Is Iran full of Ahmadinejads?

“American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders.” This loaded statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was given in September at the 63rd session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City.

For over three years now, Ahmadinejad and his conservative government have cultivated a defiant, bold, and disconcerting Iran. The president in particular has made repeated verbal attacks on both the United States and Israel, making his opponents wary and confrontational. 

In October 2005, Israel called for Iran to be expelled from the United Nations following Ahmadinejad’s infamous remark that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Two months ago in New York he flaunted much of the same rhetoric and impertinence, although somewhat milder.

Central to the tension has been a teeter-totter contest of nuclear proportions. Apparently Iran has suspended and recommenced its uranium enrichment and other nuclear programs (which it claims are for peaceful purposes) multiple times. Iran broke ground in 2002 on its first nuclear reactor. Since then at least 20 accusations, denials, and threats have been volleyed back and forth between the United States and Iran. Violating International Atomic Energy Agency regulations, infringing upon national sovereignty, and U.N. sanctions are all frequently cited.

In juxtaposition to all this antagonism are the often unheard voices of the Iranians. To be sure, many an American flag has been burned in the streets of that country. However, that does not prove that all Iranians hate America or agree with Ahmadinejad. In fact, one week before the September U.N. General Assembly, one of Ahmadinejad’s own vice presidents said, “Iran is friends with the American and Israeli people. . . . No nation in the world is our enemy.” He confirmed his government’s conflict with other governments, and affirmed his loyalty to Iran’s two top leaders, the president and the ayatollah. However, he has refused to retract his statement.

Farther down the social scale, Ahmadinejad is not a completely popular leader within Iran. He was elected in a run-off setting, meaning that his competition was powerful. Moreover, strong candidates are already on the rise for Iran’s presidential elections next year. 

Beyond that, as a nation mostly closed off to the West, it is difficult to know exactly what freedoms are allowed in Iran. Ahmadinejad has a tight grip on his people. If freedom of speech and the press do exist, dissenting voices seem to be few and quiet. The extent to which Iranians are well-informed about world events or what opinions they may have about Israel or a nuclear Iran is not known.

A glance into history suggests that Iran may not be as unified as its president might prefer. For example, America has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for almost seven years. Yet while national support for the troops approaches unanimity, backing for the war varies tremendously. In Israel and Palestine, major factions divide each nation over what resolving their conflict should look like. In America’s War for Independence, national unity was often the exception rather than the rule. Thousands opposed the war, while the early years saw entire states refuse to send their militias beyond their own borders to support the other states.

I have spent 10 months in the Middle East – mostly in Egypt. Though it is more secular, Sunni, and Westernized than Shiite Iran, Egypt, too, is unified only to an extent. Its leader has dominated the country for over 25 years. Many Egyptians want a new leader; many hail the status quo. Most Egyptians support Palestine, though many also recognize their blessings from being at peace with Israel.  

One of my own educated Christian friends used to hate America; now he cares deeply for America. One of my educated Muslim friends loves America and supports many of its Mideast policies. Both despise their president. Moreover, most of my Bedouin friends in the desert care far more about the culture and needs of their own oases than anything else in Egypt, let alone the rest of the world.

I have provided a handful of historical and personal examples of the facade of unity among any large group of people. Am I suggesting that Ahmadinejad is merely a crippled opponent in a chess game? Certainly not. Neither he nor his country is to be taken lightly. The term “enemy” may well be adequate to describe them. I pray to God that military force will never be necessary in the current struggle with Iran. 

Meanwhile, it is vital to recall that Ahmadinejad is not the only human being who makes up that nation. So as America fights for peace against all its enemies, let it make sure to fight against only its enemies. 

* Nikolas Grosfield is a writer/editor since 2004.

Related Content

•  The Arab media paradox
•  Now is the summer of our discontent with climatic extremes
•  Looking for the Wahabs
•  Significance of Taqwa
•  Hijabs, revisited
•  Abandon peace talks? No the US shouldn't
•  From Britain to Yemen a life experience
•  Prejudiced people can’t run the show
•  Yemen: not on the verge of collapse
•  Water right won’t work