Empty Words, Full of Hate

‘As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map’, the words of Iran’s newly elected President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (above), evoking the rhetoric of the leader of the Iranian Revolution Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran, a pariah state since the 1978-9 revolution, has courted controversy in recent years. Named as part of US President George W. Bush’s axis of evil in 2002, Iran’s theocratic regime has come under diplomatic fire to halt it’s nuclear development program. Iran claims this program is purely civilian but the United States says could be a cover for assembling atomic weapons.

This recent hostile statement regarding Israel has brought the world’s attention back to the issue of the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair rhetorically put it ‘Can you imagine a state like that, with an attitude like that, having a nuclear weapon?’
President Ahmadinejad’s statement was repugnant and archaic. It ranks among the manic rantings of the likes of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Iran’s own pet terrorists Hezbollah - the so called ‘Party of God’.

Israel may be a controversial state. It has committed crimes against the Palestinian people while suffering abhorrent violence itself in the form of suicide bombings. Its existence however, is beyond question at this stage. The country has fought four full-scale wars for its right to exist, the last time, in 1973, being the final time threats such as Mr Ahmadinejad’s could be taken seriously. That is one reason why this situation has been blown out of proportion. Nobody could possibly take his words seriously.

Iran could not and would not realistically attack Israel whether it developes nuclear weapons or not. For a start there is the matter of the United State’s 150,000 troops in Iraq, blocking the path Iran’s conventional forces would need to take in such a implausibly hypothetical war. If the country was to attempt a nuclear strike, the repercussions of such a reckless move would destroy Iran. What could it possibly hope to gain by such an act? Additionaly it is doubtful that Iran would nuke Jerusalem, home to Islam’s third holiest site, the al-Asqa Mosque. It is highly unlikely Iran will ever attack Israel directly unless the country is attacked itself by, say, the US for example (That’s how Saddam Hussein reacted during the Gulf War of 1990-1). The Iranian leadership may be repressive, reprehensible and religiously over-zealous (to say the least) but it is not insane.

If you look at the audience Ahmadinejad was speaking to it becomes clear that his words should not be taken seriously. He was addressing fundamentalist delegates at a conference entitled ’A World Without Zionism’. Such language, however offensive, is expected at an event of this type. He was reflecting the views of his audience, and much of the wider Islamic world.

It is an unfortunate reality that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is often used as a scapegoat to distract from the problems faced by ordinary Muslims living under bad leadership in the Middle East and beyond. This is not helped of course by Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank, the construction of the infamous wall and the sometimes arbitrary destruction of Palestinian homes.

President Ahmadinejad’s speech was unacceptable despite Israel’s many faults. His words will do nothing to forward the goal of peace in the Middle East and everything to feed the growing level of anger and hatred some Muslims feel toward Israel and the West. They were not however anything new from Iran and instead of worrying about empty threats and hyping the issue (which will only increase Ahmadinejad‘s standing among the fundamentalists), world leaders should treat this statement with the contempt it deserves and ignore it.