Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei Said ‘Death to America’. So, What?

As the peaceful negotiations over a nuclear deal with Iran happily make their way to a resolution, many opponents of the current deal (or any deal with Iran) raise irrelevant alarm bells over some of the rhetoric that emanates from the Iranian leadership.  A recent example was Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s agreement with a crowd chanting “Death to America” during one of his public appearances and the ensuing backlash from Western opponents over the situation.  While it may not be the most pleasing thing to hear, it should be taken for what it is in the grand scheme of things: empty rhetoric to please his people and nothing more.

“Ali Khamenei” by User:Seyedkhan. Wikimedia Commons

In fact, if we were to step back from the situation and look at it objectively, it’s a perfectly rational thing for him to say.  It’s what leaders and politicians do.  They talk tough and make promises they have no intention or capability of keeping in order to keep their people behind them.  What would it look like if he did anything else?  What would he be saying?  I’m guessing it would go something like:

“People of Iran.  This is your Supreme Leader announcing to you that we will be letting the U.S. and Israel run our country however they please.  I know.  I know.  They were directly involved in the military overthrow of our democratically elected leader in 1953 and installed a ruthless dictatorship that we had to overthrow.  They were also responsible for the Stuxnet cyber attack, an action one of these countries has officially and hypocritically declared is an act of war.  But we can totally trust them now and I’m sure we will be the best run Western colony in the history of the world!”

Yeah, it would be completely ridiculous.

But hey, let’s remember that all spoken rhetoric eventually comes true.  Just look at all the things Iranian leaders have said in the past and then carried out that have been 100% prophetic, such as “Death to Russia”, “Death to England”, “Death to France”, “Death to Israel”, and “Death to Saddam” (not Iraq).   Oh, the overwhelming nostalgia!  Remember France before Iran destroyed it?  So much culture and fancy paintings.  It was almost like being in modern day Paris!

The point is, rhetoric is just talk and it should be expected to be tough and reflect a self-interest for whoever is speaking.  The actions Iran is taking by negotiating with the P5+1 and seeking a peaceful resolution is what truly matters.  And just to drive the point home that Khamenei’s rhetoric should not be taken too literally, here are some more examples from history of rhetoric that either never came true or did not match the actions taken by the speaker.


 

“Fidel Castro8” by Antônio Milena/ABr – Agência Brasil [1]. Wikimedia
Fidel Castro, former Cuban President

I propose the immediate launching of a nuclear strike on the United States. (1992)

Yes, remember the Cuban nuclear missile strike on Florida in the ’90s?  The radiation hit some counties so hard they lost the ability to properly count votes in presidential elections.

Nikita Khrushchev, former Soviet Premier

Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in. (We will bury you.) (Remark to Western ambassadors, 1956)

It’s really unfortunate Western society was buried by Communist Russia in the 1950s.  But look at the bright side, comrades.  At least we all got really cool furry hats!

John McCain, former Maverick and current regretter of vice-presidential choices

That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, ‘Bomb Iran’.  Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah… (2007)

Really a missed opportunity here, folks.  Think of all the money the military industrial complex has missed out on with him losing in ’08.  There’s always 2016!

Hugo Chavez, former president of Venezuela

Let’s save the human race, let’s finish off the U.S. empire. (2006)

Coincidentally, he said this while in Iran.  Now we know where they got it from.  Peer pressure!

Ronald Reagan, former U.S. president

Wikimedia

President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment…I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice. (1982)

Uncle Ronny was clearly a great judge of character.  Montt was, at the time, in the process of committing genocide in his own country, a crime he would eventually be found guilty for conducting (he is currently awaiting a new trial after the conviction was overturned in what appears to be a scheme to keep him out of prison until he dies).  Nicely done, Mr. Reagan!

Kim Jong-Il, former Supreme Leader of North Korea

I’m an Internet expert too. (2007)

No…just, no.  Kim was a bit of a recluse, as most know, but the state-run news agency did release direct statements that threatened to “wipe out” the United States while he was in charge.  Just another successfully unsuccessful bit of rhetoric.

Mother Nature, current ruler of Pangea

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men… (continues)

The quote is kind of long and is still being spoken.  But she’s getting pretty close to the end and I’m assuming what happens when she is done speaking is going to be pretty ugly for her constituents…

Richard Nixon, former U.S. president

“Nixon 30-0316a” by Hartmann. Wikimedia

I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace (in Vietnam). (1969)

An absolute lie.  We now know that Nixon actually sabotaged peace talks with Vietnam in 1968 while still a candidate for the presidency and did so to help his own political campaign at home.  Just a disgusting moment in history.


The point of all this is to simply note that rhetoric can frequently mean little while the actions of the speaker can be something very different.  This reality should be particularly considered in the case of Iran as they have been logically talking tough against the West at times but, according to  U.S. and Israeli intelligence, shut down their nuclear weapons program years ago.   We should always remember that the phrase “all politics is local” doesn’t just apply to the United States and it should be no surprise when we hear some foreign leaders score points with their people by taking shots at us.  In fact, if you don’t expect that to happen, you should really tone down the hubris a bit.

Bottom line, Iran has come to the negotiating table and is making a deal.  If the GOP warfare queens in Congress decide to kill the deal and the situation eventually disintegrates into military actions, the blood of every American and Iranian that dies will be on their hands and history should properly place the blame squarely on each and every politician that turned away from peace.

Countering the Right: Foreign Affairs Op-ed Defending Drones Part II

Continued from part I here

Carrying on the argument against the op-ed in Foreign Affairs advocating drone use, his next point gets at a key point in the debate:

Individuals join anti-American terrorist groups for many reasons, ranging from outrage over U.S. support for Israel to anger at their own government’s cooperation with the United States. Some people simply join up because their neighbors are doing so.

What he fails to mention here is that some people also hate and attack America because of the United States’ killing people overseas, which would obviously include drone attacks.  We know incidents like the Ft. Hood shooting and the Boston Marathon Bombing were carried out for this reason because the perpetrators have said so.  In short, it is a cycle of violence with no real end in sight or an end that is truly feasible without one side ignoring past casualties, a scenario that is highly unlikely.

But sometimes imminent and intolerable threats do arise and drone strikes are the best way to eliminate them.

This assumes, of course, every drone strike that is carried out is launched against an “imminent” threat, a point that is highly debatable since we now know drones have been used to kill people who were not after the United States.  If all or even most of the “militants” killed by drones were “imminent threats”, why has the government been so reluctant to give any proof of a just a few of the lesser known casualties?  We know about the bigger names killed as they are reported extensively, but they are the minority.  Can’t they just give us some of the smaller fish and show exactly how they were deemed “imminent threats”?  Since the attacks are carried out in the name of U.S. citizens, it is something we deserve to know and be able to confirm.

A memo released by the antisecrecy website WikiLeaks revealed that Pakistan’s army chief, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, privately asked U.S. military leaders in 2008 for “continuous Predator coverage” over antigovernment militants, and the journalist Mark Mazzetti has reported that the United States has conducted “goodwill kills” against Pakistani militants who threatened Pakistan far more than the United States.

Wait, I thought I was making the case for that being a bad use of drones?  Kind of bizarre an advocate would mention it as well since this is a clear misuse of the system.  And with calls for austerity and the ongoing sequester, how much of our tax dollars went into fighting Pakistan’s battles for them?  As the NSA scandal has focused on secrecy from a domestic perspective, we should keep in mind that that is not the only government secrecy we should be worried about because a much more destructive kind is being carried out overseas.

A 2012 poll found that 74 percent of Pakistanis viewed the United States as their enemy, likely in part because of the ongoing drone campaign…A poll conducted in 2007, well before the drone campaign had expanded to its current scope, found that only 15 percent of Pakistanis had a favorable opinion of the United States. It is hard to imagine that alternatives to drone strikes, such as SEAL team raids or cruise missile strikes, would make the United States more popular.

And we are now taught by this that our only “alternatives” to drones are boots on the ground or bigger bombs.  In other words, we can choose the “kill a lot of people approach” or the “kill even more people approach”.  Here’s an idea.  How about neither?

I’m reminded of a comment bin Laden made back in 2004 just before the U.S. presidential election.  He stated, “…contrary to Bush’s claim that we hate freedom.  If so, then let him explain to us why we don’t strike for example – Sweden?”  A fair question.  And since it has been so long, maybe that has changed…Nope.  Still no Islamist attacks on Sweden.  I wonder what those crazy Swedes do so different from the U.S.?  Are they putting boots on the ground instead of using drones?  Maybe their bombs are bigger?  Or maybe they do neither and don’t get targeted in return.  Just a thought.

Indeed, it appears that Awlaki is the only U.S. citizen who has been deliberately killed by a drone.

This is a nice dodge of the fact the government has acknowledged four Americans were killed by drones, including a minor and a man on the FBI’s Most Wanted List (who we apparently weren’t specifically targeting).  He does use the word “deliberately” to deliberately ignore this fact and it’s clever.  Shady, but clever.  In all honesty, with thousands killed by drones, I don’t know why the author even bothers going out of his way to dodge this.  It’s a well known fact at this point so who does he think he is hiding this from?  It’s just a weak attempt at covering the truth about how many American citizens have been killed by drones.

The ultimate truth about drones is the faster we retire the program, the faster we will be doing something to actually stop the level of hatred in the Islamic world of one vicious aspect of United States’ foreign policy.