Read an interesting editorial in the October 1st issue of The Gazette, Montreal about Ahmadinejad and Iran. The article written by a professor of International law at Mcgill University, Montreal definitely craves attention from all those who are offended by Ahmadinejad’s recent appearance in US. While I invite those interested in world politics to read this article, I did want to voice a few of my own thoughts and pointless ponderings on the topic.
I have been listening to the radio, especially as I’m driving, I love to listen to 940 News and it is really interesting to hear all the diverse opinions that people in my city have to offer about this issue of Ahmadinejad. The consensus seems to be that the Iranian prime-minister is pure-evil, and his outrageous comments about Israel, Holocaust and nuclear capabilities of Iran are all at fault. However, one should let him talk because of “Freedom of speech” and welcome him to the US as a speaker, if not for nothing, just to ask him questions about his evil comments and policies.
The article by Payam Akhavan puts in perspective all of Ahmadinejad’s comments confirming that Iran’s real power is with the “Council of Guardians” that are behind Ahmadinejad. So why is western powers and media misguiding their anger towards Ahmadeinjad? Shouldn’t we be talking about Khamenei and his hardline stance about all these? If Ahmadinejad is not the real power in the country, then obviously the real power is the one that is letting him say all these offending things. I wonder though about the fact that our media seems to be very ignorant about the inner politics of Iran, and therefore, is it really right for us to comment on these things when we know nothing about them? I never see any mention of other political powers in Iran, at least not in the mainstream media and it seems that people equate the voice of Ahmadinejad to the voice of Iran! I doubt that a leader of a country, be it any country, whether democratically elected or not, speaks for the whole populace. He may represent a section, perhaps even a majority (though according to Professor Akhavan, the desires of people of Iran are far from what Ahmadinejad talks about), but he can not represent the whole country. What’s unfortunate is that when super-powers in the world start noticing these things, start getting offended about these things and want to take action against such leaders, the whole country suffers.
When Ahmadinejad came to power, I remember reading in the newspaper about how a lot of Iranians were not happy, if the voting was “democratically” held, he should not have been elected. There must be something deeper that Ahmadinejad stirs in the people of Iran that had him elected as the prime-minister. Professor Akhavan is perhaps ignoring that in his editorial though he did mention that Ahmadinejad is relying on the nationalism in Iranian people. In either case, Ahmadinejad is there, he is staying, perhaps a better understanding of Iran’s inner politics can show us how to handle such political personalities.