Ahmadinejad is counting on Obama to ruin the US

[Caligirl]

According to Forbes:

"Ahmadinejad and his advisers believe they have already won and point to Obama's conciliatory position as evidence.

They also think that Obama will win.

"Very soon," Ahmadinejad told the Ramadan meeting in New York, "we shall witness monumental changes in the world. America has suffered repeated defeats in all domains and is reaching the end of the road."

"Pro-reform groups in Tehran regard Obama's position as an endorsement of Ahmadinejad's claim that the Western powers in general and the U.S. in particular are "sunset" powers, while Islam represents the "sunrise" power of the future."

"At the same time, Obama legitimizes Ahmadinejad, who faces re-election in June 2009. Strengthened by what he presents as an American retreat, Ahmadinejad would portray his critics as cowards or traitors--this at a time when more and more voices are raised inside Iran urging him to stop his murderous rants and comply with the U.N. resolutions.

The latest calls in that direction have come from Ayatollah Abdallah Nuri, the leading pro-reform figure likely to challenge Ahmadinejad in next year's presidential election. It has also been endorsed by Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Peace laureate, and Mostafa Tajzadeh, a leader of the Pro-Reform Movement in Tehran. Statements by independent trade unions have also called on Ahmadinejad to meet the preconditions set by the U.N. in order to stop further economic hardship in Iran."

Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.

Obama And Iran - Forbes.com

That's an interesting read, Allie.

I suspect Ahmadinejad is the sort of politician who would use either result in the US election to campaign that Iran is getting stronger.

 

[Caligirl]

yeah, except he lives in Iran, genius.

The two are pretty closely linked, I think the point was that making Iraq weaker by taking out Saddam helped put Ahmadinejad in office. So, you could say that Bush got Ahmadinejad elected.

it would make about as much sense as anything, I guess.

 

[editec]

Sitting down and talking to a guy who calls for the complete destruction of Isreal probably isn't a good idea.

Now remember, before some of you go off half cocked, I agree that the Palestinians are getting screwed no less than some of you do, and think that the radical Zionists are as much at fault as any radical Islamic for that mess of late.

But until this Iranian leader stops calling for the murder of millions of Jews, until he calms down and stop pandering to the hatemongering anti-Jewish forces in his own nation, I think public talks (note I said public?) are a mistake.

There is no real reason for Iran and the USA to be at loggerheads EXCEPT that insane rhetoric.

The moment that Iran can come to grips with the fact that Israel exists and the USA is going to be its ally, (not always a great ally, but an ally, anyway) then the USA and Iran need to FORMALLY talk.

I hope to GOD that America is conducting back channel sotto voce talks right now.

We need allies in that area of the world, at least as much as Iran could use some help repairing the disasterour outcome of the Post Shah madness they went through.

 

[Red Dawn]

Sitting down and talking to a guy who calls for the complete destruction of Isreal probably isn't a good idea.........


.......There is no real reason for Iran and the USA to be at loggerheads EXCEPT that insane rhetoric.

First, American Presidents talked to Soviet leaders who were calling for the destruction of America and the West.

Second, Obama would be an idiot to sit down with Ahmadinjad. Ahmadinajad isn't the leader of Iran. Ali Khamenei is. Ahmadinajad is a mere figure head with no real power.

The Supreme Leader, Khamenei is the one that controls' iran's military, their security apparatus, and their overall policy. Ahmadinajad has no authority to contral iran's miliary, their security, or their foreign policy.

This has been pointed out many times by Obama and Biden. But, republicans still appear to be listening to Limbaugh talking points, that Ahmadinajad is the Leader of Iran.

 

[Agnapostate]

Sitting down and talking to a guy who calls for the complete destruction of Isreal probably isn't a good idea.

When did he call for the complete destruction of Israel? If you're referring to the "wiped off the map" remark, that was a mistranslation, which should have actually have been fairly obvious to interpreters, as "wiped off the map" is an English idiom. Ahmadinejad's remarks are reported as having been "een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad," or "[Ayatollah Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time."

It is first notable that he did not reference Israel, but the regime in current occupation of Jerusalem. He was referring to the current government of Israel, not the citizenry of Israel or Jewish people in general. In fact, Ahmadinejad has expressed support for the Jewish people, while at the same time condemning Israeli policies. He has said that, "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish." Yet, anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are often conflated by pro-Israel lobbies for political gain. Ahmadinejad also said that Jews lived in Iran and were represented by the Parliament.

Next, the phrase "wiped off the map" suggests a hostile military threat, while the phrase "vanish from the page of time" merely expresses a desire that the interventionist Israeli government will eventually lose power and influence. Ahmadinejad has explicitly opposed military action against Israel, declaring, "I assure you... there won't be any war in the future." He has also said that "there is no need for any measures by the Iranian people" to bring about the end of the "Zionist regime" in Israel. Supreme Leader Ali Khameini also said that Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation." The distortion of his claims is essentially equivalent to claiming that Americans who oppose the Bush regime and its policies are calling for its violent overthrow, which is obviously untrue.

Hence, I would question the accuracy of your remarks.

 

[JimH52]

You mean Obama might send banks into default? You mean he might be forced to spend 800 Billion of tax money to bail out Wall Street? You mean he might spy on phone calls with a warrant and open prisons in foreign countries where he will hold people without charges endlessly?

Wait...that has already happened.