Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel

Believe it, don't believe it, that's up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Saturday:

Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."

Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.

The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after.

Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei's pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to. Indeed, after all that talk of peace and no first strike and no nukes, Khamenei at the very end said that if Iran were attacked, it would defend itself. Karl Vicks of the Washington Post at the time ignored all the rest of the speech and made the headline, 'Khamenei threatens reprisals against US." In other words, on Iran, the US public is being spoonfed agitprop, not news.

Although Iran's protestations of peaceful intentions are greeted cynically in the US and Israel, in fact Iran has not launched a war of aggression in over a century. The US and Israel have launched several during that period of time.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a speech inaugurating work on a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak. I don't think that work is very advanced. The Iranians maintain that it is for peaceful energy generation.

Much of the electricity produced in France, South Korea and Japan is generated by nuclear plants.

5 Comments:

At 8:25 AM, Blogger the path less traveled said...

Pres. Ahmadinejad said something similar on a 60 minutes interview. It seems most of America did not connect the dots.

Also, the clarification of previous statements is coming in a timely manner. Haaretz had an article stating that some Israeli Lawyers were drafting a proposal to be presented to the Hague to bring charges against Ahmadinejad for "inciting to genocide". Here is the link. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754691.html

 
At 2:13 PM, Blogger Robot Pirate Ninja said...

ici, wonderfully said.

Taking a more philosophic-cognitive science and the media point of view, without direct first-hand experience of a people or a place, the understanding of said people or place is largely driven by the images and depictions presented through media.

A model is developed within the mind from that data. This is standard for all people, as no one can have a conception outside of the data they have to work with. They can suspect a model might be flawed, but without contrary data, the default assumptions take hold.

We have a very powerful and largely unaccountable (and certainly unapologetic) media system in the U.S. that does a very poor job of giving a "daily life" snapshot of the lives of people in Iran (or many Muslim countries for that matter).

Add to that the fact that the GOP strategy for 2006 (And beyond) is largely built upon a "We are in WW3" frame, and you see why not too many people will point out the facts as relayed by JC in this post.

 
At 7:02 PM, Blogger DrewL said...

The "wipe Israel off the map" comment has gained media attention of almost mythic proportions, and it continues to be related by the media because it sounds so sensational. Too bad most people never hear that the quote attributed to Ahmadinejad was taken completely out of context and was mistranslated.

But this sort of misunderstanding seems to underscore the difficulty we will continue to have of ever reaching mutual understanding among cultures, especially if we don't sit down and communicate with one another. Some may call that naive. I call it common sense.

Sadly, certain people feel the need to create enemies where none exist in order to pursue a greedy, power-induced agenda of aggression.

 
At 2:10 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

"Much of the electricity produced in France, South Korea and Japan is generated by nuclear plants."

Well, isn't that interesting - the US "liberated" Japan, South Korea and France BEFORE they got nuclear power... So it seems Ummrikkans are destined to liberate Iran for the SECOND time (remember how the CIA slay that Monster Mossadegh?) as that would be the only way it could have nuclear power (which the US was OK with as long as Iran was run by an American Shah).

 
At 12:45 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

RE: "If average Americans were given the opportunity to partake in Muslim culture and experience Muslim generosity, whether it be Arab or Persian..."

Sympathetic as i am to the ideals of humanism and the rationalism of all efforts to share understanding of cross-cultural values ~ i find myself uncomfortable with the perhaps un-intentional morphing of "Muslim," a religious identity, and "Arab or Persian", an ethnic identity: they are not the same; nor is one a pre-requisite for the other; and the statement, quoted above, "[to] partake in Muslim culture," upon de-construction, has no more significance, in fact, as a plea to likewise "partake in Christian culture, whether it be Hispanic or Anglo."

The Enemy is neither Arab, nor Persian; nor Muslim, Christian or Jew, n'est-ce pas? The Enemy is Fundamentalism, regardless of the mask he wears at any moment, and The Enemy is the hideously successful dynamic of political power's ability to thrive, and control us, thus by means of fear mongering.

Hopefully "The West" can learn to empathize with the peoples of the Middle East, recognizing them for what they are: fellow human beings ~ without having to partake in religious faith by consent or conversion.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home