I have been doing some heavy reading during my free time this weekend. In perusing files concering various topics that revolve around Iran I ran across an interesting artical about what Iranian President Ahmadinejad said concerning Israel.

This is the conclusion of the artical: The full text can be found at -

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next step is to connect the Iranian President with Hitler. 2006-02-20 the Chairman of the Counsil of Jews in France (Crif) says in Paris: "The Iranian President's assertions do not rank behind Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'". Paul Spiegel, President of the Central Counsil of Jews in Germany, 2005-12-10 in the 'Welt' qualifies the statements of Ahmadinejad to be "the worst comment on this subject that he has ever heard of a statesman since A. Hitler". At the White House the Iranian President is even named Hitler. And the German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel as well moves over Iran's President towards Hitler and National Socialism by saying 2006-02-04 in Munich: "Already in the early 1930's many people said that it is only rhetoric. One could have prevented a lot in time if one had acted... Germany is in the debt to resist the incipiencies and to do anything to make clear where the limit of tolerance is. Iran remains in control of the situation, it is still in their hands."

All this indicates war. Slobodan Milosevic became Hitler. The result was the war of the Nato against Yugoslavia. Saddam Hussein became Hitler. What followed was the war the USA and their coalition of compliant partners waged against Iraq. Now the Iranian President becomes Hitler.

And someone who is Hitler-like can assure a hundred times that he only wants to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. Nobody will believe him. Somebody like Hitler can act within the scope of all contracts. Acting contrary to contract will nevertheless be imputed to him. "Virtually none of the Western states recognize that uranium enrichment is absolutely legal. There is no restriction by contract or by the law of nations. Quite the contrary: Actually the Western countries would have the duty to assist Iran with these activities, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as a state renounces the bomb it is eligible for technical support by the nuclear powers." (Jörg Pfuhl, ARD radio studio Istanbul 2006-01-11) But - all this does not count if the Head of a state is stigmatized as Hitler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I buy into it? Not entirely, but it does give one pause; especially when you read the last paragraph. So I thought I would introduce it here and see what thoughts people had on it.

My thoughts? Well, be careful what you ask for.

Is Ahmadinejad another Hitler? The fetish for dressing up every bad guy in the world as a metaphorical Hitler effigy has to do with conjuring up fear and support for belligerent and interventionist foreign policies. The question that never gets asked enough is: Does intervention deter bad guys or create more of them?

Since Iran is a sovereign country, I don’t see how anyone can legitimately tell them they can’t develop nuclear power. It would be like your next door neighbor coming over and telling you that you can’t drive a gasoline fueled car because you could use the gas to make a Molotov cocktail.

But let us suppose that Ahmadinejad’s ultimate ambition is to get a bomb.
What would prevent him from using it? My guess is the same thing that kept Stalin, Krucschev, and all the other Soviet premieres from using it: the assurance of mutual destruction. He couldn’t conceivably use the nuke against Israel without a nuclear retaliation by almost every NATO country, least of all Israel itself.

The only thing having a nuke guarentees you is a position of atomic stalemate, but this is scary in itself if you happen to support interventionist foreign policies. It means you can’t easily meddle anymore. It would ruin the PNAC dream of American dominance of the middle east through regime change.

I agree with you Shinken that Iran has every right to provide itself the use of nuclear power. I don't think the USA or any other nation disputes that right. Yet without proper inspections there will always be doubt about what the Iranians are doing with their program.

Now I guess the question is, does any nation or group of nations have the right to demand such inspections?

Now I guess the question is, does any nation or group of nations have the right to demand such inspections?

Imagine if a dozen of your neighbors showed up at your doorstep and demanded that you let them inspect your garage and closets for weapons. I think it would make anyone a tad resentful at least, if not openly hostile.

Or imagine that Canada, Mexico, and Costa Rica demanded the right to inspect US nuclear facilities. There would be outrage.

It is the right of any nation to vigorously defend its borders, just as it is the right of a property owner to defend his home. There is no inherent right to poke into your neighbor's closet.

There is a long history of US meddling in the affairs of Iran. Most Americans are unaware of this, but the Iranians are not. Most Americans think the Iranians woke up one day and decided to start hating the US, overthrow the Shah, and start taking hostages.

Try googling "Operation Ajax." Or go to wikipedia and look up "Savak." When you begin to see how unclean the US government's hands are, it begins to make sense why preaching about democracy doesn't get a warm reception in the middle east.

Interesting reading...

I knew some of the history though not the details as outlined in several of the documents I read.

It's no wonder that the USA is not perceived as a friend in the Arab and Persian worlds.