Talking tough on Ahmadinejad
"There are seven billion people living on this planet, close to 200 countries. Why is it that politicians here in the United States only rise to defend the Zionists? What commitment forces the U.S. government to victimize itself in support of a regime that is basically a criminal one? We can't understand it." Ahmadinejad.
I do! The European Jews would have been fools to stampede towards Palestine and invade the holy places of billions of people without first having obtained a GUARANTEE from the major powers of the world that they would stand by the Jews. And why would the Major powers do that? I think the answer can be found in Theodor Herzl's diaries. It is composed of two major parts. The first part has to do with the abundance of Jewish money. Few in numbers but so endowed financially, which money is sought after by those seeking power in their elections campaigns. The second major aspect has to do with what Herzl characterized as unique power that Jews have of colluding to bring down a nation that they don't like. Nobody in the world is seeking this kind of enemy.
The author of this article wrote: "how can rational analysis be combined with a forceful, principled and emotionally charged stance in dealing with Iran?" It is not an easy question to answer, because I am not sure how one can be rational and emotional at the same time. I also am not sure what 'stance' stands for. It is possible that what the author has in mind is bombs raining on innocent Iranians since has used the word 'forceful'at least twice.
A forceful message of this sort would increase Obama's stature as a leader who speaks both to the mind and to the heart; it would help him win the hearts of Jewish voters in the US and it would calm the worries of Israelis who are deeply anxious about Iran's race to acquire the bomb.
Just like Ahmadinejar said, of all the billions of people of the 200 countries in the word, it is the Jews' best interest that everyone seems to be looking out for.
I do! The European Jews would have been fools to stampede towards Palestine and invade the holy places of billions of people without first having obtained a GUARANTEE from the major powers of the world that they would stand by the Jews. And why would the Major powers do that? I think the answer can be found in Theodor Herzl's diaries. It is composed of two major parts. The first part has to do with the abundance of Jewish money. Few in number but so endowed financially, which money is sought after by those seeking power in their elections campaigns. The second major aspect has to do with what Herzl characterized as unique power that Jews have of colluding to bring down a nation that they don't like. Nobody in the world is seeking this kind of enemy.
For Barack Obama, taking a more aggressive stance towards the Iranian president would pay dividends
All comments (204)
o Carlo Strenger
o guardian.co.uk,
o Monday September 29 2008
Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic tirades seem to be coming straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While it is true that he sometimes comes across as more of a clown than a serious leader of a powerful country striving to be a major player in world politics, I do not agree with Lionel Beehner's suggestion that we should disregard Ahmadinejad in determining policy towards Iran. It must be made clear that a man like him has no place in the world order.
In principle I favour cool, rational analysis over visceral gut reactions when it comes to strategic policy decisions. But it is wrong to belittle the importance of an event like Ahmadinejad's telling the UN his paranoid fantasies about Zionist domination of the world and the financial markets. There are red lines the crossing of which the civilised world must react to forcefully and unequivocally, as the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, did recently (and he certainly cannot be accused of rightwing sabre-rattling).
So how can rational analysis be combined with a forceful, principled and emotionally charged stance in dealing with Iran?
This issue played an important role in the first US presidential debate, aired on Friday night. McCain took an intransigent stance that refuses direct engagement with Iran, whereas Obama favours direct talks without preconditions.
I am a staunch supporter of Obama and I think his geopolitical understanding is superior to McCain's. Obama is, by his very identity, both American and cosmopolitan, and he has a much clearer sense of the incredible harm the last eight years have done to the US's standing in the world. He would probably use soft power in ways that could defuse much of the tension that has built up between the Islamic world and the west.
His position is also supported by several experts on Iran I have spoken to. All of them say that Iran has felt for a long time that it is not receiving its legitimate place as a major player in the Middle East, and that the only way to defuse the situation is to find ways of letting them in. And all of them say that Iran has never forgiven the US for its intervention in 1953 when the CIA helped topple Mossadeq.
Finally (and surprisingly), all of them say that most Iranians still have an instinctive liking for the US, but cannot find a way towards rapprochement, and that it is probably the one Muslim country in the Middle East that has a chance of becoming a modern democracy in the foreseeable future. Hence Obama's idea of engaging in some kind of dialogue with Iran is certainly the right strategic choice.
But Obama's anaemic stance towards Ahmadinejad during the debate does not serve him and his strategic proposal well. He did not muster the aggression needed to make it clear, beyond any doubt, that a leader like Ahmadinejad has no place in the community of nations. It would serve Obama well to express much more visceral condemnation of Ahmadinejad, taking his cues from Bernard Kouchner.
Precisely because Obama understands that Ahmadinejad is not the ultimate authority in Iran, he must reach out to the Iranian people with a clear message. "Your demand for a respectable place in the community of nations is heard and taken seriously. But you must also know that you will pay a heavy price for re-electing Ahmadinejad, and that that such a choice will leave your country in the position of a pariah state rather than a legitimate partner for dialogue."
A forceful message of this sort would increase Obama's stature as a leader who speaks both to the mind and to the heart; it would help him win the hearts of Jewish voters in the US and it would calm the worries of Israelis who are deeply anxious about Iran's race to acquire the bomb.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/iran.usa