• Does Obama Want 'Hitler' To Win Reelection?

    Email Print
    Share

    In
    case you haven't heard, the Iranian "Hitler," President
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is up for reelection in June. And you would
    think that nothing could possibly be more important on the international
    front than defeating "Hitler" at the ballot box. Isn't
    he "Hitler," after all? And not just any old "Hitler"
    — the way, say, Muammar al-Gaddafi and Manuel Noriega and Saddam
    Hussein were seen as "Hitlers" in their day. No, Ahmadinejad
    is treated as the worst of all the "Hitlers." Namely,
    a "Hitler" who has openly, sort of, said that he wants
    to "wipe Israel off the map" (or so the gross
    misquotation
    goes) as soon as his mad Muslim
    minions can develop a nuclear warhead and a missile to deliver it.
    That is why Israel is talking about launching a preemptive strike
    against this "Hitler's" nuclear strikes, is it not?

    So
    you would think that the White House and the American press would
    be moving heaven and earth to support a reformist candidate like
    former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein
    Mousavi
    right now if it means denying "Hitler"
    four more years to advance his alleged "plan." And there
    is an actual chance that Mousavi could beat him. For Ahmadinejad
    has been as "conservatively" stupid about the economy
    as any Bush-wannabe
    can. And Iranian voters are very unhappy about their falling standard
    of living (being American
    consumers
    at heart).

    So
    you would think…

    But
    wait! Stop for a second. This all sounds too weird. If "Hitler"
    is "Hitler," how can there be an election? How can the
    outcome be in doubt?

    That
    is precisely the point. That is why we are hearing nothing about
    the approaching election coming out of the White House. That is
    why there is not a word about it in the corrupt corporate press.
    If Ahmadinejad really were a "Hitler," there would be
    no election. There would be no campaigning. There would be no last-minute
    efforts to win over Iranian voters. If the man were another "Hitler,"
    his political opponents would be shot on the spot.

    Watch
    any speech
    or interview
    with Ahmadinejad and judge for yourself. Where Hitler was fiery,
    Ahmadinejad is flat. Where Hitler was brilliant, Ahmadinejad is
    bland. Where Hitler was strident, Ahmadinejad is soft. Where Hitler
    was militant, Ahmadinejad is mousy. The only way he can be made
    to sound like Hitler is by dubbing Hitler over him.

    And even then
    there is no way to make him look like der Fhrer. Take that photo
    of Ahmadinejad beneath the image of Ayatollah Khamenei below. How
    do you photoshop that guy into Hitler? Even a new Saddam? Ahmadinejad
    doesn't have a uniform on because he doesn't own one. Or a necktie
    either. (In Iranian society neckties
    are considered a sign of sinful pride. What? A "Hitler"
    who piously rejects pride?) And as for that face. With those upturned
    eyebrows – he looks a dachshund pleading to pee. No Fhrer
    he.

    Indeed
    when it comes to matters of war and peace, the President of Iran
    has as much power as Nancy Pelosi. That is, none. Nada. Zero. Zilch.
    He's not the Commander in Chief. Not in a nation "under God"
    like Iran. No, that authority is invested in the white-bearded man
    with the smiling eyes behind him, Ayatollah Khamenei. Khamenei is
    the Supreme
    Leader of Iran
    , Just as the title implies.
    He and he alone is the Supreme Leader in all things temporal and
    spiritual in Iran. He is like the Pope and US President all in one.
    And he has held that position since 1989.

    So
    how come most Americans have never heard of him? Because it is hard
    for even Fox News to demonize a Supreme Leader who has been in power
    all that time and has never ever once attacked or threatened to
    attack any nation. No, not one. And to my knowledge, no nation has
    ever claimed that he has. Occasionally the corrupt corporate media
    will sweep him up in some sweeping reference to the "evil ayatollahs"
    who supposedly rule Iran with an iron hand. But mostly the pro-war
    propagandists prefer to leave Khamenei out of the script. He just
    doesn't "fit." He looks too much like a wise old rabbi
    to portray him as Evil Incarnate. Evil Unrestrained. Just think
    of how long he's been in power — without one wild word out of the
    man. That shows both discipline and discretion.

    Which
    brings us back to my original question. Namely, why the stony silence
    from the White House and the corrupt corporate media around the
    pending election if supporting a reformist Presidential candidate
    like former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi would deny "Hitler"
    another term? To do what exactly? Fabricate a crude nuclear device
    and lob it towards Israel on an equally crude missile? With the
    blessing of the Supreme Protector of the Iranian people? While the
    United States and Israel passively watch the preparations for the
    next Holocaust go forward?

    Are
    what about the peaceful
    people of Iran
    ? Would the corrupt corporate
    media have us believe that Iranians want nothing more from life
    than collective suicide? For with at least three of its own nuclear-armed
    submarines
    patrolling off the coast of Iran
    (never mind American back-up), Israel could easily turn Iran into
    a sea of molten glass before that first crude Iranian missile even
    cleared the launch pad.

    Yet
    the Obama Administration has no interest in preventing "Hitler's"
    reelection? And the current Israeli government doesn't either?

    Had Obama made
    friendlier signs sooner, former President Mohammed
    Khatami
    might not have dropped out of the
    race. And just who is Khatami? As seen below, he is a pro-women's
    rights, pro-Christian rights, pro-Jewish rights reformer, who sought
    greater personal freedom for his fellow Iranians at home and greater
    cooperation with the West abroad during his two terms as President
    of Iran from 1997 to 2005, when he was succeeded by Ahmadinejad.

    So
    why would the White House not want such a good guy back? Why wouldn't
    Israel? According to Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, Larry
    Wilkerson
    , Khatami was instrumental, among
    other good things, in gaining the Supreme Leader's approval after
    9/11 to use Iran's many strong ties in Afghanistan to help overthrow
    the Taliban. Yet Bush blew off all that help Iran had just given,
    and, instead, made it a charter member of the "Axis of Evil"
    in his 2002 State of the Union address — only 5 months later. How
    come?

    And
    then we come to Obama, who won the White House on a campaign of
    "Change!" But there has been no change from the Bush administration
    when it comes to publicly supporting the reformist candidates in
    the Iranian Presidential race. And now Khatami has dropped out.
    Is that what Clinton and Obama wanted?

    It's
    hard to believe. And yet we see the pattern of American administrations
    undermining home-grown Iranian reformers repeated over and over.
    As when "Hitler" was running for President the first time
    around. And Bush held a news conference the
    day before the ballot
    — where he essentially
    told the Iranian people that the election was "rigged"
    in favor of the conservatives, and that those who wanted real reform
    might as well stay home. And, of course, Ahmadinejad — who portrayed
    himself as a Muslim "compassionate conservative" — won.
    I won't say because of Bush. But then again perhaps the Iranian
    people figured that if there was one thing Bush might know about,
    it clearly would be rigged elections.

    So
    what's the explanation then? What's the explanation now? Why let
    "Hitler" win then? Why let "Hitler" win reelection
    now? Is Obama another Hindenburg? Is Netanyahu another Chamberlain?
    Has Bibi been imbibing arugula salads too? Where have these men's
    animal spirits gone to boldly meddle in other nations' affairs?

    We'll
    have to see. But I would put a bailout's worth of money on the possibility
    that both men are merely waiting quietly for Ahmadinejad to win
    reelection before they start beating their war drums again about
    the need to stop this "Hitler" militarily. Is that too
    cynical? To think that Obama would raise our hopes that our policy
    towards Iran is in the process of change. Only to turn around and
    embrace continuity with the Bush administration — once a crucial
    election is past.

    That
    would be downright Clintonian.

    This
    article was first published in the Asia
    Times
    .

    May
    15, 2009

    William
    Wedin, Ph.D. [send him mail],
    is a New York psychologist and longtime activist. He may
    be contacted at through his website, photosforpeace.com,
    which offers a radically different view of the land and people of
    Iran.

    Email Print
    Share
  • Political Theatre

  • LRC Blog

    LRC Podcasts