Tweet
U.S. IS ONLY PROPPING UP AHMADINEJAD
By Stephen Zunes Commentary
Contra Costa Times
October 6, 2007 Saturday
California
ON SEPT. 26, I WAS among a group of American scholars and religious
leaders who met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New
York. We frankly shared our strong opposition to certain Iranian
government policies and provocative statements made by the Iranian
president, while avoiding the insulting language employed by Columbia
University President Lee Bollinger.
Our more respectful posture led to a more open exchange of views,
though Ahmadinejad was still evasive and not terribly coherent when
it came to specific issues.
Indeed, his ramblings and the superficiality of his analysis made
him come across as more pathetic than evil.
After the meeting, I'm more convinced than ever that the Bush
administration is making a huge mistake by demonizing Ahmadinejad.
He is not the all-powerful leader that the Bush administration makes
him out to be.
The president of Iran is constitutionally weak. The real power in Iran
rests in the hands of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other conservative
Shiite clerics on the Council of Guardians.
Just as they were able to stifle the reformist agenda of Ahmadinejad's
immediate predecessor, Mohammed Khatami, they have similarly thwarted
the radical agenda of the current president, whom they view as
something of a loose cannon.
The Iranian president is not commander in chief of the armed forces,
so Ahmadinejad would be incapable of ordering an attack on Israel
even if Iran had the means to do so.
Though the clerics certainly take hard-line positions on a number
of policy areas, collective leadership normally mitigates impulsive
actions such as launching a war of aggression. Bold and risky policies
rarely come out of committees.
What's more, Ahmadinejad's influence is waning. Recent changes
in the leadership of the influential Assembly of Experts and the
Revolutionary Guards have strengthened moderate conservatives allied
to the clerical leadership and weakened the more radical elements
allied with the president.
His mismanagement of the economy has also lost him the grass-roots
support that made possible his upset win in the 2005 presidential
campaign. In municipal elections in December, his slates lost heavily
to moderate conservatives and reformers.
Given his weakened position, it is especially counterproductive for
Washington to keep denouncing him, because this provides Ahmadinejad
with the oxygen that fuels the fire of his reprehensible agenda. And
it gives him some stature for standing up to the United States.
Most people in the Middle East would likely agree with the observation
he made during his meeting with us that "the United States has many
thousands of troops on our borders and threatens to attack us. Why
is it, then, that Iran is seen as a threat?"
Ahmadinejad also gains credibility when he accuses the United States
of unfairly singling out Iran. Unfortunately, he is correct on this
point. And the issue of double standards has real resonance in the
Arab and Muslim world.
For example: Why is the United States so obsessed with Iran's nuclear
program -- still many years away from producing an atomic bomb --
while we support Pakistan, India and Israel, which have already
developed nuclear weapons and which are also in violation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear programs?
Why do we blame Iran for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq when
95 percent of U.S. casualties are from anti-Iranian Sunni insurgents?
Why do we focus on Iranian human rights abuses while we continue to
support the even more oppressive and theocratic Islamic regime in
Saudi Arabia?
Why do we attack the Iranian president's denial of the genocide of
European Jews while remaining silent in the face of Turkish leaders'
denial of the genocide of Armenians?
Despite the limits on Ahmadinejad's power, as long as U.S. policy
is based on such double standards rather than consistent principles,
his inflammatory rhetoric will continue to find an audience.
Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco
and the author of "Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots
of Terrorism."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Stephen Zunes Commentary
Contra Costa Times
October 6, 2007 Saturday
California
ON SEPT. 26, I WAS among a group of American scholars and religious
leaders who met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New
York. We frankly shared our strong opposition to certain Iranian
government policies and provocative statements made by the Iranian
president, while avoiding the insulting language employed by Columbia
University President Lee Bollinger.
Our more respectful posture led to a more open exchange of views,
though Ahmadinejad was still evasive and not terribly coherent when
it came to specific issues.
Indeed, his ramblings and the superficiality of his analysis made
him come across as more pathetic than evil.
After the meeting, I'm more convinced than ever that the Bush
administration is making a huge mistake by demonizing Ahmadinejad.
He is not the all-powerful leader that the Bush administration makes
him out to be.
The president of Iran is constitutionally weak. The real power in Iran
rests in the hands of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other conservative
Shiite clerics on the Council of Guardians.
Just as they were able to stifle the reformist agenda of Ahmadinejad's
immediate predecessor, Mohammed Khatami, they have similarly thwarted
the radical agenda of the current president, whom they view as
something of a loose cannon.
The Iranian president is not commander in chief of the armed forces,
so Ahmadinejad would be incapable of ordering an attack on Israel
even if Iran had the means to do so.
Though the clerics certainly take hard-line positions on a number
of policy areas, collective leadership normally mitigates impulsive
actions such as launching a war of aggression. Bold and risky policies
rarely come out of committees.
What's more, Ahmadinejad's influence is waning. Recent changes
in the leadership of the influential Assembly of Experts and the
Revolutionary Guards have strengthened moderate conservatives allied
to the clerical leadership and weakened the more radical elements
allied with the president.
His mismanagement of the economy has also lost him the grass-roots
support that made possible his upset win in the 2005 presidential
campaign. In municipal elections in December, his slates lost heavily
to moderate conservatives and reformers.
Given his weakened position, it is especially counterproductive for
Washington to keep denouncing him, because this provides Ahmadinejad
with the oxygen that fuels the fire of his reprehensible agenda. And
it gives him some stature for standing up to the United States.
Most people in the Middle East would likely agree with the observation
he made during his meeting with us that "the United States has many
thousands of troops on our borders and threatens to attack us. Why
is it, then, that Iran is seen as a threat?"
Ahmadinejad also gains credibility when he accuses the United States
of unfairly singling out Iran. Unfortunately, he is correct on this
point. And the issue of double standards has real resonance in the
Arab and Muslim world.
For example: Why is the United States so obsessed with Iran's nuclear
program -- still many years away from producing an atomic bomb --
while we support Pakistan, India and Israel, which have already
developed nuclear weapons and which are also in violation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear programs?
Why do we blame Iran for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq when
95 percent of U.S. casualties are from anti-Iranian Sunni insurgents?
Why do we focus on Iranian human rights abuses while we continue to
support the even more oppressive and theocratic Islamic regime in
Saudi Arabia?
Why do we attack the Iranian president's denial of the genocide of
European Jews while remaining silent in the face of Turkish leaders'
denial of the genocide of Armenians?
Despite the limits on Ahmadinejad's power, as long as U.S. policy
is based on such double standards rather than consistent principles,
his inflammatory rhetoric will continue to find an audience.
Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco
and the author of "Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots
of Terrorism."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress