In 2002 when Khatami was president of Iran, not Ahmadinejad...

JackRiddler

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-24-07 03:48 PM
Original message

In 2002 when Khatami was president of Iran, not Ahmadinejad...

In 2002 when Khatami was president of Iran, not Ahmadinejad...

Bush used his State of the Union address to issue what sounded (to the merely human ear) like a declaration of war, supposedly in response to 9/11, against something called the Axis of Evil. This neologism, a mental construct, consisted of three unrelated nations: Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Two of them were enemies to each other, and none of them were actually connected to the 9/11 attacks.*

At that time, Iran's elected president was Khatami, the moderate, the one elected twice by 2/3 of the people in the hope he would bring a genuine social reform to the harsh rule of the Mullahs. Far as I could read this as an outsider, it seemed like he gave it a shot, but was largely frustrated, and left with an economy in decline.

It was on Khatami's Iran that Bush declared war.

It was Khatami's Iran that was not-so secretly the ideal target of the new generation mini-nuke "bunker buster" bombs touted as a wonderful and necessary thing and developed under Rumsfeld.

The Iranian moderates and opposition parties begged Bush to butt out of their politics. They warned that he was strengthening the hand of the hardliners. In politics, it's axiomatic that when foreign powers make threats against a country, they strengthen that country's hardliners.

In 2005, Bush made himself a factor in the Iranian election with warnings that those people had better not vote for Ahmadinejad!

There are those on DU who will say this once again shows the incompetence of the Bush regime, and those who will believe Bush's statements were intended to boost Ahmadinejad so that the U.S. would get the "face of the enemy" it desired. (There are also those who no doubt figure it was the right thing for an American president to criticize this evil, evil monster.)

Now the game enters a phase in which the regime and the corporate media are ramping up a campaign of hatred, fear and hysteria directed against Ahmadinejad. A CBS interviewer hectored him outrageously, the New York tabloids scream lurid headlines: EVIL!

In context of developments in Iraq, Iran and the United States, the function of this campaign is undeniable: It is the propaganda preparation for the regime's already announced, unprovoked war of aggression on Iran, a war that may kill millions of people.

This campaign differs in tone from the WMD-9/11 propaganda used to sell the invasion of Iraq, but is just as transparent. And just like in 2003, I see many people here on DU falling for it. In 2003, many believed there were WMD, even though the only source providing anything that qualfied as evidence (the UN inspections records) made it clear that this was impossible.

Now, DU members are not endorsing a war. They think they're only condemning Ahmadinejad for being odious. In this, they go along with the pretense that the U.S. corporate media suddenly care about Ahmadinejad's views about the Nazi holocaust, or his persecution of gays, that this is why he's displaced Britney and O.J. as the primary target of the news.

There is only one reasonable stance in this debate: It is not with Ahmadinejad, but against the regime that is preparing to wage nuclear war and commit mass murder upon the Iranian people, and against the propaganda machinery that is busily creating the face of the enemy so as to justify the crime.

---

Note * i.e., these countries were unconnected to the 9/11 attacks even if you believe the official conspiracy theory of 9/11.