Ahmadinejad: Israel won't survive in any shape or form

[oberliner]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out again at Israel on Thursday, saying that it won't survive in any shape or form.

Speaking to reporters, the hard-line leader smirked at a former mantra of the Israeli right of a Greater Israel that would include Palestinian territories. The idea has since been abandoned, with Israeli consensus now that there will be a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the idea of a Greater Israel, which includes the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, is a thing of the past, and that anyone who still thinks in this way is delusional.

Ahmadinejad said that "while some say the idea of Greater Israel has expired, I say the idea of a Lesser Israel has expired, too."

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022398.html

[Hugabear]

1. Like Bush, Ahmadinejad needs his Boogeyman to distract from his problems

<snip>
The remarks appear to be part of Ahmadinejad's effort to deflect growing criticism at home over failed economic policies and recent comments by some close associates. Iran's inflation hit 27.6 percent last month, while Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashai was recently quoted as saying Iranians were friends of all people in the world - even Israelis.
<snip>

But hey, don't let that get in the way of a great story.

[applegrove]

2. My first thought too. Amadineajad is just like Bush. He needs an enemy to distract

from serious issues facing his country.

[oberliner]

3. More info on Ahmadjinejad and Mashai

On Thursday, Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose son is married to a daughter of Mr. Mashai, came to his defense, saying that Mr. Mashai “has served the people and the government for 30 years.”

“He has never used the term ‘Israeli people’ and never will.” he said.

Instead, Mr. Ahmadinejad insisted that “what Mr. Mashai said is the message of the government,” representing that as Iran wanting to help people who had been “tricked” by the authorities into living in Israel.

“Our nation has no problem with other nations, but as far the Zionist regime is concerned, we do not believe in an Israeli government or an Israeli nation,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?hp

[Hugabear]

4. Whatever. Ahmadinejad is a figurehead, the real power lies with the religious leaders

Doesn't change the fact that Ahmadinejad is trying to rally the Iranian people around the Israeli boogeyman as a distraction from the real domestic problems he's facing. He doesn't have any real power over Iranian affairs, he cannot unilaterally order an attack on Israel, etc.

[oberliner]

5. Ahmadinejad doesn't say anything that isn't approved by the Supreme Leader

Khamenei, who has total power over Iranian affairs, can unilaterally order an attack on Israel. If he wasn't comfortable with what Ahmadinejad was saying then he would not be around for very long.

[azurnoir]

6. Are you suggesting that Iran's

leaders religious or otherwise are planning to attack Israel? Also when it comes to Ahmadinejad needing Khamenei's approval or else, that is questionable at best

In 2005, Khamenei responded to Ahmadinejad's alleged remark that Israel should be "wiped off the map" by saying that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country."<87> Moreover, Khamenei's main adviser in foreign policy, Ali Akbar Velayati, refused to take part in Ahmadinejad's Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad's remarks, Velayati said that the Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality.<88>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#2006_Councils_and_Assembly_of_Experts_election

Seems 3 1/2 years later Ahmadinejad is still here

As to Khamenei himself

Political attitude

In his speeches Khamenei consistently dwells on familiar themes of the 1979 revolution: the importance of justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islam; the need for resolute opposition to Israel and United States. <12> Dealing with the presidents who have served during his reign, Khamenei has successfully scuttled President Rafansjani's attempts to find a modus vivendi with the United States, President Khatami's aspirations for a more democratic Islamic state, and President Ahmadinejad's desire for confrontation. <12>

Domestic policy

Khamenei is widely regarded by some as the figurehead of the country's conservative establishment.<23>

Ali Khamenei has been supportive of scientific progress in Iran. He was among the first Islamic clerics to allow stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.<24> In 2004, Khamenei said that the country's progress is dependent on investment in the field of science and technology. He also said that attaching a high status to scholars and scientists in society would help talents to flourish and science and technology to become domesticated, thus ensuring the country's progress and development.<25>

In 2007, Khamenei requested that government officials speed up Iran's move towards economic privatization. Its last move towards such a goal was in 2004, when Article 44 of the constitution was overturned. Article 44 had decreed that Iran's core infrastructure should remain state-run. Khamenei also suggested that ownership rights should be protected in courts set up by the Justice Ministry; the hope was that this new protection would give a measure of security to and encourage private investment.<26>

Additionally, Khamenei has stated that he believes in the importance of nuclear technology for civilian purposes because "oil and gas reserves cannot last forever."<27>

In April 30 2008, Ali Khamenei backed President Ahmadinejad’s economic policy and said the West was struggling with more economic difficulties than Iran, with a "crisis" spreading from the United States to Europe, and inflation was a widespread problem. Iranian leader said that the ongoing economic crisis which has crippled the world has been unprecedented in the past 60 years. “This crisis has forced the UN to declare state of emergency for food shortages around the globe but foreign radios have focused on Iran to imply that the current price hikes and inflation in the country are the results of carelessness on the part of Iranian officials which of course is not true”, he said. Khamenei emphasized that no one has the right to blame Iranian government for Iran’s economic problems. He also advised people and the government to be content and avoid waste in order to solve economic problems. “I advise you to keep in your mind that this great nation is never afraid of economic sanctions”, he added.<9><10><11><12>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei

[Hugabear]

7. Great find

But one can't expect reason to prevail when sensationalism is so much more fun. :sarcasm:

[oberliner]

9. Here's another "great find"

Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Friday for the destruction of Israel, describing it as a "cancerous tumor" in the Middle East.

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

"The Palestinian issue is not an internal Israeli matter. It involves the interests of the whole Islamic world, including Iran. All should strive to return that piece of land to Islamic hands."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

[oberliner]

8. Wikipedia can be ridiculous

Putting aside whatever narrative the editors of wikipedia wish to create regarding Iran's Supreme Leader, I will make the following argument:

The leaders of Iran, from the ultimate ruler - Khamenei to the President - Ahmadinejad (who is a lot more like a second-in-command than a "figurehead" as some like to label him) do not recognize Israel.

They do not believe that Israel has the right to exist as a country and each of them (Ahmadinejad moreso) have made hateful comments on that subject with some frequency.

I think that the leadership of Iran (like most leaders) are pragmatic people who do not want to lose control of the country.

That said, they have actively funded and provided military support to various groups that have acted violently against Israel over the past decade or so.

I do not think it is outside the realm of the possible, or even the likely, to think that Iran might attempt a more severe larger-scale attack on Israel via one of its proxy organizations were they afforded the opportunity to do so.

[Hugabear]

10. If you believe Iran is such a threat, do you support military action against them?

How comfortable are you with their nuclear program? Do you think that given the opportunity, Iran would supply a terrorist organization with either nuclear weapons or materials for a dirty bomb?

Would you support military action by either Israel or the US to stop their nuclear program?

[oberliner]

11. I agree with Obama's position on this topic

The US Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, called for tighter sanctions on Iran today after it fired nine test missiles that were capable of hitting American and Israeli bases.

"Iran is a great threat. We have to make sure we are working with our allies to apply tightened pressure on Iran," the Illinois senator said.

Iran demonstrated its military force with the test-flight of nine long and medium-range missiles in the strategic Strait of Hormouz, through which 40% of the world's oil passes.

Tehran said the exercise was in retaliation to threats from the US and Israel over its disputed nuclear projects, which it claims are civilian.

Obama said if he were to be elected president, he would combine more direct diplomacy with the threat of much tougher economic sanctions.

"I think what this underscores is the need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behaviour, and frankly we just have not been able to do that over the last several years," Obama said.

He cited reports that US exports to Iran have increased under George Bush, even as the administration has toughened its rhetoric.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/iran.usa?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Those are his remarks from July.

I agree with Obama that we need to ramp up the pressure via tougher economic sanctions.

Serious diplomacy, tough sanctions - these steps actually have worked relatively well with North Korea - I am hopeful that with Obama as president they can work with Iran as well.

[Hugabear]

12. And if economic sanctions don't work?

Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. There isn't any solid evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Given this, and the fact that Russia is likely to ignore those sanctions, what should happen if Iran continues its work on its nuclear reactors?

[oberliner]

14. Once again, I wholeheartedly support Obama's position on this subject

Here are some more detailed remarks from him:

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region that’s not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place. Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

To prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down.

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza.

The United States leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_fo/

He explains it a lot better than I can!

[azurnoir]

16. Unfortunately the two nations that would count the most

those being China and Russia are unlikely to be "with us" on this.

[azurnoir]

13. Everyone needs a boogey man n/t

[azurnoir]

15. So you actually do believe in the

suicidal Muslim meme? That is what you are claiming would amount to. any "proxy" attack would be dealt with quite mercilessly, both in Iran and what ever proxy country was involved

[oberliner]

19. Like I said, I go along with Obama on this

I don't believe any kind of suicidal meme.

[shaayecanaan]

17. Its not the ignorance that annoys me...

its the fact that, in this age of the internet, that ignorance can be so easily remedied.

The Supreme Leader does not have "total control over Iran". Essentially, the President is the head of executive power for the domestic affirs of state, while the Supreme Leader is the head of state as far as foreign affairs are concerned.

This peculiar splitting of executive power between the two posts is a deliberate attempt to avoid the rise of an autocratic Shah, which obviously the revolution was attempting to avoid.

I expect Ahmadinejad to come out with a lot more of these remarks as the May 2009 election approaches, and I expect uncritical dills in the Western press to report them with the same breathlessness that they have exhibited to date.

[oberliner]

18. Thanks for the clarification

I apologize for annoying you.

Internet references can be confusing:

The comments by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei represent unusually glowing praise of the president, who upon his election in 2005 sparked a confrontation with the West by resuming uranium enrichment and vociferously denouncing Israel.

It is the first time that Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, has expressed such strong support for any other Iranian politician.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/24/irans-supreme-leader-defe_n_120916.html

Some sources seem to indicate that the Supreme Leader has the final say on all state matters in Iran.