At least not in the way being pushed by the right. One of the key justifications, that I am still hearing, for strong action against Iran is that the President said that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth. The contention is that this is a direct threat against Israel that is unacceptable.
Juan Cole, as part of his dissection of Hitchens:
The precise reason for Hitchens’ theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having “threatened to wipe Israel off the map.” I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds.
First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel’s Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.
The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
Bill Scher on The Huffington Post makes the point that MEMRI translates this the same way as Cole. Let’s say that MEMRI is generally less than sympathetic to Iran.
Pretending that Iran is run by a frothing madman who is desperate to attack Israel seems fundamental to justifying macho action against Iran. If Iran’s President was in a precarious domestic political situation and was trying to drum up popular support with firebrand rhetoric it would hardly call for military action…
Mostly crossposted from ET.
I was reading an interview (pdf.) this morning by the poet Ammiel Alcalay, a Sephardic jew whose parents came from Bosnia & who teaches in NYC, as well as doing tons of translation work (he translated the 1st account from Bosnia of Serbian atrocities, among many other things). Taken out of context, this quote speaks eloquently to Juan Cole’s point:
In addition, Cole points out that the Iranian system of government has a ‘weak’ presidency: the President has no command-and-control authority over the army or any other part of of the Iranian military; accordingly, Cole says we should take any of the statements made by the Iranian President about as seriously as we would take those made about the American military by, say, the Secretary of the Interior in the United States.
I know. Frankly I was trying not to confuse the issue, on the basis that anyone that still needs this explained to them isn’t really paying attention.
One thing at a time!
Cole also points out that Ahmadinejad is not in charge of the armed forces. Even if he were a frothing madman, he can’t order military action.
.
“Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power. So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind — with an anti-Semite. God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons, to carry out his threats.”
(Israeli PM Olmert)
The opening of my diary :: Hitler Is Back!
Ahmadinejad joins hundreds of thousands calling for Israel’s destruction.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Much of the arguments for containing Iran are in relation to the possibility of Iran developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. Whether Ahmadinedjad threatens Israel’s existence through tough talk is only symptomatic and not a reason in itself to take military action, but it tells a story of the nature of the regime. The history and nature of the theocratic regime in Iran is much longer and started long before Ahmadinedjad became President, but took an even nastier turn when he came to power.
Still, I have to admit that the need for some people to defend this guy rather puzzles me. The truth is important, yes, but this statement is just one of many statements that are hateful and aggressive something which the Iranian regime have had a long history in advocating. The question is whether all these statements are then victims of misinterpretation?