Why does Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, permit Ahmadinejad to be so provocative? That matter requires some insight into the Supreme Leader and his existential predispositions.
Perhaps it is well to consider the facts that Ayatollah Khamenei does not deign to give public interviews, he has never been even asked to submit a report of any kind (let alone on the state of the Iranian nation) to any Iranian legislative, administrative or other agency, he has never even attended a meeting of the Exigency Council (which he appoints) and he has never even attended a meeting of the Assembly of Experts (which appointed him, which has technical authority over him, but which has never -not once-vetoed him) and he is extremely secretive about the basis of whatever public pronouncements he chooses to make.
That said, Khamenei is not well thought of as an arguably erudite Shiite cleric even though he has been designated as an Ayatollah ( only the Shiites have such a title for their highest clerics). Indeed, to become a member of the Assembly of Experts (learned Mujtahheeds - Islamic scholars of demonstrated competence and recognized authority) one is supposed to be an exemplar of Islamic learning. There is broad - but often unspoken- consensus in Iran that Khamenei does not fit the bill as a distinguished Islamic scholar, but that he survives and functions by dint of the inherent prowess of his distinctive persona.
By way of circumlocution to answering the question of why Ahmadinejad is allowed to rant, it is worth noting that as Supreme Leader, Khamenei has antagonized multiple other bone fide Ayatollahs of immense standing as Islamic scholars. Surely the greatest of these, Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, just died severl months ago. At that time, Khamenei prohibited demonstrations and even grieving for Montazeri anywhere except in the holy city of Qom where Montazeri lived and died. Montazeri had once been tapped to succeed Iran's first Supreme Leader Ruhallah Khomenei, but was denied that post when he and Khomenei had a falling out just prior Khomenei's death in1989.That is whenKhamenei assumed control and put Montazeri under house arrest for many years. Prior to his death, Montazeri had been a vocal supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's major election adversary in Iran.
That said, Mousavi is wrongly thought by the West to be a liberal/reformer. His reforms -such as they are proposed to be- lie in domestic affairs only. In fact, Mousavi was foreign minister in Iran when the US hostages were taken in 1979 and he quite approved. He also believes Iran MUST have nukes. So, underneath it all, Ahamadinejad and Mousavi are simply the same pudding with different flavors. Furthermore, the alleged reformer Mousavi is merely another version of Ahamadinejad without the anger or inventive.
Premises considered, Khamenei can call his shots as he pleases when, in fact, allowing Ahmadinejad to rant and rave does Khamenei little harm and especially since not a single recognized leader in Iran disagrees with the substance of Ahamadinejad's foreign policy rantings. Included among these leaders are Mousavi, Karroubi, Larijani, Khatami and Iran's wealthiest person, Rafsanjani. The latter was President of Iran in the mid-late nineties. He vehemently dislikes Ahamadinejad and is often at loggerheads with Khamenei. But, most importantly, Iran seems to be substantially of one voice when it comes to foreign affairs, nukes and national pride.
The bottom line is that, in the grand scheme of things, Ahmadinejad is essentially expendable and, in the greater context of Iranian leadership, is not considered to be even on the top thirty list of all-time prominent Persians/Iranians. So, to coin a phrase, talk is cheap and Khamenei simply tolerates Ahmadinejad on domestic affairs and allows him to fulminate on the foreign affairs with which Khamenei substantially concurs.
Regarding Ahmadinejad's provocative posturing, one might well paraphrase a pithy G.B. Shaw aphorism to read: “He who can does, he who cannot rants!”
Friday, February 26, 2010
Flying Over the Iranian Cukoo's Nest
Is Ahmadinejad nuts? Is Iran becoming a lunatic asylum? Why is Iran seeking the nukes it does not need? Why is it threatening to wipe Israel off the map? These questions deserve some anaylsis. So, the following is submitted for your thoughtful contemplation and consideration.
Ahamadinejad is, without question, an ultra-bellicose, apocalyptic zealot. That said, there is not one shred of significant or otherwise credible evidence (historical, empirical or psychiatric) that Iran - as a nation- is suicidal.
Indeed, it is absolutely imperative to recognize that Ahamadinejad is not Iran's commander-in-chief, he does not set Iranian foreign policy, he does not have the authority to declare war, he does not control the national treasury, he does not designate who preaches what, when, where and why, etc. Ahmadinejad is, for practical purposes, the political puppet of the Rehbar aka The Supreme Leader aka Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Specifically and constitutionally in Iran, Ahmadinejad operates only with the overt and/or covert imprimatur of Iran's Supreme Leader. It is he and he alone- who possess the legal and actual practical authority to act unilaterally in precisely those areas where Ahamadinejad can only lash out verbally.
The ultimate question then becomes: What does Khamenei really want for Iran versus what does The Rehbar and Iran truly need? Implicit in that question is the underlying consideration of what strategies is Iran prepared to employ to achieve its goals and to what extent Iran - as a nation- is prepared to mindlessly pursue those goals regardless of the readily foreseeable consequences of an Iranian missile attack on Israel.
Furthermore, the USA has repeatedly heretofore misread both Iranian and Israeli intentions and their respective capabilities and determinations on multiple and diverse issues. Therefore, understanding the underlying aspirations as well as the bone fide persecution complexes that afflict both Israel and Iran is absolutely critical to comprehending their respective preparedness to act unilaterally and to initiate a war that would engulf not only their respective nations and the entirety of the Mideast, but would have far wider and broader implications and a worldwide impact of monumental proportions.
Moreover, the USA assuredly recognizes, as do both Israel and Iran, that China dearly depends on an open and free-flowing passage thru Strait of Hormuz for a very substantial percent of its oil. As such, any Israeli bombing of Iran -which would undoubtedly result in the severe restriction and/or closing of oil shipping in that region-would virtually be an economic declaration of war on China. Furthermore, both China and Russia have massive trade and financial interests in and with Iran. Russia presumably prefers to maintain the delicate status quo in that region. Indeed, Russia appears not to be overly interested in encouraging yet another Mideast region war.
Additionally, Russia supplies Israel with about 60% of Israel's oil. As such, Russia, in fact, may possess significant (indirect) coercive influence on any Israeli decision that would unilaterally upset the status quo in that region to the demonstrable derogation of the interests of both China and Russia.
It is worth noting that an actual outbreak of hostilities -if precipitated by Israel- would, almost of necessity, involve the USA in another war for which the USA not only has no stomach, but even less economic where-with-all to pursue when such a war -precipitated by Israel- would surely galvanize the entirety of the Muslim world (1.2 billion Shiites and Sunnis) against both Israel and the USA.
On the other hand, if Iran initiated a missile attack on Israel, Iran would -again in my judgment- be committing an act of political, economic and -most probably- even national suicide. That would require the bizarre behavior of a national society of Iranian lunatics. While Ahmadinejad may be psycholocially and religiously disposed to seek apocalyptic chaos and anarchy, that posture has not been -and arguably is not- the thrust of the broader Iranian psyche or of Iran's -seemingly more rational - leadership.
Ahmadinejad may be a passionate Shiite zealot, Iran may truly need regional recognition, but even Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomenei, when Iran was strapped for military hardware during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, saw fit to buy arms from Israel, even though, in Khomenei's mind and in the express opinion of the current Supreme Leader of Iran, "the creation of Israel was the worst event in the history of mankind!"
So, the bottom line is, in my judgment, that Israel -no matter how verbally threatened by an arguably bellicose and decidedly duplicitous Iran- is constrained to wait until the very last second [not minute] before Israel would launch any unilateral preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (plural). The ensuing conflagration would -I strongly believe- thrust the world into an economic and military crisis of immense proportions and would be of the deepest and widest dimensions.
So, when pundits say: "If Iran wants nukes, then Israel or the USA should drop some on Iran," then that punditry is not only disingenuous, it is unseemly, it is perversely provocative and it is dangerous in the extreme to the entirety of Western civilization as we know it. But then, that is my humble opinion and -assuredly- not necessarily the posture of Mr. Netanyahu, or of Pres. Obama, or Pres. Hu Jintao or of Rootin'-Tootin' Putin and certainly not that of Mr. Ahamadinejad or of Iran's Supreme Leader.
Indeed, it is absolutely critical to recognize that each and every international actor comes to his/her/its posture predicated on its narrow self-interests, its own national aspirations and its own self-image. These may and frequently do differ in the extreme. That is why this issue is so complex and is subject to such vehement posturing by all, even presumably well-meaning and thoughtful non-combatants, as it were.
In the final ayalysis, history teaches that one can never precisely predict just what or when individuals and/or nations are -justly or unjustly- determined to take an often precipitous and lethal leap into lunacy!
Ahamadinejad is, without question, an ultra-bellicose, apocalyptic zealot. That said, there is not one shred of significant or otherwise credible evidence (historical, empirical or psychiatric) that Iran - as a nation- is suicidal.
Indeed, it is absolutely imperative to recognize that Ahamadinejad is not Iran's commander-in-chief, he does not set Iranian foreign policy, he does not have the authority to declare war, he does not control the national treasury, he does not designate who preaches what, when, where and why, etc. Ahmadinejad is, for practical purposes, the political puppet of the Rehbar aka The Supreme Leader aka Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Specifically and constitutionally in Iran, Ahmadinejad operates only with the overt and/or covert imprimatur of Iran's Supreme Leader. It is he and he alone- who possess the legal and actual practical authority to act unilaterally in precisely those areas where Ahamadinejad can only lash out verbally.
The ultimate question then becomes: What does Khamenei really want for Iran versus what does The Rehbar and Iran truly need? Implicit in that question is the underlying consideration of what strategies is Iran prepared to employ to achieve its goals and to what extent Iran - as a nation- is prepared to mindlessly pursue those goals regardless of the readily foreseeable consequences of an Iranian missile attack on Israel.
Furthermore, the USA has repeatedly heretofore misread both Iranian and Israeli intentions and their respective capabilities and determinations on multiple and diverse issues. Therefore, understanding the underlying aspirations as well as the bone fide persecution complexes that afflict both Israel and Iran is absolutely critical to comprehending their respective preparedness to act unilaterally and to initiate a war that would engulf not only their respective nations and the entirety of the Mideast, but would have far wider and broader implications and a worldwide impact of monumental proportions.
Moreover, the USA assuredly recognizes, as do both Israel and Iran, that China dearly depends on an open and free-flowing passage thru Strait of Hormuz for a very substantial percent of its oil. As such, any Israeli bombing of Iran -which would undoubtedly result in the severe restriction and/or closing of oil shipping in that region-would virtually be an economic declaration of war on China. Furthermore, both China and Russia have massive trade and financial interests in and with Iran. Russia presumably prefers to maintain the delicate status quo in that region. Indeed, Russia appears not to be overly interested in encouraging yet another Mideast region war.
Additionally, Russia supplies Israel with about 60% of Israel's oil. As such, Russia, in fact, may possess significant (indirect) coercive influence on any Israeli decision that would unilaterally upset the status quo in that region to the demonstrable derogation of the interests of both China and Russia.
It is worth noting that an actual outbreak of hostilities -if precipitated by Israel- would, almost of necessity, involve the USA in another war for which the USA not only has no stomach, but even less economic where-with-all to pursue when such a war -precipitated by Israel- would surely galvanize the entirety of the Muslim world (1.2 billion Shiites and Sunnis) against both Israel and the USA.
On the other hand, if Iran initiated a missile attack on Israel, Iran would -again in my judgment- be committing an act of political, economic and -most probably- even national suicide. That would require the bizarre behavior of a national society of Iranian lunatics. While Ahmadinejad may be psycholocially and religiously disposed to seek apocalyptic chaos and anarchy, that posture has not been -and arguably is not- the thrust of the broader Iranian psyche or of Iran's -seemingly more rational - leadership.
Ahmadinejad may be a passionate Shiite zealot, Iran may truly need regional recognition, but even Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomenei, when Iran was strapped for military hardware during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, saw fit to buy arms from Israel, even though, in Khomenei's mind and in the express opinion of the current Supreme Leader of Iran, "the creation of Israel was the worst event in the history of mankind!"
So, the bottom line is, in my judgment, that Israel -no matter how verbally threatened by an arguably bellicose and decidedly duplicitous Iran- is constrained to wait until the very last second [not minute] before Israel would launch any unilateral preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (plural). The ensuing conflagration would -I strongly believe- thrust the world into an economic and military crisis of immense proportions and would be of the deepest and widest dimensions.
So, when pundits say: "If Iran wants nukes, then Israel or the USA should drop some on Iran," then that punditry is not only disingenuous, it is unseemly, it is perversely provocative and it is dangerous in the extreme to the entirety of Western civilization as we know it. But then, that is my humble opinion and -assuredly- not necessarily the posture of Mr. Netanyahu, or of Pres. Obama, or Pres. Hu Jintao or of Rootin'-Tootin' Putin and certainly not that of Mr. Ahamadinejad or of Iran's Supreme Leader.
Indeed, it is absolutely critical to recognize that each and every international actor comes to his/her/its posture predicated on its narrow self-interests, its own national aspirations and its own self-image. These may and frequently do differ in the extreme. That is why this issue is so complex and is subject to such vehement posturing by all, even presumably well-meaning and thoughtful non-combatants, as it were.
In the final ayalysis, history teaches that one can never precisely predict just what or when individuals and/or nations are -justly or unjustly- determined to take an often precipitous and lethal leap into lunacy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
