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?
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).
you would think…
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
would be downright Clintonian.
article was first published in the Asia
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