I understand the intent of his message which is consistent with the political dialogue surrounding the Israeli-Palestinean issue.
I am of the belief that Ahmadinejad's very existence is a direct result of Bush's unilateral classification of Iran as an enemy soon after 9/11. He is serving a purpose for Iran which is to counter the rhetoric being thrown against it.
This started with the question of whether Iran represented a threat to the region. Of course they do but not any more than other of the Middle East countries. The central element of instability is Iraq and if a negotiated security agreement between certain countries can be worked out then it will serve to defuse most tensions.
The issue that still remains is nuclear weapons in Iran which the government has yet to admit to their development but is certainly progressing toward that. For what purpose would they need it?
leaving aside the idiotic "axis of evil" speech, and since I've started quoting STA, let's do it again:
The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.Let me make a point that I cannot emphasize enough. The Iranian position is no more clear. What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity. The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords. In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line. The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other. The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people. by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST
The U. S. position is unclear, perhaps because of an internal struggle within the Bush administration between those who advocate trying to reach an accommodation with Iran led by Secretary of State Rice and the hawks led by Dick Cheney.
What is missing from most articles about Iran is the general fracture that exists in the country. This is new; it is a first in modern Iran. As a country, it has usually had a real unity.
The Iranian regime is no longer regimented! It is fractured for the first time in modern Iranian history. The difference between Afghanistan and Iran, or at least one of the differences, used to be that no governing body in Afghanistan could hold the country together. Hence warlords.
In Iran, however poorly managed, the government in place -- Shah's or the current retards -- had a discernible political line.
The infightings and backstabbings are pushing Iran into a new territory. I am not even talking about conservative vs. moderates [sic]. Even the conservatives can't agree on practically anything. Ahmadinejad is in place because they cannot deal with each other.
The war talk helps create a semblance of unity where there is none. An attack against Iran would create unity, among the rulers, but perhaps even among the people.
by STA (sta.blog@gmail.com) on Wed May 17th, 2006 at 04:39:18 PM BST
