Jimmy's Corner

The Story
The story begins in the 70th of the last century when the Irani Islamic Revolution dethroned the whole Shah regime, which was a strong ally to USA, and sent him into exile. Shortly after the Shah was kicked out of Iran and Islamists started ruling the country, the US policy towards Iran has gone in one way: Iran is a threat. Therefore, Uncle Sam decided to have a new ally who is Saddam and even arm him with chemical weapons to destroy the strong Islamist regime in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980th. Such a trend in the White House has been very clear for Tehran, and it has been evident that the USA is going to take any decision that is against Iran, be it in the Security Council or on the international diplomatic level.

Okay, stop here and lets look and the situation now in brief. Iran wants nuclear power allegedly for peaceful use only. At the same time, USA suspect the Irani intentions as Iran is growing stronger and stronger as a military power. Russia guarantees to USA that Iran is going to use nuclear technology for generating electricity. Yet, USA doesn't take the Russian guarantee seriously.
Looking back in time to Khatami, the ex-President of Iran, he is a Reformist who could rule for two sessions in a row. He has been taking it easy with USA and EU regarding the nuclear power problem and he has been flexible with the IAEA and accepted the Irani nuclear station to be sealed by the UN. However, when Mahmoud Ahmedinejad *the new elected president* took over, a new trend and policy in Tehran started to emerge which represents the conservative trend Ahmedinejad believes in. And from the very first day Ahmedinejad had started his presidential duties, he was portrayed as the Middle East's new tyrant. Specially after his *attack* on the Holocaust. The question now is: what would be wrong if Iran owns nuclear peaceful technology? Can Iran attack the USA with nukes, if it possessed them? What is the main reason Washignton is opposing Iran all the time? Here starts reality and fiction.

Let me introduce the new tyrant...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also written Ahmadinezhad, (Persian: محمود احمد?‌نژاد ; born October 28, 1956), is the sixth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. His term began August 3, 2005.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was born in Garmsar, the fourth of seven children born to an ironworker. Ahmadinejad and his family migrated to Tehran when he was one year old. In 1975, he ranked 130th in the nationwide university entrance exams. He then got his diploma and was admitted to the Iran University of Science and Technology in the field of civil engineering. He was accepted as an MS student at the same university in 1984 and got his doctorate in 1987 in the field of engineering and traffic transportation planning while he was the governor ofArdabil province.

Ahmadinejad was the mayor of Tehran from May 3, 2003 until June 28, 2005 when he was elected president. He is widely considered to be a religious conservative with Islamist and populist views. Ahmadinejad was a civil engineer and an assistant professor at the Iran University of Science and Technology before his mayorship. Politically, Ahmadinejad is a member of the Central Council of the Islamic Society of Engineers,^[1] but he has a more powerful base inside the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (Abadgaran). Ahmadinejad is considered one of the main figures in the alliance.

Ahmedinejad's Assets: (from Inside Iran blog)

• A 40-year-old house of 127 sq.m. situated on a 175 sq.m. lot in Tehran's Narmak area
• A current bank account containing his salary as a university professor
  
• An empty bank account for the time he served as governor general of Ardebil
• A 1977 Peugeot-504 automobile
  
• Two fixed telephone lines.

President Ahmadinejad, in an unprecedented move, has turned over his list to both the media and the judiciary, in hopes of promoting economic transparency among government officials. More...

Can this be the 2006 new fashion tyrants??

Attack on Holocaust
Ahmedinejad became a tyrant after was interpreted as attacking the Holocaust and asking whether it was real or not. Soon after a massive attack on Ahmedinejad and his policy spread all over the world. (This brings to my mind when a major Danish newspaper attacked Islam and insulted the Muslim Prophet, no one moved an inch and when Muslims protested the answer was "it is the freedom of expression". Same with programs in the US media that I will soon be introducing their names and topics in which there is insult to Islam and Muslims, no one attacks them. And when Ahmedinejad questioned the Holocaust, he was massively criticised... can you say why?) Then Ahmedinejad in a recent public address he asserted that his questions about the Holocaust were misinterpreted.

What has become overblown and inaccurately reported in the international media is mere rhetoric. I had posed two questions to the international arena. The first one wondered where the history of these migrants, or Israelis, can be found? Where did their forefathers come from, and what gives these migrants the authority to make decisions regarding the nation of Palestine? Why don't Palestinians, who have thousands of years of history on their land, and who are comprised of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, have any decision-making power at all?

The second question addresses the Holocaust. Read more...(Full reply)

Role of Media
Okay, to make it simple, my point here is that there are obviously *intended* misinterpretations of Ahmedinejad's statments and addresses which play a role in viewing Ahmedinejad as a tyrant who would destroy the world if he possessed nukes. Thus, preparing the golbal public opinion for a strike on Iran that is trying to develop nuclear technologies. This just reminds me of the period before the war on Iraq when Bush LIED to the world saying that Iraq is a threat on the USA as it OWNS WMDs. But after Iraq was destroyed by war we found out that Iraqis barely had the ancient Kalashnikov rifles.

Some would ask for an evidence that the US media is misinterpreting the Irani President's speeches... well I have it thanks to Shiva's Inside Iran. The CNN has been banned from Iran for violating professional ethics. The CNN journalist has mistranslated Ahmedinejad's recent address to give a totally different meaning. The president said in Farsi "Every country has the right to peaceful nuclear technology", but the CNN journalist quoted the president saying "Every country has the right to nuclear weapons.". Being a student of translation myself, I believe such a mistake can never happen by accident specially when you are translating and working for an agency that is huge and professional as CNN. For me it is just a continuation of the misinterpretations of Ahmedinejad's questions about the Palestinian cause and the Holocaust. And this, of course, asserts the correctness of my theory that USA and its *allies* are working on preparing the international public opinion for a strike on the new Irani (tyrant) who is willing to possess nuclear weapons (rather than peaceful nuclear technologies). More on CNN ban...

Reality of the situation and (Double standards)
Well, the reality looks so simple for me (as I am not influenced by the western media and living in the heart of everything). The White House assures that they want a Middle East that is clear of nukes. Such intentions look very legitimate and logical since the Middle East has conflicts that may exceed the number of its population. However, with a zoom-in we will find out that Israel, the country which is the cause of all Middle East conflicts, owns nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the USA never brings up any talks about such a fact which would put its most important ally in the Middle East in hot spot. Therefore, if Iran should never own nuclear technology because the Middle East should be clear of nukes, Israel should destroy its nukes as well. Something that will never happen... and that what I call double standards...

The second most important fact is that Iran, logically and geographically, can never strike the USA. First, logically, Iran would never strike the US lands because such a mistake will surly bring about the end of the whole nation of Iranis alive. Additionally, Iran just wants peaceful nuclear technology that is provided by Russia, which means if Iran is to develop and produce nuclear weapons, Russia will be the first to know even before developments start. Second, geographically, Iran is too far away from the States to strike it with nukes as the Irani technology cannot develop any of the Shehab rockets that can travel all the way to the US west coast. Such developments cannot take place without the help of a major power, which is Russia. Thus, we are led to the same conclusion, Iran can hide nothing if they are to produce nukes or even the rockets that travel to the nearest US land which is the US west coast.

My conclusion
Washington knows very well that Iran has great influence on the Iraqi Shitta Muslims, who are the majority in Iraq. Such influence would affect the Iraqis' choice for a new president when democracy is settelled in Iraq. And it could be a matter of time when the USA finds an Islamist supported by Iran taking control, by election, in Iraq. Consequently, the American control over the Iraqi oil will be be affected and the US will lose a very important strategic position in the Middle East to Tehran, thus, they will be having two Tehrans rather than one. At the same time, Iran seems to be a threat on Israel to the White House. As the more powerful Iran grows, the stronger it is in the Middle East, which is the most armed country in the Middle East. Again I believe Iran cannot hit Israeli targets with WMD (weapons of mass destruction) simply because Israel is just one part of a whole Arab area. To me such a strike on Israel is impossible.

So why America is planning to attack Iran? I will put that in points.
If America attacks Iran, what will happen?

1. The possible Irani influence on any future elected government in Iraq will vanish.
2. The scale of power in the Middle East will stay in the Israeli hands.
3. The White House will be able to have a government that is an ally in Tehran. (Look at the Afghan example)
4. The USA will put its hands on another major oil supply.
5. The White House will be able to uproot that Russian influence in Tehran, and thus, completing the three magic sticks (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran).

Here ends another big episode of the game. But, can such a scenario take place? Can the US amry turn Iran to a new Iraq?.... Time will answer our questions.

(Share your thoughts and opinions)