Log In | Register
Imagine a man born to a family of limited means. Through hard work and perseverance, he claws his way up the academic ladder. Eventually, he earns a Ph.D.
He joins the military, serving primarily in an engineering capacity. He sees combat and acquits himself with honorable distinction.
Well thought of in religious circles, he's formed ties with several prominent clergymen. He's universally considered to be a man of deep religious conviction.
He serves as the Mayor of a major city for a number of years, highly praised for his management skills. He considers himself to be a man of the people. He regularly walks the city streets wearing the uniform of a janitor, to emphasize his connection with the city's lowest employees.
He's fought for the proper burial and honor due military veterans. He is deeply conservative and longs for the days when his country was treated with respect the world over. He believes that liberals have made the country weak.
Recently, when asked by a reporter, he expresses his view that Islam is a satanic religion. That it's a religion of violence and death. That its practitioners by far and large might not be capable of peace.
He's running for President. Would you vote for him?
Meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Swap out Islam for Judaism and you'd have an accurate portrait of Iran's current president. Of course, it's a good deal more complicated then that. To truly understand Ahmadinejad, you must first turn your attention to the country from which he hails.
A Recent History of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Contemporary history of Iran stems from the 1905 "Constitutional Revolution", in which the previous monarchial system of governance was transformed into a constitutional monarchy. This monarch was referred to as a "Shah". The emergence of an oil industry within the country resulted in an agreement between Britain and Russia in 1907 which divided the region between the two superpowers.
In the twenties, Russia withdrew, leaving the UK in total control of Iran's oil fields. Following World War II, the country began to make serious inroads into a democratically styled government. The years heading into the 50's were marked with instability, with conflicts between Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and the constitutional monarch (the Shah) reaching a peak in 1952.
Mossadegh had recently secured enough support to effectively nationalize Iran's British-controlled oil industry without compensation. Alarmed by these actions along with many public statements of a pro-socialist nature, the CIA decided that it was in America's best interest for a western-sympathetic head of government to emerge in the region.
The primary reasoning behind this thinking was twofold:
1) The US would benefit from a pro-western government on the Soviet Union's border.
2) It would ensure the flow of oil to a major US ally which was still restructuring its economy following a world war.
Operation Ajax, as it was code-named, culminated in the removal of Mossadegh from power and the return of the US-backed Shah. In return for this support, the Shah would allow a consortium of mostly British/US interests to control Iran's oil industry without interference.
The Shah was increasingly unpopular with Iranians, and in 1979 he was forced to flee the country in the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution. After a brief internal power struggle, the government of Iran was seized by the forces of formerly exiled Islamic religious leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini.
The resulting Iran became a country of strict fundamentalism. All industries were nationalized, and pro-western figures soon fled the nation en masse.
A Dark Mirror of Democracy
The important quality to consider when surveying modern Iran is that it is a democracy of a sort. Major political posts are filled through elections or appointed by elected individuals. It is a government modeled heavily on western sources.
The difference lies in the fact that its Supreme Leader draws his authority from God, not his people. In order to run for office in Iran, you must be approved by the religious authority.
While this may seem antithetical to our values, it does beg comparisons. Certainly the US doesn't require official church sanction to run for office, but when was the last time anyone in our country successfully gained high office without at least the appearance of religious conviction?
Iran's government is headed by a Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah or Iman, who is elected by its people. Once elected, he rules for life. This position holds ultimate responsibility for "the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran." He is commander in chief of Iran's military. He controls all security and intelligence operations.
He is the sole person authorized to declare war. He possesses the authority to hire and fire members of the judicial branch along with the managers of state run media. He appoints six of the twelve judicial positions of the top constitutional court. The other six are appointed by Iran's Parliament, which is itself elected by the people.
The Ayatollah is elected by the Assembly of Experts, whom are elected directly by the people. In order to be eligible for a position on the Assembly or any other governmental office, you must first be approved by the Council of Guardians, a group of clergymen who interpret the constitution in accordance with the laws of Shari'ah (the basis for most Islamic law).
The President is elected through universal suffrage, whereby every adult in Iran possesses the right to vote regardless of race, gender, religion, or social class. He is charged with the responsibility to implement the constitution. He is the chief executive in all matters with the exception of those relating directly to the office of Supreme Leader.
Ahmadinejad Increasing Role
Having gained a deeper understanding of Iran's political process, you may be wondering why its President is important. After all, he doesn't control the military. He can't declare war. If Iran were to gain a nuclear arsenal, he wouldn't have the ability to employ it. How important can he be?
Where Ahmadinejad is increasingly gaining influence on both the national and worldwide stage is as the unified voice of Iran towards the outside world. He has tapped the mood of an older, more dangerous Iran. Whereas the younger generation of his country traditionally looked upon the President and his peers as out of touch, Ahmadinejad has managed to increase the political power of military veterans.
This class of Iranians bear a great nostalgia for a time in which its heroes successfully defended their country from the threat of obliteration at the hands of Iraq. Moreover, this nostalgia has translated into a world-view in which the west is judged to be a similar enemy (particularly in its support of Israel, which Iranians tend to view as an illegal state occupying the territory of its Palestinian brethren).
Consider recent statements by Ahmadinejad:
"Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces.... Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe."
"They [the United States] think they are the absolute rulers of the world."
"The UN structure is one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam"
"Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . "
Analysis
As events stand now, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not much of a threat to the world. He is only threatening in that he represents the hopes and fears of a growing segment of his country. He was elected by Iranians who feel a deep class discrimination. The feeling extends from their everyday lives outwards into a world-view in which Muslims are increasingly treated as third class citizens on an international level. The veracity of this view is irrelevant. Its influence is very real, and very much a staple of contemporary Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no military authority to act upon his statements. At least, not now. But he continues to capture the patriotism of Iranians who perceive a world in which the odds are stacked against them.
If Ahmadinejad continues to stoke these flames, he may well find himself appointed to fill the void of Ayatollah upon Khamenei's succession. It is entirely likely that we are looking at the next Supreme Leader of Iran. With nuclear weapons, what might he do? How much of what he says is rhetoric? How much is conviction?
It is absolutely vital that America's leaders respond to th
(Author's note: There was widespread controversy concerning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's supposed role as a member of the terrorist team responsible for the hijacking and hostage taking of the American Embassy in Tehran during the Islamic Revolution. Upon investigating these claims, I discovered that the CIA has released statements to the effect that they find it highly unlikely that he was involved. Statements from proven members of that team indicate that Ahmadinejad was on the council of revolutionaries who initiated the attack but in fact was on record in opposition to the strike and only involved peripherally . As such, I chose not to focus on it within the context of this article.)
Source Materials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060314-125702-7713r.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182457/site/newsweek/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4725806
