I plan to write more about this at some point, but I thought I would point out a statement that Ahmadinejad made about nuclear weapons during a 23 April interview on Spanish TV:
bq. In the political sense, too, those who look at the world logically can understand that the use of nuclear weapons is already a thing of the past. Today, in political relations, *nuclear weapons are not considered to be a privilege for those who have them. If nuclear weapons had any effects, any influence, they could save the Americans in Iraq or could have saved the former Soviet Union from disappearing.*
To be fair, what he had to say about terrorism struck me as pretty disingenuous:
[Correspondent] The last question Mr President. I come from a country wherein an international act of terrorism took place three years ago, under the name of Islam. I would like to know what you think about this kind of terrorism. Can you elaborate on Iran’s pledge to fight this type of international terrorism?
[Ahmadinezhad] Iran is a victim of terrorism. Terrorism has dealt us the heaviest blow. At this same building behind me, terrorists killed the prime minister and the elected president one day. They killed more than 70 officials of our country who were appointed by the people. Hundreds of our people have been killed in bombings in the streets. They set school busses on fire. We are a victim of terrorism.
We strongly reject terrorism from a religious point of view. Anyone who kills people is hated and isolated. Our religion is humane and respects all human beings, regardless of their belief, their nationality and the continent they come from. In our religion, people are respected. We are all obliged to preserve mankind’s dignity and honour. Therefore *we strongly condemn the [terrorist] actions of certain people. Of course you know that there are big powers behind such moves. You must know about the relationship between big powers and terrorist currents. Independent nations are victims of terrorism.*
Safe bet to say that this answer likely includes a different definition of terrorism than Iran’s critics use.
Needless to say, Ahmadinejad’s words about nukes might be taken a bit more seriously were it not for all his nonsense about Israel and bullshit about the Holocaust. But I have never understood why “one (ambiguous at best) quote”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1401/rafsanjani-and-nukes from Rafsanjani from 15+ years ago is taken as evidence that Iran is bent on pursuing nuclear weapons when Iranian officials have said numerous times that Tehran rejects nuclear arms.
Just a thought. Go outside and play.
Regarding “when Iranian officials have said numerous times that Tehran rejects nuclear arms”:
I don’t know how you feel about Scott Ritter’s book “Target Iran.” But the sense one gets from reading that is that the IAEA has been tainted by the US view that Iranian reistance to having inspectors poke around every nook and cranny of their defense world is interpreted as meaning they’re hiding a nuclear weapons program.
From my point of view, the question isn’t whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear arms. It’s why isn’t the US isn’t demonstrating more leadership in disarmament, which would demonstrate to states aspiring to nuclear weapons that they may not need them.
No, their interpretation of terrorism is the same as ours. See, he’s referring to the MEK group, which even our own State Department lists as a terrorist organization – but which we’ve been flirting with for years. And oh, incidentally, “Shock and Awe” is terrorism.