Two pro-Israel speakers at the AIPAC policy conference said yesterday that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the bete noir of the lobby, is also a boon to the lobby; for if the Iranian President is not reelected next month, AIPAC's case against Iranian nukes will be damaged.
At a breakout session on the Iranian elections, Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said of the Iranian government:
“You have those cross-chains of command, where the Supreme Leader [Ali Khameini] is in charge of all foreign and defense policy in the Islamic republic, and the president is very much on the sideline. There’s been discussion for four or five years now about how powerful or powerless Ahmadinejad is. We know that he’s the gift that keeps on giving. He keeps telling us that he wants to kill us, and therefore, we have to take him seriously. But can he actually do what he says? And the answer is… we don’t know.”
Later a questioner raised the issue again. What if Ahmadinejad is defeated in June's election and replaced by “someone less inflammatory”-- what would that do to efforts to publicize Iran’s threat?
Ken Pollack of the Saban Center of the Brookings Institution acknowledged the concern. Throughout the panel, Pollack had struck a hawkish stance in line with the AIPAC position of Congress authorizing stiff sanctions to hurt the Iranian economy if Iran goes ahead with nukes. He said:
“There is that issue out there, there is definitely that risk. [Someone in the Bush administration, name unintelligible] would say that Ahmadinejad was the best diplomat we had out there. Because every time he opened his mouth, he drove another country into our camp. And if we get somebody who basically is pursuing the exact same policies but doing so in a less inflammatory manner, that may make things even more difficult… to get countries on board with the kind of sanctions and kind of pressure [we need to bring to bear]... Without Ahmadinejad it will be an even more challenging task.”
6,500 jews in high places are screaming for the head of another evil one. Things have not changed in 2009 years, have they?
If Ahmadinejad is a gift that keeps on giving, those who perceive him as such have already committed to war against his country, and value his stupid rants as the pretext, the casus belli, they need and would not otherwise have. So why have they predetermined to start a war in Iran, and why is this the centerpiece of such massive, diligent, persistent efforts? Only if we understand the true motive can we deal effectively with this campaign. It is hard to assign a second strategic blunder on the scale of Iraq to mere stupidity. What are they thinking?
"Ahmadinejad was the best diplomt we had out there. Because every time he opened his mouth, he drove another country into our camp." And every time the Zionists do another Gaza or Lebanon, they drive another country into the anti-American camp. Their MO is to tie themselves to America so tightly that we are forced to sink or swim with whatever they do — and they intend to do plenty more. It's the same MO that Zionists use with Jews in the diaspora. And it's all so shameless that most normal people simply can't fathom that degree of cynical opportunism and calculating ambition, but there it is.
If Ahmadinejad is a gift that keeps on giving, those who perceive him as such have already committed to war against his country Because, Doppler, the truth is this If Ahmadinejad is a gift that keeps on giving, those who perceive him as such have already committed to war against this country. Imagine Pollack having the temerity to say this: "Without Ahmadinejad it will be an even more challenging task.” The task exists in Pollack, AIPAC and Israel's mind separate and apart from Ahmadinejad.
The claim that he keeps saying he wants to kill Jews simply isn't true, though.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, RowanBerkeley. (1) He was quoting Khomeini from the 1980s. (2) He was referring to the government in Israel, which he called the Zionist government. (3) He said specifically "pages in time" not "wipe off map." The Israeli translation team of MEMRI created that one. But you would never catch an AIPAC/Zionist in a lip-lock with the truth. Too much to ask.
His support of militias that undertake terror at all is the propaganda fete for those that desire a reason to expand as defense, rather than to reconcile. Hamas is currently not initiating rocket-fire on Israeli civilians. Hezbollah is currently not initiating rocket-fire on Israeli civilians. Its hard to know if they have changed their hearts, or only their tactics.
Efraim Halevy said such a thing about Ahmadinejad being a gift last year. Small world.
Israel's support (with blank check from Uncle Sam) of the dispossession of Palestinians and occupation over same, plus Israeli's pattern of assassination of Palestinian leaders is the propaganda fete for those that desire expanded defense of the Palestinians; survival as a people precedes reconciliation.
Will be interesting if Ahmadinejad goes down, considering Lieberman-N have gone up. Will the MSM and our government keep pasting racist things Lieberman has said across the board of public opinion?
Revealing. Signs of moderation among its opponents are Zionism's worst nightmare.
Where is the proof that Iran or Ahmedinejad are supporting Hamas? It doesn't seem far-fetched but where is the proof? Furthermore, to what EXTENT are they supporting Hamas, if in fact they are? And drop the 'terror' line, Witty. Israel kills far more civilians than any of these militias. You're using the terror line to isolate Israel's opposition rather than to apply a standard for all. Hence, why you do not characterize Israel's use of force and the 40+ year Occupation as an act of terror. Your use of the word is purely political. It has nothing to do with morality or justice. (This is LD btw.)
Of course Hamas has adopted terror as means of "dissent". You don't call suicide bombing a cafe "terror", or firing rockets at civilian cities? The evidence that I'm aware of Iran's support of Hamas is in the very common Farsi notifications on Qassams that land in Sderot and elsewhere. I don't have access or even photos of evidence of Iranian involvement in funding either through Syria or Gaza.
You forgot to say if Israel's actions, which kill far larger numbers of civilians and in many cases intentionally, are also terrorism.
No, Witty, I agree that they use terror. But the terminology 'terrorist organization' is political, not moral. Not true either. I mean, there are very few pure terrorist organizations. All militant nationalist groups like Hamas (and Irgun/etc. before them) use terror. There is also a term in the realm of international law called 'belligerent reprisals'. You attack our civilians, we attack yours. I don't think it's particularly helpful and I doubt any seriously moral person does but it provides context and perspective. So to use the term 'terrorist organization' evokes quite narrow imagery and is purely for rhetorical/political purposes. Your dishonesty could be dismissed as foolish Utopian windbaggery if you didn't do it consistently. You're like Dershowitz calling Peres a 'man of peace' during the Dershowitz-Chomsky debate @Harvard. Everyone understood immediately how pretentious Dershowitz was to characterize Peres this way. He went on to fill the air with more empty rhetoric.
"Strahl", Show me a Richard Witty quote using the term "terrorist organization", that you so strawly condemn.
This is a good article on Ahmadinejad http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/11310... , by Hooman Majd.
RE: "Without Ahmadinejad it will be an even more challenging task." MY COMMENT: I wonder what Israel is doing to ensure Ahmadinejad's reelection.
RE: "What are they thinking?" ARTICLE: "Will Israel Attack Iran?", by Roane Carey and Tom Engelhardt – April 13, 2009 (EXCERPT) This attitude reflects a long-standing Israeli strategic principle: that no neighboring state or combination of states can ever be allowed to achieve anything faintly approaching military parity, because if they do, they will try to destroy the Jewish state. By this logic, Israel’s only option is to establish and then maintain absolute military superiority over its neighbors; they will, so this view goes, accept Israel’s presence only if they know they’re sure to be defeated, or at least vastly outmatched. This is the famous “iron wall,” conceived by early Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky more than 80 years ago, well before the founding of Israel itself. (Jabotinsky founded the Revisionist movement, which in opposition to the Labor mainstream refused to accept any territorial compromise regarding Zionist aims, such as partition. Although he and his followers were for years shut out of the political leadership, their views regarding Israel’s neighbors became deeply lodged in the public psyche.) If Iran were to acquire the capacity to build even one nuke – Israel itself is estimated to have 150-200 of them – that iron wall would be considered seriously breached, and the country might no longer be able to dictate terms to its neighbors. Given Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Israel would then have to recalibrate its strategy both on its northern front and vis-à-vis the Palestinians… ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/will-israe...