

[Pogo]

Well, perhaps it would help the situation if we had a gov't that was able to move forward by working to achieve a consistent policy re nuclear weapons in the Middle East. As things presently stand, our policy is rather one-sided. And it would also be of tremendous help if we were to pressure Israel to accept a fair agreement with the Palestinians. This would steal quite a bit of the thunder of the Islamic extremists who presently hold sway and would allow for more moderate voices to come to the fore.




Or how about the 2000 Camp David Summit? Barak offered great concessions to Arafat. While not a final solution, it could have been the starting point for a real peace negotiation. Arafat turned it down cold. No negotiation, no counter-proposal, just no. Barak was offering more than Israel had offered before, and there appeared to be real room for negotiation. But because it did not include ALL of what Arafat et al wanted, rather than accepting the offer as a foundation for future endeavors, Arafat rejected the offer completely.


My understanding of the Barak offer is that it was presented as being the best they would do, take it or leave it, which doesn't seem to me to invite a counteroffer. And what was so great about it? Please cite the concessions, if you would.




And who was brokering that failed deal? The US/Clinton. We have, and we continue to encourage Israel to work for a peaceful solution and to a lasting peace.


How can the US be a fair broker when it's Israel's primary benefactor?

And what exactly is this continuing encouragement you refer to? Have we threatened to pull the plug on all aid to Israel if they don't fall into line with international law?

No, we haven't.




It is not the US, and it is not Israel who consistently block progress. Rather, it is "primarily" a Palestinian demand for ALL or nothing that is perpetuating the violence and suffering. Israel has proven time and time again that it is willing to negotiate. Certainly they aren't going to give up everything, but they have proven willing to "deal." The Palestinians on the other hand have not. Since 1921 when Britain divided "Palestine" into 2 separate entities 75% to the Palestinians and 25% to the "Zionists", it's been an all or nothing attitude for the Palestinians.

One can lead a horse to water, but one can't make it drink and it doesn't matter if it's the US trying to do the leading - the Palestinians aren't about to drink a glass full if the Israeli's have even a sip.


This is nothing but a canard and I'll explain why: the fact of the matter is that Israel refuses to submit to international law. If Israel were to change course and allow the UN Charter to come into play, there's nothing the Palestinians could do to prevent a final resolution of the existing crisis. Why? Because if Israel were to pull out of all the disputed territory, allow a neutral force to take up it's position, and accept fair arbitration, if the Palestinians didn't respond in kind they'd face serious consequences, one of which could be their forced relocation.

The truth is that the Palestinians don't have the power to block international law from running it's course, whereas Israel, on the other hand, does. Israel's policy has been, and is, to deal with the conflict as an internal security matter, whereas the truth is that it's a conflict that threatens international peace and security. Israel has made this choice, and they therefore bear all of the responsibility for the resultant failure.