Reader contribution
I'll copy-paste these two comments here as I'm sure you'll find them interesting too:
Anonymous said [responded]...
-
The prior poster is missing a key point and is distorting 2 others:
1) Ahmadinejad's statement(s) is a call for regime change. A position held by many not radical supporters of peace, non-violence and human rights—NOT to say Ahnadinejad is one of these people just to say this is NOT a radical stance given Israel’s human rights and colonial record.
More Importantly, regime change is the same position the US holds towards Iran. The difference being Ahmadinejad has not threatened military force to do so. Instead he has threatened, god forbid, elections. And while the recent conference is offensive and stupid It doesn’t immediately translate into a military policy. Especially because an Iranian President has little power to being with.
2) It is highly questionable to call Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, radicals. While it is true they have some less than progressive social agendas and they have refused to disarm, Hezbollah is also equally an advocate of the poor and disenfranchised, has participated in the mainstream political system and maintains weapons largely because Israel continues to both occupy and threaten Lebanese territory. More Importantly, Hezbollah are no less oppressive and violent than the other factions supported by the US and Israel. Western powers support a wealthy minority that maintains economic and political control only because of built-in sectarian preferences in the constitution, which are hardly democratic. Iran’s sympathy’s for Hezbollah are part out of a shared religious identity but also out of an inherent anti-imperial world view—hence Iran’s growing relationship with Hugo Chavez. Also Iran has often acted as a moderating force on Hezbollah, who as of late have used the “radical” tactic of, god forbid, peaceful demonstration to further democratize Lebanon.
3) It is again misleading to call Iran’s support of factions in Iran offensive. The US is a country that openly called Iran “evil,” officially endorsed regime change and to this ends has finical supported, not the progressive pro-democracy movement in Iran but, a group of ex-monarchists and an Islamo-Marxist cult officially recognized as a terrorist organization. This same US (offensively) invaded Iran’s neighbor Iraq, forcibly imposed a non-elected government and destabilized the country. Only after the Shi’a forces, close to Iran, pushed for election did the US hold them (note: the Iraqi Shi’a are not controlled by Iran). And eventually Iraq spiraled into civil war. I would argue any country is acting defensively when it attempts to make sure a geo-political crisis, like the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, did turn into a crisis for itself (note: the burden of refugees and spill over violence).
While I can appreciate your view, I feel like your arguments under number 4 are a tough sell.
Maybe Iran has not waged war on other countries, but the current regime is also not passively minding its own business. They fund radicals in Lebanon, and, of course with the situation in Iraq, Iran has great influence in that country. Would any country in Iran's place use their position to their advantage in Iraq? Absolutely, but to say that they are not offensively active is hard for me to agree with.
Plus, while Ahmadinejad's comments may have been wrongly translated, it's still hard to conclude Israel being "eliminated from the pages of history" is a peaceful goal. If I told my neighbor that I hope to eliminate them from the pages of history, they would probably consider those fighting words. Especially, when you place that in the context of Ahmadinejad's actions and others statements, and the horrible conference he organized.