I know this must come as a shock to the non-appeasement crowd out there, but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is simply not as powerful as our far more powerful Dear Leader likes to pretend. Evidence you ask? How about this story from the New York Times?
In his almost three years as president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been harshly criticized in the West. But he is increasingly drawing fire from Shiite clerics here, who accuse him of using religion to distract attention from his government’s failure to deliver on promises of prosperity and political freedoms. […]
The tensions surround Imam Mahdi, the 12th imam in a direct bloodline from the Prophet Muhammad, who the Shiite faithful believe will one day emerge from 1,000 years in hiding to save mankind and bring justice to the world. Tens of thousands of pilgrims go each year to the Jamkaran mosque near Qum, about 75 miles south of Tehran, where they believe that the imam will appear.
President Ahmadinejad, who came to office in 2005 declaring his intention to “hasten the emergence” of Imam Mahdi, said in a speech broadcast nationally this month that Imam Mahdi supported the day-to-day workings of his government and was helping him in the face of international pressure.
That was too much for senior clerics, who contend that they alone are qualified to speak on the topic.
“Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks are common beliefs in Shiite Islam, but they were never brought up in politics and for political purposes by a noncleric,” said Farid Moddaressi, a religion reporter in Tehran. “Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views come from a religion which is defined by its clerics, but they believe that he is not a religious authority to make such remarks.” […]
Several of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s critics said that by linking his government to Imam Mahdi, he was trying to deflect criticism of his economic policies, which have led to double-digit inflation.
A senior conservative cleric, Ayatollah Muhammad Reza Mahdavi Kani, warned him weeks ago not to talk about Imam Mahdi and said that even the founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, did not claim any links with the imam.
Another cleric, Mehdi Karroubi, who ran for president when Mr. Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, warned that people could lose their faith in Imam Mahdi.
“People would say that if the current situation is his management before his emergence, what would happen after his emergence?” he said, referring to soaring food prices, the daily newspaper Etemad Melli quoted him as saying.
“We need to talk about realities,” said Mr. Karroubi, who is a former speaker of Parliament. “We should not link everything to religious and hidden issues.”
People forget that the Supreme Ruler of Iran is actually Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not Iran’s President. A Supreme Ruler whose own 2005 fatwa against the production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons is viewed by Iran’s secular leaders as more binding on their government than the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty of which Iran and the US are both signatories. In all likelihood, these mullahs would not be attacking President Ahmadinejad without Ayatollah Khamenei’s express authorization, so clearly he is not entirely supportive of the Ahmadinejad administration, which, much like the conservative Republican Bush administration in America, is taking a lot of heat for their country’s poor economic performance. Indeed, it would be smart domestic politics to distance himself from President Ahmadinejad at this time.
Add to that Iran’s feeble conventional military forces, the fact that Iran’s Supreme Ruler is the commander in chief of Iran’s military (not Ahmadinejad) and Iran’s history (at least since the era of the Persian Empire) of not invading or attacking other nations, and you have to wonder where all this fear of negotiating with Iran really comes from?
Yes, I know. It’s a rhetorical question.
He sounds a lot like Bush, only Bush has power.
Once the word “President” is used, many Americans, and not a few people from other systems, assume that it means temporary king, as in the US system. It can be frustrating because they seem to have a hard time shaking the idea.
Point of fact: In Shia eschatology, the “End times” is not something which can be “brought about” by human action. We tend to think that the same apocalypse-mongering that characterizes the likes of Bush advisor Reverend Hagee also applies to other religions.
BushCo™ has so muddled the situation in the ME that even long term allies are openly defying them.
this from the asia times, vis-a-vis the overall situation:
and the egyptians aren’t being shy about their displeasure:
they’re just holding their breath waiting for 20 jan 2009…and chimpy is the lamest of lame ducks. the only avenue left open for him would be a another unilateral and unprovoked invasion, or an assault by israeli forces acting as a proxy, and then subsequent u.s. involvement due to treaty obligations; a very risky strategy at best.
we shall see.
244 days to go. tick…tick…tick…
YES, let’s keep repeating this… over and over and over… until maybe it sinks in.
President Bush said in his interview (that Olbermann played clips from last night) that his goal was to force Iran to stop even enriching uranium — which they are allowed to do under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They have as much right to do uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes as, say, POLAND… and AFAIK, no inspector has yet found evidence that they are pursuing more than that.
Iran is not a threat to the US. I don’t think they’re even a threat to Israel (Ahmadinejad’s quotes notwithstanding, which are also often mis-translated to make them sound more of a threat than they are – as you said, he has no power over foreign policy). I think the “threat” they pose is economic — to the Saudi regime — and that’s where the real pressure to “contain Iran” is coming from. I
WHether Obama said he’s meet with Ahmadinejad or not is really irrelevant.
Bush meets with the CHinese, the Saudis, and the Pakistani Dictator Musharraf.
Why shouldn’t someone meet with Ahmadinejad too?
Bravo, Steven!
By the way, Ahmadinajad never said Israel should be wiped off the map, and what he did say was in no way a threat (which he does not have the power or authority to carry out anyway).
And now, to whom, exactly, is Obama pandering when he says things like “the threat from Iran is grave”? The reality is that the threat from Iran is nonexistent.