The U.S. government and media have been investing a huge effort in demonizing Iran’s foreign policy. But the passing of judgment seems premature.
Much of the source of anti-Iranian sentiment stems from a comment made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 that the “occupying regime” of Israel must be “wiped off the map.” This comment was impulsively condemned by many Western nations.
Ahmadinejad attributed the comment to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who has been quoted by CNN as saying of Israel that “this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region” and that “Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews.”
This solution to the Palestinian problem has been echoed by Ahmadinejad in multiple instances. Ahmadinejad says that the Palestinian people should decide the fate of their homeland for themselves and that Iran will accept whatever choice they make.
The description of Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that must be “wiped off the map” is very emotive and has been interpreted by many world leaders as a threat of genocide of the Israeli Jewish population. However, as both Ahmadinejad and Khomeini clarified on several occasions, it is not the Jewish people whom the Iranian government despises but rather the Zionist regime.
This is an important point: Ahmadinejad and Khomeini are not talking about removing the Jewish Israelis from the map but rather removing a regime that is seen by much of the Arab world as unjust and discriminatory.
According to palestinemonitor.org, when Israel was formed, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were made refugees, and more than 78 percent of historic Palestine was cleansed of its Arab population. There are now more than 5 million Palestinian refugees, many of whom have never been allowed to return to their ancestral homeland.
Most of the remaining 22 percent of historic Palestine has been illegally occupied by Israel for more than 40 years. Palestinians are harassed by the Israeli military and treated as second-class citizens.
Ironically, it is Palestine being wiped off the map by an Israeli Zionist regime, and not the other way around.
These are facts not often reported in the U.S. media; thus, it is easy to see why Ahmadinejad received such hostility in New York last week.
But as Ahmadinejad explained at Columbia University, the Islamic Republic of Iran refused to recognize two states at its inception; one was apartheid South Africa, and the other was Zionist Israel. The end of the apartheid regime was achieved with a free and non-violent election. Similarly, Ahmadinejad’s proposal of a referendum is non-violent and should not be interpreted as a threat of genocide. An important point which has not been pursued in recent interviews with Ahmadinejad is whether he supports the opinion of Khomeini that immigrant Jews should not be included in this proposed referendum. Khomeini’s opinion is clearly unreasonable given that Jews have been immigrating to Israel for generations; however it would also be unreasonable to interpret Khomeini’s opinion as a genocidal threat.
But despite all of the media attention surrounding Ahmadinejad’s comments, his opinions are surprisingly irrelevant in Iran. Iran’s foreign policy is decided by the Supreme National Security Council, with the supreme leader having final say over all decisions. Their nuclear policy is no different, with the head of the SNSC also being the top negotiator on nuclear issues.
In contradiction to Ahmadinejad’s comments, Iranian diplomats and even Khomeini have supported the 2002 Arab League Peace Plan which calls for normalization of relations with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a two-state solution. This proposal, which can be found at mideastweb.org, requires Israel to withdraw from illegally occupied territories and has been ignored by Israel.
The supreme leader serves as commander-in-chief and has final say over nuclear decisions, so his opinions are of particular relevance to a potential nuclear threat. But Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group, says that according to his track record “he’s been someone who has wanted neither confrontation nor accommodation with the West.”
Recent events would suggest a more tit-for-tat policy, with Iran not initiating conflict but being quick to respond.
The conflict between Iran and the U.S. is predominantly verbal but could easily escalate. It is important that we seek the true implications of Ahmadinejad’s controversial statements, rather than following an impulsive path that could lead to pre-emptive war.
John Marshall is a graduate student in the department of biomathematics. He is a former Viewpoint columnist.