Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

October 29th, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

10 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Taking it back

My comment on Chirol’s post regarding Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s “destroy Israel” speech may have been correct:

Iran retreats from Israel comments

Iran on Saturday cautiously retreated from remarks by its president that Israel should be “wiped off the map”, saying it stood by its UN commitments and would not use violence against another country. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to its UN charter commitments. It has never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday stood by his sabre-rattling rhetoric, calling for Israel to be destroyed. While not specifically refuting the president, the Foreign Ministry said Tehran had no intention of launching an assault on the Jewish state and would back whatever course the Palestinians chose to resolve the Middle East conflict.

To repeat: Ahmadinejad’s comments were for domestic consumption only, and were not meant to get into the international press. Yet once the controversy started, he couldn’t take back his comments for fear of coming across as a charlatan to his supporters.

Comments to this entry

Chirol
October 29, 2005
8:41 pm
Barnett just posted again on this, definitely worth a read:

Why do Americans swallow dictators' propaganda so willingly?
Gabriel Mihalache
October 29, 2005
9:27 pm
Regardless of the propaganda value of the speech, it is unlikely that Ahmadinejad is a closet westophile and he's just ruling this way (and won the elections on an anti-west ballot) just for the public's eyes.

The most likely possibility is that, indeed, he really think what he says so many times and in so many forms.
Dan
October 29, 2005
9:30 pm

"The official stance...is that the occupation of Palestine should end, refugees should return and a democratic state should be formed with Jerusalem as its capital," the statement added.

Ali Larijani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told the ISNA students news agency Iran would back whatever the Palestinians chose.

"Iran is still insisting on its earlier position that the Palestinian people should decide their own future," he said.


Interesting. The Allies certainly didn't go along with France's ideas of how to end French involvement in WWII.

Iran is just not selling Syria -- they seem to be selling out all non-Shia Arabs.
Curtis Gale Weeks
October 29, 2005
10:11 pm
If the Palestinians choose violence, will Iran back their choice?
Dan
October 30, 2005
12:06 am
If the Palestinians choose violence, will Iran back their choice?


Well, considering the number of IRIAF fighters scrambled to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem during the Second Intifadah...
Curtis Gale Weeks
October 30, 2005
12:21 am
Heh, considering that the Intifadah wasn't fought in the air, it might be safe to say that the Palestinians didn't need that kind of support...

How Iranian hardline politicians think that they can advance Iran's nuclear rights while simultaneously pursuing such counter-productive public diplomacy remains a puzzle. The continuation of such an approach, representing clear discontinuity with past diplomacy, irrespective of Ahmadinejad's initial promise of maintaining policy continuity, will only harm Iran's interests and bolster the position of global forces pushing for Iran's isolation and marginalization.

--an interesting article on Asia Times. This is a question that has been on my mind. The popular opinion in Iran seems to be that Iran deserves nuclear power (civil use), and even the so-called America-loving youth are perturbed by American obstinacy in this regard. I still maintain that while Iran's neophyte president is engaging in personal demagoguery, the mullahs aren't as bothered by the message as by the reaction from the UN, EU, US, etc. They can use American opposition to Iran's use of nuclear power to try to win over the Old-Glory-waving youth of Iran; and, Ahmadinejad plays his role; but they don't want an invasion to hinder their plans for the development of Iran.
Curtis Gale Weeks
October 30, 2005
12:22 am
I seem to have been bolder than I intended...
Dan
October 30, 2005
4:00 am
The popular opinion in Iran seems to be that Iran deserves nuclear power (civil use), and even the so-called America-loving youth are perturbed by American obstinacy in this regard


Iranians are often rather ethnocentric. Richard Armitage recalls despising his posting in Iran because of that attitude. This attitude has prevented the Iranians from forming long-lasting bonds with any peer competitors, though, which may be good from our perspective...
J.Kende
October 30, 2005
4:25 am
I don't think this kind of thing being for domestic consumption makes it any better. The theocracy has to end one way or another.

As for the ethnocentrism of Iranian youth, there comes a point where they have to recognize this isn't only about them any more than it's only about us (or the rest of the world). It's very unwise to saber rattle at the toughest, richest powers on the face of the earth. If they keep it up they are going to be reminded of that lesson.
tdaxp
October 30, 2005
4:46 am
Blogospheric Saturday

Bill from Dawn's Early Light looks at Japan's Asia strategy (twice). He also links the beautiful blog and Westphalian religious peace while trying to send Bill Roggio to Iraq.

Chirol and Curzon from Coming Anarchy looks at Iran's Threatened Dest...