Major Tom wrote:I'm sure you mean "its default position", but on the other hand you have instances where Saudi officials have the opposite views. Additionally, take occurrences as the Saudi peace initiative, if you replace "Saudi" with "Iranian" it looks like science fiction. Syria doesn't think destroying Israel is a preferred course of action.
Not to mention that it doesn't even remotely elevates to the level of Ahmadenijad - a head of state - openly denying the Holocaust (e.g. "there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part").
Again, that does not amount to both things we have with Iran - head of state openly calling for the destruction of Israel + the same head of state openly denying the Holocaust. I think you are comparing things of utterly different magnitude.
A senior government official is a senior government official. The words of the president may be more newsworthy but if elements within a government are openly making claims through the government controlled press then that is essentially the same thing. I'm aware that there are opposing views within some of those countries regarding the holocaust, that doesn't really change the argument though, the west deals openly with many governments who have expressed similar views to Mr Ahmedinajad.
Major Tom wrote:Requiel wrote:Opposition of Israel is the stated or implicit position of practically every other middle-eastern state, I'm sure I don't have to list all the examples of anti-Israeli sentiment from places such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc.
No - you don't have to list them all - as "anti Israeli sentiments" was not the issue we discussed.
Two things were brought up; opposition to Israel (expressed as a desire to see Israel destroyed) and holocaust denial. I was addressing both parts.Requiel wrote:I'm not defending Ahmedinajad particularly. Holocaust denial is plainly wrong however there is a double standard being applied here mostly due to the Bush administration building him up as the next big threat and all the FUD that goes along with that. Opposition to the US (and by extension the goals and interests of the US) is the default position in Iranian politics due largely to the history of US and British involvement there. Ahmedinajad is actually something of a moderate as things go in that area (anti-Semitism aside), people often forget however that he is not the final authority in Iran but is answerable to the Supreme Leader and so has to walk a fine line between populism and pragmatism.
I think that it's Ahmadenijad who built himself to be the representative of evil in this world. The choice of Iraq and N Korea in the "axis of evil" wasn't exactly clear, but Iran was the natural choice for a founding member.
Ahmedinajad is not considered moderate by a long-shot. Many Iranians feel that through his provocative statements he's perpetuating Iranian isolation in the world and doing a disservice to Iran. That is partially why Mousavi got so much support in the recent Presidential election.
Major T.
I really find it difficult to equate the Iranian regime with either the previous Iraqi one or North Korea, there really isn't a comparison to be made there. As I said, anti-Semitism aside, Ahmedinajad is reasonably moderate by comparison with many of his neighbours. Mousavi is clearly more reformist but both men are of the same mind regarding the issues that the West is most interested in - namely the Iranian nuclear program.
