Is Ahmadinejad insane or politically driven? Or both?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

We've seen his latest 9/11 truth statement. After reading everything he's said for the last few years, I'm convinced that if I would have said such things, nobody would take me seriously. In fact, I'd probably be advised to see a psychiatrist.

So do you think Ahmadinejad is really insane? Or do you think he does everything for political posturing? Or both (not mutually exclusive)?

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

And while we're on the subject, has he really called for the destruction of Israel? Or was he misquoted?

I wouldn't be surprised if he really looks forward to Israel's destruction, but I'd really like to see a direct quote (not an implied one).

 

[Ziggurat]

So do you think Ahmadinejad is really insane? Or do you think he does everything for political posturing? Or both (not mutually exclusive)?

There's no reason to think that he's insane. Now, that doesn't mean he's examining the events of 9/11 with anything approaching rationality, but that's not enough for insanity.

One of the things I think we westerners don't usually appreciate is how accepted blatant dishonesty is in much of the world. We treat lying as something bad in and of itself, but that's simply not the case everywhere. It's particularly rampant in the middle east - not just on large issues, but even on small ones.

 

[Ziggurat]

And while we're on the subject, has he really called for the destruction of Israel? Or was he misquoted?

He really said that Israel would be "erased from the pages of history". The issue of the "misquote" was that this was translated as "wiped off the map" since the latter is a more familiar idiom in the west than the former. The literal meaning is different but the figurative meaning is the same. Now, one could try to claim that he wasn't saying that this should happen, only predicting that it would, but it's a rather weak defense of the world's most evil highschool chemistry teacher.

“Shut up and sit down, Chad, we’re not done discussing how the international Zionist cabal is controlling the lunch room.”

 

[Policenaut]

He is a reprehensible figure but not insane. The simple fact is he can get away with saying anything he wants short of declaring war (and I'm sure things like what he said at the UN and worse are said every day inside Iran). What are the consequences? The US is STILL saying we can negotiate with this murderous, repressive, terrorist sponsoring state that may be building nuclear weapons.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

There's no reason to think that he's insane. Now, that doesn't mean he's examining the events of 9/11 with anything approaching rationality, but that's not enough for insanity.

One of the things I think we westerners don't usually appreciate is how accepted blatant dishonesty is in much of the world. We treat lying as something bad in and of itself, but that's simply not the case everywhere. It's particularly rampant in the middle east - not just on large issues, but even on small ones.

I'm not just talking about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm talking about the extrapolations he makes with them, like concluding that Israel is responsible and must, therefore, be taken out. Also, he holds many religious beliefs like the 12th Imam (Mahdi) is guiding his policies.

That's not a cause for concern of some form of mental illness?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not just talking about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm talking about the extrapolations he makes with them, like concluding that Israel is responsible and must, therefore, be taken out. Also, he holds many religious beliefs like the 12th Imam (Mahdi) is guiding his policies.

That's not a cause for concern of some form of mental illness?

When such views are shared by a significant fraction of the population of the middle east, it's hard to justify calling in mental illness. It's a sadly normal response to a deeply dysfunctional culture, but dysfunction and insanity are not the same.

It's very much a cause for concern that he has these views, but the problem is worse because he's NOT insane. It would be easier to deal with if he were.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Wow, I think you're right. Calling him insane would make it seem like he's some isolated, lone quack, when that clearly isn't the case. We still have those ayatollahs for one thing. Not to mention the population....

So do you see any plausible solutions to this? Is it education? Hoping they come to their senses eventually?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

The US is STILL saying we can negotiate with this murderous, repressive, terrorist sponsoring state that may be building nuclear weapons.

Exactly what is the alternative to diplomacy, the Bush Doctrine?





"In what respect Charlie"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly what is the alternative to diplomacy, the Bush Doctrine?

That's an alternative, but it's hardly the only one. We could also be moving more aggressively to isolate Iran, for example. There are far more than two options on the table.

 

[Puppycow]

That's an alternative, but it's hardly the only one. We could also be moving more aggressively to isolate Iran, for example. There are far more than two options on the table.

We are and have been moving more aggressively to isolate Iran. The problem is that this requires cooperation of countries like China and Russia, which isn't easy. But we have had some success.

 

[Ziggurat]

We are and have been moving more aggressively to isolate Iran.

Not as aggressively as we could. Offering top-level negotiations isn't isolating them.

 

[Chaos]

There's no reason to think that he's insane. Now, that doesn't mean he's examining the events of 9/11 with anything approaching rationality, but that's not enough for insanity.

One of the things I think we westerners don't usually appreciate is how accepted blatant dishonesty is in much of the world. We treat lying as something bad in and of itself, but that's simply not the case everywhere. It's particularly rampant in the middle east - not just on large issues, but even on small ones.

We do? Really? Then explain the politicians we have.

No, seriously. Explain "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Explain HGW "Read my lips: no new taxes" Bush. Explain Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton.

While you´re at it, you could also explain Silvio Berlusconi or Franz Josef Strauß or Helmut Kohl, or any number of other European politicians.

Go on. Tell us how these democratically elected and re-elected liars prove that we treat lying as a bad thing in and of itself.

 

[Bikewer]

On one of last week's Talk Of The Nation segments, they were covering the week's UN goings-on, at which Iran's president would speak.
One of the guests had worked extensively with the fellow, often traveling with him. He said Ahmadinejad is far from insane; in private he comes across as charming, intelligent, etc. He is also a political animal, and almost everything he says in public, including his most inflammatory statements, are directed to his power-base in Iran.

 

[Ziggurat]

We do? Really? Then explain the politicians we have.

They have an incentive to act badly, and not enough incentive to not act badly. That doesn't mean that there's no disincentive at all, or that we don't consider lying a bad thing. It's just not the only thing, and often not the biggest thing.

Go on. Tell us how these democratically elected and re-elected liars prove that we treat lying as a bad thing in and of itself.

They don't. But contra your implication, they don't disprove it either.

 

[Puppycow]

Not as aggressively as we could. Offering top-level negotiations isn't isolating them.

But then Russia and China won't go along. You see?

They only go along when all reasonable offers for peaceful settlement have been made and rejected by the Iranians.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wow, I think you're right. Calling him insane would make it seem like he's some isolated, lone quack, when that clearly isn't the case. We still have those ayatollahs for one thing. Not to mention the population....

So do you see any plausible solutions to this? Is it education? Hoping they come to their senses eventually?

He is not president because the majority of Iranians actually want him to be president. So he's not alone, but he's not the representing the majority of the population, either.

 

[Policenaut]

The point to me is that Iran is playing the same game as North Korea. If you think this go nowhere diplomacy towards Iran is going to get better then wait till they have the added bargaining chip of a nuke. I don't know what the answer is but an outstretched hand has done just about diddly squat besides buy Iran more time to finish their nukes meanwhile they have possibly corrupted an election and violently suppressed the opposition. The only reassurance we get from Washington is that Iran is X years away from a nuke. It seems we have conceded that Iran will be allowed to get nukes. We've heard "all options are on the table" but we've seen "outstretched hand, at best weak sanctions". What are some of the other options? I haven't seen or heard of any from the administration or anyone in Washington besides maybe "let Israel strike their facilities" and the effectiveness of that would be dubious besides possibly starting another war.

 

[willhaven]

I'd say both, but he's definitely more political than insane.

 

[Ziggurat]

But then Russia and China won't go along. You see?

They only go along when all reasonable offers for peaceful settlement have been made and rejected by the Iranians.

No, I don't see. You're smoking crack if you think either Russia or China are actually interested in peace between the US and Iran. Their interests are based on completely different considerations. And those interests aren't affected by whether or not the US and Iran have high-level negotiations. In fact, Russia would like Iran and the US to maintain an antagonistic relationship. They don't want us to become friends. As for sanctions, it's a two-edged sword for Russia: on the one hand, less Iranian oil on the market helps drive up the price of Russian oil. On the other hand, an impoverished Iran can't buy much in the way of Russian weaponry. And if we can manage to keep Iraq as a US ally, then having an Iran hostile to us helps put a check on us. Which way they tip will depend on a lot of factors (are we being too protective of Georgia? Do they risk us getting more protective of Georgia? etc), but high-level talks with Iran won't make a difference.