nationalistic self-gratification as a technical source of Persian pride and reflecting Iran's rightful status as a regional hegemon.(according to them I assume)
Gotcha. All I'll say to that is that the passage in question is poorly written if that was the author's intention.
The provided example, in my estimation was a poor attempt to say that air-power, given a difficult targeting environment, can't guarantee the elimination of discrete targets. As such, the warning offered would extend to the attack of ancillary targets, such as power plants and comms facilities necessary to the effective operation of a modern nuclear facility under military control. This increases the liklihood of success. However, attacking dual-service targets may affect the general population-a social and political complication to any attack plan. That's how I read that section.
Hence the errant thought that he was perhaps dissembling, and leaving the gates open here for an unstated assumption of the use of ground forces. But then, I suppose that this is in keeping with the purpose of the article and cant be considered some sort of deception, true or not.
there's a culminating point somewhere not too far down the road. Iran, to date IMHO, has not played "rational actor" very well. ... Further, the internal decision-making appartus of the Iranian leadership lacks any semblance of transparency.
MEMRI may concur with Juan Cole, but a re-read of MEMRI's translation of Ahmedinejad's comments is nonetheless frightening. More to the point, Ahmedinejad has an accumulating history of comments along these mystic/spiritual/apolcalyptic lines of thinking.
I'd like to explore this further. I did find this expansion of Ahmadinejad's specific statements, but whether or not it constitutes the entire speech or not I cannot discern:
BNet-Govinfo: Facts - Extended excerpt - what Ahmadinejad actually said
...and you are right, on the face of it, it is fairly aggressive. Even extremely aggressive and inflammatory (tho the original quote as portrayed in US media is nevertheless misleading, I think). And I am willing to accept that he has given many other speeches along these lines. But most of what I gather is that, Mahdism aside, this sort of rhetoric is a very good reflection of the thoughts of the man on the street not only in Iran but most other Islamic-dominated countries in the middle east. While the ruling elite remain pro-west, the common man sympathizes directly with Palestine.
What I am saying is that these statements serve him in retaining popular support, and may very well be nothing more. I do not think this view would be naive, either. Looking at our own politicians it is easy to see how often there is not only a gap between what is said and what is done but at times a complete about-face.
Further, how much power does the President of Iran actually have? Can he declare war or launch nuclear missiles on his own responsibility? Isn't the nominal head of government the Imam, Khamenei (sp?)? I have read, albeit from only one source, that Ahmadinejad has very little to do with the actual foreign policy of his nation. That is worth finding out before we equate his sentiments with those of the nation. The executive branch has no control over the military in Iran, at least. [The US has its own nutjobs (IMO) in the house and senate and various executive positions, but we dont worry overmuch at their diatribes.]
Even the Imam can be removed peacefully from power by the Assembly of Experts in the case that he decides to act against the interests of the nation.
(Probably impractible tho, much like our own impeachment processes. Actually, as an aside, I have a little admiration for their form of government after a cursory once-over. I find it very reassuring that they guarantee their minorities a seat and voice in parliament, including their Jewish citizens.)
Here is the opinion piece that helped get me thinking along these lines. I doubt many people here would agree with his politics, but the things he says about thinking out of the box (basically) are very interesting to me:
Quote:
After the United States invaded Iraq, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy," said Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld.
Surely no sane person wants Iran (or anyone) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable solution to the crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, under one condition: that the United States and Iran were functioning democratic societies, in which public opinion has a significant impact on public policy, overcoming the huge gulf that now exists on many critical issues, including this one.
That reasonable solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who agree quite generally on nuclear issues, according to recent polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, at the University of Maryland. The Iranian-American consensus extends to complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82 per cent of Americans), and if that cannot be achieved, a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include Islamic countries and Israel (71 per cent of Americans)." To 75 per cent of Americans, it is better to build relations with Iran rather than use threats of force.
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle18235.htm
This is getting longer than I had imagined, but I want to say that most of the vitriol coming from Iran is directed at Israel, and what is directed at the US is tied to our support of Israel (and our occupation of Iraq, of course). But America and Israel are not one and the same nation. America stood 270 years before Israel became a state. My point is, it is not blind and ridiculous hatred of freedom and the American way of life that is the point of contention. There are actual and rational options available in dealing with these problems.