Ahmadinejad's Background - his goals of a nuclear Holocaust

[miyi]

Obama claims that Iran is merely a "tiny" threat.

Or maybe we should take the Iranian President a little more seriously.

Ahmadinejad's past tells it all

OLIVIER GUITTA

Published: June 02, 2008


In just three years Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's controversial president, has become a household name. It is worth noting that for a man whose name is mentioned so much, not much is known about him and his past. Indeed, even his official biography lacks a lot of information. But grasping who is Ahmadinejad and where he comes from proves how dangerous this man really is.

Ahmadinejad was born in 1956 to a poor family. In his just-released book, "The Bomb and the Koran," French journalist Michel Taubmann masterly delved into Ahmadinejad's biography.

Taubmann unveils many unknown facts about the current Iranian president: for instance, his mother's name is Sayeed Khanom, which indicates that she is a descendant of the Prophet; but his father's pedigree is much less glorious. His name was originally Sabarian, which is most certainly an Arabic name (an insult for most Iranians).

Interestingly his father whose first name was Ahmad changed his family name to Ahmadinejad, which could translate in "of the race of the prophet" since Ahmad was one of the multiple names used by the prophet.

At the early age of seven, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a revelation in the person of Ayatollah Khomeini.

So, unsurprisingly, in 1979, at the onset of the Islamic Revolution, he became a member of the radical Office for Strengthening Unity (OSU) that was established by Ayatollah Beheshti (a key Khomeini collaborator) to fight off the Mujahedeen e-Khalq group.

While reports on Ahmadinejad's presence among the captors of the U.S. embassy in Tehran remain so far somewhat unconfirmed, what is almost sure is that Ahmadinejad had a hand in the planning of the operation. He also allegedly suggested storming the Soviet embassy at the same time as the United States.

During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), he joined the special forces of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and became one of the senior commanders of the elite Qods (Jerusalem) Force.

According to the Baztab Web site, close to former Iranian president Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad was a close associate of Ayatollah Malahati, who was among the people that set up Iran's terrorist activities.

Malahati reportedly supervised the Oct. 23, 1983 Beirut terror attacks against the U.S. Marines and French soldiers barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen and 58 French paratroopers.

In his new role Ahmadinejad allegedly planned assassinations in the Middle East and Europe of opponents to the regime, such as the Kurdish leader Qasselou in July 1989 in Vienna.

Also, Ahmadinejad has reportedly been linked to a plot to kill British author Salman Rushdie. According to Taubmann, citing the famous Iranian poet Nemat Azarm, Ahmadinejad is behind the gruesome murder – of charismatic opposition leader MD Kazem Sami in 1988. His body was systematically cut in pieces with a knife.

Not only numerous credible stories accuse Ahmadinejad of several murders, but he also earned a reputation of a callous torturer. In fact, according to several sources, Ahmadinejad worked in the infamous Evin prison where he was nicknamed "The Executioner" because he was the one inflicting the coup de grace to some prisoners.

Also interestingly, according to Iran Resist, he was allegedly at the end of the 1990s the representative in Lebanon of the "Martyr's Foundation" that finances the Lebanese Shiite outfit Hezbollah. He has reportedly close relations with Hezbollah's chief Hassan Nasrallah that he met during training in North Korea.

When he became mayor of Tehran in 2003, he started implementing a very radical Islamist policy, forcing male city employees to wear beards and long sleeves along with setting up separate elevators for men and women in municipal offices.

This is not a surprise since even though Ahmadinejad is not from a clerical background, he is a very pious and religious man. Actually everything for him revolves around theology.

In September 2005, during his speech at the United Nations, Ahmadinejad said that he saw all the heads of state gathered blinded by a divine light while angels were circling above his head!

Ahmadinejad adheres to the Hojjatieh's interpretation of Shiism which holds a very messianic and apocalyptic view of the world. It actually predicts a period of universal chaos before the return of the Mahdi (the 12th imam, also known as the hidden imam).

Interestingly even radical Ayatollah Khomeini banned Hojjatieh Shiism in 1983, but it was recently revived. Ahmadinejad sees politics as the "continuation of war by other means." When asked by students to define "what's the most beautiful for a Muslim on earth," he answered very matter of fact: "To kill and be killed."

Ahmadinejad is convinced that he has been chosen by God to hasten the Mahdi's return. The way to achieve this goal for the Iranian president is the occurrence of a nuclear Holocaust. And this is why it is so vital for Ahmadinejad that Iran acquires a nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately many people in the West miss that point, while this proves beyond any doubt how serious and determined Ahmadinejad is about getting the Bomb.

++

Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).

[mrcongojack]

When has Obama said Iran was a "tiny" threat? Obama has stated he wants to open up talks with him, just like the President of Iraq has done. He has never said Iran is a non threat.

EDIT:

Here is Obama's policy on Iran, from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

Iran

* The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That's why Obama stood up to the Bush administration's warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.
* Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.
* Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

MORE EDIT:
Not to mention that article came from a publication owned by the News World Corporation which is run by the Unification Church, an organization which spent $2 billion to keep the Washington Times afloat to give neocons a voice during the 2000 election.

[miyi]

When has Obama said Iran was a "tiny" threat? Obama has stated he wants to open up talks with him, just like the President of Iraq has done. He has never said Iran is a non threat.

The problem here is, Obama makes it seem that we are not engaging in any kind of diplomacy with Iran. The fact is, the President of Iraq, US ambassadors, and Iranian officials, have been engaged in indirect, as well as open talks, this entire time. The fact that President Bush himself is not speaking with Iranian officials directly and personally does not mean anything.

Obama also said that Iran is not a "serious" threat, that they are a "tiny" country compared to the USA. I took the liberty of interpretation and rephrased it a little bit differently as: "Iran is a tiny threat". More or less, they virtually mean the same thing anyway.

but for the sake of clarity, here is the quote:

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. ... Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.[...]

The LA Times wrote about it, you can read it
here.

So, when Obama makes vague blanket statements such as this, it's no secret that what he is doing is to mislead the voters.

Uninformed voters, when they hear this, will automatically assume that, because Bush has not met with Iran directly and personally, that Bush means war.

And whenever Obama is asked to clarify whenever he makes some outrageous comments such as this, Obama has this ability to circumvent the question and say something that seems satisfactory, but in actuality, it doesn't really clarify anything.

His inconsistency and illusory rhetoric ought to be challenged if he's going to be elected as President.

But the media jumps to his defense so quickly. When Bush makes some dumb comment, it gets headlines. Hillary complained about this preferential treatment for Obama, and crap...she was right. When Obama critics like myself, challenge Obama's hypocrisy, I get called names and labeled a "hater", or a variation of this.

[mrcongojack]

The problem here is, Obama makes it seem that we are not engaging in any kind of diplomacy with Iran. The fact is, the President of Iraq, US ambassadors, and Iranian officials, have been engaged in indirect, as well as open talks, this entire time. The fact that President Bush himself is not speaking with Iranian officials directly and personally does not mean anything.

Obama also said that Iran is not a "serious" threat, that they are a "tiny" country compared to the USA. I took the liberty of interpretation and rephrased it a little bit differently as: "Iran is a tiny threat". More or less, they virtually mean the same thing anyway.

but for the sake of clarity, here is the quote:


The LA Times wrote about it, you can read it
here.

So, when Obama makes vague blanket statements such as this, it's no secret that what he is doing is to mislead the voters.

Uninformed voters, when they hear this, will automatically assume that, because Bush has not met with Iran directly and personally, that Bush means war.

And whenever Obama is asked to clarify whenever he makes some outrageous comments such as this, Obama has this ability to circumvent the question and say something that seems satisfactory, but in actuality, it doesn't really clarify anything.

His inconsistency and illusory rhetoric ought to be challenged if he's going to be elected as President.

But the media jumps to his defense so quickly. When Bush makes some dumb comment, it gets headlines. Hillary complained about this preferential treatment for Obama, and crap...she was right. When Obama critics like myself, challenge Obama's hypocrisy, I get called names and labeled a "hater", or a variation of this.

When compared to the USSR, they are a microscopic threat. Iran is small potatoes compared to the USSR. They have no where near the cash or might the USSR had. How exactly is that comment outrageous? I think former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton (the author of that editorial) made a mountain out of a molehill on this one.

Obama is thinking like a politician. People are weary of war. So, he downplays the war cry that McCain has embraced. In regards to Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...hn_McCain#Iran

McCain has said that "We continue to be concerned about Iranian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons." . McCain has also said "the military option cannot be taken off the table" in dealing with Iran, although he sees it as a "last option".

(Note: I tried to find his policy on his website, but johnmccain.com didn't have a section for foreign policy. I looked through the "Iraq" and "National Security" sections. I might have missed it though. I had to settle for wikipedia.)


They have basically the same policy on Iran: talk first, shoot later. It's Obama's policy; it's McCain's policy. McCain just plays up the warhawk angle more. It's what his Republican base likes to here.

Obama is being a smart politician. He's giving the people what they want. Americans on a whole are tired of war. I don't have any naive notion that Obama is some messiah sent to clean up Washington.

And, who is calling you a "hater"?

EDIT:
On the subject of "rhetoric"

Rhetoric is the art of harnessing reason, emotions and authority, through language, with a view to persuade an audience and, by persuading, to convince this audience to act, to pass judgement or to identify with given values.

All politicians use rhetoric. I have watched somewhere along the line of 1000 hours of campaign trail coverage on CSPAN, seeing just about every candidate (except Duncan Hunter, but no one cares about him)on the stump during the electoral season. None of them go up on stage and just start rattling off policy. They all use persuasion and emotion in their speeches. It's what politicians have done since the dawn of democracy. If you are going to attack politicians for using rhetoric, you might as well criticize their use of fliers and slogans.

[miyi]

ok, looking at Obama's policy again, I will quote:

* Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.[/b]

The Iranian President Ahmadenejad is not interested in joining WTO.

Amir Taheri from the Wall Street Journal wrote a great piece in an Op-Ed that is noteworthy:

Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans.

Obama offers nothing new, the stuff that he offers has in fact been tried before, and to no avail. For him to suggest somehow that the Iranian President will somehow magically listen to him is panglossian at best.

here's the Wall Street Journal piece in full: here


Mccain and Republicans are being portrayed as war hawks, but the fact of the matter is that we've exhausted every possible diplomatic options, and we still are doing that, to this day. Nobody is suggesting war. But that's what Obama would have us believe.

There's a difference between telling the truth about the situation, and Obama downplaying the potential threat that the ambitious Iranian President pose to our allies. And then at the AIPAC conference (a pro-Israel lobby) just this week, Obama then changes his message and says: Iran is a "grave" threat. He says that he will do anything necessary to make sure Iran does not threaten the state of Israel. He even offers a generous 30 billion dollars in Israel aid.

Everything necessary.

which does not exclude war as a possibility.

So how is he any different? At least he should stay consistent and stop shuffling around.



@being called hater:

not here, exactly. I live in California, so being conservative, I'm in the minority. So when I speak to colleagues, I'm harassed with ad hominems.

Here, I get to have constructive conversations, so here at MH, it's all good.



@rhetoric:

I know all that. But when you have a rhetoric that hinges on promises that cannot be fulfilled, no matter who is the politician, in order to appeal to voters, it just shows his lack of pragmatism and he's all talk, no substance. The challenges his critics charge against him are valid ones, but he shows no willingness to hear them out, and continues to do it his way. Iraq is showing signs of progress, yet he's so fixed on persuading his listeners that it is a failure. Look at the facts, stop distorting facts. Iraqi people are beginning to say that the American troop surge was helpful for them, and as much as they'd want us to leave eventually, because no country wants being "occupied", they'll tell you that what we have done in that country is making a big difference. The longer Obama remains in denial about Iraq, I question his genuineness. You know it as well as I do....he has invested so much making his campaign rely on the failure of the Iraq War, and now that there are signs of progress, he won't even have the courage to admit it, because it will hurt his political career. It is selfish for any politician to put his career first before the best interest of a country. That's what I find troubling with his rhetoric. But that's just my opinion.

---

nobody seems to be paying attention to any of my posts..oh well.

not to sound alarmist or anything, but I found this on the news recently....it seems like a very serious topic. I don't know if Obama will pay any attention to it anytime soon.

Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear.

"I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed," he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. [...]

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-ir...inst-egypt.htm

[miyi]

Israeli analyst suggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-ir...inst-egypt.htm

hmm....I don't know. That strategy seems like a very dangerous and risky alternative. Yes, it might be a good idea at some point to "accommodate" Iran and try to resolve Israel's issue with Iran, without going to war, but does Israel necessarily need to pit Iran and Egypt against each other? In order for it to work, you'll have to rely on Ahmadinejad bluffing with his fiery rhetoric. We would never know what his true intentions are, just as we never knew what Hitler's was, until it was too late and he already acted.

I think this really all boils down to the Israel-Palestinian problem, the issue of "what to do with the Palestinian refugees?".....the sooner that problem is taken care of, and everyone on both sides are happy, then the sooner it is for Iran to back off with their "anti-Israel-occupation" protests and threats.

Egypt's own domestic problems is a menace, that is true. Not to mention Saudi Arabia's own domestic problems....I think theirs is much worse. The chances of Saudi Arabia sliding to Wahhabist fundamentalist theocracy and overthrowing the current legitimate al-Saud monarchy, is something that worries a lot of Middle East political analysts.

The best we can hope for is to change the regime of Iran, without necessarily going to war with Iran.

At the same time, I don't think it is necessary to try to pit Iran and the rest of the Sunni neighbors against each other. That can backfire, easily. We can take care of Egypt later on. Right now, Iran potentially may develop nuclear weapons....that's the immediate concern at the moment.

This whole thing with Iran could very well be an issue of Iran asserting their Shia regional dominance.

The fragile balance between Sunni and Shia divide in the Middle East, I think we need to just sit patiently and let itself play out naturally.

But if we try to manipulate this balance artificially, that would be playing with fire, and a big mistake. But that's just me.

And also I forgot to add....I think it's immoral. The last thing I want (just me, personally) in the Middle East is to incite any form of genocide, and to do so knowingly that the consequence can escalate into such, whether it's against Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, Egyptians, Saudis, whatever. National Security is one thing, but going a little bit overboard is another.