Ahmadinejad - Why The Hate Matters

[Prophet 451]

First off, let's make this clear: Ahmadinejad is an asshole, no question. Either he is himself homophobic and anti-semitic or he's willing to exploit those who are. Oh, there's lots of reasons to dislike the man. That's not why the media is currently demonising him.

When some of us point out here that we fear an attack on Iran is imminent, we are occasionally told that the public and/or Congress wouldn't stand for it. The answer is that they might not, right now. The demonising of Ahmadinejad is propoganda. It works by a psychological trick: Demonise him enough for long enough and hopefully, you convince the average layman to start thinking "Geez, this guy's an asshole, when can we get rid of him?" and is then satisfied when the administration starts threatening to invade. It helps if the subject really is a brutal SOB (as Ahmadinejad is and Hussein was) but in the end, it's about framing the debate: Causing the average person to associate Ahmadinejad and Iran with unpleasent things so that they don't protest as strongly (or at all) when an attack is launched (probably in the form of bombing, there aren't enough troops for a ground invasion now).

Why would the Whitehouse want to attack Iran? Any number of reasons. For Bush, the deciding factor might be the chance to redeem his legacy. If he could execute a quick, successful war with Iran, it would (in his mind) mitigate the disaster of Iraq in the eyes of history. For Cheney, it's even simpler: Oil. If the Iranian oilfields can be controlled then exhorbitant profits can be made even if the oil isn't sold (especially if the oil isn't sold). For the 22% or thereabouts who would vote for Jack The Ripper if he had an (R) after his name, it's even simpler: Killing muslims. For those of us worrying that Bush may not be intending to leave office, a war would probably provide the pretext to declare a national emergency and thereby sieze control. Add in lucrative reconstruction contracts, the bogeyman of Iranian nukes and the extremely lucrative contracts that could be milked by those involved in the arms business (such as the Carlysle Group) and you have a potent little mix of greed, fear, nationalism and religion which the Bush admin has exploited time and again to get their way on, well, virtually everything. Oh, and the whole thing fits into the PNAC plan of remaking the world (starting with the MidEast) as an American Empire.

That's why the beating on Ahmadinejad matters; not because he's a nice bloke (he isn't) but because it's being done for all the wrong reasons. Not to protest the genuine repression of the Iranian regime but to frame the debate, to make everyone more kindly disposed to the (seemingly unavoidable) war to remove them.

[niyad]

1. did you notice faux snooze referring to him as "dictator" when, in fact, he was elected to the

presidency (in an election somewhat less questionable than the two that gave shrubby the white house). yes, the demonizing is in full swing.

[Prophet 451]

2. Sort-of

I didn't see it myself but I've read the reports. Faux is hardly unique in that though, that seems to be the standard RW talking point for anyone they dislike (i.e. Chavez, also elected).

[AuntPatsy]

3. Kicking so that those not understanding might now be able to.

[The Stranger]

4. Thank God -- it is the voice of reason.

[slipslidingaway]

5. K&R thanks....

"That's why the beating on Ahmadinejad matters; not because he's a nice bloke (he isn't) but because it's being done for all the wrong reasons. Not to protest the genuine repression of the Iranian regime but to frame the debate, to make everyone more kindly disposed to the (seemingly unavoidable) war to remove them."

[cigsandcoffee]

6. Do you think Bush reads DU?

If the man is going to attack Iran, he'll attack Iran - when has he even pretended to give a shit about what anybody thinks? Some people are grossly overestimating the importance of their words on a chat board.

Go on, call Iran what it is - an oppressive theocracy with a shady little spokesman and a disgusting record on human rights. I can absolutely guarantee you that if Iran is attacked by Bush, it won't be because you admitted that on a chat forum.

Failing to condemn Iran for any reason just isn't a progressive value, IMO.

[Prophet 451]

7. Right

First off, my "progressive" credentials (and when did I get to be a "progressive" anyway? I'm a liberal damnit!) aren't for you to decide.

Secondly, how many posts on this site are intended to be read by Chimpy? At a rough estimate, I'd guess none. We post here for all kinds of reasons. To educate, inform, let off steam, draw people's attention to when something sneaky is being pulled (which is what I'm trying to do here), all kinds of reasons. Because "Bush might read it" isn't even on the list.

Finally, when did I ever argue that Iran wasn't "an oppressive theocracy with a shady little spokesman and a disgusting record on human rights"? Absolutely it is. That's not the point of my OP and it isn't the point of the current demonising of the man with the impossible to spell name.

[cigsandcoffee]

10. Once and for the record:

Condemn Iran, loudly and with vigor - for their repulsive policies toward tolerance and personal freedoms, and the genocidal talk about Jews.

And do it with the full confidence that if our nutjob in chief really does attack them, your words on the Internet didn't make a damn bit of difference to him anyway.

You've allowed Bush to put you in a box where you're muting criticism of a country that deserves it because you think he cares about what you say and will act accordingly. Pardon my French here, but you've got to be fucking kidding me.

[Prophet 451]

12. OK

For the record:

The Iranian attitudes toward Jews, homosexuals, personal freedoms, civil rights, human rights, women's rights and religion are contemptable, deplorable, repulsive and sickening.

Let there be no misunderstanding about this one. The attitude of Iran toward a great many things is wildly disagreeable and I reserve the right to insult them for it until the end of time or until they clean up their act, whichever comes first.

(edited for typos)

[Karenina]

8. Amis are real good at "condemnation" of the "other."

Not so good at seeing the overview. *dauphin does represent some real "core values" stateside and this exercise of catapaulting the propaganda is just stunning.

[cynatnite]

9. An attack on Iran has been iminent for quite some time now...

at least a few years. That's not to say it'll never happen, but so far I haven't been convinced that it will happen. Sure, bush and cheney want it, but I think most repukes know that if the US attacks Iran it'll pretty much sink the repuke party for quite a while. Politically speaking, it makes no sense to attack Iran. Militarily, it makes no sense since we don't have the ability to sustain a war with a third country. For the Oil...we'd have to be able to take Iran and occupy it in order to grab the oil. A sustained draft of massive proportions is the only way we could even get close to accomplishing that.

The dangers of going to war with Iran is another reason I think it won't happen. If the US were to bomb a few targets it's also a safe bet that Iran would respond by sending troops over the border which opens up an entirely new front our military isn't prepared for. To hold an Iranian military back would require more troops than we've got now and as I mentioned earlier a draft is the only way to get the needed troops.

These are the reasons why I don't believe that going to war with Iran is going to happen. I could be wrong, too. Sometimes I am about matters such as these.

I do think that Ahmadinejad is the guy that Americans love to hate. He's the token bad guy. Before it was Saddam. Ahmadinejad is an easy target because of his hateful rhetoric and the policies of the government he represents are horrific. I find the man repugnant and in my own simple opinion I don't see the hatred of him leading to going to war with Iran.

[Prophet 451]

11. I hope you're right

I'm not arguing that there aren't good reasons to loathe the man, there are lots of them but I think they're being both fed on and exagerated by the media-industrial complex (to re-coin a phrase) because of an attempt (probably unwitting for the most part) to make the public more sympathetic to bombing the hell out of Iran.

As for the oil, one doesn't need to grab the oil to profit from it. Basic economics dictates that if the supply of a limited commodity is restricted and that commodity is in demand, the price will rise. The chaos in Iraq has removed Iraq's 4 million barrels or so from the global oil market and we've all seen what that's done to the price - the oil companies have doubled (and in some cases, more) their profits. Divvying up and selling off Iran's oil is potentially worth billions but keeping that oil off the market is potentially worth even more because it would push the price of oil even higher. Incidently, there are some (myself included) who think the invasion of Iraq was deliberately botched for that exact reason.

In terms of deomestic politics, it actually makes perfect sense to attack Iran if you can frame it right. No, the public won't support an unprovoked attack on a soverign nation to grab their natural resources but enough of them might be convinced to support our brave troops liberating the Iranian's from under the fist of a brutal tyrant and his Islamofascist cohorts. Think the public wouldn't fall for it? You might be right and I hope you are but I have two rules in life. Number two is "always bet on stupidity" and it's never yet let me down. On the domestic front, an attack would also allow for the kind of rally-around-the-flag nationalism the Repubs have used constantly in the last few years, tar the opposition with lack of patriotism, etc. All of that is assuming that the admin wouldn't find some excuse to declare a national emergency and actively sieze dictatorial powers (or those few which haven't yet been handed to them anyway).

In terms of international politics, it would be a disaster but the Bush admin's attitude toward the international community has for a long time been not just neglect but outright contempt. Militarily, no, there aren't enough troops to occupy Iran. However, there are more than enough stockpiled bombs (and, dear Satan, I hope not, nukes) to reduce the entire region to softball sized rubble. The nation can be crippled, even decimated, without ever having to put a boot on the ground.

[cynatnite]

13. Good points...

I can't answer to the oil issues since I don't know what sort of stake American oil companies have in Iran. Driving the price up too high can have a negative impact, but I think it would have to get fairly high in order for it to make an impact here at home. I've heard it said that most drivers here would only change their ways if gas got up to $5 a gallon or more. There is leeway there as far as economics go.

I do think bush likes to use the Iran bad guy to get his base frothing at the mouth. As I said earlier he's an easy target, but even knowing how bad of a guy he is, I seriously don't think the public will go for it. They fucked up Iraq so badly, whether intentional or not, that the public's desire for another war just isn't there. I'm not fully convinced that even if we're attacked again on our soil and it was proven that Iran was behind it that the public would want an all out war with Iran given how badly the Iraq war is going. The one thing you can count on with the US is that when we go to war we want to win. We're getting our asses kicked in Iraq and it would be doubly worse in Iran.

You're right...bush could just decide to push a few buttons and reduce Iran to a parking lot. Maybe I'm being naive here, but I think cooler heads will prevail and won't allow bush to go through it. Either he would be convinced that doing such a thing would earn even more vitriole from the world than we already have or as Hersch said in an article there would be massive resignations from the Generals. No leader can stay in power without the support of the military. There is way too much bad that can happen if bush went that route. It's not to say he won't, but IMO, I don't believe it would happen.

[Prophet 451]

15. I really, really want to think that

This is one of those occasions where I'd be overjoyed to look like a complete prat.

[ljm2002]

17. "Iran would respond by sending troops over the border"...

...and that is exactly why Bush and team have been raising the meme that the whole Iranian Army is a terrorist organization: so they can justify air attacks that not only destroy nuke facilities in Iran, but actually are aimed at destroying the Iranian Army. They'll say it was part of the War on Terror, and therefore not a war crime.

Just my opinion.

[bemildred]

14. Well, it took, near as I can figure, about 15 years to work up to invading Iraq.

From around 1988 to 2003. So these are long-term multi-administration efforts. So you gotta "stay the course" in resisting the war drums. So I agree. I'm all up for bashing Ahm-an-idjit and criticizing Iran's human-rights issues, just like in Burma say, but not in the context of we need to bomb the shit out of them or invade etc. There are other, less violent, methods to work for change in Iran, or anywhere.

[The Stranger]

16. K&R

[Prophet 451]

18. cheers n/t