Below are the three parts of Ahmadinejad's recent interview with Larry King. Watch it and comment on whatever struck you.
-Amir
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I just want to start off by saying that before taking this Decal, I had little to no understanding about Iran. Unfortunately, I never learned much about the country or it's political/social/cultural history, and therefore, I am ill-equipped to provide insightful analysis and may seem naive or uninformed in my blog responses. After listening to Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live, many of the stereotypes that I held against him vanished. Though he has been portrayed as a very radical, hot-tempered figure in the American media, I felt that his words made much sense. When he claimed that he had been in contact with President Bush to no avail, and when he cited information about the United States inciting Iran against Iraq, I was shocked because I had no idea such things had occurred. I believe that American officials should take the next steps to first meet with and discuss not only nuclear proliferation issues with Iran, but also other issues of political concern. It is necessary to eradicate the resentment that exists between the United States and Iran (at least, the resentment that the media portrays). I also felt that Ahmadinejad made valid points in relation to the nuclear weapons issue, in particular, in his response to Larry King's statement that the "world is afraid of Iran." In fact, the whole world is not afraid of Iran--the western states are afraid of Iran. That is a clear distinction that I felt Ahmadinejad was apt to make. It was very interesting to hear his perspective on the nuclear proliferation issue especially in regards to religion. When he said that the production and usage of nuclear weapons is one of the most abhorrent acts and that it is against their religion to support them, I sincerely believed him. I also agreed with his statement that the atomic bomb has lost its political leverage in world affairs. However, I was a bit skeptical when it came to the comments he made about Israel. Though his points about the horrendous atrocities that the Israeli's have committed against the Palestinians were founded on fact, I could not help but disagree with his stance that Israel should be "wiped off the map," though he meant this in a political sense. As Larry King said, Israel has been declared a nation-state, like it or not, and it is time to interact with them in a way that brings forth change rather than animosity. I am not well-versed in the politics behind Iran and Israel, so my solution is undoubtedly naive, yet when I did research on Ahmadinejad and his comments against Israel, I found many things that clearly demonstrated his disapproval of their existence. While I am sure many agree with him, I do not think that it is wise for a man of his political status to make comments belittling the plight of the Jewish people during the Holocaust...This is simply my take on Ahmadinejad based on no previous knowledge of the man and little to no knowledge about Iran prior to taking this course.
The thing that struck me the most when listening to Larry King's interview with President Ahmadinejad (except the translator's horrible voice of course!) was the fact that he was so indifferent to American politics and he believes that the hostility between the U.S. and Iran is one-sided. Even though I am partially biased because I am Iranian and in some ways pro-Iran, I believe that there is some truth to what he says. I think the Anti-American sentiment in Iran has died down a lot since the Revolution days, and he did state that he had tried to meet with President Bush and was turned down. I believe that the only solution to the nuclear arms issue in Iran is for the two countries to establish some sort of contact where they can discuss the issues that they have with each other. At the same time, I really am against the U.S. acting as the International police and don't think it's any of our business what weapons whichever country has. We saw how that speculating turned into a war with Iraq and I really don't think we need another one. I am not saying that Iran and the U.S. should or ever will be best friends, but I think it is wrong to assume that they are evil and are going to blow the U.S. and Israel up with nuclear weapons that they supposedly have. I know that Ahmadinejad is doing the whole finger-pointing thing by saying "you hate us we dont hate you", but there is some truth to what he says. He says he wants to have a discussion with McCain and Obama but no one will talk to him. I respect him for his efforts and I think open communication is the only way to keep peace in the world and the next president must take part in this with all countries.
I would first like to praise Senator Obama and Senator McCain on their ability to remain united on this tough issue. I just think this guy Ahmadinejad is all talk. He is all about propaganda that's it. Even if what he says sounds okay, I know, and the world knows, he has bad intentions. I love when he says he is all up for dialogue when Iran (and other radicals that they support) rejects all talks and any peace agreement with Israel. He further is not accepting any of the dialogue coming from the U.S., Europe, and the G8 to halt its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad needs to accept that most of the civilized world does not feel it right for nuclear capability to be in the hands of an Islamic radical government. Israel, unlike Iran, has been threatened with unprovoked wars since its inception. Israel, despite the capability and the relentless hostility from its neighbors, has never expressed hatred or called to wipe a country off the map, and Israelis dont stand in the streets calling Death to Iran or any other county. There is nothing to suggest that its weapons are for anything other than protection and to deter an attack. Ahmadinejad knows this difference but it doesnt suit his propaganda campaign.
Ahmadinejad needs to stop misrepresenting the history of Israel. The Israeli government did not just MOVE IN. Jews migrated there (just like other immigrants) and purchased property. Their migration to the mandate of Palestine did not displace anyone, nor did the migration of Arabs to Palestine's rapidly growing economy (thanks to Jewish immigrants). Most Jews could not enter due to the British and many remained in camps in Cyprus. Now this territory (not a country) was inhabited primarily by two distinct peoples, and the world thought it best for both to have a government.
The Jewish state was fairly founded with world approval. Arabs lived in the Jewish state and Jews in the Arab state until the Arab armies rejected the peace plan, invaded Israel and started war, which they would repeat again and again in years to follow. He needs to accept that Israel is here to stay and has a right to exist. No one believes that Israel started any of the wars that Ahmadinejad said they did, including in 2006--Even Saudi Arabia blamed Hezbollah for igniting the war for nothing but a grudge.
If Iran is so concerned about the Palestinian Arab plight, why doesnt he do something about it? Is funding rockets in Gaza that are fired into Israeli towns in the south considered help? Israel has helped Jewish refugees from all over the world get on their feet. Its about time the Muslim states stop using the Palestinian Arabs as political pawns.
Stop distorting facts, Ahmadinutjob. No result to negotiations with Israel? Expansion, Ahmadinejad? Israel has traded so much territory (Sinai Peninsula for example) for nothing other than a signature on a peace treaty.
Israel is not apartheid South Africa or communist USSR. Israel a liberal democracy. Israelis can express themselves freely, but Iranians in Iran cannot. Dont let Ahmadinejad dictate and misrepresent Iranian opinions.
In response to the interview and other posts, I do not agree that everything that was said by Pres. A. could just be disregarded. The overall point of his interview expressed a desire for peace with the US. Even if this was propaganda in an attempt to assuage Americans, this is better than the propaganda by others to go to war when insufficient evidence of any imminent threat exists. I respect the man's decision to come to a country whose government consistently threatens his own in front of the world. He did what he had to get his side of the story to the American people by going to the media, since the US government has refused to acknowledge him directly. Notice that the leader who threatens another is not the one traveling to the country in an attempt to communicate. What struck me the most about the interview was the differnece in Pres A's responses to its relations to the US versus Israel. While he did not try to defend any agression towards the US (by denying any existed), he did later do just that regarding his opinion of Israel. The impression that the interview left was that Pres A just wanted to explain his side of the story in a media that otherwise paints him very one-dimensionally. Whether or not he was lying in regards to the effects of Zionism on the non-Jewish community, he poised a counter-argument to the topic that was rational and not religious in nature.
I just wanted to comment in a different regard. Obviously, Ahmadinejad has said particular things in the past which have caused international resentment, especially coming from the strong western states. However, what about Iran as a nation? Debatably, the head of state is a little nuts, yet is Iran as an independent nation not only capable but also willing to use nuclear force?
On a matter of capabilities, while nothing can be proven, Iran clearly has the resources at their disposal to create a nuclear armament. Yet they maintain the legitimacy of their nuclear energy program. Now its at this point where I have to step in and say that I personally believe it is irrational for western nations like the US to possess such vast nuclear arsenals, yet they oppose Iran even attempting to create such a weapon. Obviously, the emergence of another nuclear power onto the International Community would change the Status Quo of modern politics. Especially when the nation has a had a track record such that of Irans'.
Now its the question of whether or not Iran would use their nuclear power. To me, this answer is an outstanding, No. Regardless of politics leanings and oppositions, no nation is today's contemporary world would even begin to consider the actual use of nuclear force. Nuclear weapons have always been and always will continue to be weapons of deterrence rather than destruction. After the world witnessed the destruction of Hiroshima, it has become well established that nuclear powers will remain (hopefully) as a weapon of deterrence.
So I guess what im trying to say is regardless of whether you see Ahmadinejad as a whacko or not, Iran currently stands in no position to use their nuclear weapons, assuming they even have them.
So you think Ahmadinejad has bad intentions? Do you not think the U.S has bad intentions or even Israel? Just because Iran now has a ridiculous Islamic government, and the president has said some threatening things (by the way he never said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, get your facts straight buddy, he said that 'Israel will vanish from the pages of time' but he never said how it would happen) does not give you the right to say he (solely) has bad intentions without referencing the other nations that are quite similar including the U.S and Israel. I am not saying he doesn't have bad intentions... nobody really knows, but if you are going to come out and say he has bad intentions then why don't talk about other nations' bad intentions??? So you think it is only the Iranians who are threatening to launch a nuclear attack? Stop being brainwashed by the media? You said "Israel, despite the capability and the relentless hostility from its neighbors, has never expressed hatred or called to wipe a country off the map, and Israelis dont stand in the streets calling Death to Iran or any other county." Do you think that is true?? What about Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert asking president bush for the 'okay' to launch an attack on Iran? huh why didn't you mention that? I am not pro-iran or pro-anything. I would bring up this same argument if the countries we happened to be talking about were completely different. I just think you should try to not take a class about a country (that you probably have never visited or experienced and that never had prior knowledge about) so stubbornly. Try to be open minded about this class and these topics and don't listen to everything the media feeds you.
People say that Iranians burn Israeli flags, correct? Can I ask you how people know that? Is it because when they log onto their yahoo mail and there they see an article that says that or because CNN (the most non-biased news channel out there, ha) tells them that has happened? Many of the people who talk this nonsense have never even been to Iran...!!?? It is like me talking and assuming things about Japan (or any other place) just because I hear it on the news. Isn't there flag burning in every country? I am not saying that there has never been flag burning in Iran, but people say it as if Iranians have no lives and they just burn flags all day. I think it is quite disrespectful to any people or nation for one to think like this. In your comment you make it sound like they are less human than you because you heard on CNN that they yell death to Israel and do certain things. Haven't other countries burned flags too? Anyways, maybe you should think about that before you reply with something even more biased...?
Aside: I think it is very disrespectful for a University or anyone to invite guest for an interview or for a cup of tea for that matter and just insult him/her. It doesn't matter how stupid you think the person is, you invited someone to your place and then you are going to disrespect him. People need to learn some manners...
hey beatles ill take the time to answer some of your questions: " Just because Iran now has a ridiculous Islamic government, and the president has said some threatening things (by the way he never said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, get your facts straight buddy, he said that 'Israel will vanish from the pages of time' but he never said how it would happen)" >A) I speak Farsi, and I've read news reports. I know what this guy said B) Even if what you say is true (I believe he may have said both at different times) then Oh I'm sorry, that just sounds so much better, that is just a much more rational and peaceful message. No grudge. Right...
"does not give you the right to say he (solely) has bad intentions without referencing the other nations that are quite similar including the U.S and Israel." >Iran is similar to the U.S. and Israel? Uh, okay
"I am not saying he doesn't have bad intentions... nobody really knows, but if you are going to come out and say he has bad intentions then why don't talk about other nations' bad intentions???" >Why? Simple, because this decal is about Iran. I am not writing a paper on world affairs.
"What about Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert asking president bush for the 'okay' to launch an attack on Iran? huh why didn't you mention that?" >I didnt mention it because this is a response to an interview with Ahmadinejad on Larry King. Secondly, his okay to launch an attack on Iran is to stop Iran's capability of harming Israeli citizens. It is the same reason it has the okay to strike rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip.
Here is where you are utterly wrong, rude, and narrow-minded: " just think you should try to not take a class about a country (that you probably have never visited or experienced and that never had prior knowledge about) so stubbornly. Try to be open minded about this class and these topics and don't listen to everything the media feeds you. >I just think you should mind your own business and keep your mindless advice to yourself. Keep in mind you just said those words to an Iranian-American. And even if I did have no prior knowledge of Iran and only knew what the mean old media machine "fed" me (not true, but ill address your nonsense), i would still be a legitimate student in this class. Believing that someone is wrong does not make me stubborn.
I never said Iranians burn flags all day. I didnt say anything about burning flags at all. I didnt say anything about CNN, the Associated Press, or any media at all. This class is about Iran, not Japan or other countries. I'm focusing on Iran because that is what this class, and this video that I commented on, focuses on. But, to address your comment again, the fact that some do that and that it is ENCOURAGED by the government says something about the society in the Islamic Republic of Iran and what the government is trying to raise. That is something you do not see much if it all in most democracies. I know there are Iranians who would love to wave U.S. flags, but they can't in Iran, and that says something too. You should think before prejudging me, or anyone for that matter
And again the beastles, having an opinion does not make me biased. Is it biased to say that Darfur should be independent? Is it biased to say the tree-sitters should climb down immediately? Would it have been biased during World War II to say what the Nazis are doing is wrong? Is it biased to be concerned about animal rights, the environment, Russia's invasion of Georgia, or in this case, Iran's nuclear program? No, its a legitimate opinion and I supported my opinion with facts.
Dont try to smear my opinion as "biased" just because you dont share it. Thats irrational and goes against everything you said about being stubborn.
I would like to preface this comment by stating that as both an Iranian and an avid fan of Larry King Live, I very well may be subject to biases. However, in hopes of putting these biases aside, I will make an effort to analyze a few segments of this Larry King Live broadcast objectively. Throughout the show, Larry King posed a series of questions that were somewhat awkward (i.e. Do you like coming to New York or Why do you think that Bush, McCain, Obama do not what to speak with you?). In my mind, these questions are bound to receive bizarre answers because Ahmadinejad is neither a humble person nor does he act with humility. In spite of that, Ahmadinejad’s lack of humility does not mean that diplomatic relations between both a hostile U.S. and Iranian government cannot pursue. On a number of occasions, he states that he is willing to speak with the U.S. presidential candidates, but then a loose translation will kick in, emphasizing that he will do so in front of various media outlets and cameras, etc. I feel like Larry King, as well as, many other U.S. media outlets have tainted the Westerners view of Iran. This can be seen in the loosely translated words of Ahmadinejad on foreign relations, which are subsequently blown out of proportion to make headlines such as Fox’s ‘No Gays in Iran.’ Granted that Ahmadinejad does not compare to the grandeur of the Shah and that he does not uphold many of the Persian cultures and values, I feel like he is doing the same thing as incumbent President George W. Bush, namely empty rhetoric to instill fear in the minds of many people.
Ahmadinejad is just like any other politician. He doesn't give straight answers when asked straightforward questions, and likes to bring up other issues that may or may not be relevant to the topic he is addressing. However, with that said, I feel like he was pretty smart in his responses in this interview. The issues that he did bring up, even though he wasn't asked about them, were mostly pretty important points. There are many Americans who know absolutely nothing about Iranian history, and more importantly, the history that Iran has with America. There seems to be a sort of short-term foreign memory syndrome that many Americans have, which distracts from the facts. The response that Katherine had written above, is probably very symbolic of what many Americans would think when watching this interview - which I think is very good. Like many others, she simply holds a view of Iran that was fed to her by misrepresentations in the media. Iran has a bad reputation in the U.S., which may be somewhat valid to some people. But I think it should be changed, and the only way that can be done is just by making more people aware of the facts. This is the reason I am talking this class - besides from wanting to have a better understanding about Iran, I want to be able to change the perceptions that people have of the country I am from.
Response to Video #1 “Hard-line” President? He is not a hardliner since he is a puppet under the grand ayatollah. I dont know if it is just American politics to keep this idea of Amadenajad as a ruler or is it American society that makes shows use familiar terms that allow for popular consumption. When it comes to Iranian defense I do not see a powerful state doing much harm to any surrounding states. The Iranian government has its own problems dealing with a youth majority, small resources, a rising population and a technology that is lagging in the agricultural sector. Not to mention the current economic problems of the US still have not reached the Iranian economy yet, but the demand and price for oil has recently dropped. Since Iran is basically dependent on oil, it is not apparent what the consequences will have on Iran. From prior interviews it was shown that his rhetoric was a little hash but this may have been dependent on the translator. During this interview he may have been given a better translator or been more clear on the choice of words he was using.
"Why? Simple, because this decal is about Iran. I am not writing a paper on world affairs."
> You are very true when you say that this class is about Iran and not world affairs, but I just felt that the way you were writing about made it seem that there is only country with bad intentions (Iran).
"I just think you should mind your own business and keep your mindless advice to yourself. Keep in mind you just said those words to an Iranian-American. And even if I did have no prior knowledge of Iran and only knew what the mean old media machine "fed" me (not true, but ill address your nonsense), i would still be a legitimate student in this class. Believing that someone is wrong does not make me stubborn."
>I never said that you are an illegitimate student in this class...? I just said that people (including myself) should be more open-minded about topics and issues in class. Hey, maybe you are already open-minded about everything, it just didn't sound like that by some of the things you said. I know some of the things I said were not open-minded, so thanks for your response because it helped me realize that.
I understand that calling you biased for having a different opinion was a little harsh.
You said "I didnt mention it because this is a response to an interview with Ahmadinejad on Larry King. Secondly, his okay to launch an attack on Iran is to stop Iran's capability of harming Israeli citizens."
> First of all Bush hasn't given the 'okay,' but I was just asking you why it is okay for Olmert to launch an attack on Iran? You said in order to stop Iran from harming Israeli citizens, but if Israel attacks Iran wouldn't this just start chaos in the region and ultimately harm more Israeli's and Iranians altogether? Just asking for your opinion.
Also, you continuously bring the fact that this blog is in response to the video on Ahmadinejad and Iran, but I find it difficult to talk about Iran and Ahmadinejad without talking about other countries and their relations to Iran and etc. Would you disagree with that or is there some truth in that? I don't know, but in my opinion I think talking about a country, especially one like Iran considering its present state in world affairs, without referencing other countries and their relations, would be doing it injustice. Does that kind of make sense, or are our thoughts completely different?
Just wondering if you think Iran should or should not have nuclear weapons? Based on what we have talked about I would assume that you would answer that they shouldn't, but I don't want to make assumptions. But in my opinion I think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons... why not? I mean people think they are animals and are going to bomb other countries. I mean, no matter what Ahmadinejad says I am sure he is smart enough to understand the effects of using nuclear weapons. Plus, it just doesn't seem fair for other countries to have them and Iran not to... Many people argue that well the Iranians are actually going to use them. Until now, the U.S has been the only one to use nuclear weapons...?
Anyways, I realized that I shouldn't have called you biased just because you have a different opinion. But I just felt like you weren't been fair to someone with the opposite opinion in some of your paragraphs because they sounded more one-sided, but I guess that's okay. I just have to realize that not everybody has the same opinion as me and everyone is different. Anyways, you should respond to some of the questions I asked so I can get a better understanding of your stances and not assume...
Ahmadinejad did come across as much less hot headed than his portrayal by both the British and American media, and certainly he seemed far more measured than his later appearance in the United Nations. part of the reason for this, however was probably because on the Larry King interview he was faced by an interviewer, somebody who could interrupt him or answer back, while at the UN he was simply giving a speech, without interruption. Fox news reported it as "not dissapointing in outrageousness", which although it was Fox, it was definitely more virulent than his appearance earlier. He came across as a particularly evasive character, dodging the issue of denying the holocaust, and bringing up the rhetoric of the slaughtered "women and children" of Palestine, as well as "women dying in chilbirth", which seemed to be completely away from the topic. He also spoke about how Iran was "contributing to safety in Iraq", which seemed to fly in the face of the news story from July 2nd, 2007 about how US general Kevin Bergner went on the record saying that there was evidence which had been uncovered about how Iranian special forces had been training Iraqi insurgents, and although I couldnt find much to follow up on that, or whether it had been proved at all, (it could, of course be Iran's "WMDs" or "45 minutes") it seemed to fly in the face of any assertions that he had just made. His stance on the nuclear bomb as "abhorrent" due to Iran's religious background was interesting, too, particularly so, as right next to the video as I was watching it was a news post about how Iran was not going to allow the IAEA to "threaten Iran's national security". If these nuclear power plants are not being built with the purpose of enriching Uranium, then surely this added pressure to be able to have better access from the IAEA would be no threat to national security at all. He has been wrongly portrayed in the American media, and American agression towards him an Iran is indeed palpable, with even Barrack Obama delaring Iran as a "threat" that must be "eliminated". Larry King's faintly belligerent questioning about how "Israel is a fact... you're not going to change that" also served to complete this image. So, although misconstrued, Ahmadinejad is without doubt a very slippery customer, and with that a shrewd political operator, who is certainly one to be treated lightly.
This interview has revealed something very interesting to me about Ahmadinejad. It seems that Ahmadinejad is softening his tone since last year when he spoke at Columbia University. If you pay close attentions to his remarks during the interview, he mentioned that Iran does not have the same number of homosexuals vis-à-vis the United States. Last year at Columbia, he utterly denied that there were even homosexuals in Iran. Ahmadinejad also appeared to be talking to the American people more directly than ever. He emphasized many times that Iranians have no quarrel toward the American people and he doesn't also have any animosity towards American people and he favors dialogue and diplomacy with the U.S government. Furthermore, He mentioned that one of the two things the new administration is ought to do would be to improve relations with Iran. In my opinion, these comments are explicitly the reflection of pressure on Ahmadinejad from even the hard-liners inside Iran. It is clear that his rhetoric has become unpopular in Iran and even has some hard-liners concerned. However, I don't believe that even the new administration, whoever that might be would take him seriously without any bold actions on part of Iranian government. It is important to note that trust is a very complex issue in the realm of international relations and policy makers in this country are extremely concerned with Iran's nuclear program.
It is astonishing to me that the people in this class are still focusing on the notion that the U.S and its allies are concerned with Iran's nuclear program only because it poses a threat to Israel. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!! What policy makers and experts such as Kenneth Polack and others are concerned about is nuclear proliferation in the region. Once Iran goes nuclear, you can rest to sure that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan would soon have to follow the nuclear path and weaponization program. If you don't know why, a course in Introduction to International Relations or International Relations of Middle East would extensively explain why the other states would go nuclear soon after Iran. A nuclear Middles East when all this countries are armed with nuclear weapons is a nightmare scenario not only for the U.S and the E.U but the whole world. There is obviously more to say about this issue. I just wanted to clarify that there are other reasons why the world community is very concerned about Iran's nuclear program. Israel has second-strike capability via its SLBM's (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) and even the Iranians are fully aware of that. It's extremely unlikely if not impossible that Iran will launch a nuclear missile at Israel when it knows that there would be several nuclear missiles launching towards Iran from the Mediterranean Sea. In the end, we might be seeing a pivotal point in Iran-U.S relations. There is a new administration on its way in to the White House and it seems the Iranians are fully aware of what's at stake, which is a great opportunity to ease the hostility and avert a direct confrontation with the U.S.
Ahmadinejad has obviously been misrepresented in the US and Uk media and in this interview he is very much more calm and measured than he is often portrayed as being. He is also very much more diplomatic and talking less of the anti western polemic even than in his earlier address to the UN. Part of the reason for this could be because he is now faced with an interviewer who can interject at any time, as opposed to an uninterrupted speech, in which he can afford to be much more virulent, without the fear of being opposed; perhaps he was fearful of a repeat of Columbia university. He also manages to dodge all the serious issues in the interview, such as his non-recognition of the state of Israel, and denial of the holocaust. He seemed to get out of the answer by moving swiftly on to talking about Palestine, and fairly incongruously bringing in such ampty rhetoric as "women and children dying" and "women dying in childbirth". He also seems to not be telling the whole truth when he says "Iran has always supported peace in Iraq", which differs with the report of July 2nd, 2007, when the American general Kevin Bergner went on record as saying that there was evidence of Iranian special forces training Iraqi insurgents. ALthough I couldn't actually find the conclusion of this story, and it could just end up being Iran's version of the "WMDs" or the "45 minute dossier" it seems to fly directly in the face of what Ahmadinejad is saying here. On the issue of nuclear weapons, as well, Ahmadinejad describes them as "abhorrent" due to his Muslim upbringing. I found this interesting, seeing as right next to the youtube post on the website was another post of a newsstory of how the Iranian envoy to the IAEA was actually protesting about ther inspections being a "threat to national security". If they wer simply power stations, this would not be a threat to national security at all. Obviously he is much maligned by western media, especially by such organisations as Fox news, whose report on the UN address was characteristically jingoistic and anti Ahmadinejad, but this attitude is also ubiquitous, to varying levels, it seems, throughout the American view of Ahmadinejad. From Larry King's faintly belligerent assertions that "Israel is a fact...you're not going to change that" to Barack Obama describing a Iran as a "threat" and that "we must elminate this threat". However, Ahmadinejad is obviously a very slippery character, as well as a shrewd political operator, at the head of a particularly important country at the moment, and certainly somebody not to be trifled with.
Ahmadinejad has obviously been misrepresented in the US and Uk media and in this interview he is very much more calm and measured than he is often portrayed as being. He is also very much more diplomatic and talking less of the anti western polemic even than in his earlier address to the UN. Part of the reason for this could be because he is now faced with an interviewer who can interject at any time, as opposed to an uninterrupted speech, in which he can afford to be much more virulent, without the fear of being opposed; perhaps he was fearful of a repeat of Columbia university. He also manages to dodge all the serious issues in the interview, such as his non-recognition of the state of Israel, and denial of the holocaust. He seemed to get out of the answer by moving swiftly on to talking about Palestine, and fairly incongruously bringing in such ampty rhetoric as "women and children dying" and "women dying in childbirth". He also seems to not be telling the whole truth when he says "Iran has always supported peace in Iraq", which differs with the report of July 2nd, 2007, when the American general Kevin Bergner went on record as saying that there was evidence of Iranian special forces training Iraqi insurgents. ALthough I couldn't actually find the conclusion of this story, and it could just end up being Iran's version of the "WMDs" or the "45 minute dossier" it seems to fly directly in the face of what Ahmadinejad is saying here. On the issue of nuclear weapons, as well, Ahmadinejad describes them as "abhorrent" due to his Muslim upbringing. I found this interesting, seeing as right next to the youtube post on the website was another post of a newsstory of how the Iranian envoy to the IAEA was actually protesting about ther inspections being a "threat to national security". If they wer simply power stations, this would not be a threat to national security at all. Obviously he is much maligned by western media, especially by such organisations as Fox news, whose report on the UN address was characteristically jingoistic and anti Ahmadinejad, but this attitude is also ubiquitous, to varying levels, it seems, throughout the American view of Ahmadinejad. From Larry King's faintly belligerent assertions that "Israel is a fact...you're not going to change that" to Barack Obama describing a Iran as a "threat" and that "we must elminate this threat". However, Ahmadinejad is obviously a very slippery character, as well as a shrewd political operator, at the head of a particularly important country at the moment, and certainly somebody not to be trifled with.
Can you reference other countries and foreign relations? Sure. That is not a problem and I didnt say it was, but it is not an obligation. As a student of this decal and as someone responding to this specific video, I focused on Iran and on the president of Iran. It is a response, not even an essay, so anything more would just be additional information.
And now to your questions. "But in my opinion I think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons... why not?"
When considering the role of nuclear weapons, I do not just say "why not?" Is any country out for Iranian blood? I do not believe nuclear weapons should be put in the hands of people driven by religious fundamentalism. This government is violent, it maintains laws that are barbaric and have little concern for human rights, and the country, according to Freedom House, awards a trivial degree of political rights and civil liberties to its citizens. It just seems so backwards. And again, the leader of this government has called another country "a stinking corpse", made very provocative statements about its history, and has called (as all mainstream sources and fluent Farsi speakers will tell you) for this country to be wiped off the map. No, I'm sorry, I wouldnt want this guy to have a nuclear weapon. No sir. And guess what? This is one issue, unlike the Iraq War, that the G8 agrees on.
If Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities that may (or may not) start a horrific war but it not because of Israel's attack but because of Iran's intentions and nuclear facilities. Israel made a pre-emptive strike on Egypt in 1967 (Egypt was clearly planning to invade), but that was due to Egypt's naval blockade of the Strait of Tiran, military buildup in the Sinai (to this day, under a 1979 treaty, Egypt can only have a limited number of its troops in this area), and expulsion of the UN peacekeepers. Always notice the reason behind it. For example, Gaza rockets target Israelis, while Israeli airstrikes target Palestinian militants and rocket launchers (who, according to AP photos, operate from densely populated areas and drive trunks full of rockets through crowded streets).
Also, there is a chance that a horrific war would not break out, and I hope not. People expected a War between the US and USSR for years and it never happened. Even if Israel was given the green light to strike Iran's nukes, it doesnt necessarily mean a war would break out. Israel striked Saddam's nukes in 1981 without any reaction, and recently pulled out an attack on a mysterious Syrian building--an attack that the US has praised and one that no other country in the world has condemned, not even the Muslim states, not even Syria's buddy Iran. This likewise was followed by no military action. Now, Iran possess more sophisticated weapons than these countries, so it could be a different story. Who knows?...
Let me start off by saying that I am very disappointed by what some of m classmate thought of this interview. I would like everyone to know that not everything he says isthe truth. He is someone of no power. He is used by Iran as a puppet to make noise in the World. He has absoloutely no business to comment on Israel's issues. A very large part of what he says includes many lies. I sincerely believe that if he is in control of a nuclear weapon, it would be very dangerous to the world and not just the middle east. Please noete that many jews have been executed in Iran for no reason. In addition you need to realize that Israel has belonged to the jews for thousands of years and that cannot change. I hope that some day the current Islamic dictatorship of Iran will be non-existent.
I agree with Katherine's central claim: "After listening to Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live, many of the stereotypes that I held against him vanished." People always talk about how Ahmadinejad is "hot-tempered" and irrational, but I thought he kept his composure throughout this interview, and furthermore, brought up some challenging and controversial claims in a coherent and professional manner.
Firstly, he asserts how the United States is the country that does not want to resolve present and historical conflicts. Ahmadinejad states that the conflict is "a one-sided" that is supported by the United States. He substantiates his claim by mentioning how he sent a letter to President Bush, asking to work out their problems and to start over from square one. However, according to Ahmadinejad, President Bush did not respond to Iran's request for peace. Hence, Ahmadinejad portrays a "representation" (or image in mind rather) where Iran is the mature and peaceful country that has attempted to form peace in spite of the fact their adversary (the United States) refuses to even contemplate the notion of it.
Moreover, Ahmadinejad cleverly responds to each and everyone of Larry King's questions. He responds patiently and uses what literary theorist J.T. Mitchell explains as "representations." Mitchell defines representations as "socially accepted" forms of the signifier (the literal word) and the signified (the meaning of the word/signifier) where the collective agrees upon the common notion that: "Let X stand for this," etc. Ahmadinejad implements Mitchell's idea of "representations" in this interview because he presents challenging claims, like how the United States aided Saddam Hussain with armed weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does so indirectly: in a manner that is "socially excepted." In other words, as psychoanalytical critics like Freud would say, he "cushions" his opinion by not overwhelming the viewers with his strong beliefs because that would be a plethora of "reception stimuli." In psychoanalysis theory, too much "stimuli" would render two reactions: it would either threaten the viewer's position thus making them feel extremely uncomfortable, or the viewer would think that Ahmadinejad is foolish, irrational, and they would go on with their lives and not think twice about his assertions. By cushioning his responses and not reacting too passionately to King's questions, Ahmadinejad implies that the U.S. helped kill thousands of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does not forthrightly assert this. Hence, he "represents" the ideal politician who does not reveal too much of his personal opinion, but yet, still expresses his viewpoints in an objective manner.
Ahmadinejad reminds me of Anne Hutchinson; a woman who was accused of practicing witch craft during the Salem Witch Trials. However, Hutchinson eventually cracks and explodes before the court, whereas Ahmadinejad keeps his cool and continues answering King's questions.
I think the most important thing to remember when dealing with a politician is that they always have an agenda. They will never speak the truth, and they will always avoid the questions they are asked. Regardless of whether or not it is true, of course Ahmadinejad is on Larry king saying that the hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is only coming from the side of the U.S., because it makes his country look better. The same way the U.S. claims that Iran is creating a threat towards them and that the U.S. is an innocent bystander and did nothing to provoke it. It is also important to acknowledge that states will always do what it best for their state. It is not unreasonable for Iran to want nuclear weapons, it is a source of protection for them. And it might not be that bad for Iran to become nuclear because my belief is that in someways nuclear powers create some form of peace. Nuclear powers will never nuke each other, because they know that if they nuke another state that has nuclear weapons, they will get nuked back and no country would do that it itself. Iran does not want to destroy its own country, therefore it will not use nuclear weapons against the U.S. even if it has any. And I agree with Sunny, who said that the U.S. needs to stop playing the role of the international police. I don't think it is fair for any country to have a say in what another country does. When countries interfere with other countries affairs, its is always for their own interest. Therefore the U.S. not wanting Iran to become a nuclear power is of course out of their own concern for themselves. The only actor that can have that role in the international system is a neutral one, like the United Nations.
I think the most important thing to remember when dealing with a politician is that they always have an agenda. They will never speak the truth, and they will always avoid the questions they are asked. Regardless of whether or not it is true, of course Ahmadinejad is on Larry king saying that the hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is only coming from the side of the U.S., because it makes his country look better. The same way the U.S. claims that Iran is creating a threat towards them and that the U.S. is an innocent bystander and did nothing to provoke it. It is also important to acknowledge that states will always do what it best for their state. It is not unreasonable for Iran to want nuclear weapons, it is a source of protection for them. And it might not be that bad for Iran to become nuclear because my belief is that in someways nuclear powers create some form of peace. Nuclear powers will never nuke each other, because they know that if they nuke another state that has nuclear weapons, they will get nuked back and no country would do that it itself. Iran does not want to destroy its own country, therefore it will not use nuclear weapons against the U.S. even if it has any. And I agree with Sunny, who said that the U.S. needs to stop playing the role of the international police. I don't think it is fair for any country to have a say in what another country does. When countries interfere with other countries affairs, its is always for their own interest. Therefore the U.S. not wanting Iran to become a nuclear power is of course out of their own concern for themselves. The only actor that can have that role in the international system is a neutral one, like the United Nations.
I agree with Katherine's central claim: "After listening to Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live, many of the stereotypes that I held against him vanished." People always talk about how Ahmadinejad is "hot-tempered" and irrational, but I thought he kept his composure throughout this interview, and furthermore, brought up some challenging and controversial claims in a coherent and professional manner.
Firstly, he asserts how the United States is the country that does not want to resolve present and historical conflicts. Ahmadinejad states that the conflict is "a one-sided" that is supported by the United States. He substantiates his claim by mentioning how he sent a letter to President Bush, asking to work out their problems and to start over from square one. However, according to Ahmadinejad, President Bush did not respond to Iran's request for peace. Hence, Ahmadinejad portrays a "representation" (or image in mind rather) where Iran is the mature and peaceful country that has attempted to form peace in spite of the fact their adversary (the United States) refuses to even contemplate the notion of it.
Moreover, Ahmadinejad cleverly responds to each and everyone of Larry King's questions. He responds patiently and uses what literary theorist J.T. Mitchell explains as "representations." Mitchell defines representations as "socially accepted" forms of the signifier (the literal word) and the signified (the meaning of the word/signifier) where the collective agrees upon the common notion that: "Let X stand for this," etc. Ahmadinejad implements Mitchell's idea of "representations" in this interview because he presents challenging claims, like how the United States aided Saddam Hussain with armed weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does so indirectly: in a manner that is "socially excepted." In other words, as psychoanalytical critics like Freud would say, he "cushions" his opinion by not overwhelming the viewers with his strong beliefs because that would be a plethora of "reception stimuli." In psychoanalysis theory, too much "stimuli" would render two reactions: it would either threaten the viewer's position thus making them feel extremely uncomfortable, or the viewer would think that Ahmadinejad is foolish, irrational, and they would go on with their lives and not think twice about his assertions. By cushioning his responses and not reacting too passionately to King's questions, Ahmadinejad implies that the U.S. helped kill thousands of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does not forthrightly assert this. Hence, he "represents" the ideal politician who does not reveal too much of his personal opinion, but yet, still expresses his viewpoints in an objective manner. Ahmadinejad reminds me of Anne Hutchinson; a woman who was accused of practicing witch craft during the Salem Witch Trials. However, Hutchinson eventually cracks and explodes before the court, whereas Ahmadinejad keeps his cool and continues answering King's questions.
21 comments:
I just want to start off by saying that before taking this Decal, I had little to no understanding about Iran. Unfortunately, I never learned much about the country or it's political/social/cultural history, and therefore, I am ill-equipped to provide insightful analysis and may seem naive or uninformed in my blog responses. After listening to Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live, many of the stereotypes that I held against him vanished. Though he has been portrayed as a very radical, hot-tempered figure in the American media, I felt that his words made much sense. When he claimed that he had been in contact with President Bush to no avail, and when he cited information about the United States inciting Iran against Iraq, I was shocked because I had no idea such things had occurred. I believe that American officials should take the next steps to first meet with and discuss not only nuclear proliferation issues with Iran, but also other issues of political concern. It is necessary to eradicate the resentment that exists between the United States and Iran (at least, the resentment that the media portrays). I also felt that Ahmadinejad made valid points in relation to the nuclear weapons issue, in particular, in his response to Larry King's statement that the "world is afraid of Iran." In fact, the whole world is not afraid of Iran--the western states are afraid of Iran. That is a clear distinction that I felt Ahmadinejad was apt to make. It was very interesting to hear his perspective on the nuclear proliferation issue especially in regards to religion. When he said that the production and usage of nuclear weapons is one of the most abhorrent acts and that it is against their religion to support them, I sincerely believed him. I also agreed with his statement that the atomic bomb has lost its political leverage in world affairs. However, I was a bit skeptical when it came to the comments he made about Israel. Though his points about the horrendous atrocities that the Israeli's have committed against the Palestinians were founded on fact, I could not help but disagree with his stance that Israel should be "wiped off the map," though he meant this in a political sense. As Larry King said, Israel has been declared a nation-state, like it or not, and it is time to interact with them in a way that brings forth change rather than animosity. I am not well-versed in the politics behind Iran and Israel, so my solution is undoubtedly naive, yet when I did research on Ahmadinejad and his comments against Israel, I found many things that clearly demonstrated his disapproval of their existence. While I am sure many agree with him, I do not think that it is wise for a man of his political status to make comments belittling the plight of the Jewish people during the Holocaust...This is simply my take on Ahmadinejad based on no previous knowledge of the man and little to no knowledge about Iran prior to taking this course.
The thing that struck me the most when listening to Larry King's interview with President Ahmadinejad (except the translator's horrible voice of course!) was the fact that he was so indifferent to American politics and he believes that the hostility between the U.S. and Iran is one-sided. Even though I am partially biased because I am Iranian and in some ways pro-Iran, I believe that there is some truth to what he says. I think the Anti-American sentiment in Iran has died down a lot since the Revolution days, and he did state that he had tried to meet with President Bush and was turned down. I believe that the only solution to the nuclear arms issue in Iran is for the two countries to establish some sort of contact where they can discuss the issues that they have with each other. At the same time, I really am against the U.S. acting as the International police and don't think it's any of our business what weapons whichever country has. We saw how that speculating turned into a war with Iraq and I really don't think we need another one. I am not saying that Iran and the U.S. should or ever will be best friends, but I think it is wrong to assume that they are evil and are going to blow the U.S. and Israel up with nuclear weapons that they supposedly have. I know that Ahmadinejad is doing the whole finger-pointing thing by saying "you hate us we dont hate you", but there is some truth to what he says. He says he wants to have a discussion with McCain and Obama but no one will talk to him. I respect him for his efforts and I think open communication is the only way to keep peace in the world and the next president must take part in this with all countries.
I would first like to praise Senator Obama and Senator McCain on their ability to remain united on this tough issue.
I just think this guy Ahmadinejad is all talk. He is all about propaganda that's it. Even if what he says sounds okay, I know, and the world knows, he has bad intentions.
I love when he says he is all up for dialogue when Iran (and other radicals that they support) rejects all talks and any peace agreement with Israel. He further is not accepting any of the dialogue coming from the U.S., Europe, and the G8 to halt its nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad needs to accept that most of the civilized world does not feel it right for nuclear capability to be in the hands of an Islamic radical government.
Israel, unlike Iran, has been threatened with unprovoked wars since its inception. Israel, despite the capability and the relentless hostility from its neighbors, has never expressed hatred or called to wipe a country off the map, and Israelis dont stand in the streets calling Death to Iran or any other county. There is nothing to suggest that its weapons are for anything other than protection and to deter an attack. Ahmadinejad knows this difference but it doesnt suit his propaganda campaign.
Ahmadinejad needs to stop misrepresenting the history of Israel. The Israeli government did not just MOVE IN. Jews migrated there (just like other immigrants) and purchased property. Their migration to the mandate of Palestine did not displace anyone, nor did the migration of Arabs to Palestine's rapidly growing economy (thanks to Jewish immigrants). Most Jews could not enter due to the British and many remained in camps in Cyprus. Now this territory (not a country) was inhabited primarily by two distinct peoples, and the world thought it best for both to have a government.
The Jewish state was fairly founded with world approval. Arabs lived in the Jewish state and Jews in the Arab state until the Arab armies rejected the peace plan, invaded Israel and started war, which they would repeat again and again in years to follow. He needs to accept that Israel is here to stay and has a right to exist. No one believes that Israel started any of the wars that Ahmadinejad said they did, including in 2006--Even Saudi Arabia blamed Hezbollah for igniting the war for nothing but a grudge.
If Iran is so concerned about the Palestinian Arab plight, why doesnt he do something about it? Is funding rockets in Gaza that are fired into Israeli towns in the south considered help? Israel has helped Jewish refugees from all over the world get on their feet. Its about time the Muslim states stop using the Palestinian Arabs as political pawns.
Stop distorting facts, Ahmadinutjob. No result to negotiations with Israel? Expansion, Ahmadinejad? Israel has traded so much territory (Sinai Peninsula for example) for nothing other than a signature on a peace treaty.
Israel is not apartheid South Africa or communist USSR. Israel a liberal democracy. Israelis can express themselves freely, but Iranians in Iran cannot. Dont let Ahmadinejad dictate and misrepresent Iranian opinions.
In response to the interview and other posts, I do not agree that everything that was said by Pres. A. could just be disregarded. The overall point of his interview expressed a desire for peace with the US. Even if this was propaganda in an attempt to assuage Americans, this is better than the propaganda by others to go to war when insufficient evidence of any imminent threat exists.
I respect the man's decision to come to a country whose government consistently threatens his own in front of the world. He did what he had to get his side of the story to the American people by going to the media, since the US government has refused to acknowledge him directly. Notice that the leader who threatens another is not the one traveling to the country in an attempt to communicate.
What struck me the most about the interview was the differnece in Pres A's responses to its relations to the US versus Israel. While he did not try to defend any agression towards the US (by denying any existed), he did later do just that regarding his opinion of Israel.
The impression that the interview left was that Pres A just wanted to explain his side of the story in a media that otherwise paints him very one-dimensionally. Whether or not he was lying in regards to the effects of Zionism on the non-Jewish community, he poised a counter-argument to the topic that was rational and not religious in nature.
I just wanted to comment in a different regard. Obviously, Ahmadinejad has said particular things in the past which have caused international resentment, especially coming from the strong western states. However, what about Iran as a nation? Debatably, the head of state is a little nuts, yet is Iran as an independent nation not only capable but also willing to use nuclear force?
On a matter of capabilities, while nothing can be proven, Iran clearly has the resources at their disposal to create a nuclear armament. Yet they maintain the legitimacy of their nuclear energy program. Now its at this point where I have to step in and say that I personally believe it is irrational for western nations like the US to possess such vast nuclear arsenals, yet they oppose Iran even attempting to create such a weapon. Obviously, the emergence of another nuclear power onto the International Community would change the Status Quo of modern politics. Especially when the nation has a had a track record such that of Irans'.
Now its the question of whether or not Iran would use their nuclear power. To me, this answer is an outstanding, No. Regardless of politics leanings and oppositions, no nation is today's contemporary world would even begin to consider the actual use of nuclear force. Nuclear weapons have always been and always will continue to be weapons of deterrence rather than destruction. After the world witnessed the destruction of Hiroshima, it has become well established that nuclear powers will remain (hopefully) as a weapon of deterrence.
So I guess what im trying to say is regardless of whether you see Ahmadinejad as a whacko or not, Iran currently stands in no position to use their nuclear weapons, assuming they even have them.
Hey Kevin...
So you think Ahmadinejad has bad intentions? Do you not think the U.S has bad intentions or even Israel? Just because Iran now has a ridiculous Islamic government, and the president has said some threatening things (by the way he never said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, get your facts straight buddy, he said that 'Israel will vanish from the pages of time' but he never said how it would happen) does not give you the right to say he (solely) has bad intentions without referencing the other nations that are quite similar including the U.S and Israel. I am not saying he doesn't have bad intentions... nobody really knows, but if you are going to come out and say he has bad intentions then why don't talk about other nations' bad intentions??? So you think it is only the Iranians who are threatening to launch a nuclear attack? Stop being brainwashed by the media? You said "Israel, despite the capability and the relentless hostility from its neighbors, has never expressed hatred or called to wipe a country off the map, and Israelis dont stand in the streets calling Death to Iran or any other county." Do you think that is true?? What about Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert asking president bush for the 'okay' to launch an attack on Iran? huh why didn't you mention that? I am not pro-iran or pro-anything. I would bring up this same argument if the countries we happened to be talking about were completely different. I just think you should try to not take a class about a country (that you probably have never visited or experienced and that never had prior knowledge about) so stubbornly. Try to be open minded about this class and these topics and don't listen to everything the media feeds you.
People say that Iranians burn Israeli flags, correct? Can I ask you how people know that? Is it because when they log onto their yahoo mail and there they see an article that says that or because CNN (the most non-biased news channel out there, ha) tells them that has happened? Many of the people who talk this nonsense have never even been to Iran...!!?? It is like me talking and assuming things about Japan (or any other place) just because I hear it on the news. Isn't there flag burning in every country? I am not saying that there has never been flag burning in Iran, but people say it as if Iranians have no lives and they just burn flags all day. I think it is quite disrespectful to any people or nation for one to think like this. In your comment you make it sound like they are less human than you because you heard on CNN that they yell death to Israel and do certain things. Haven't other countries burned flags too? Anyways, maybe you should think about that before you reply with something even more biased...?
Aside: I think it is very disrespectful for a University or anyone to invite guest for an interview or for a cup of tea for that matter and just insult him/her. It doesn't matter how stupid you think the person is, you invited someone to your place and then you are going to disrespect him. People need to learn some manners...
hey beatles ill take the time to answer some of your questions:
" Just because Iran now has a ridiculous Islamic government, and the president has said some threatening things (by the way he never said he was going to wipe Israel off the map, get your facts straight buddy, he said that 'Israel will vanish from the pages of time' but he never said how it would happen)"
>A) I speak Farsi, and I've read news reports. I know what this guy said B) Even if what you say is true (I believe he may have said both at different times) then Oh I'm sorry, that just sounds so much better, that is just a much more rational and peaceful message. No grudge. Right...
"does not give you the right to say he (solely) has bad intentions without referencing the other nations that are quite similar including the U.S and Israel."
>Iran is similar to the U.S. and Israel? Uh, okay
"I am not saying he doesn't have bad intentions... nobody really knows, but if you are going to come out and say he has bad intentions then why don't talk about other nations' bad intentions???"
>Why? Simple, because this decal is about Iran. I am not writing a paper on world affairs.
"What about Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert asking president bush for the 'okay' to launch an attack on Iran? huh why didn't you mention that?"
>I didnt mention it because this is a response to an interview with Ahmadinejad on Larry King. Secondly, his okay to launch an attack on Iran is to stop Iran's capability of harming Israeli citizens. It is the same reason it has the okay to strike rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip.
Here is where you are utterly wrong, rude, and narrow-minded: " just think you should try to not take a class about a country (that you probably have never visited or experienced and that never had prior knowledge about) so stubbornly. Try to be open minded about this class and these topics and don't listen to everything the media feeds you. >I just think you should mind your own business and keep your mindless advice to yourself. Keep in mind you just said those words to an Iranian-American. And even if I did have no prior knowledge of Iran and only knew what the mean old media machine "fed" me (not true, but ill address your nonsense), i would still be a legitimate student in this class. Believing that someone is wrong does not make me stubborn.
I never said Iranians burn flags all day. I didnt say anything about burning flags at all. I didnt say anything about CNN, the Associated Press, or any media at all. This class is about Iran, not Japan or other countries. I'm focusing on Iran because that is what this class, and this video that I commented on, focuses on.
But, to address your comment again, the fact that some do that and that it is ENCOURAGED by the government says something about the society in the Islamic Republic of Iran and what the government is trying to raise. That is something you do not see much if it all in most democracies. I know there are Iranians who would love to wave U.S. flags, but they can't in Iran, and that says something too. You should think before prejudging me, or anyone for that matter
And again the beastles, having an opinion does not make me biased. Is it biased to say that Darfur should be independent? Is it biased to say the tree-sitters should climb down immediately? Would it have been biased during World War II to say what the Nazis are doing is wrong? Is it biased to be concerned about animal rights, the environment, Russia's invasion of Georgia, or in this case, Iran's nuclear program? No, its a legitimate opinion and I supported my opinion with facts.
Dont try to smear my opinion as "biased" just because you dont share it. Thats irrational and goes against everything you said about being stubborn.
I would like to preface this comment by stating that as both an Iranian and an avid fan of Larry King Live, I very well may be subject to biases. However, in hopes of putting these biases aside, I will make an effort to analyze a few segments of this Larry King Live broadcast objectively. Throughout the show, Larry King posed a series of questions that were somewhat awkward (i.e. Do you like coming to New York or Why do you think that Bush, McCain, Obama do not what to speak with you?). In my mind, these questions are bound to receive bizarre answers because Ahmadinejad is neither a humble person nor does he act with humility. In spite of that, Ahmadinejad’s lack of humility does not mean that diplomatic relations between both a hostile U.S. and Iranian government cannot pursue. On a number of occasions, he states that he is willing to speak with the U.S. presidential candidates, but then a loose translation will kick in, emphasizing that he will do so in front of various media outlets and cameras, etc. I feel like Larry King, as well as, many other U.S. media outlets have tainted the Westerners view of Iran. This can be seen in the loosely translated words of Ahmadinejad on foreign relations, which are subsequently blown out of proportion to make headlines such as Fox’s ‘No Gays in Iran.’ Granted that Ahmadinejad does not compare to the grandeur of the Shah and that he does not uphold many of the Persian cultures and values, I feel like he is doing the same thing as incumbent President George W. Bush, namely empty rhetoric to instill fear in the minds of many people.
Ahmadinejad is just like any other politician. He doesn't give straight answers when asked straightforward questions, and likes to bring up other issues that may or may not be relevant to the topic he is addressing. However, with that said, I feel like he was pretty smart in his responses in this interview. The issues that he did bring up, even though he wasn't asked about them, were mostly pretty important points. There are many Americans who know absolutely nothing about Iranian history, and more importantly, the history that Iran has with America. There seems to be a sort of short-term foreign memory syndrome that many Americans have, which distracts from the facts. The response that Katherine had written above, is probably very symbolic of what many Americans would think when watching this interview - which I think is very good. Like many others, she simply holds a view of Iran that was fed to her by misrepresentations in the media. Iran has a bad reputation in the U.S., which may be somewhat valid to some people. But I think it should be changed, and the only way that can be done is just by making more people aware of the facts. This is the reason I am talking this class - besides from wanting to have a better understanding about Iran, I want to be able to change the perceptions that people have of the country I am from.
Response to Video #1
“Hard-line” President? He is not a hardliner since he is a puppet under the grand ayatollah. I dont know if it is just American politics to keep this idea of Amadenajad as a ruler or is it American society that makes shows use familiar terms that allow for popular consumption. When it comes to Iranian defense I do not see a powerful state doing much harm to any surrounding states. The Iranian government has its own problems dealing with a youth majority, small resources, a rising population and a technology that is lagging in the agricultural sector. Not to mention the current economic problems of the US still have not reached the Iranian economy yet, but the demand and price for oil has recently dropped. Since Iran is basically dependent on oil, it is not apparent what the consequences will have on Iran. From prior interviews it was shown that his rhetoric was a little hash but this may have been dependent on the translator. During this interview he may have been given a better translator or been more clear on the choice of words he was using.
Hey Kevin,
"Why? Simple, because this decal is about Iran. I am not writing a paper on world affairs."
> You are very true when you say that this class is about Iran and not world affairs, but I just felt that the way you were writing about made it seem that there is only country with bad intentions (Iran).
"I just think you should mind your own business and keep your mindless advice to yourself. Keep in mind you just said those words to an Iranian-American. And even if I did have no prior knowledge of Iran and only knew what the mean old media machine "fed" me (not true, but ill address your nonsense), i would still be a legitimate student in this class. Believing that someone is wrong does not make me stubborn."
>I never said that you are an illegitimate student in this class...? I just said that people (including myself) should be more open-minded about topics and issues in class. Hey, maybe you are already open-minded about everything, it just didn't sound like that by some of the things you said. I know some of the things I said were not open-minded, so thanks for your response because it helped me realize that.
I understand that calling you biased for having a different opinion was a little harsh.
You said "I didnt mention it because this is a response to an interview with Ahmadinejad on Larry King. Secondly, his okay to launch an attack on Iran is to stop Iran's capability of harming Israeli citizens."
> First of all Bush hasn't given the 'okay,' but I was just asking you why it is okay for Olmert to launch an attack on Iran? You said in order to stop Iran from harming Israeli citizens, but if Israel attacks Iran wouldn't this just start chaos in the region and ultimately harm more Israeli's and Iranians altogether? Just asking for your opinion.
Also, you continuously bring the fact that this blog is in response to the video on Ahmadinejad and Iran, but I find it difficult to talk about Iran and Ahmadinejad without talking about other countries and their relations to Iran and etc. Would you disagree with that or is there some truth in that? I don't know, but in my opinion I think talking about a country, especially one like Iran considering its present state in world affairs, without referencing other countries and their relations, would be doing it injustice. Does that kind of make sense, or are our thoughts completely different?
Just wondering if you think Iran should or should not have nuclear weapons? Based on what we have talked about I would assume that you would answer that they shouldn't, but I don't want to make assumptions. But in my opinion I think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons... why not? I mean people think they are animals and are going to bomb other countries. I mean, no matter what Ahmadinejad says I am sure he is smart enough to understand the effects of using nuclear weapons. Plus, it just doesn't seem fair for other countries to have them and Iran not to... Many people argue that well the Iranians are actually going to use them. Until now, the U.S has been the only one to use nuclear weapons...?
Anyways, I realized that I shouldn't have called you biased just because you have a different opinion. But I just felt like you weren't been fair to someone with the opposite opinion in some of your paragraphs because they sounded more one-sided, but I guess that's okay. I just have to realize that not everybody has the same opinion as me and everyone is different. Anyways, you should respond to some of the questions I asked so I can get a better understanding of your stances and not assume...
Ahmadinejad did come across as much less hot headed than his portrayal by both the British and American media, and certainly he seemed far more measured than his later appearance in the United Nations. part of the reason for this, however was probably because on the Larry King interview he was faced by an interviewer, somebody who could interrupt him or answer back, while at the UN he was simply giving a speech, without interruption. Fox news reported it as "not dissapointing in outrageousness", which although it was Fox, it was definitely more virulent than his appearance earlier.
He came across as a particularly evasive character, dodging the issue of denying the holocaust, and bringing up the rhetoric of the slaughtered "women and children" of Palestine, as well as "women dying in chilbirth", which seemed to be completely away from the topic. He also spoke about how Iran was "contributing to safety in Iraq", which seemed to fly in the face of the news story from July 2nd, 2007 about how US general Kevin Bergner went on the record saying that there was evidence which had been uncovered about how Iranian special forces had been training Iraqi insurgents, and although I couldnt find much to follow up on that, or whether it had been proved at all, (it could, of course be Iran's "WMDs" or "45 minutes") it seemed to fly in the face of any assertions that he had just made. His stance on the nuclear bomb as "abhorrent" due to Iran's religious background was interesting, too, particularly so, as right next to the video as I was watching it was a news post about how Iran was not going to allow the IAEA to "threaten Iran's national security". If these nuclear power plants are not being built with the purpose of enriching Uranium, then surely this added pressure to be able to have better access from the IAEA would be no threat to national security at all.
He has been wrongly portrayed in the American media, and American agression towards him an Iran is indeed palpable, with even Barrack Obama delaring Iran as a "threat" that must be "eliminated". Larry King's faintly belligerent questioning about how "Israel is a fact... you're not going to change that" also served to complete this image. So, although misconstrued, Ahmadinejad is without doubt a very slippery customer, and with that a shrewd political operator, who is certainly one to be treated lightly.
This interview has revealed something very interesting to me about Ahmadinejad. It seems that Ahmadinejad is softening his tone since last year when he spoke at Columbia University. If you pay close attentions to his remarks during the interview, he mentioned that Iran does not have the same number of homosexuals vis-à-vis the United States.
Last year at Columbia, he utterly denied that there were even homosexuals in Iran. Ahmadinejad also appeared to be talking to the American people more directly than ever. He emphasized many times that Iranians have no quarrel toward the American people and he doesn't also have any animosity towards American people and he favors dialogue and diplomacy with the U.S government.
Furthermore, He mentioned that one of the two things the new administration is ought to do would be to improve relations with Iran.
In my opinion, these comments are explicitly the reflection of pressure on Ahmadinejad from even the hard-liners inside Iran. It is clear that his rhetoric has become unpopular in Iran and even has some hard-liners concerned.
However, I don't believe that even the new administration, whoever that might be would take him seriously without any bold actions on part of Iranian government. It is important to note that trust is a very complex issue in the realm of international relations and policy makers in this country are extremely concerned with Iran's nuclear program.
It is astonishing to me that the people in this class are still focusing on the notion that the U.S and its allies are concerned with Iran's nuclear program only because it poses a threat to Israel.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
What policy makers and experts such as Kenneth Polack and others are concerned about is nuclear proliferation in the region. Once Iran goes nuclear, you can rest to sure that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan would soon have to follow the nuclear path and weaponization program. If you don't know why, a course in Introduction to International Relations or International Relations of Middle East would extensively explain why the other states would go nuclear soon after Iran.
A nuclear Middles East when all this countries are armed with nuclear weapons is a nightmare scenario not only for the U.S and the E.U but the whole world.
There is obviously more to say about this issue. I just wanted to clarify that there are other reasons why the world community is very concerned about Iran's nuclear program. Israel has second-strike capability via its SLBM's (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile) and even the Iranians are fully aware of that. It's extremely unlikely if not impossible that Iran will launch a nuclear missile at Israel when it knows that there would be several nuclear missiles launching towards Iran from the Mediterranean Sea.
In the end, we might be seeing a pivotal point in Iran-U.S relations. There is a new administration on its way in to the White House and it seems the Iranians are fully aware of what's at stake, which is a great opportunity to ease the hostility and avert a direct confrontation with the U.S.
Ahmadinejad has obviously been misrepresented in the US and Uk media and in this interview he is very much more calm and measured than he is often portrayed as being. He is also very much more diplomatic and talking less of the anti western polemic even than in his earlier address to the UN. Part of the reason for this could be because he is now faced with an interviewer who can interject at any time, as opposed to an uninterrupted speech, in which he can afford to be much more virulent, without the fear of being opposed; perhaps he was fearful of a repeat of Columbia university.
He also manages to dodge all the serious issues in the interview, such as his non-recognition of the state of Israel, and denial of the holocaust. He seemed to get out of the answer by moving swiftly on to talking about Palestine, and fairly incongruously bringing in such ampty rhetoric as "women and children dying" and "women dying in childbirth". He also seems to not be telling the whole truth when he says "Iran has always supported peace in Iraq", which differs with the report of July 2nd, 2007, when the American general Kevin Bergner went on record as saying that there was evidence of Iranian special forces training Iraqi insurgents. ALthough I couldn't actually find the conclusion of this story, and it could just end up being Iran's version of the "WMDs" or the "45 minute dossier" it seems to fly directly in the face of what Ahmadinejad is saying here. On the issue of nuclear weapons, as well, Ahmadinejad describes them as "abhorrent" due to his Muslim upbringing. I found this interesting, seeing as right next to the youtube post on the website was another post of a newsstory of how the Iranian envoy to the IAEA was actually protesting about ther inspections being a "threat to national security". If they wer simply power stations, this would not be a threat to national security at all.
Obviously he is much maligned by western media, especially by such organisations as Fox news, whose report on the UN address was characteristically jingoistic and anti Ahmadinejad, but this attitude is also ubiquitous, to varying levels, it seems, throughout the American view of Ahmadinejad. From Larry King's faintly belligerent assertions that "Israel is a fact...you're not going to change that" to Barack Obama describing a Iran as a "threat" and that "we must elminate this threat". However, Ahmadinejad is obviously a very slippery character, as well as a shrewd political operator, at the head of a particularly important country at the moment, and certainly somebody not to be trifled with.
Ahmadinejad has obviously been misrepresented in the US and Uk media and in this interview he is very much more calm and measured than he is often portrayed as being. He is also very much more diplomatic and talking less of the anti western polemic even than in his earlier address to the UN. Part of the reason for this could be because he is now faced with an interviewer who can interject at any time, as opposed to an uninterrupted speech, in which he can afford to be much more virulent, without the fear of being opposed; perhaps he was fearful of a repeat of Columbia university.
He also manages to dodge all the serious issues in the interview, such as his non-recognition of the state of Israel, and denial of the holocaust. He seemed to get out of the answer by moving swiftly on to talking about Palestine, and fairly incongruously bringing in such ampty rhetoric as "women and children dying" and "women dying in childbirth". He also seems to not be telling the whole truth when he says "Iran has always supported peace in Iraq", which differs with the report of July 2nd, 2007, when the American general Kevin Bergner went on record as saying that there was evidence of Iranian special forces training Iraqi insurgents. ALthough I couldn't actually find the conclusion of this story, and it could just end up being Iran's version of the "WMDs" or the "45 minute dossier" it seems to fly directly in the face of what Ahmadinejad is saying here. On the issue of nuclear weapons, as well, Ahmadinejad describes them as "abhorrent" due to his Muslim upbringing. I found this interesting, seeing as right next to the youtube post on the website was another post of a newsstory of how the Iranian envoy to the IAEA was actually protesting about ther inspections being a "threat to national security". If they wer simply power stations, this would not be a threat to national security at all.
Obviously he is much maligned by western media, especially by such organisations as Fox news, whose report on the UN address was characteristically jingoistic and anti Ahmadinejad, but this attitude is also ubiquitous, to varying levels, it seems, throughout the American view of Ahmadinejad. From Larry King's faintly belligerent assertions that "Israel is a fact...you're not going to change that" to Barack Obama describing a Iran as a "threat" and that "we must elminate this threat". However, Ahmadinejad is obviously a very slippery character, as well as a shrewd political operator, at the head of a particularly important country at the moment, and certainly somebody not to be trifled with.
The beatles,
Can you reference other countries and foreign relations? Sure. That is not a problem and I didnt say it was, but it is not an obligation. As a student of this decal and as someone responding to this specific video, I focused on Iran and on the president of Iran. It is a response, not even an essay, so anything more would just be additional information.
And now to your questions.
"But in my opinion I think Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons... why not?"
When considering the role of nuclear weapons, I do not just say "why not?" Is any country out for Iranian blood? I do not believe nuclear weapons should be put in the hands of people driven by religious fundamentalism. This government is violent, it maintains laws that are barbaric and have little concern for human rights, and the country, according to Freedom House, awards a trivial degree of political rights and civil liberties to its citizens. It just seems so backwards.
And again, the leader of this government has called another country "a stinking corpse", made very provocative statements about its history, and has called (as all mainstream sources and fluent Farsi speakers will tell you) for this country to be wiped off the map. No, I'm sorry, I wouldnt want this guy to have a nuclear weapon. No sir. And guess what? This is one issue, unlike the Iraq War, that the G8 agrees on.
If Israel were to attack Iran's nuclear facilities that may (or may not) start a horrific war but it not because of Israel's attack but because of Iran's intentions and nuclear facilities. Israel made a pre-emptive strike on Egypt in 1967 (Egypt was clearly planning to invade), but that was due to Egypt's naval blockade of the Strait of Tiran, military buildup in the Sinai (to this day, under a 1979 treaty, Egypt can only have a limited number of its troops in this area), and expulsion of the UN peacekeepers. Always notice the reason behind it. For example, Gaza rockets target Israelis, while Israeli airstrikes target Palestinian militants and rocket launchers (who, according to AP photos, operate from densely populated areas and drive trunks full of rockets through crowded streets).
Also, there is a chance that a horrific war would not break out, and I hope not. People expected a War between the US and USSR for years and it never happened. Even if Israel was given the green light to strike Iran's nukes, it doesnt necessarily mean a war would break out. Israel striked Saddam's nukes in 1981 without any reaction, and recently pulled out an attack on a mysterious Syrian building--an attack that the US has praised and one that no other country in the world has condemned, not even the Muslim states, not even Syria's buddy Iran. This likewise was followed by no military action.
Now, Iran possess more sophisticated weapons than these countries, so it could be a different story. Who knows?...
Let me start off by saying that I am very disappointed by what some of m classmate thought of this interview. I would like everyone to know that not everything he says isthe truth. He is someone of no power. He is used by Iran as a puppet to make noise in the World. He has absoloutely no business to comment on Israel's issues. A very large part of what he says includes many lies. I sincerely believe that if he is in control of a nuclear weapon, it would be very dangerous to the world and not just the middle east. Please noete that many jews have been executed in Iran for no reason. In addition you need to realize that Israel has belonged to the jews for thousands of years and that cannot change. I hope that some day the current Islamic dictatorship of Iran will be non-existent.
I agree with Katherine's central claim: "After listening to Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live, many of the stereotypes that I held against him vanished." People always talk about how Ahmadinejad is "hot-tempered" and irrational, but I thought he kept his composure throughout this interview, and furthermore, brought up some challenging and controversial claims in a coherent and professional manner.
Firstly, he asserts how the United States is the country that does not want to resolve present and historical conflicts. Ahmadinejad states that the conflict is "a one-sided" that is supported by the United States. He substantiates his claim by mentioning how he sent a letter to President Bush, asking to work out their problems and to start over from square one. However, according to Ahmadinejad, President Bush did not respond to Iran's request for peace. Hence, Ahmadinejad portrays a "representation" (or image in mind rather) where Iran is the mature and peaceful country that has attempted to form peace in spite of the fact their adversary (the United States) refuses to even contemplate the notion of it.
Moreover, Ahmadinejad cleverly responds to each and everyone of Larry King's questions. He responds patiently and uses what literary theorist J.T. Mitchell explains as "representations." Mitchell defines representations as "socially accepted" forms of the signifier (the literal word) and the signified (the meaning of the word/signifier) where the collective agrees upon the common notion that: "Let X stand for this," etc. Ahmadinejad implements Mitchell's idea of "representations" in this interview because he presents challenging claims, like how the United States aided Saddam Hussain with armed weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does so indirectly: in a manner that is "socially excepted." In other words, as psychoanalytical critics like Freud would say, he "cushions" his opinion by not overwhelming the viewers with his strong beliefs because that would be a plethora of "reception stimuli." In psychoanalysis theory, too much "stimuli" would render two reactions: it would either threaten the viewer's position thus making them feel extremely uncomfortable, or the viewer would think that Ahmadinejad is foolish, irrational, and they would go on with their lives and not think twice about his assertions. By cushioning his responses and not reacting too passionately to King's questions, Ahmadinejad implies that the U.S. helped kill thousands of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does not forthrightly assert this. Hence, he "represents" the ideal politician who does not reveal too much of his personal opinion, but yet, still expresses his viewpoints in an objective manner.
Ahmadinejad reminds me of Anne Hutchinson; a woman who was accused of practicing witch craft during the Salem Witch Trials. However, Hutchinson eventually cracks and explodes before the court, whereas Ahmadinejad keeps his cool and continues answering King's questions.
I think the most important thing to remember when dealing with a politician is that they always have an agenda. They will never speak the truth, and they will always avoid the questions they are asked. Regardless of whether or not it is true, of course Ahmadinejad is on Larry king saying that the hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is only coming from the side of the U.S., because it makes his country look better. The same way the U.S. claims that Iran is creating a threat towards them and that the U.S. is an innocent bystander and did nothing to provoke it.
It is also important to acknowledge that states will always do what it best for their state. It is not unreasonable for Iran to want nuclear weapons, it is a source of protection for them. And it might not be that bad for Iran to become nuclear because my belief is that in someways nuclear powers create some form of peace. Nuclear powers will never nuke each other, because they know that if they nuke another state that has nuclear weapons, they will get nuked back and no country would do that it itself. Iran does not want to destroy its own country, therefore it will not use nuclear weapons against the U.S. even if it has any.
And I agree with Sunny, who said that the U.S. needs to stop playing the role of the international police. I don't think it is fair for any country to have a say in what another country does. When countries interfere with other countries affairs, its is always for their own interest. Therefore the U.S. not wanting Iran to become a nuclear power is of course out of their own concern for themselves. The only actor that can have that role in the international system is a neutral one, like the United Nations.
I think the most important thing to remember when dealing with a politician is that they always have an agenda. They will never speak the truth, and they will always avoid the questions they are asked. Regardless of whether or not it is true, of course Ahmadinejad is on Larry king saying that the hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is only coming from the side of the U.S., because it makes his country look better. The same way the U.S. claims that Iran is creating a threat towards them and that the U.S. is an innocent bystander and did nothing to provoke it.
It is also important to acknowledge that states will always do what it best for their state. It is not unreasonable for Iran to want nuclear weapons, it is a source of protection for them. And it might not be that bad for Iran to become nuclear because my belief is that in someways nuclear powers create some form of peace. Nuclear powers will never nuke each other, because they know that if they nuke another state that has nuclear weapons, they will get nuked back and no country would do that it itself. Iran does not want to destroy its own country, therefore it will not use nuclear weapons against the U.S. even if it has any.
And I agree with Sunny, who said that the U.S. needs to stop playing the role of the international police. I don't think it is fair for any country to have a say in what another country does. When countries interfere with other countries affairs, its is always for their own interest. Therefore the U.S. not wanting Iran to become a nuclear power is of course out of their own concern for themselves. The only actor that can have that role in the international system is a neutral one, like the United Nations.
I agree with Katherine's central claim: "After listening to Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live, many of the stereotypes that I held against him vanished." People always talk about how Ahmadinejad is "hot-tempered" and irrational, but I thought he kept his composure throughout this interview, and furthermore, brought up some challenging and controversial claims in a coherent and professional manner.
Firstly, he asserts how the United States is the country that does not want to resolve present and historical conflicts. Ahmadinejad states that the conflict is "a one-sided" that is supported by the United States. He substantiates his claim by mentioning how he sent a letter to President Bush, asking to work out their problems and to start over from square one. However, according to Ahmadinejad, President Bush did not respond to Iran's request for peace. Hence, Ahmadinejad portrays a "representation" (or image in mind rather) where Iran is the mature and peaceful country that has attempted to form peace in spite of the fact their adversary (the United States) refuses to even contemplate the notion of it.
Moreover, Ahmadinejad cleverly responds to each and everyone of Larry King's questions. He responds patiently and uses what literary theorist J.T. Mitchell explains as "representations." Mitchell defines representations as "socially accepted" forms of the signifier (the literal word) and the signified (the meaning of the word/signifier) where the collective agrees upon the common notion that: "Let X stand for this," etc. Ahmadinejad implements Mitchell's idea of "representations" in this interview because he presents challenging claims, like how the United States aided Saddam Hussain with armed weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does so indirectly: in a manner that is "socially excepted." In other words, as psychoanalytical critics like Freud would say, he "cushions" his opinion by not overwhelming the viewers with his strong beliefs because that would be a plethora of "reception stimuli." In psychoanalysis theory, too much "stimuli" would render two reactions: it would either threaten the viewer's position thus making them feel extremely uncomfortable, or the viewer would think that Ahmadinejad is foolish, irrational, and they would go on with their lives and not think twice about his assertions. By cushioning his responses and not reacting too passionately to King's questions, Ahmadinejad implies that the U.S. helped kill thousands of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, but he does not forthrightly assert this. Hence, he "represents" the ideal politician who does not reveal too much of his personal opinion, but yet, still expresses his viewpoints in an objective manner. Ahmadinejad reminds me of Anne Hutchinson; a woman who was accused of practicing witch craft during the Salem Witch Trials. However, Hutchinson eventually cracks and explodes before the court, whereas Ahmadinejad keeps his cool and continues answering King's questions.
Post a Comment