Does Ahmadinejad's defiance increase the chance of war?
|
Friday, 10 Oct. 2010
|17:45 - 19:00 GMT
While most of the world's attention has been on the (literally) uplifting events in Chile, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been in Lebanon. And now that the miners are going home, the focus is shifting to what, exactly, he is saying and doing there.
There is no doubting that Ahmadinejad was warmly received - just look at the thousands of waving flags in the video on this piece by the BBC's Wyre Davis to see that.
Speaking to the crowds of thousands of Shia Lebanese in Bint Jbeil, he said he had not come to provoke, but to show solidarity with the people of southern Lebanon.
But then he threw in comments about Israel like "the Zionists will disappear," adding "the occupying Zionists today have no choice but to accept reality and go back to their countries of origin" - hardly the words of a man not seeking to provoke.
The issue is, is this all just rhetoric in front of an audience that loves his defiant attitude to the West - or is it deliberate provocation that increases the chances of war?
The main worry for the West and Israel is the fact that they simply do not know what Iran has and is capable of.
The BBC's Mark Urban explains:
Today, Iran's desire to enjoy the support of what Iranian ideologues term "the oppressed" by thumbing its nose at the UN or US President Barack Obama, may be a crowd pleaser in southern Lebanon, but it could be increasing the chances of war... there are voices murmuring warnings with increasing urgency about the progress of Iran's continuing uranium enrichment programme. Those whisperers include some of the "usual suspects" one might expect such as Mossad or MI6. However, those who argue that a military option has to be prepared also include such influential figures as Robert Gates, Mr Obama's defence secretary.
He adds that one of the reasons that, for example, Saddam Hussein never co-operated fully with UN weapons inspectors - even when not doing so threatened the end of his regime - was that his defiance made him powerful in the Arab world.
And so it is with Ahmedinejad. His widespread support across the Arab world comes from his willingness to defy the international community. Doing that over weapons inspections may be one thing - but doing it over a nuclear programme increases the tension further.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said Washington rejects any efforts "to destabilise or inflame tensions" in Lebanon - tensions that exist because Ahmedinejad supports Hezbollah, the powerful Shia Islamist group whose war with Israel left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead.
Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned two days ago that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would:
"lead to Armageddon. It would lead to that World War III that could decimate so much of this planet."
On the other hand, the EU has offered talks with Iran over the nuclear issue - talks which appear to have been welcomed today.
And a poll by US magazine Vanity Fair has revealed that only one in 10 Americans would support war with Iran, even if the country tested a nuclear bomb.
Abdul on our Facebook page says:
US cant engage itself in any war, cos it wil weaken them seriously. Iran on the other hand has prepared themselves and are still preparing If Iran refuses to co-operate on the nuclear issue, will war happen? Do you think Ahmedinejad's words are just rhetoric, or do you fear a nuclear Iran? Do you admire his defiance of the West - and should the West have any right to tell Iran whether it can or cannot have nuclear weapons anyway?
Your comments
Comment sent via SMS
18:56
109484132
NATO is better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it. Ask Kosovans what they think about it; the Alliance saved their nation. Sokol, Tirana.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:56
113631290
An anonymous email from Iran: Ahmadinejad and his right wing supporters and Israeli right wing groups need each other to survive. They are both not popular at home and in order to unite their country behind themselves, they need an enemy
Comment sent via Facebook
18:55
113631290
Buchi on Facebook: Nato's relevance ended when the cold war ended.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:55
113631290
Illuminatas in Hong Kong on Facebook: Nato is still relevant. It's just like a toothless dog that can't bite, but nonetheless the barking still scares people.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:54
113631290
Spo Ook on Facebook: Defiance? It's more like he's standing up for the people of his region and country. He may not be pleasant and his regime is awful but at least he has the self-respect not to be a pawn and doormat for the West.
Comment sent via SMS
18:54
115025000
The chance of war IS greater now with this rhetoric, but not from iran or hezbollah, but from western aggressors who use this rhetoric for their own poli -missing Fragment-
Comment sent via SMS
18:42
114548678
Clinton is right to be concerned about NATO. It is a valued organization. Alex in Chicago USA
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:47
113631290
WN in Wisconsin emailed WHYS: He is free to say what his nation thinks. He is not threatening Israel. Just because he said what he did, is no reason to make the leap to war. And the USA can hardly handle a rag tag bunch of resistance fighters in Afghanistan; do they really want to take on Iran? Don't make me laugh!
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:40
113631290
Richard emailed WHYS: Israel is looks forward to the annihilation of Iran. Iran is just whistling past the grave yard..
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:40
113631290
Colin emailed WHYS: If Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran, then Israel is what? A proxy of the USA
Comment sent via Facebook
18:35
113631290
Alhaji from Sierre Leone but in Virginia on Facebook: Ahmadinejad is bent on creating undue suffering for innocent Iranians who are largely against his war rhetorics.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:34
113631290
Tom on Facebook: He is a trash talker. His culture and power base demand it. He helps others to damage his enemies but is too weak and cowardly to do anything on his own.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:34
113631290
Mark on Facebook: Ahmadinejad is a game player, and has no qualms about making a photo opportunity out of a provocative situation. He's not quite as clever as he likes to think though, and this could easily backfire on him.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:25
113631290
Frederick on Facebook: Israel should give this diplomatic fool - (who may even not have the mandate of the majority of Iranians) - any attention. Ahmadinijad is a coward who hides behind terrorists to articulate his views, he has no credibility at all.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:24
113631290
Mary in Benin City in Nigeria on Facebook - If there is any world leader I respect, it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who is he defying? The West has been on his case for such a long time. The West has given a dog a bad name but hanging it is difficult. Now they are stuck.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:24
113631290
Gladwell in Kenya on Facebook: Ahmadinajed's got attitude...He hates israel and the west. Let's watch his moves. But I like him anyway
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:10
113631290
Eric in Paris emailed - The alternative to NATO is the UN, which no US politician has ever considered as relevant or meaningful. If NATO shrinks in influence, the US will have no alternative but direct engagement with China or Russia.
Comment sent via host
18:01
113631290
On air now talking about whether Ahmadinejad''s rhetoric during his Lebanon trip has brought us closer to war. Post your thoughts and comments here.
Does Ahmadinejad's defiance increase the chance of war?
| Friday, 10 Oct. 2010 | 17:45 - 19:00 GMT
While most of the world's attention has been on the (literally) uplifting events in Chile, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been in Lebanon. And now that the miners are going home, the focus is shifting to what, exactly, he is saying and doing there.
There is no doubting that Ahmadinejad was warmly received - just look at the thousands of waving flags in the video on this piece by the BBC's Wyre Davis to see that.
Speaking to the crowds of thousands of Shia Lebanese in Bint Jbeil, he said he had not come to provoke, but to show solidarity with the people of southern Lebanon.
But then he threw in comments about Israel like "the Zionists will disappear," adding "the occupying Zionists today have no choice but to accept reality and go back to their countries of origin" - hardly the words of a man not seeking to provoke.
The issue is, is this all just rhetoric in front of an audience that loves his defiant attitude to the West - or is it deliberate provocation that increases the chances of war?
The main worry for the West and Israel is the fact that they simply do not know what Iran has and is capable of.
The BBC's Mark Urban explains:
Today, Iran's desire to enjoy the support of what Iranian ideologues term "the oppressed" by thumbing its nose at the UN or US President Barack Obama, may be a crowd pleaser in southern Lebanon, but it could be increasing the chances of war... there are voices murmuring warnings with increasing urgency about the progress of Iran's continuing uranium enrichment programme.
Those whisperers include some of the "usual suspects" one might expect such as Mossad or MI6. However, those who argue that a military option has to be prepared also include such influential figures as Robert Gates, Mr Obama's defence secretary.
He adds that one of the reasons that, for example, Saddam Hussein never co-operated fully with UN weapons inspectors - even when not doing so threatened the end of his regime - was that his defiance made him powerful in the Arab world.
And so it is with Ahmedinejad. His widespread support across the Arab world comes from his willingness to defy the international community. Doing that over weapons inspections may be one thing - but doing it over a nuclear programme increases the tension further.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said Washington rejects any efforts "to destabilise or inflame tensions" in Lebanon - tensions that exist because Ahmedinejad supports Hezbollah, the powerful Shia Islamist group whose war with Israel left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead.
Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned two days ago that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would:
"lead to Armageddon. It would lead to that World War III that could decimate so much of this planet."
On the other hand, the EU has offered talks with Iran over the nuclear issue - talks which appear to have been welcomed today.
And a poll by US magazine Vanity Fair has revealed that only one in 10 Americans would support war with Iran, even if the country tested a nuclear bomb.
Abdul on our Facebook page says:
US cant engage itself in any war, cos it wil weaken them seriously. Iran on the other hand has prepared themselves and are still preparing
If Iran refuses to co-operate on the nuclear issue, will war happen? Do you think Ahmedinejad's words are just rhetoric, or do you fear a nuclear Iran? Do you admire his defiance of the West - and should the West have any right to tell Iran whether it can or cannot have nuclear weapons anyway?
Your comments
Comment sent via SMS
NATO is better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it. Ask Kosovans what they think about it; the Alliance saved their nation. Sokol, Tirana.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
An anonymous email from Iran: Ahmadinejad and his right wing supporters and Israeli right wing groups need each other to survive. They are both not popular at home and in order to unite their country behind themselves, they need an enemy
Comment sent via Facebook
Buchi on Facebook: Nato's relevance ended when the cold war ended.
Comment sent via Facebook
Illuminatas in Hong Kong on Facebook: Nato is still relevant. It's just like a toothless dog that can't bite, but nonetheless the barking still scares people.
Comment sent via Facebook
Spo Ook on Facebook: Defiance? It's more like he's standing up for the people of his region and country. He may not be pleasant and his regime is awful but at least he has the self-respect not to be a pawn and doormat for the West.
Comment sent via SMS
The chance of war IS greater now with this rhetoric, but not from iran or hezbollah, but from western aggressors who use this rhetoric for their own poli -missing Fragment-
Comment sent via SMS
Clinton is right to be concerned about NATO. It is a valued organization. Alex in Chicago USA
Comment sent via YOURSAY
WN in Wisconsin emailed WHYS: He is free to say what his nation thinks. He is not threatening Israel. Just because he said what he did, is no reason to make the leap to war. And the USA can hardly handle a rag tag bunch of resistance fighters in Afghanistan; do they really want to take on Iran? Don't make me laugh!
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Richard emailed WHYS: Israel is looks forward to the annihilation of Iran. Iran is just whistling past the grave yard..
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Colin emailed WHYS: If Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran, then Israel is what? A proxy of the USA
Comment sent via Facebook
Alhaji from Sierre Leone but in Virginia on Facebook: Ahmadinejad is bent on creating undue suffering for innocent Iranians who are largely against his war rhetorics.
Comment sent via Facebook
Tom on Facebook: He is a trash talker. His culture and power base demand it. He helps others to damage his enemies but is too weak and cowardly to do anything on his own.
Comment sent via Facebook
Mark on Facebook: Ahmadinejad is a game player, and has no qualms about making a photo opportunity out of a provocative situation. He's not quite as clever as he likes to think though, and this could easily backfire on him.
Comment sent via Facebook
Frederick on Facebook: Israel should give this diplomatic fool - (who may even not have the mandate of the majority of Iranians) - any attention. Ahmadinijad is a coward who hides behind terrorists to articulate his views, he has no credibility at all.
Comment sent via Facebook
Mary in Benin City in Nigeria on Facebook - If there is any world leader I respect, it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who is he defying? The West has been on his case for such a long time. The West has given a dog a bad name but hanging it is difficult. Now they are stuck.
Comment sent via Facebook
Gladwell in Kenya on Facebook: Ahmadinajed's got attitude...He hates israel and the west. Let's watch his moves. But I like him anyway
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Eric in Paris emailed - The alternative to NATO is the UN, which no US politician has ever considered as relevant or meaningful. If NATO shrinks in influence, the US will have no alternative but direct engagement with China or Russia.
Comment sent via host
On air now talking about whether Ahmadinejad''s rhetoric during his Lebanon trip has brought us closer to war. Post your thoughts and comments here.