Monday, November 19, 2007
What do George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in common?
What do George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in common? Why, their political opponents think they are nuts:
Iran's moderates are intensifying criticism of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, landing their first blows in a bitter political fight ahead of elections next year.
The moderate heavyweights Mohammad Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani [only in Iran and in the minds of AFP are these extremists "moderates" - ed.] have been unusually explicit in their criticism of Ahmadinejad's economic policies and his analysis of the threat posed by the United States....
Mohammad Atrianfar, a confidant of Rafsanjani, said the explicit criticism had been triggered by the degree of concern amongst moderates about the state of the country under Ahmadinejad.
"Rafsanjani is genuinely worried," the leading newspaper editor told AFP.
"He was one of those who created this (Islamic) system and as he was a leader in the (1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war) he knows what war means and what price people have to pay.
"Ahmadinejad does not have a true idea about reality. He has no sense of fear. He thinks that if he adopts radical positions his rivals will step back. The attacks are set to multiply ahead of the elections."
Something to think about, for those of you who believe that we can be certain that we can deter the Islamic Republic from using nuclear weapons.
6 Comments:
By 
David M, at
Mon Nov 19, 12:20:00 PM:
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 11/19/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Nov 19, 02:07:00 PM:
Major difference: Mahmoud *is* nuts.
By antithaca, at
Mon Nov 19, 06:41:00 PM:
This question of whether we could deter Ahmadinejad or not seems quite real. I'm often quite skeptical of "taking rhetoric seriously"...particularly when I read books like 'Fighting for American Manhood' (the author quotes extensively from House floor speeches in the run-up to the Spanish-American War). But another book, 'Ideology and US Foreign Policy' has challenged my view to a degree.
The problem [for me] is, the author of that last book concludes that rhetoric should be taken seriously if it is successful in achieving its aims.
So, when the rhetoric is "wipe the Zionist entity off the map"...waiting to see if the rhetoric succeeds seems not to be an option.
Reading the article TH uses...it seems maybe we're onto something as we may be creating pressure to have him removed by Iranian means...which would appear likely to bring an end to Iran's program...and all around be the most desireable outcome.
By 
, at
Mon Nov 19, 07:41:00 PM:
If we learn nothing else from the Third Reich, we should learn that sometimes crazy people mean what they say.
Given that, the best indicator of intentions remains one's actions, not words. The speedy re-armament of Germany, reoccupation of the Rhineland, and onset of a bellicose police state ought to have tipped people off in the 30s.
Likewise, aggressive interference in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq along with a nuclear weapons program and overt threats ought to tip us off.
By , at
Tue Nov 20, 12:59:00 AM:
What dose AL GORE and PINNOCIO have in common? THEIR BOTH WOODEN HEADED AND WHEN THEY LIE WE CAN SEE THEIR NOSES GET LONGER
By , at
Tue Nov 20, 01:07:00 PM:
Interesting stuff TH. Ultimately I think Ahmadinejad, while extremely cavalier with the lives of others, would probably be very guarded with his own, putting a nuclear strike out of the question. But I have no doubt that he is pursuing any and all possible means of covertly attacking the US (and its allies), and will continue to do so as long as he remains in power.
It seems like it might fall (once again) on Israel to do what's in America's best interests. Thankfully they're up to the task.
