Ahmadinejad Wants McCain and Palin in The White House

As we are about to enter the last fifty days of this campaign season, many Americans are falling into the same trap that forces of mainstream politics set every four years. The trap this year has been reincarnated in the form of a flurry of trivial issues relating to lipsticks, pigs, moose burgers and other issues that have no impact whatsoever on the future of this country, but are only designed to distract people from the issues that will impact the quality of life of every single American in real and substantial ways in the next four years. One of the issues is how America responds to what is perceived to be a challenge from Iran.

I moved to the United States from Iran in 1999 when I was 16 years old. I love this country deeply and moved here on my own because of the very same reasons that most other immigrants move to America: freedom, democracy and opportunity. While I was not too engaged in American politics then, the reaction of the Bush administration to the attacks of September 11 made me deeply distressed about the direction that Republicans were taking this country.

As far as the military aspect of the struggle against terrorism was concerned, I believed Afghanistan was the right front for America to take on this challenge. The Taliban were in fact directly responsible for allowing Al Qaeda to directly organize within their country and plan the attacks. However, the administration proceeded to manufacture an "axis of evil," consisting of Iran, North Korea and Iraq, three countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. But I was rightly concerned most about the impact of these policies on the repressive policies of the Iranian regime. Anyone who is familiar with geopolitics in the Middle-East will tell you that Iran and Iraq were two enemies that kept each other in check. Following the Iranian revolution in 1979, Iran and Iraq entered an 8 year war. I was in Tehran for the entire war and remember the TV screen going red and alarms going off as we ran to our underground basement to take refuge every time Saddam's planes were about to drop bombs on Tehran. So in 2001 when the Bush administration began to make the case for attacking Saddam, I knew there could only be one winner from such military action: the mullahs who rule Iran.

It turned out exactly as I expected. In the ensuing years following the American invasion, Iran has not only opened diplomatic ties with Iraq, but Iranian Mullahs are much more influential on Iraqi affairs than Americans are. But the anti-Iranian rhetoric since 9/11 and especially since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June of 2005 has had an even more detrimental effect on America's position in the region.

One of the reasons Ahmadinejad came to power was the dire economic conditions in Iran. But there is only one reason that can explain why Iran moved so much to the right on foreign policy, picking the hardliner Ahmadinejad with a style that showed a drastic departure from that of the former Iranian President Khatami (1997-2005), a reformer who opened up many aspects of Iranians' social lives, called on the West and the East to engage in a "dialogue among civilizations" and was one of the first world leaders to condemn the 9/11 attacks, issuing the following statement: "On behalf of the Iranian people ... I denounce the terrorist measures, which led to the killing of defenseless people [on September 11th], and I express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the American people." The reason why many Iranians picked Ahmadinejad was because they saw President Bush as a bully for going after Iran's nuclear program that has now become a matter of national pride. Ahmadinejad and other hardliners understood that they could use the American hostility to rally the people around themselves and cut the legs from under the reformers. In the current American election, Ahmadinejad and other hardliners undoubtedly hope for McCain and Palin to get elected, because they understand that America is simply not in the position to start a full-fledged war with Iran and the Republicans' anti-Iran rhetoric will only help Ahmadinejad the way Bush's has.

Seven years after 9/11, many people in America incomprehensibly still seem to have a hard time deciding whether McCain or Obama can be more effective in policy toward Iran. As someone who lived in Iran for 16 years and now works full-time on Iranian matters, let me say in no unclear terms: there is no rational justification whatsoever to think McCain would be a better choice in any respect on a matter relating to Iran. This is not a close-call. Barack Obama's declared policy of dialogue with Iranian leaders is clearly the superior choice for anyone who is interested in putting the country and interests of the United States first.

Think about what the current situation in Iran is and what will most likely happen if either Obama or McCain get elected. The main issue that seems to be the matter of concern is Iran's nuclear program. The program is, of course, nothing new. Americans helped the late Shah Pahlavi in Iran establish the program over 30 years ago. Neither has Iran done anything as it relates to its nuclear program that has violated any international law or agreement. Iran is a lawful member of Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. That's what Iran has been doing. The reason that the program has become a matter for concern is seemingly because of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli government statements that were then taken and mistranslated to imply that Ahmadinejad intended to "wipe Israel off the map," something that he never said or meant and has consistently rejected the notion that Iran will or should do any harm to the people in Israel. I know this; I'm fluent in Farsi and have personally read the original transcripts.

The fact is Iranian leaders, starting with Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, have produced such empty rhetoric for domestic consumption for 30 years because they support a single-state solution with Jews and Arabs living in one country. Iran has not attacked another country for over a hundred years. Besides, if any country violates any component of NPT, IAEA and the UN are the institutions that are in charge of taking appropriate measures. The fact is Bush and his counterparts in Israel have been using Ahmadinejad's words to distract people from their own failures at home. Bush's popularity rating stands at a percentage in high 20s and Prime Minister Olmert in Israel resigned a few weeks ago amid a messy corruption scandal.

The fact is Iran poses no threat whatsoever to the interests of the United States. But let's see what will happen if McCain and Palin are sent to the White House. As McCain has repeatedly shown, he has a tendency to escalate conflicts. His reaction to the Russian-Georgian and that of Republicans in general has been extremely outdated and can no longer be relevant in the post Cold War world. He is likely to fall in line with Bush's policy on Iran as he has on every other issue and maintain the harsh rhetoric. Ahmadinejad, who is surely hoping for this, will then use McCain's rhetoric to neatly consolidate support around himself as Iranian elections in June of 2009 approach. He is even likely to continue to make controversial statements on Israel before the U.S. elections because the Bush/McCain rhetoric is so predictable. The slogan in the U.S. these days is that "if you want four more years of Bush, vote for McCain." I'd add that with McCain, you're most likely to get four more years of Ahmadinejad, too.

Barack Obama's policy, however, has a much bigger potential to deescalate this war of words, and even more importantly, strengthen the democracy movement in Iran. Obama has said that he would be willing to talk to the Iranian leader - whoever that may be at the time he decides to hold talks - and offer incentives in return for more accountability on Iran's nuclear program. What makes this strategy potentially effective has less to do with how Iranian leaders will respond and more with how many different opinions they will have on such an offer. There are two major schools of thought among Iranian leaders: economically conservative capitalists, like Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president (1989-1997), who are more concerned about opening trade with the West - even if that means throwing Iran's entire nuclear program under the bus - and religious hardliners, who are more concerned about keeping hostilities between Iran and the West and supporting Iran's nuclear program at all cost. An Obama offer for more cooperation will likely result in a real competition for control over policy within the Iranian government, weakening the entire regime as a whole. The other effect of Obama's proposed policy is that it will significantly help America's image among Iranians and inspire them to continue their struggle for freedom and democracy. Under the current circumstances, Obama's policy is clearly and unequivocally the better option when it comes to dealing with Iran.

Republicans have been making the false argument that because McCain has crossed the isle and worked with Democrats more often than Obama has with Republicans, that makes McCain a better choice to fight for the best interest of this country. But this argument has at its heart the false premise that Republicans and Democrats are equally right on issues or that they are equally in touch with the needs of the American people. Never has this assumption been more false than on policy on Iran. The choices in this election on Iran are clear: if you want to continue to keep America addicted to oil and pay billions of dollars in taxes to fund hostile conflicts around the world with countries that do not pose any threat to the interests of the United States, then by all means vote for John McCain. But if you want a president whose words can never be twisted and turned against the United States by rogue figures like Ahmadinejad, and if you want someone who will significantly help to improve America's image abroad, then do not hesitate one moment to send Barack Obama and Joe Biden to the White House on November 4, 2008.

Comments

[BluePride]

The U.S. occupies countries on either side of Iran: Iraq and Afganistan. We turn up the rhetoric and sabre rattling and then blame Iran for their belligerence toward us. If a any country were to send troops into Canada and Mexico and then speak menacingly toward us, whadda ya think our reaction would be? We've been too isolated for too long. Two huge oceans and two malleable countries on either side of us allow for focus on just U.S., no other countries' concerns. Our citizens typically do not even speak foreign languages much less actually visit a foreign country. That huge anomaly of prosperity after WWII further created this sense that we were truly and 'island unto ourselves' and that our systems really did work better than all the others. It's a new world. Maybe this is what was meant by 'information age.' With info so available it's next to impossible to keep truth from surfacing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVwpMB8QAUU

[vulvina]

Sam,

Will you reveal for us, perhaps in your HP Profile, the extent to which you have and currently receie US government support for your work concerning Iran?

Thanks from a fan.

[MagisterLudi]

"Neither has Iran done anything as it relates to its nuclear program that has violated any international law or agreement."

Security Council Resolution 1747

"Determined to constrain Iran"s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes, the Security Council today widened the scope of its December 2006 sanctions against Iran by banning the country"s arms exports and freezing the assets and restricting the travel of additional individuals engaged in the country"s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities."

The Iranian leadership"s claim that the Council sought to deprive Iran of its right to peaceful nuclear energy... was simply not true. Many other Governments around the world, enjoyed national civilian nuclear energy programmes without any difficulties, demonstrating that there was no incompatibility between a country"s right to a peaceful nuclear-energy programme and its non-proliferation obligations.
The unanimous passage of today"s resolution had sent a clear and unambiguous message to Iran that the regime"s continued pursuit of a nuclear-weapon capability, in violation of its treaty obligations, as well as its obligations as a United Nations Member State, would only further isolate Iran and make it less, not more, secure."

Good enough for me. Perhaps Mr. Sadaei has some exclusive access to military intelligence to be so categorical in his statements.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8980.doc.htm

[StMTraveler]

HuffPost's Pick

Iran and Nuclear Fuel Production

The whole issue of conflict with Iran is about control of the sources of energy, oil and nuclear fuel. The efforts to monopolize nuclear fuel production started in 1978, when the Nuclear Suppliers Group tried to impose restrictions on the right of developing countries to enrich their own uranium, a right. Since Article IV of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ensures access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology for non-nuclear weapon states, the technology for uranium enrichment must be permitted to all states under the current nonproliferation regime. Countries like Iran therefore, are permitted to develop their own enrichment technology for peaceful nuclear energy production. Iran has argued for an international nuclear fuel consortium to operate Iranian nuclear enrichment. Iranians assert that this international cooperative arrangement and IAEA oversight together will eliminate USA fear that Iran is attempting to use the technology to develop nuclear weapon.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is a USA. GNEP-initiative monopolizes nuclear fuel production and waste management infrastructure.
Global Nuclear Power Infrastructure (GNPI) is a Russian initiative.
Russia will retain exclusive control of all sensitive enrichment technology.

Both GNEP and GNPI monopolize fuel production. Any nation who can not control the supplier of nuclear fuel is not an independent nation. The case of Iran and Russia as supplier of the fuel demonstrates my argument. The Iranian problem Bushehr, Iran Nuclear Reactor, was greatly co-opted by USA forcing Iran to produce own fuel.

[MagisterLudi]

Respectfully, I'll go with Security Council on this rather than rationalizations that pass for argument.
Security Council members voted Yes on Resolution to punish Iran nuclear and missle development activities.

Signatories: Ghana, Belgium, Slovakia, Panama, China, Russian Federation, United States, France, United Kingdom, South Africa, Indonesia, Congo, Qatar.

THE WORLD HAS SPOKEN. Iranian theocracy and their supporters better listen.

[MagisterLudi]

"Iran has not attacked another country for over a hundred years. "
Not correct.
Iran sent military forces to attack Oman in 1978.
November 1971, Iranian army occupied and annexed 3 islands in the Persian Gulf.
Current Iranian extremist theocracy supports, trains and arms multiple Islamic militant organizations around the globe.
Current Iranian regime issues religious edicts ( fatwahs) encouraging murder of writers, journalists and politicians around the globe.
Current Iranian regime is mainly a danger to its own population because of very serious violations of human rights.
Yes, there's room for negotiations with Iran.
But its vitally important to the world security that Iran's military, religious and economic reach is diminished and contained. There's a broad consensus among world government that this needs to be done and is being done.

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comment. Your facts are wrong. Iran never "attacked" Oman. In the 1970s, Oman was suffering from a lot of insurgency (Dhofar insurgency). So in an effort to to curb the insurgency, then-new Sultan Qaboos of Oman expanded and re-equipped the armed forces and granted amnesty to all surrendering rebels while prosecuting the war in Dhofar. He obtained direct military support from the UK, Iran, and Jordan. That's why Iran sent troops to Oman... at the request of Sultan Qaboos. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with Islands annexation. If you're talking about the Tunbs and Abu Musa Island, they were never surely UAE's islands and have always been in dispute.
As your other points, if by "militant organizations," you mean HAMAS and Hezbollah, like it or not, they're both recognized political organizations with both having higher popularity ratings than Bush. And there has been no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence that Iran has ever supported the insurgents in Iraq. And if they do support it, one can easily see this as a self-defense mechanism on Iran's part. They were definitely supporting no such actions in Iraq before U.S. invaded and started making threats against Iran. Finally, it goes without saying that neither fatwas "encouraging" anything or supporting groups around the world equate attacking another country.

[MagisterLudi]

OK, so we agree that Iran sent troops to Oman to attack the native uprising. Good.

No I do not mean just Hezbollah and HAMAS, I mean support to every militant cell and organization thought out the world fostering the goals of so-called Muslim revolution.

I am also glad that we both condemn the death fatwahs against writers and journalists issued by Iranian government. Please, consider posting a blog on this subject to help Americans understand it. Maybe one day ... some day...
Iranians I've met are intelligent, warm and well-educated. I hope that one day they will be able to throw out the current oppressive theocratic regime. I wish you can join this struggle.

[MagisterLudi]

Well, and Hamas publicly supports Obama. What does this signify---nothing.
"Actually, we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election..." Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef in an interview with WABC radio and WorldNetDaily.

[DontSpin]

Yes, but they also unendorsed Obama. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/hamas-un-endors.html. And Ahmadinejad isn't HAMAS, and neither is this article about HAMAS.
What's your point?

[MagisterLudi]

My point is that it doesn't matter in the least whom Ahamadinejad or Osama or Hamas support. The discussion of this subject is political propaganda of the lowest kind, regardless of political views.

[HF443]

16 million US annual budget to get rid of Iran and it's population will buy ....
Years of war,
plus Millions dislocated
plus sanctions
plus isolation
plus those who know it all after the fact.

Sam; I don't blame you for your opinion, I blame those who brain washed you. After all 16 million in advertising will buy unbleivable amount of twisted words.

[azarmehr]

US readers must not become over impressed just because an Iranian ex pat has written this and automatically assume he is an expert on Iran. Sam Sedaei by no means represents all Iranians or even the majority of Iranians. Such views are often expressed by Iranian ex pats who want to keep a safe option when they travel back to Iran for their cheap holidays.

Just the statement below:
'The reason why many Iranians picked Ahmadinejad was because they saw President Bush as a bully for going after Iran's nuclear program that has now become a matter of national pride'

Shows Sam Sedaei doe snot understand how Ahmadinejad became the president. I recommend reading the book by Kasra Naji, the husband of BBC correspondent in Tehran, and an experienced journalist himself, to find out how Ahamdinejad became the president of the Isamic Republic.

http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/2008/09/ahmadinejad-by-kasra-naji.html

[DontSpin]

lol yah? well, we all thought Sam represented ALL Iranians. Thanks for clarifying, Colombo! And by the way, I read this article and it sounds nothing like a sympathetic article about Ahmadinejad. Read Sam's other articles and you'll realize he's said enough things about Ahmadinejad to have secured some cold meals for himself in Iranian jails when he goes back. As far as I'm concerned, this article makes perfect sense to me.

And by the way, you don't AT ALL sound like a self-promoting Iranian who is trying to advertise his own pathetic little blog by posting ridiculous comments here. Telling people to go read books is not a counter-argument. If you have an argument, then make it. Attacking the person who makes the argument doesn't prove him wrong. You sound like a neoconservative hawk and mccain supporter who wants America to get into a war with Iran. Get a life.

[azarmehr]

Oh dear, I must have upset you! In fact you sound like Sam yourself
Actually I don't live in US, I have no choice and I have no preference in who wins, and whoever wins, the idiots in the State Department will soon be influenced by IR lobbyists. I would point you to some other posts in my blog to show you that I am not a neocon but you will accuse me ne way, since you have no sound argument.

Here are some counter arguments off the top of my head as to why Iranian people did not choose Ahamdinejad in a free and fair election because as Sam puts it 'they felt they were being bullied by George Bush and I won't even mention that all candidates are vetted by the unelected Guardian Council in Islamic Republic 'elections':

according to Guardian Council more than 21 million votes had been counted. within minutes another report was delivered by the interior ministry that 15 million votes had been counted. How do you explain the 6 million votes discrepency? why did the Guardian council announce the results while it only had a supervisory role? in the province of khorasan 298000 votes were placed from 270,000 votes. Also in some other districts the interior ministry results showed more than 100% of eligible voters had voted. Interior Minister, mousavi lari, who was in charge of the polls echoed allegations of fraud.

[Lulliloo]

Mr Sedaei, I too am an expat, an American living in Europe for the past 37 years starting with the American USAF intellegence services against the East Block. Expats have the very important advantage of being able to see their own countries through the eyes of the world.

I've also had a life-long, deep interest in the Middle East. I've read very many books, articles and documentaries and extensively traveled throughout the Middle East in seeking to understand these peoples, religions, cultures and conflicts from both sides, and how best to try to resolve these thousand year old conflicts.

As far as understanding Iran from a westerner's viewpoint and how the current leadership would interact with Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, I find your article the most enlightened and easily understood by westerners that I've read. I would hope that, if not already, you become an Iranian affairs consultant to Obama. If the Obama campaign has not already approached you, I would suggest you approach them via your article here in the hopes they will at least consider your consultation.

I would also hope that your essay is widely disseminated and read amongst the general public. It would help avoid a war and greatly assist Europeans as well as Americans on how to approach the conflicts with Iran.
My regards,

[irishgawdess]

Thanks for this article Sam, it clarified for me why Ahmadinejad has been able to stay in power in Iran.

A few months ago, I researched Ahmadinejad on some Iranian and Middle Eastern websites to learn more about him from less biased Western sources. (Sorry, lost my source when my computer crashed recently, so this is anecdotal.) I was surprised to learn that the state sanctioned press had changed what Ahmadinejad actually said in his speech to "blowing Israel off the map" instead. You are right; he never said it. At the time, I didn't understand why the government sanctioned press would purposely do that, and your article has cleared that up for me.

The American MIC has run amok, and it's time to rein it in. The only way to do that is to vote Obama/Biden so they can begin to reduce the Pentagon's and Dept of Defense's budgets.

Thanks again for your well written blog.

[MagisterLudi]

Ahamdinejad has been able to stay in power because Supreme Leader of Iran, the only true power in Iranian politics willed it so. There's no opposition party in Iran. Only parties with minute variations from the Isalmic law as interpreted by the Supreme Leader.
I do not want to state that life is unbearable in Iran. People manage. If one avoids politics life can be quite pleasant ( except for women, gays, rockers, punks, jazz players, Buddhists, nihilists, socialists, communists, democrats, liberals, feminists, existentialists, Taoists and fashionably dressed women and men).

[MagisterLudi]

No reply, doSpin? Nothing to add, Mr. Sedaei? hmmm... It's easy to be progressive about other people's business. A little more difficult when one' own personal interests are at stake. This takes REAL courage. Maybe that's why one can rarely find info on this website on injustice done to Native Americans.

[OdaNobunaga]

No one is defending the Iranian government, as it doesn't warrant defense. Can you get that through your skull so we can move on?

[OdaNobunaga]

No one is defending Iran's government. If that's what you think this article is about, then you're missing the point.

[XME]

Of course Ahmadinejad wants McCain/Palin in the White House. I have little doubt that he was one of the MANY world "leaders" laughing the day McCain announced Palin as his running mate!

What enemy of ours would NOT want an old man with horrible judgement and a young woman with NO world experience in charge of the USA??

[blackbirdpie]

Thanks for some perspective on reality Sam. While other dimwits are focused on voting for a candidate that is just like 'us' (a hockey mom pitbull and so-called maverick), others are paying attention to the seriousness of the years that lie ahead of us.

[Daly]

Write on; brilliantly presented.

[noo]

Thanks, this is right on.

[larryMI]

I have teenagers so I know that no matter how hard I try they have their own priority's no matter what I say. They are their own people. As a parent I think I have done a good job because they are their own person and I take pride in the fact that they will tell me I am wrong. Not pleasant because I like to think I am usually right.

So why is it that we refuse to talk to people who don't agree with our views? Answer: My way or the highway. Any thoughts on why we are not considered the leader of the free world anymore?

Enough in 08

[rosiebond007]

Your piece seems to favor diplomacy around the world, especially with Iran.
Why then a title which provokes the opposite?
A quick read of that might convince someone to vote for McCane and Palin which would be a disaster.

Could you please change the title ??