14 Aug One Year Later
What a difference a year makes. Lionel Beehner at the Council on Foreign Relations has some interesting thoughts on the one-year anniversary of the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“One year later, President Ahmadinejad has emerged as one of the world’s leading anti-American voices. His rhetoric has inflamed an already tense Middle East and empowered the region’s Shiites…. Ahmadinejad’s push for a uranium-enrichment program has divided the UN Security Council on how to punish Iran without rattling energy markets. And his support for Hezbollah and Hamas has contributed to a conflict that continues to engulf the Levant, leaving hundreds of Lebanese and Israeli innocents dead.”
Meanwhile, CFR Adjunct Fellow Vali Nasr and author of Shia Revival has an interesting podcast describing Iran as “now clearly the most important and powerful regional force.” Nasr argues that “the Middle East of old which was dominated by Sunnis will no longer be the case in the future. You are going to have a region that culturally, economically, [and] politically will more greatly reflect the influence of Shiites. This will mean greater power for the axis of Shiites from Iran, to Iraq to Lebanon but also across the Persian Gulf.”
Remarkable. Perhaps the greatest threat to the world today comes from a man no one had ever heard of one year ago.
Professor Alford, As to the regional power of Iran, I can’t comment, but–with all due respect–your obsession with Ahmadinejad is over-the-top, especially in light of the power the office of presidency wields in the Iranian government. To be sure, he no doubt voices the beliefs and sentiments of a significant faction of Iranians in and supportive of the current regime, but there are significant groups in and outside the government, in part represented by the likes of former President Mohammad Khatami, who are not at all enamored of Ahamadinedjad’s rhetoric or posturing, however much such blustering is in direct reaction to a U.S. foreign policy characterized by historical ignorance and diplomatic ineptitude. There are preciously few experts on Iranian history and politics given a voice in the public realm that have the requisite sense of proportion and perspective to intelligently comment on Iranian affairs. In any case, both Hizbullah and Hamas have flourished and would flourish in the absence of Ahmadinejad. Given the war in Iraq and the U.S.’s continued support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians (effectively tilling and fertilizing the soil of terrorism), as well as his appalling understanding of economics and science (among other fields of knowledge),… Read more »
As to several points above, support is found in William Greider’s post at The Nation’s blog (The Notion): ‘An evil symbiosis does exist between Muslim terrorists and American politicians, but it is not the one Republicans describe. The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. His bloody crusade in the Middle East bolsters their accusation that America is out to destroy Islam. The president has unwittingly made himself the lead recruiter of willing young martyrs. More to the point, it is equally true that Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The “news” of terror–whether real or fantasized–reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best. So, once again in the run-up to a national election, we are visited with alarming news. A monstrous plot, red alert, high drama playing on all channels and extreme measures taken to tighten security. The White House men wear grave faces, but they cannot hide their delight. It’s another chance for Bush to protect us… Read more »
I know we are supposed to view any “anti-americanism” as a low-level form of blasphemy, but there are historical antecedents in U.S. foreign policy which explain Ahmadinejad’s appeal. He is from a generation of Iranians whose national image of the U.S. was formed by American support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, the toppling of Motassedegh, and its active support of the Shah’s brutal repression. To act as if Ahmadinjead is some malevolent Darth Vader character emerging out of nowhere is romanticized manicheanism of little analytical value. Anyway, this view also implies, as Seamus pointed out, that Ahmadinejad exercises much more power than most experts on Iranian national politics would attribute to him.
JPBurns is right — Ahmadinejad was a villain in 1979.
Remember, professor Alford, the greatest threat in the world is George Bush!!!