Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[DRoseDARs]

Iran's "President" clarified his earlier words, stating today "WE WILL BURY JEWS!!!11 " *Beats shoe on pulpit*

Edit: **** it, here's the article:

Iran Leader Reiterates Anti-Israel Stance

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 43 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran -
Iran's ultraconservative president — spurning international outrage over his remarks about
Israel — joined more than a million demonstrators who flooded the streets of the capital and other major cities Friday to back his call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
ADVERTISEMENT

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stood fast behind his assertion that Israel should be wiped off the map and repeated the call during the nationwide protests Friday, the Muslim day of prayer.

But in an apparent attempt to blunt international outrage over Ahmadinejad's comments, the Iranian Embassy in Moscow issued a statement saying the Iranian leader did not want to "engage in a conflict."

Marching alongside the protesters, the 47-year-old former mayor of Tehran and one-time Republican Guard commander renewed his criticism of the West.

"They become upset when they hear any voice of truth-seeking. They think they are the absolute rulers of the world," he said during the al-Quds — or Jerusalem — Day protest, which was among the largest since they were first held in 1979 after Shiite Muslim clerics took power in Iran.

His fellow marchers carried placards reading "Death to Israel, death to America." It is not uncommon for an Iraqi president to join marches in the capital. Ahmadinejad was accompanied by five bodyguards, but otherwise security was not out of the ordinary for such an event.

Despite Ahmadinejad's continued harsh attacks on the West, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani tried to dial back the rhetoric, suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians hold a referendum to decide the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

"If Muslims and Palestinians agree (to a referendum), it will be a retreat but let's still hold a referendum," Rafsanjani said in his Friday prayer sermon.

The Iranian Embassy statement in Moscow said Ahmadinejad "did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict."

But that was not the message carried by the at least 200,000 Iranians who massed in Tehran to unleashed virulent condemnation against Israel, the United States and the West in general, accusing them of oppressing Palestinians and Iran.

Some demonstrators chanted "Israel is approaching its death" and wore white shrouds in a symbolic gesture expressing readiness to die for their cause.

A resolution was read at the end of the rallies backing "the position declared by the president that the Zionist regime must be wiped out."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki defended his president's comments, saying they represented Iran's long-held policy of not recognizing Israel.

"Unfortunately the Western countries have remained silent on the increasing inhuman activities of Israel," Mottaki said at the Tehran march.

Jerusalem Day protests attracted at least 100,000 in each of Iran's major cities and a total of more than a million nationwide, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. Major rallies also were held in other Middle Eastern countries.

In Beirut, the militant Hezbollah group marked the day by staging a parade that saw more than 6,000 guerrillas march in uniform through the streets of the Lebanese capital.

The Shiite group, which supports it Iranian mentors, has sought to strengthen its position in Lebanon after the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

At least 30,000 Bahrainis marched in their capital, Manama, burning Israeli and American flags and demanding their government rescind its recent decision to end its economic embargo of the Jewish state.

The United States said the Iranian leader's remarks have only underscored Washington's concern over Iran's nuclear program. Israel said Iran should be suspended from the
United Nations. U.N. chief
Kofi Annan expressed "dismay" at the comments in a rare rebuke of a U.N. member state.

The
Vatican condemned as "unacceptable" statements denying the right of Israel to exist, although it did not mention Iran by name.

Russia, a key ally of Iran, summoned the Iranian ambassador seeking an explanation for the remarks.

Iran's seven state-run TV stations devoted coverage Friday to programs condemning the Jewish state and praising the Palestinian resistance since the 1948 creation of Israel.

Three stations also showed live coverage of crowds of people gathering Friday in streets throughout Tehran.

After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled the pro-Western Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979, he declared the last Friday of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan as an international day of struggle against Israel and for the liberation of Jerusalem. The founder of the Islamic regime had also called for Israel's destruction.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Thats my point - the third world has no reason to get involved, at all. That makes relying on them to counter the west a mistake

Except that the third world is not going to let one of their members get "mistreated" by the West.

Perhaps the third world states want an approach to the NPT that essentially makes it meaningless. Why those third world states that arent likely to get nuclear weapons, and whose security is endangered by neighboring states getting them, would want that is not clear. In any case, Iran, by its actions and statements, removes itself from the category of precedents for brazil, Indonesia, etc. This isnt about maintaining a nuclear monopoly - its about containing a regime thats in violation of basic international norms. This isnt 1975 - China, India, and almost every non-muslim state recognizes Israel, as do a slowly growing band of muslim states. This kind of thing is beyond the pale.

What basic international norms are you talking about? Anyone not recognize the Iranian regime? The only ones that consider them terrorists are the US and Israel. So again, what is Iran breaking? What Iran did do is have covert nuclear facilities in violation of the NPT. For that they will get punished, but as long as they work out in the open, there is no valid reason to end their nuclear program.

As for the nature of the NPT- it was a simple deal- the nuclear powers got a monopoly, everyone else got nuclear power. But the deal was supposed to be that the nuclear powers would eventually disarm. That is going nowhere, and those states that never signed the NPT (Israel, Pakistan, India) have been allowed to get nukes free of consequence. If your neighbor gets nukes, then you get nukes. That simple.

Oil is fungible. The goal of sanctions would not be to ban oil exports a al Iraq. Instead you ban new investments and sale of capital goods. In an economy that needs rapid job growth to match a growing population thats powerful.

You keep saying that, but its not really true. There are only so many suppliers, and if anyone is out of the system, prices jump.

Second, China is seeking its own markets, and Iran is one of them. Russia has many lucrative contracts as well. They gain nothing by cutting Iran off.

Which is why Saddam under sanctions decided to relax internal controls, since the people blamed all their problems on sanctions. Right? Nationalism doesnt make people irrational - they will still see that a change of regime helps them.

:LOL:

Nationalism is inherently irrational at its core. All regimes can crack the whip. And if a significant portion of the population thinks cracking the whip is right, then the state can do it for a long time. If you have an enemy at the gates, you close the gates, and you don't make internal trouble.

Can you name a SINGLE example of a regime that curmbled under a sanctions regime? Anyone? The only cases that come to mind that are even close are in South Africa and Rhodesia, and there you had small minorities ruling over large unprepresented minorities. Sanctions do not bring down states, anymore than strategic bombing campaigns undermine morale at home.

BTW, i think you mean patriotism, not nationalism - if its nationalism thats operative the regime is in trouble, as a large percentage of Iranians are national minorities, on the one hand, and traditional Farsi culture is oppressed by the regime, on the other.

False, I mean Nationalism, pure and simple.

"traditional farsi culture" is somewhat irrelevant, as the regime views itself as Islamic, and most Iranians certainly are. ignoring pre-Islamic culture is common in the Islamic world.

Second, the Farsi are still a minority, and attempts vs the regime, specially by minorities like Azers, Kurds, or Arabs can only but strengthen the regime amongst the majority group. Attacks by the outside can easily be painted as attempts to destroy Iran. That is a nationalistic call.

[GePap]

A very interesting article. AND LOOK, A LINK!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iran.html

Iranians Play Down President's Attack on Israel
By NAZILA FATHI
Published: October 28, 2005

TEHRAN, Oct. 28 - Iran's president stood by his earlier call to "wipe Israel off the map" today while other Iranian officials played it down and commentators here suggested it was a sign of what they consider his amateurism.

The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was cheered by thousands of supporters during an anti-Israel rally in Tehran today. "My words are the Iranian nation's words," he said of his statement that was widely condemned around the world, the Iranian news agency, IRNA, quoted him as saying. "Westerners are free to comment, but their reaction is invalid."

Iranian state media reported that hundreds of thousands took part in the annual demonstrations across the country. Protestors chanted "death to America" and "death to Israel" and set fire to American and Israeli flags.

But the secretary of the Iran's national security council, Ali Larijani, who has headed Iran's nuclear talks since August, said at the demonstration that the news media had misused the president's comments.

"We still have the same position and believe the Palestinian people must decide for their future," the Iranian Students' News Agency quoted him as saying. Mr. Larijani added that the foreign news media and a few countries had manipulated the president's comments to spread suspicion that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons.

A senior conservative cleric and member of the Expediency Council, Ahmad Nateq-Nouri, who spoke at the ceremony also played down the president's comments, saying: "What the president meant was that we favor a fair and long-lasting peace in Palestine," state media reported.

The Iranian embassy in Moscow issued a statement also aimed at muting Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments, saying "he did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

Just three months after taking office, the new president is facing a storm of criticism not only from abroad over his foreign policy statements but inside the country as well.

"It is becoming more and more clear among both reformist politicians and some of his own supporters that Mr. Ahmadinejad has neither the political experience nor the knowledge to run the country," said Issa Saharkhiz, a reformist politician and journalist in Tehran. "It seems that time has frozen for him and he is repeating the same slogans when he was a student now in the position of president."

Most politicians and religious leaders who have been vocal in the past have maintained a public silence over his performance. But in private many express worry.

The criticism has focused on Mr. Ahmadinejad's failure to select four new cabinet ministers after his first choices were rejected by Parliament on the grounds that they were inexperienced. It has also been directed at the scale of changes at the ministries and the sweeping replacement of officials.

The head of the Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad on Wednesday and told reporters that this was the first time since the revolution that a president had failed to introduce four ministers, calling it a "fault for the government."

The president's critics also point to his speech at the United Nations in September that offered confrontational policy with the West over Iran's nuclear program rather than using the opportunity to improve relations, as some here had hoped.

The critics blame the president's confrontational policy when a trip to Saudi Arabia by Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was canceled by Saudi officials this month after Britain accused Iran of supporting insurgents in southern Iraq.

In what the critics consider another blow to Iran's foreign policy, Mr. Ahmadinejad removed four longtime ambassadors from their posts this week - Sadegh Kharrazi in Paris, Hossein Adeli in London, Seyed Shamseddin Khaghani in Berlin and Mohammad Alborzi in Geneva. The four are considered among Iran's best diplomats.

"The system is rapidly losing its efficiency and credibility," said Mahmoud Shamsolvaezin, a political analyst and journalist. "Most former officials are watching in awe. An unknown and inexperienced movement has taken over and their incapability is gradually becoming evident."

Some analysts have viewed the recent move by the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to increase the authority of Mr. Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council, a longtime Iranian politician, as part of his effort to limit the political blunders made by President Ahmadinejad.

The council announced this week that it was preparing a draft to define its role to supervise Parliament, the judiciary and the executive branch.

But an aide to Mr. Rafsanjani said the council lacked the apparatus to enforce any authority.

"People think now that the council and Mr. Rafsanjani have been put above the three forces," said Mohammad Atrianfar, the Rafsanjani aide and the managing director of the daily Shargh newspaper. "This is not legally correct and the council does not have the tools to enforce its decision. But the public will probably blame Mr. Rafsanjani for the failures of the system now."

Iran's Labor News Agency, or ILNA last week quoted a senior cleric, Mehdi Khazali, whose two sons supported Mr. Ahmadinejad during the election, expressing worry over the president's performance.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's supporters "have realized that the situation is worse than what they had imagined and that they are not capable of handling it," Mr. Khazali told the newspaper. "That is why they are trying to involve Mr. Rafsanjani so that they would not be blamed for everything."

"I think we should expect tough days ahead of us and have to pay a high price," he added.

[Whaleboy]

I seriously now think that a pre-emptive air attack on Iranian nuclear, military and government facilities is a good idea, though if it's done by Israel or the US it will **** things up in Iraq even more and destroy the peace-process in the West Bank. Makes more sense to send in the British

[Barnabas]

So, the president of Iran is like some ****** who says : I like horse Penis, and all those other guys would be his tutors who says Oh, dont worry, he is immature, he doesnt know what he is saying.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, I do. Its called knowing the structure of the Iranian Republic. The Commander in Chief is Khameini, NOT the president.

Heh.
You know very little about the real powers in the Iranian Republic, and the current balance between all the different power circles.

This is however still unrelevant, since Khamenhai, while the real leader, does not put himself under the spotlight, but uses the current acting President as a pawn for his policy. Iran is not a true democracy. As such, it does not have too much room for "different views". If a person in goverment says something, it is usually the 'state' opinion. People in authoritarian regimes do not have too much freedom of opinion.

The elected president in Iran, is eventually the executer of his holyness Khamenhai's will and word. As such, unless we can categorize this as a 'slip of the tongue', and we see the president restate his saying (which he by now has repeated), we can safely assume that this statement lies well within the current views of who ever is in charge of the Iranian leadership.

As what? An annoyance? He said it during an anti-zionism conference, days before annual anti-Israel parades and protests that happen every year. How is any of this new? Khomeini said the same crap-even as he got covert weapons from Israel.

As LOTM said, this has been a concrete and noticeable escalation of rhethoric.

If you have proof of Khumeini saying the same crap during Iran-Contra, I'll be happy to see a quote which includes a date and context.

Everyone and their uncle knew the guy was a hardliner. Oh, yes, this is so shocking!....

I'm sure everyone knows that Sharon is a hardliner. However I doubt that you would continue to be so calm and speak of his rationality, if Sharon suddenly and without fear of reprecussion declares his wish for "Death to all Palestinians".

Does nothing to undermine the basic tenant of Deterrence and why the consequences of Iran getting nukes is not the termination of Israel, but the end of Israeli nuclear monopoly in the ME. Obviously Israel doesn't want that. But like I care about that.

Of course you don't care about that - because you don't need to live with neighbours like Iran.

Tell me, would you be as nonchalant about the Taliban acquiring nuclear weapons, when they were the active power sponsoring Al-Qaida?

Probably not! This would minimize any or all deterrance the US had on the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

Iran is currently the most active force behind the terrorism in the middle east, by means of proxy.

[Odin]

GePap's support of nuclear proliferation:


I think ALL nuclear weapons should be eliminated. The assumption that MAD makes is that it would make no one dare push the button. This is nonsense. It is not IF someone launches a nuke, it is WHEN. The chance of something occuring may be very small, but give it enough time, such an event happening is almost garenteed. Evolutionary biologists use this principle all the time in the dispersal of terrestrial animals from a continent to an island hundreds or thosands of miles away, but can be apllied when someone talks about the risk of MAD causing nuclear war being extremely low. We came extremely close to nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis, and several other times in the Cold War. Ridding the would of nukes may cause a small increase in the number of wars, but I would think that to be better than a MAD-induced nuclear holocaust.

The reason I don't want Iran to have nukes is NOT because I think they don't have a right to defend themselves, I am against Iran getting nukes because I am against ANYONE having nukes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Heh.
You know very little about the real powers in the Iranian Republic, and the current balance between all the different power circles.

This is however still unrelevant, since Khamenhai, while the real leader, does not put himself under the spotlight, but uses the current acting President as a pawn for his policy. Iran is not a true democracy. As such, it does not have too much room for "different views". If a person in goverment says something, it is usually the 'state' opinion. People in authoritarian regimes do not have too much freedom of opinion.

The elected president in Iran, is eventually the executer of his holyness Khamenhai's will and word. As such, unless we can categorize this as a 'slip of the tongue', and we see the president restate his saying (which he by now has repeated), we can safely assume that this statement lies well within the current views of who ever is in charge of the Iranian leadership.

I guess you missed the above posted article.....yup, certainly did.

Of course you don't care about that - because you don't need to live with neighbours like Iran.

Tell me, would you be as nonchalant about the Taliban acquiring nuclear weapons, when they were the active power sponsoring Al-Qaida?

Probably not! This would minimize any or all deterrance the US had on the Taliban and Al-Qaida.

Iran is currently the most active force behind the terrorism in the middle east, by means of proxy.

The point was already made- terrorist states support terrorism. Pakistan never thought of giving the Kashmiri militants nukes, even after they had them. The ISI was a big backer of the Taliban- any Pakistani nukes end in their hands? NOPE.

Give me a break. Iran has a chemical weapons capability. If they are so dangerous, why doesn't Hizbullah have chemical weapons in its arsenal?

The "WMD to terrorists" line is old hand. Its tired, its worn. You need better material.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Odin
GePap's support of nuclear proliferation:


I think ALL nuclear weapons should be eliminated. The assumption that MAD makes is that it would make no one dare push the button. This is nonsense. It is not IF someone launches a nuke, it is WHEN. The chance of something occuring may be very small, but give it enough time, such an event happening is almost garenteed. Evolutionary biologists use this principle all the time in the dispersal of terrestrial animals from a continent to an island hundreds or thosands of miles away, but can be apllied when someone talks about the risk of MAD causing nuclear war being extremely low. We came extremely close to nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis, and several other times in the Cold War. Ridding the would of nukes may cause a small increase in the number of wars, but I would think that to be better than a MAD-induced nuclear holocaust.

The reason I don't want Iran to have nukes is NOT because I think they don't have a right to defend themselves, I am against Iran getting nukes because I am against ANYONE having nukes.

All lovely sentiments, and I would love for the actual terms of the NPT to be followed.

BUt I am not a dummy, and nukes aren't going away. Given that simple truth, I seek only a world that does not blow itself apart, or a world in which any one state can lord nukes over others.

[Barnabas]

This problem will come, no way to avoid it.
In 4 decades the "atomic bomb" will be a 100 years old technology.

I think big third world countries like Brazil, Argentina, have the technologity to do it, just choose not to because the signed the treaty, I dont have facts, but I guess (I am quite sure) thatSouth Korea, Taiwan and many other countries could do it too if they bothered.

More and more third world countries will have the technology and resources for nukes in the next years.

What will happen in a world with 25, 30 hypothetical atomic powers?

What are the options? how should we deal with this?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
I guess you missed the above posted article.....yup, certainly did.

I read it alright.
All it has is reporter speculations and rumors.
Factually, the only Iranian body to attempt to retract the message, was the Moscow Iranian Embassy.

What I did follow though, is that the dear president has again stated exactly what he thinks, as if to prove, that this is the acceptable Iranian position.

The point was already made- terrorist states support terrorism. Pakistan never thought of giving the Kashmiri militants nukes, even after they had them. The ISI was a big backer of the Taliban- any Pakistani nukes end in their hands? NOPE.

[sic]

The "WMD to terrorists" line is old hand. Its tired, its worn. You need better material.

Where did I ever suggest Iran is going to spread WMDs to terrorists?

You are fighting invisible dragons so hard that you are missing the point.

What I did say, I will reiterate:

Iran is a terrorist supporting country. It funds the most prominent terrorist organizations and controls some of them. It does all those things, right now, with the intention of hurting the peace process and in the long run - hurting and destroying Israel.

When Iran gets a 'nuclear umbrella' it will feel itself much more protected, and will undoubtedly allow itself 'more'. A nuclear protection would allow it to take much more steps, knowing it will go unpunished, as any threat to its regime or military power, will be deterred by nuclear weapons.

Given the fact the Iranian leaders have established their cause ("destroy Israel") and we know their current policies ("exporting" the revolution; creating, funding and directing terrorist organizations) - we can only imagine the larger risks they will take to accomplish their stated cause.

On a personal note - I'm somewhat surprised by you. I used to see you as an interesting rival with a different world view. However this discussion (like some discussions on this topic in the past) show an amazingly high rate of non-sequitors, attempts to twist my words or, simply, ignore the discussion of the essense of my claims, in favor of an attempt to attack the form, or claims that I never made. I used to respect you more.

That, and the fact, you somehow fail to acknowledge the improtance of nuclear non-proliferation, and admit to any amount of threat, that Iran poses to western countries and values.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


How exactly is 1945 relavant to the question deterrence?

I do wish you'd read my posts in their entirety, rather than getting hung up on what you imagine to be there...

It's not the date that's important, it's the use of nuclear weapons by a democratically elected 'rational' government in pursuit of politico-military objectives- as opposed to what a supposedly 'irrational' theocratic dictatorship or republic (delete as appropriate per political standpoint) would do if it started up its civilian nuclear power programme and then made the leap to the acquisition of nuclear payloads on long range missiles.


Apparently the viewpoint of some is that Iran cannot be trusted because it's run by foaming at the mouth monotheistic mullahs who will kill for their faith- and yet the first use of nuclear weapons was not in pursuit of a religious dogma or divine revelation, but political and military objectives.

This being the case, clearly no one can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Including Israel, which of course officially doesn't have any.....

[Sandman]

The thing is, Iran is getting less fundamentalist by the year. Their young people (most of the population) spend their time bending or flouting Islamic law.

It's perfectly likely that the current president will be out of office in four years. My instinct is to just wait this out. Call it appeasement if you want.

[Saras]

I kind of like how your above post matches with your sig

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Saras
I kind of like how your above post matches with your sig

Lithuanians have learned from bitter experience the mistakes of trusting in political astrologers.


And bigger neighbours.