Ahmadinejad's Lorem Ipsum

 

SCROLL DOWN FOR IMPORTANT UPDATE THURSDAY MAY 11TH

Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad scored quite a success with his 18-page letter to President Bush. Timing was of course carefully orchestrated to coincide with his high-profile visit to a key Muslim country, Indonesia.

Remember 'Lorem Ipsum', the standard placeholder text used in publishing and graphic design to demonstrate the graphic elements of a document or visual presentation? Well, as soon as we realize that our Thug-In-Chief might as well have used such dummy text, that the content never mattered, we understand this simple but as it turns out most effective strategy to shift the dynamic away from being in the defensive and to firmly place the ball into the opponents court. Amir Taheri puts it best:

Something interesting is happening with regard to the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Slowly the blame is shifting from the mullahs to the Bush administration as the debate is redirected to tackle the hypothetical question of U.S. military action rather than the Islamic Republic's real misdeeds. "No War on Iran" placards are already appearing where "No Nukes for Iran" would make more sense.

The attempt at fabricating another "cause" with which to bash America is backed by the claim that the mullahs are behaving badly because Washington refuses to talk to them. Some of this buzz is coming from those who for years told the U.S. to let them persuade Iran to mend its ways. They include German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his British and French colleagues in the European Union trio that negotiated with Iran for years. Preparing to throw in the towel, they now say the U.S. should "directly engage" Iran. That would enable them to hide their failures and find a pretext for blaming future setbacks on the U.S.

The letter is of course just one building block in this effort to ultimately shift the perception of 'Mistrust' from the lying, cheating and generally contemptuous Iranian Mullahs to that of our Administration. Most of our Liberal friends are of course only too eager to support the Thug-In-Chief in his effort, as Mark Noonan @ Blogs for Bush points out:

Honestly, except for his closing mumbo-jumbo about everyone getting ready to worship his version of Allah, there isn't the slightest difference between Ahmadinejad's letter and the average speech by Al Gore, Howard Dean or Russ Feingold.

We are also little surprised to be told by Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz that the letter "could have been the beginning of a new process," and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's reaction, which has of course already been labeled as a 'quick brushoff', would fuel anti-American feelings in Iran; that her response would "strengthen the suspicion (inside Iran) that the U.S. is thinking of a military option only and not a political solution" to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program.

Just what the Left wants to hear.

Meanwhile, Iran Focus confirms that 8 out of 10 foreign insurgents in Iraq come from Iran, with the remaining more or less coming from Afghanistan.

A staggeringly high proportion of foreign insurgents arrested in Iraq are of Iranian origin, according to an Iraqi daily close to Massoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party.

Of the 1,972 infiltrators arrested since May 01, 2005, 1,577 were of Iranian origin, the daily al-Taji wrote on Monday.

The daily, quoting a commander of the Iraqi border guard, said that nine of the detained insurgents were Nigerian, 15 were Iraqi, four were Indian, 364 were Afghani, two were Pakistani, and one was from Dagestan.

As they say, action speak louder than words, and our Thug-In-Chief certainly doesn't upset this wisdom. Will that be taken into account by our Liberal friends?

Probably not. What they most certainly will not acknowledge is the much more revealing reaction to the letter by Ahmadinejad's neighboring countries:

Among Gulf nations, the letter fueled suspicions toward Iran.

The Saudi-owned daily Asharq Al-Awsat called the letter proof that "Iran is not enriching uranium for peaceful purposes as it says, and is striving for leadership and control of the region."

Such Iranian leadership would mean the Israeli-Palestinian peace process "would be stalled, the Iraqi dream (of democracy) would be thwarted and we would witness a new wave of armament," wrote Tariq Alhomayed, the paper's editor-in-chief.

The Kuwaiti newspaper Arab Times ran an editorial in which editor-in-chief Ahmed Al-Jarallah accused Ahmadinejad of acting "as if he owns the region."

We'd be better served to listen to those who know and understand our Thug-In-Chief much better than we can ever hope to. 

Back to the rest of Amir Taheri's brilliant essay:

The "engage Iran" coalition also has Edit HTMLadvocates in the U.S. Over the past few weeks they have hammered the "engagement" theme with op-eds, TV soundbites and speeches. Some have recommended John Kennedy's "sophisticated leadership" during the Cuban missile crisis as a model for George W. Bush. The incident has entered American folklore as an example of "brilliant diplomacy," but few bother to examine the small print. The crisis, as you might recall, started when the Soviets installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, something they were committed not to do in a number of accords with the U.S. Kennedy reacted by threatening to quarantine Cuba until the missiles were removed. The Soviets ended up "flinching" and agreed to removal.

In exchange they got two things. First, the U.S. agreed never to take or assist hostile action against Castro, offering his regime life insurance. The second was to remove the Jupiter missiles installed in Turkey as part of NATO's defenses. Instead of being punished, Castro and his Soviet masters were doubly rewarded for undoing what they shouldn't have done in the first place. And Castro was free to do mischief not only in Latin America but also in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf, often on behalf of Moscow, right up to the fall of the U.S.S.R. Applied to Iran, the "Kennedy model" would provide the mullahs, now facing mounting discontent at home, with a guarantee of safety from external pressure, allowing them to suppress their domestic opponents and intensify mischief-making abroad.

Believe it or not, the second model for engaging Iran is actually Jimmy Carter's policy towards the mullahs. Mr. Carter has called for a "diplomatic solution," and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser, has published an op-ed blaming the Bush administration for the crisis. He writes: "Artificial deadlines, propounded most often by those who do not wish the U.S. to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive. Name-calling and saber rattling, as well as a refusal to even consider the other side's security concerns, can be useful tactics only if the goal is to derail the negotiating process."

Let's forget that the "artificial deadlines" have been set by the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council, and that most of the "name-calling and saber rattling" has come from Tehran. But let us recall one fact that Mr. Brzezinski does not mention -- that the Carter administration did "engage" with the mullahs without artificial deadlines, saber rattling and name-calling. The results for the U.S. were disastrous.

In 1979, soon after the mullahs seized power, Mr. Carter sent Ayatollah Khomeini a warm congratulatory letter. Mr. Carter's man at the U.N., a certain Andrew Young, praised Khomeini as "a 20th-century saint." Mr. Carter also tapped his closest legal advisor, the late Lloyd Cutler, as U.S. ambassador to the mullarchy.

A more dramatic show of U.S. support for the mullahs came when Mr. Brzezinski flew to Algiers to meet Khomeini's prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan. This was love at first sight -- to the point where Mr. Carter approved the resumption of military supplies to Iran, even as the mullahs were executing Iranians by the thousands, including many whose only "crime" was friendship with the U.S. The Carter administration's behavior convinced the mullahs that the U.S. was a paper tiger and that it was time for the Islamic Revolution to highlight hatred of America. Mr. Carter reaped what he had sown when the mullahs sent "student" fanatics to seize the U.S. embassy compound, a clear act of war, and hold its diplomats hostage for 444 days. "The Carter administration's weakness was a direct encouragement to [anti-American] hard-liners," wrote Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, one of the hostage-takers, years later.

Mr. Brzezinski's op-ed took the title "Been There, Done That," meant as a sneering nod to events that led to the liberation of Iraq. A more apt title, however, is: "Been There, Done That, Learned Nothing" -- a nod to Mr. Brzezinski's failure to learn the lessons of Iran even three decades later.

The third model for engaging Iran is the Clinton model. Beating his own drum, Bill Clinton has rejected the threat of force and called for "engaging" Iran. This is how he put it in a recent speech: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak." Mr. Clinton's pseudo-Socratic method of either/or-ing issues out of existence is too well-known to merit an exposé. This time, however, Mr. Clinton did not ask enough questions. For example, he might have asked: What if by refusing to kill some of them today we are forced to kill many more tomorrow? Also: What if, once assured that we are not going to kill them today, they regroup and come to kill us in larger numbers? We all know the answers.

Mr. Clinton did not reveal that in 1999 he offered the mullahs "a grand bargain" under which the Islamic Republic would be recognized as the "regional power" in exchange for lip service to U.S. "interests in the Middle East." As advance payment for the "bargain" Mr. Clinton apologized for "all the wrongs that my country and culture have done" to Iran, whatever that was supposed to mean. The "bargain," had it not been vetoed by the "Supreme Guide" in Tehran, might have secured Mr. Clinton the Nobel Peace Prize he coveted, but it would have sharpened the mullahs' appetite for "exporting" revolution.

* * *

President Bush can learn from the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton models by not repeating their mistakes. What the U.S. needs is an open, honest and exhaustive debate on what to do with a regime that claims a mission to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map, create an Islamic superpower, and conquer the world for "The Only True Faith." The options are clear: retreat and let the Islamic Republic advance its goals; resist and risk confrontation, including military conflict; or engage the Islamic Republic in a mini-version of Cold War until, worn out, it self-destructs.

With the options clear, Messrs. Carter, Brzezinski and Clinton along with other "engagers" would have to tell us which they favor and, if they like none, what alternative they offer. Calling for talks is just cheap talk. It is important to say what the proposed talks should be about. In the meantime, talk of "constructive engagement" is sure to encourage President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence. Why should he slow down, let alone stop, when there are no bumps on the road?

IMPORTANT UPDATE THURSDAY MAY 11TH: Robert Spencer @ Jihad Watch leads the charge:

Confirming my observation here. "President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam"

[T]he letter was indeed the call to Islam that must precede any attack, in accord with Muhammad's words (in Sahih Muslim 4294) about inviting the unbelievers to accept Islam or dhimmitude and fighting him only if he refuses both. We shall see.

Charles Johnson @ LGF:

Only a few blogs (and almost no mainstream media) have realized the truth about Iranian madman Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush. It was not an offer to negotiate, and it was not simply a lunatic’s rant. It was a calculated invitation to convert to Islam, a da’wa—an Islamic requirement (commanded by Mohammed) before waging war against unbelievers.

Speaking in Jakarta, Indonesia, Ahmadinejad himself confirmed this reading today, as reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency: President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam.

Jeff Goldstein follows with "An Islamic Declaration Of War?"

More from Allah @ Hot Air: "Assuming Spencer’s right, I wonder which group will be enlisted to deliver the “horse’s head.”

Comments

[Allison]

"It is s damn shame that there are American citizens more willing, able and eager to believe the words and intentions of a Hitler-esque religious fanatic than the President. "

It doesn't take comments from Ahmedinejad's letter to see lies, corruption and hypocisy (or "bending the truth," if you prefer); it only takes one's eyes and ears. You seem to think that just because Ahmedinejad is bad, Bush must be good or better (to simplify matters). But I think Bush's record speaks otherwise. A truth, no matter WHO states it, is still a truth.

"Ann Coulter said it best a while ago - we finally give the liberals a war against religious fundamentalism and they don't want to fight it (presumably because it isn't the right "religion" to focus on - aka, not Christianity or Judaism)."

When was this war ever about "fighting religious fundamentalism?" I thought it was about "weapons of mass destruction." I guess the purpose shifts according to whatever's convenient to the president and his allies (i.e., once one lie is exposed, let's move to another, then flip-flop all over the place until people are so confused they forget they're being lied to left and right). Oops, did I just say flip-flop???

[slowtrain]

Nasty90 and Good Lt:

Your responses are typical of this pagan inspired postmodernist age: blame it all on Christians. After all, it is only customary and very convenient to do so. In pagan Roman Empire, centuries ago, Christians were blamed for everything, from pestilence to famine, from earthquakes to floods. When Mt. Vesuvius erupted in A.D. 79 and destroyed the ancient city of Pompeii, the Christians were blamed for it, when there was famine, epidemics and other natural calamities, Christians were blamed for them too, Islamic terrorist blow up trains in Madrid and London, who gets blamed for it, Christians and Jews of course; “if America and Britain, manipulated by Jews, supported by Spain, hadn’t invaded Iraq, those incidents would not have happened”, right? Or how about if only United States would stop supporting Israel, the Islamic terrorists would leave us alone? I have no doubt that you and the pagan “priestess” would feed Christians to the beasts all over again and delight in seeing them turn to bits and devoured, just to be rid of them.

George Bush is the President of the United States, he was not elected by Christians alone or because he is a Christian. If he errs, fails, succeeds or leads the nation to victory in his decisions as the President of the United States of America, he did so as a leader, not necessarily as a Christian. When people elect someone to do a difficult job, they should at least have the courage and decency to stand by whom they have chosen when the going gets tough, instead of idly standing by, wringing their hands, winning and blaming him for the same difficult problems he is trying to solve and for which he was elected. Your responses are not surprising, that’s how it is in a culture where the tendency is to blame someone else, and never take responsibility. Everyone seems to forget that what America is doing in Iraq is not fighting a war, but building a nation. If it had been strictly war, the troops would have been home long time ago. I bet it has never occurred to you that if Bush did not care about the future of Iraq and Iraqis he would have brought the soldiers home soon after the actual war was over.

The author of the book Tribalizing America, sums it up this way, “America is like an oasis in a desert or like a beacon at sea that inspires hope and freedom in the hearts of people all over the world. Whether it is in the legacies of the pilgrims and countless immigrants seeking freedom from oppressive homelands; the founding fathers fighting for freedom from oppressive colonial masters; the African slaves struggling for freedom from their oppressors; women and minorities seeking justice and equality; the liberation of the French and the Italians on the D-Day; burying the hatchet and being magnanimous to defeated foes, such as Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union—in embrace of new beginnings, restoration, friendship and support in building better societies.

In all these American experiences, there is an element of “the good, the bad, and the ugly”. But America has never been timid in confronting any issue that undermines her true ideals, at home or abroad, and reinventing herself and reshaping the world when those issues so warrant. This in itself has been an inspiration to the rest of the world.”

George Bush believes what he believes and is the man he is, just like you believe what you believe and are who you are, such is life; that’s just the way it is. We all have convictions and we all act from those convictions for what we believe is right, whether we are right or wrong, time shall tell. In the eyes of skepticism, words become redundant, only time shall tell.

[Michael Galien]

Slowtrain said...

It is perhaps more appropriate to say that Islamic countries have the tendency to back one another up, no matter what.

I stand corrected; you are right.

[Good Lt]

It is s damn shame that there are American citizens more willing, able and eager to believe the words and intentions of a Hitler-esque religious fanatic than the President.

Ann Coulter said it best a while ago - we finally give the liberals a war against religious fundamentalism and they don't want to fight it (presumably because it isn't the right "religion" to focus on - aka, not Christianity or Judaism).

[Nasty90]

Slowtrain, that business about Mohammed doing what he did to unite the warring arab tribes is poppycock. He was a warlord with his own selfish ambition. Forcing other arabs in that day wasn't that hard when they annhilated and assasinated anyone who made fun of Mohammed who claimed to be a prophet. Those who rejected his claims as a prophet were put to death.

[Ghost Dansing]

Well, I for one think Ahmadinejad is far worse than dubya in every way...he's (Ahmadinejad) kinda like what the American President would look like if the "christian" fundamentalist, evangelical dominionists took over here.

Ahmadinejad is a "twelver"...he is fascinated with the "end days" just like the apolcolyptic "christians" in this Country.

Unfortunately, due to some really bad choices and general incompetence, dubya has put the United States in a very weak position from which to deal with Iran's nuclear issue.

[slowtrain]

As we all know Arab countries have a tendency of backing eachother up (except of course when they are the ones being attacked) almost no matter what.

It is perhaps more appropriate to say that Islamic countries have the tendency to back one another up, no matter what. Arab countries have never really liked one another and that has been the case even before Mohammed the founder of Islam. In fact, at Mohammed’s time, Arabia was bitterly divided by warring tribes. Mohammed’s tribe Quarish, established itself in the south, near the place called Mecca, the principal religious and commercial centre of Arabia at the time. Mohammed’s main goal was really to put end to the tribal wars, by unifying the disparate warring tribes, which culminated in the conquest of all of Arabia and the imposition of the Islamic religion via his so-called religious reform and ultimately inspired the Islamic expansion throughout the world.

As we know Iran is not an Arab country but Persian and Iraq, which until it was conquered by invading Muslim armies and more recently through an Arab, Saddam Hussein’s effort to “Arabize” Iraq by his “Arabfication” (ethnic cleansing) program. Iraq had always been predominantly Assyrian and Babylonian country.

The Persians (Iranians), Babylonians/Assyrians (Iraqis), and the Midianites, etc., (Arabs) have been mortal enemies for centuries. Islam has been the only thing that tend to unit them all, but even at that they are still mortal enemies — the Sunni Muslims (mostly Arabs) hate the Shiite Muslims (mostly Persians), as we see in their current battle ground: Iraq. The Shiites were brutally oppressed by Saddam Hussein (an Arab), now the Sunnis (mainly Arabs) fearing retaliation in a Shiite ruled Iraq, expect that the same fate awaits them, hence the insurgency which is mostly lead by Arabs (Osama, Zarkawi, etc.)

Arabs like to rule; in Iraq they are the Sunni, in Nigeria, Sudan, Chad, Niger, etc. they are the Fulani. They believe that Allah has mandated them to rule the world. Islam is only the means to exercise this mandate; it is really indirect Arab rule, hence the goal to dominate the world through Islam. The Persians, who once ruled the region in ancient times, believe they should continue to do so, also through Islam, hence the Sunni - Shiite divide.

[Allison]

"I am quite European in my view about religion and politics. I firmly believe in a seperation of church and state. That should let you know how I think about certain aspects of Bush's propaganda."

Ditto :) I'm not religious at all, by the way. I think most people do agree, however, that it is blatantly un-Christian to lie, cheat and steal. And that is where I think the hypocrisy element of this administration comes in. If you're going to make religion a big chunk of your agenda, then you should probably not do things which go most blatantly against that religion when you get into office. You're asking for trouble.

OK, enough procrastination for me :)

[Fausta]

Don't miss Lileks's take on the letter

[Michael Galien]

I won't get into that too much, simply because I don't really believe in saying whether someone is a Christian or not. I expect that person him/herself to know best.

I am quite European in my view about religion and politics. I firmly believe in a seperation of church and state. That should let you know how I think about certain aspects of Bush's propaganda.

[Allison]

Sorry, that should have read: "Bush shot himself in the foot by openly sharing his religion and religious agenda, AND USING IT IN AN EFFORT TO GAIN CREDIBILITY, when he couldn't back it up with Christian actions

[Allison]

Dick: I personally think it's difficult to see who is the biggest hypocrite, and I'm not alone. Bush shot himself in the foot by openly sharing his religion and religious agenda, when he couldn't back it up with Christian actions :)

[Allison]

I was speaking on more of a political/governmental level. Most everyday Muslims will say all the right things about loving other Muslims unconditionally, but when it comes down to the people in power standing behind those words with actions (and $), things fizzle. Some examples... Saudis are some of the richest people in the world, and they aren't exactly doing a great job at helping their fellow Muslims in different parts of the world (much less their own needy citizens). Israel's neighbors are famously unwelcoming to Palestinian refugees. Morocco and Algeria can't resolve their border disputes (among other issues). Sunnis and Shias from the same countries continue to interact violently. I would say there is a lot of divisiveness in the Arab world, on several different issues.

[Dick Westwood]

Well, I thought the funniest part in Mahmoud's epistle to George was this:

"We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty… surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord therefore serves Him…

Allison: a pretty good job of pointing out the hypocrisy of Bush's "religious posturing"? It seems to me that it's the thug-in-chief who's the religious-posturer-in chief.

[Michael Galien]

What I am talking about is not just governments, but Arabs in general. I don't know who you are talking with, but I also have quite some friends from different Arab countries, and they back every Arab country up, like I said, almost continuesly.
Muslims in general have a tendency to back eachother up. Of course some arabs / muslims think arab countries aren't backing eachother up enough, because enough is for them not 99%, but 100%.

[Allison]

"As we all know Arab countries have a tendency of backing eachother up (except of course when they are the ones being attacked) almost no matter what.
That Saudi Arabia and Kuwait feel threatened by Iran makes it almost undeniable for everyone that Iran, indeed, is trying to develop WMD's. If SA and Kuwait weren't (99%) sure of it, they would not come out this publicly. "

Arab countries are actually notorious for not backing each other up (at least from what I've studied and learned from my discussions with Arabs- who for the most part seem to think the Middle East would be a better place if Arab countries would learn to back each other up a whole lot more). They especially don't like Iran. On a petty level, Saudi Arabia is mega-PO'd that most of the world says "Persian Gulf" instead of "Arabian Gulf." On a more important level, notice how Arab countries don't even want to help out their fellow Muslims, the Palestinians. There is a lot of bitterness between countries of the Middle East. And of course Arab countries are going to react negatively to anything Iran puts out.

I thought Ahmedinejad did a pretty good job of pointing out a lot of hypocisy on the part of our president and members of the current administration, especially as regards his religious posturing.

[Michael Galien]

Honestly, except for his closing mumbo-jumbo about everyone getting ready to worship his version of Allah, there isn't the slightest difference between Ahmadinejad's letter and the average speech by Al Gore, Howard Dean or Russ Feingold.

Wow this is a incredibly cheap shot at 'liberals' (lets call the animal by its name: socialists).

s they say, action speak louder than words, and our Thug-In-Chief certainly doesn't upset this wisdom. Will that be taken into account by our Liberal friends?

Probably not. What they most certainly will not acknowledge is the much more revealing reaction to the letter by Ahmadinejad's neighboring countries

Firstly; we'll have to wait and see first, whether or not 'they' will 'acknowledge' that 'reaction'.
Secondly; this reaction from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is very telling and it is great that they are speaking out against Ahmadinejad. As we all know Arab countries have a tendency of backing eachother up (except of course when they are the ones being attacked) almost no matter what.
That Saudi Arabia and Kuwait feel threatened by Iran makes it almost undeniable for everyone that Iran, indeed, is trying to develop WMD's. If SA and Kuwait weren't (99%) sure of it, they would not come out this publicly.

The Western forces should try to get more allies in the ME (ME is funny enough the shortening for middeleeuwen in Dutch - dark ages), so we can put the pressure even more on Iran.

or engage the Islamic Republic in a mini-version of Cold War until, worn out, it self-destructs.

This is, in my opinion, a very good option, maybe the best.