Ahmadinejad is frustrating, but he's no Hitler / LJWorld.com

Archive for Sunday, September 30, 2007

By Trudy Rubin

September 30, 2007

The invitation for Tuesday dinner with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. The scene was the darkly brocaded Barclay Room of New York's Intercontinental Hotel.

A small group of journalists, including Christiane Amanpour and Brian Williams, along with Iran experts from academia and think tanks, sat around a square table lit by chandeliers, and set with plates of oriental salads and vases of roses. No alcohol was served.

Ahmadinejad swept in wearing his trademark uniform - a nondescript gray suit and open white shirt - after giving a defiant speech on Iran's nuclear program at the United Nations. A dinner supposed to go 90 minutes lasted three hours. By its end, some things were clear: This is a man of overweening self-confidence who believes his own rhetoric. He badly misunderstands the American system, but is certain that he gets it. He prefaces every meeting with a long religious prologue calling for justice, peace and friendship, yet his words increase tensions.

The overwhelming sense I had from the dinner was of opportunities being squandered to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. But is Ahmadinejad another Hitler, as some neoconservatives charge? Hold the question. First, have a look at what he said.

Led by religion

Ahmadinejad's orations on religion are clearly central to his thinking. He stresses his hope for the return of the Mahdi, the savior in Shiite Islam. Some analysts argue he might want to speed that return by destroying Israel (just as some Protestant fundamentalists yearn for Armageddon in Israel to bring on the End Time).

So I asked the Iranian leader whether he believed a war was needed to usher in the Mahdi's return. He seemed surprised by the question. His response: "We believe the Mahdi will arrive so there (will be) no war, in order to bring peace and justice. He will arrive along with Christ to spread compassion (Shiite tradition holds the two will return together). It is possible to help (the process) by seeking justice, by resisting injustice."

This reply made me wonder whether Ahmadinejad's calls for justice were his way of trying to hasten the Mahdi's return. But does he seek to "wipe Israel from the map"? - the phrase he's used. At dinner, he repeated his mantra that Palestinians "should vote for themselves" for the solution they want, and Iran would accept it.

What he means (as he told Time Magazine last year) is that "5 million Palestinian refugees" would return "home" and hold a referendum. Israel would disappear "through the vote"; he compares this to the end of the Soviet Union.

This may not be Armageddon, but it highlights his total rejection of the Jewish state. (Under his predecessor, President Mohammad Khatami, the formula was different: Iranian officials said they would accept whatever the Palestinians recognized, even two states of Israel and Palestine, side by side.)

Nuclear rationale

On the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad insisted Iran can't be deprived of its right to peaceful nuclear energy and is cooperating with the U.N. inspection agency. Never mind the likely ratcheting up of international sanctions.

The Iranian leader seemed unworried that this might raise the risk the Bush administration would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. "I do not think the threat of war has increased," he said. "I think in the U.S. there are enough wise politicians who will not allow new problems for their country." Perhaps. Or perhaps not.

The threat might be eased by more U.S.-Iranian contacts. When asked about possible exchanges between Congress and the Iranian parliament, Ahmadinejad did say: "We would welcome any inter-parliamentary cooperation." Many U.S. legislators, including Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., are interested.

Indeed, on Wednesday evening, a meeting was scheduled between Ahmadinejad and four members of Congress - but the Iranians canceled, supposedly due to scheduling conflicts. A good opportunity lost.

Other dinner guests pointed out that it was counterproductive for Iran to arrest academics and researchers who were trying to build bridges to Iran. Four Iranian-Americans were recently detained or jailed, including Haleh Esfandiari of the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. (She is now back in this country.)

Ahmadinejad's response: "Do you know what percentage of people are in prison in the United States?" Columbia University's Gary Sick retorted that this was irrelevant, and that, because of such arrests, many U.S. academic contacts with Iranians were drying up.

Leader lacks Hitler's power

One was left with the impression that there is slim chance on Iran's side for actions to reduce tensions, including cooperation on Afghanistan or Iraq. But Ahmadinejad as Hitler? When asked what he thought of the German dictator, the Iranian replied: "His image to us is a despicably dark face."

More to the point, Ahmadinejad has nothing like Hitler's power. He never replied to my second question: "Who really makes foreign and security policy in Iran?" Those decisions aren't his, but are made by Iran's supreme clerical leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad's popularity is dropping at home because he hasn't delivered on economic promises (although insults hurled at him in America may boost his standings). Many observers think he will lose in 2009 elections.

Frustrating he is, because his rhetoric inflames tensions and gives ammo to politicians who want military action. But Hitler he is not.

- Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

30 September 2007
at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TJ_in_Lawrence (Anonymous) says…

I agree that he is not a “Hitler”. However, it's ironic to me that people in the US are quick to defend this guy and his right to his views and then criticize our own President on the same points. In American politics we normally refer to that as a “flip-flop”.
30 September 2007
at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Your assessment is completely wrong on all counts, TJ. Almost no one is defending Ahmadenijad's viewpoints, even though many are defending his right to have and express those viewpoints. But as Rubin points out, he is no Hitler, and really has very little power in his position as President of Iran, so he should not be the whipping boy that neocons use to justify yet another stupid, unnecessary, bankrupting and counterproductive war.

Bush is also welcome to have and express his stupid viewpoints— but unlike Ahmadenijad, he has the power to implement them, and millions have suffered the consequences, all so his cronies can suck $trillions from the government teat. This administration will go down as the most incompetent and corrupt in the history of this country.
30 September 2007
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

“This administration will go down as the most incompetent and corrupt in the history of this country.” jabotb

I think I heard almost word-for-word the very same statement during a Democratic debate. This is one of the few things Democratic candidates seem to really have alot of interest in talking about- Bush, Bush, Bush and more Bush.
30 September 2007
at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“He's no Hitler: yet.”

Neither are you or my pet rock, but does that make either of you a candidate for summary execution?
30 September 2007
at 10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

DotsLines—

You're just what this board needs— one more uncritical, cognitively dissonant sycophant.
30 September 2007
at 12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

Joiner.
30 September 2007
at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Finding_Uranus (Anonymous) says…

“I knew Adolph Hitler, Adolph Hitler was a freind of mine……..Mr. Ahmadinejad, you're no Adolph Hitler.”

30 September 2007
at 12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Is that a quote from one of Dubya's grandfathers, FU?
30 September 2007
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Ahmadinejad is not even close to being a “Hitler”, and I think the reference is extremely disrespectful to WWII veterns and Holocaust survivors who actually faced the evil of Nazi Germany.

As the article correctly pointed out, Ahmandinejad is not even the policy maker of Iran, let alone an all powerful dictator.

Also Iran is probably the most developed and intellectual nation in the Middle East. Certainly Iran is the only Middle East country that has somewhat of a Democratic Movement and is really closer to an ideal Western state than any other Mid-East country (Israel not included).

Iran is not a threat, but it is being threatened. They have not invaded or directly violated any nation's rights, which is far more than we can say about ourselves.
30 September 2007
at 8:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TJ_in_Lawrence (Anonymous) says…

Bozo wrote:
“Almost no one is defending Ahmadenijad's viewpoints, even though many are defending his right to have and express those viewpoints.”

Wrong again, most of you are hiding behind that very noble “I disagree with him, but I defend his right to speak”. In fact most of the people that post on here are only for his right to speak because he speaks against our President. If he were speaking in favor of our President and his policies you would be calling him a puppet and a fascist.

By definition that is called “hypocrisy”
30 September 2007
at 9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“If he were speaking in favor of our President and his policies you would be calling him a puppet and a fascist.”

Possibly so— but I wouldn't be saying that he or she shouldn't have the right to speak.

But this really isn't about the right to free speech. This is about not bombing and/or invading Iran just to satisfy a last-ditch political ploy by the neocons. They got us into a quagmire in Iraq, and Iran would be 3 times as bad. I don't need any more examples of their murderous desire for hegemony.