President Ahmadinejad: A Man With Whom We Can Negotiate?

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

First the Turks claim the Armenian Genocide never happened, now Iran denies the Holocaust. Should we reasonably expect fair dealing from these people?

Iran leader: Move Israel to Europe

Ahmadinejad casts doubt on Holocaust

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed doubt that the Holocaust occurred and suggested Israel be moved to Europe.

His comments, reported by Iran's official IRNA news agency from a news conference he gave on Thursday in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca, follows his call in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map," which sparked widespread international condemnation.

"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said.

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

Six million Jews were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad's remarks drew swift rebukes from Israel and Washington.

"This is not the first time, unfortunately, that the Iranian president has expressed the most outrageous ideas concerning Jews and Israel," said Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.

"He is not just Israel's problem. He is a worry for the entire international community," he added.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "It just further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran and it's all the more reason why it's so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons."

Once allies

Religious hardliners in Iran do not publicly deny the Holocaust happened, but say its scale has been exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel and continued Western support for it.

Close allies when Iran was ruled by the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran and Israel have become implacable foes since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution.
Israel accuses Iran of giving arms and funding to militant Palestinian groups such as Islamic Jihad and of building nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges.

Tehran calls Israel a "terrorist state" and has developed missiles that can reach it. It says it would use them if Israel, itself believed to be nuclear-armed, tried to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

Earlier in his remarks, the Iranian president, a former Revolutionary Guardsman who won a surprise election victory in June, said:

"The question is, where do those who rule in Palestine as occupiers come from? Where were they born? Where did their fathers live? They have no roots in Palestine but they have taken the fate of Palestine in their hands.

"Isn't the right to national self-determination one of the principles of the United Nations charter? Why do they deprive Palestinians of this right?"

Jews trace their roots in Israel back to Biblical times.

Ahmadinejad concluded his remarks by reiterating Iran's proposal that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved via a referendum of all the inhabitants of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, as well as Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries.

"Whatever they decide will be accepted by all humanity. This is a clear democratic solution which is based on international principles," he said.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iran.israel.reut/index.html

[BillyVance 34]

Let's wait and see what happens... maybe Israel will pull another nuclear plant attack to set Iran back 10 years, like they did to Saddam years back...

He keeps this up, he could be as bad as that short little fucker Kim Jong Il...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[miked10270 0]

I wonder if he's going to become a man who we CAN deal with once he does acquire atomic weapons and comes to terms with them.

The reason I say this is that I'm just starting to look at the cold war from a historical view (rather than as a participant) and what's shaking me from my readings of Gaddis (John Lewis -Yale) is how successive leaders from Stalin through Kruschev and Truman through Eisenhower & Kennedy's attitudes ALL became distinctly Claisewitzian as they actually "got their fingers on the nuclear trigger" regardless of whether they'd actually read Clauswitz or not.

It appears, strangely, that actual possession & control of nuclear weapons is a very moderating influence!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

I wonder if he's going to become a man who we CAN deal with once he does acquire atomic weapons and comes to terms with them.



It appears, strangely, that actual possession & control of nuclear weapons is a very moderating influence!

You want to bet the farm that Iran will operate according to the rational actor model in the event that country acquires atomic weapons?

To date no theocracy has possessed atomic weapons and the secularists with their fingers on the trigger have comported themselves as rational actors. Fundamentalist religion injects an element of irrationality into the decision making process for all parties concerned.

Perhaps President Ahmadinejad is just like any other politician who spouts what ever rhetoric intended for domestic consumption will help maintain his base of political support.

On the other hand maybe he and enough of the ruling Imams, or a radical splinter group, actually believe that Allah’s day of judgment is at hand (God will have given Iran, the Islamic vanguard, the mightiest sword ever wielded by the hand of Man, right?) and Iran will launch a lightening strike against its arch enemy Israel with Iran’s atomic arsenal thereby permanently resolving the Israeli question.

It doesn’t matter which scenario is probable if you’re the Israelis and your intell strongly urges that preparations are being made by Iran to lauch multiple missiles of a nuclear-capable type. You don’t wait to see whether the missiles are conventional, atomic or for testing purposes, no, you launch your own preemptive nuclear strike on Iran because you cannot withstand absorbing an atomic attack and so you must respond on the basis of the worst case scenario.

If Iran is permitted to build aircraft or missile deployable atomic weapons this condition will decidely NOT exert a “moderating influence” on world affairs and atomic weapons will MORE likely be used than is the case were Iran not to get its hands on them. Further consider the prospect that Iran might someday choose to arm terrorists with radioactive components for dirty bombs or with a small, highly portable atomic device similar to the U.S. “Davy Crockett” in scale (unsophisticated design, robust, smaller than a duffle bag, weighs less than 100 lbs). That additional threat also will have to be addressed by assuming the worst case scenario, say, by shooting suspicious individuals who are observed toting around unwieldy luggage.

I sincerely hope that Iran does not acquire atomic weapons until and unless the country abandons theocracy and achieves a stable track record as a secular state at peace with Israel.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[miked10270 0]

Very valid point... However....

"You want to bet the farm that Iran will Stalin would operate according to the rational actor model in the event that country acquires atomic weapons?" (if you were looking at this 60 years ago)

"To date no theocracy has possessed atomic weapons ... Fundamentalist religion injects an element of irrationality into the decision making process"

But nuclear weapons have been held by fundamentalist political regimes or extreme dictatorships with a significant religious or political hatred of their immediate enemies. India & Pakistan, or North Korea for example. Strangely, their possession is announced (commonly by means of a test) yet they are NOT used in anger.

In fact, the only use of atomic weapons was the use by the US in very singular circumstances - viz: Historically, any newly developed weapon had always been immediately passed to the military for use and was used. Truman was by his own admission almost completely unaware & singularly ill-informed of the nature of the weapon. Upon becoming aware of the nature of the (nuclear) weapon and despite having a monopoly on such weapons, Truman began attempts to vacate this monopoly and to place all nuclear weapons under international control.

Nuclear weapons bring a whole new totality to waging war... One that fails Clausewitz's test in that the war should not destroy the very thing that you are trying to defend (or promote)!

Let's play a (very short) war game. I am Iran. I have nuclear weapons. What are the consequences of me using them against The Great Satan and his Iraqi, Israeli or British lackeys? Will I win or will I enter what was once called "Mutual Assured Destruction" and thus lose?

I suspect that Ahmadinejad would do no more than rattle that particular sabre while keeping it very firmly in it's scabbard just as Stalin & Eisenhower (for example) did.

Actually using the weapon, even torough a third party would fail the Clausewitz test in that it's possible to identify the reactor that atomic materials originated from.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

I do not agree with many of your facts and conclusions. Certainly you are entitled to an opinion and I will leave you with that. Cheers.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[cyric77 0]

Well considering past US-Iranian relations it is going to be difficult to negotiate with any president of Iran. Mohammad Khatami was the president from 1997-2005(moderate Islamist), and we still were unable to establish official US-Iranian dialogue. A lot of the this has to do with the power held by the Council of Guardians, specifically Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has continued the hardline stance of Khomenei. Iran will always be distrustful of the US due to the Mossadegh coup, and the instillment of Shah Reza Pahlavi as dictator from 1953-1979 with the aid of US and British Intelligene services. The fact of the matter is Iran will eventually have nuclear weapons, because the policy options available to the US are so limitied. Those policy options being 1.) Continue with the "Status Quo" approach, 2.)Selective Economic and Political engagment, and 3.) Military engagment. So no I don't think we will be able to unilaterally negotiate anything with Amadinejad who is a hardline conservative Islamist, and protege' of Khamenei, especially if we were unable to do it with former moderate Islamist President Khatami.