Ahmadinejad Doesn’t Matter: Figuring Out What is Real on Iran

-

AHMAD.jpe
I’m so worried about this country and the world in general. I know many of you are as well, and I’m sure than many have felt like I do now in the past. I’ve always been fascinated by the authors of the “lost generation” like Thomas Wolfe. Many of them skipped town and moved to Europe because they found themselves so at odds with what was going on. But I won’t.
But to give some relief, something positive has begun to happen to slow the hyperventilation about America bombing Iran. Katrina van den Heuvel, Jim Lobe, Juan Cole, Blake Hounshell, Christy Hardin Smith, Joe Klein, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall, Taylor Marsh, Tom Engelhardt, Thomas Barnett, Ezra Klein, Moira Whalen, Brian Beutler, Andrew Sullivan, William Hartung, SusanUNpc, and editorialists at Haaretz, and writers at Newsweek, the Guardian, the New York Times, Raw Story, and Time Magazine, and a couple hundred other media commentators and bloggers have either generally agreed with my piece that Bush was not yet predisposed to bomb Iran or at least chewed on the notion. Nearly all of them agree with me that we need to be vigilant against those who would connive to trigger a seemingly accidental, fast escalation war.
There are many who want to use the question of whether we would or would not bomb Iran as a way to criticize “the Decider” and to assert that his anti-intllectualism and perceived disdain for rationality would lead him to Cheney’s dark side. I do have a disagreement with those who see Bush this way — on this specific issue.
But what worries me about the country is how divorced so many seem to be from the various routes critical thinking might take them. This is true across the political spectrum.
I see it today with Ahmadinejad. This guy is the Dick Cheney of Iran. He wants greater power in Iran’s political system — but he doesn’t have it. In fact, unless we bomb Iran, he’s on the way to being a former President with little power. He has not achieved any serious consolidation of his position in the Iranian political arena.
But today with all of the hullabaloo about his speech at Columbia University, we have allowed Iran’s president, who is nothing at all of the powers of a near monarchial American president, to define what Iran’s intentions and character are.
How many progressives want to allow Cheney the privilege of defining who and what America is?? None — I would guess.
But to hope that Ahmadinejad would somehow be pro-gay or honest about womens’ rights, or even be honest about his intentions with Iran’s nuclear program — is to give him that opportunity to sculpt Iran’s defining features for the world.
I don’t buy Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric. I don’t buy Cheney’s either.
An interesting lesson we all should be drawing from is the very short lived crash and burn tenure of Shinzo Abe, Japan’s history-denying, right wing prime minister.
In my view, Abe was a god-send for those who hope for a better Japan, a Japan that is finally comfortable with its national identity and past — and that can get beyond the history battles. Abe was one of the worst — though not the worst — that one could imagine leading Japan in this fragile period in culture and history wars in Northeast Asia.
But he was pro-Bush, and the White House supported him. But the Japanese people rejected him at the polls and punished severely his party. He hoped that jingoistic calls for nationalist pomp and circumstance would trump the dinner table/economic issues that most perturbed Japanese voters.
This is what we should be letting Ahmadinejad do — crash and burn in the eyes of his own public that just doesn’t buy his Cheney-like pugnaciousness.
Juan Cole says all of this eloquently here.
Ahmadinejad is failing in Iran. But we spend a lot of time fretting over his words and posture. We need to stop letting him define Iran’s character and ultimate direction. But Cheney and Ahmadinejad need each other — they push each other’s buttons.
We need to move beyond both.

— Steve Clemons

Comments

25 comments on “Ahmadinejad Doesn’t Matter: Figuring Out What is Real on Iran

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And if any attack occur I assure you that people,even many unbelivers, will unified behind the goverment and defend their homeland and in acase of an attack you should await a real
    catastrophic for the whole region and even the world”
    Posted by amir
    Now see, thats a post the Feds SHOULD BE investigating.

    Reply

  2. amir says:

    i’m an iranian from tehran.
    first i apologize for my english
    Ahmadinejad is not popular here at least among middle class people and educated ones but he has
    votes of poors yet. But there is a huge difference between Ahmadinejad’s popularity and
    iranian’s interests unfortunately because of USA policy and sancations Iranain society ,Which is potentially amicable toward west is going to be more suspected to the west as a whole
    And if any attack occur I assure you that people,even many unbelivers, will unified behind the goverment and defend their homeland and in acase of an attack you should await a real
    catastrophic for the whole region and even the world

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “And it would be very difficult to justify bombing them back to the stone age”
    Not if this Administration constructs the false flag terror attack we all know they are not beyond staging. After these last seven years, its constantly amazes me that people still underestimate the criminality and sheer evil of this administration.

    Reply

  4. YY says:

    It appears Bush administration really does not want to give up the “gains” made in Iraq. Having Iran take over Iraq would be ultimate humiliation. The opportunity to keep Iraq intact is lost, being too late to resurrect the trained army, functioning civil service and Bath party minority rule. Iraq would eventually fall under Iran, simply for its own security Iran would need to establish some order in Iraq. In the same way Israeli bombing of Lebanon did not finish off the Hezebola, bombing Iran is not going to keep them from eventually inheriting Iraq. And it would be very difficult to justify bombing them back to the stone edge , when expectation is “surgical” against these phantom nuclear sites. Permanent bases and long term stay to keep Iran out would simply result in long term war of attrition with the existing “insurgent” activities. Iran can sit back and wait it out.

    Reply

  5. MNPundit says:

    “Unfortunately the political elites have decided that Americans are not mature enough to be presented with the real strategic facts of life.”
    You’re wrong. I think the political elites have decided that Americans just might be mature enough to be presented with the real strategic facts of life… and that terrifies them. It means that if they’re not careful, the populace will throw them out and then they’ll no longer be political elites.

    Reply

  6. pauline says:

    Q. What’s the difference between George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
    A. One is a super-scary totalitarian [phony]religious fundamentalist nutjob and the other has a really nasty beard.
    http://www.firedoglake.com/

    Reply

  7. Sharon says:

    Thanks Steve. This was an insightful and much needed post.

    Reply

  8. Carroll says:

    Col Lang via the WP..
    “Hadley blocked access on Syria photos.”
    “North Korea may be cooperating with Syria on some sort of nuclear facility in Syria, according to new intelligence the United States has gathered over the past six months, sources said. The evidence, said to come primarily from Israel, includes dramatic satellite imagery that led some U.S. officials to believe that the facility could be used to produce material for nuclear weapons.
    The new information, particularly images received in the past 30 days, has been restricted to a few senior officials under the instructions of national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, leaving many in the intelligence community unaware of it or uncertain of its significance, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Some cautioned that initial reports of suspicious activity are frequently reevaluated over time and were skeptical that North Korea and Syria, which have cooperated on missile technology, would have a joint venture in the nuclear arena.” Kessler
    Says Lang…..
    “I missed this when it first appeared. So, the imagery primarily came from Israel and Hadley blocked access to it from US Intelligence Community analysts and imagery interpreters? Why would that be? How about this? The Israelis wanted it to be that way and it was their information.
    I will let that thought hang in the air for comment. Remember UHTTFY! plang

    Reply

  9. susan says:

    Over at HuffPO, Mort Zuckerman wrote a piece entitled, Debunking the Myth of “The Israel Lobby”.
    Man, is he getting clobbered in the comments.
    Too bad that Mort and the Likudnics can’t see that AIPAC has hurt Israel. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t win friends or keep friends through intimidation.

    Reply

  10. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Ahmadinejad is failing in Iran. But we spend a lot of time fretting over his words and posture. We need to stop letting him define Iran’s character and ultimate direction.”
    Theres that “we” stuff again. Fact is, it is the Cheney style fear mongering that is causing the “fretting”. And it is people like yourself and Dick Cheney that are “defining Iran’s character and ultimnate direction” by exagerating the threat, sensationalizing mistranslations, and obediently chanting Israel’s war cries.

    Reply

  11. Kathleen says:

    easy e thank you for that post.
    Dopey and Darth are Palesintian holocaust deniers.
    And todays news is that Dodd is going to support the Kyl-Lieberman carte blanche to bomb. bomb, bomb, Iran. So much for your theory, Steve.
    Quick, get me my barf bag. Geeeezus

    Reply

  12. susan says:

    In his column today, Glenn Greenwald writes about the dishonest and manipulative practices of the Beltway pundits. While he is writing specifically about David Brooks, I think that Steve, a proud (and I see this pride as a flaw) denizen of the Village, shares its inexplicable devotion to centrism or bipartisanship.
    What Steve (and the rest of the Villagers) refuse to understand is that “Bipartisanship” is not an inherent good. Consensus and compromise are not inherent goods. They are good, but they are not the single most desirable ends of any political debate.
    Here is Glenn:
    “…Brooks’ column today — praising Democrats for ignoring radical anti-war bloggers and instead embracing “Centrism” — is a perfect showcase for both of these dishonest tactics. His column is devoted to the argument that the Democratic Party hates its blogger and anti-war activist base, is committed to hawkish military policies, and that it is doing the Right Thing in this regard because Most Americans want a hawkish military policy. That is “centrism.”
    Glenn writes that according to Brooks, “the only way for Democrats to have any hope of winning elections is to repudiate their radical, rabid Leftist base and instead follow Brooks’ beliefs, because that is “centrism.” This is actually a defining belief of the Beltway pundit, and it is as intellectually corrupt as an argument gets…”
    The column is excellent, in fact, Greenwald is consistantly excellent, and Steve could learn a lot from him.
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

    Reply

  13. rt says:

    No fair, I have been arguing this since the Sy Hersh article and the carrier movements, but noone would listen. 😉
    I wouldn`t say Juan Cole (who would beat me at an IQ test and still have time to learn another language) appears quite convinced. But your articles are a welcome paper bag for the hyperventilating crowd. Lets hope they use it.
    Plenty of people assume that since this white house will obviously make another foreign policy mistake, that bombing Iran will be it. But there are plenty of other options people!
    Remember, America will always do the right thing, after trying *everything* else. The invasion thing has been tried In Iraq and the bombing thing in Lebanon. So why wouldn`t they move on to the next mistake instead of repeating the current ones? There are plenty of options.
    There are three questions the “Bush has a bomb-er!” crowd should ask:
    1. The US has been threatening to bomb Iran for years now… and they have not done so yet because? What?
    2. The whole Cheney/Rummy career has been over force projection. (BMD, RRW, bases, global strike, selling loads of weapons… perhaps even Iraq) How much of the current “signs of a comming war” can be explained as posturing and pressure for the current talks. Perhaps intended to make talks work, perhaps intended to make them fail.
    3. If Bush and Cheney plan to bomb, then what do they tell Liz Cheney Karen Hughes and the rest of the “democracy spreaders”? Remember, even neocons admit bombing makes regime change harder, not easier.
    4. What about screwing the world out of oil? I realize the AEI can be made to say that oil markets will be fine, but with energy czar Cheney this issue still deserves to be mentioned. Personally I think most of this AEI talk is just empty threats which is why the corporate funding is still flowing. But maybe they believe that stuff.
    Have these been brought up, am I missing something?
    And the “alternatives”? Well they could just stirr up Aziri trouble, send in Kurds and maybe even get in bed with the MEK. Just look at the history of Ledeen and tell me the guy wouldn`t fund terror to influence elections? (Seriously what was he doing in Italy during the strategy of tension? Its not like an “extradition matters” consulting job with SISMI is the obvious fast track to terror consultant with NATO and lifelong ties to US hawks and SISMI (Iran contra, INC/Ghorbanifar meetings?) Where did he get his street cred, besides the books on fascism?)
    Why wouldn`t the crowd that owes their positions to Karl Rove stick with the US based opposition satellite tv stations stirring up student protests? These people may still think Ukraine was a success story and Georgia is nothing but peace (planes “losing” missiles? That happens all the time, even the US loses track of nukes 😉 ).

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us
    September 22, 2007
    The men planning America’s next air war
    Eric Margolis
    An invitation to visit “Checkmate”, the US air force’s most important and secretive strategic planning group, was an offer that, as a veteran military analyst, I could not refuse.”
    (But here is the interesting part of the story…
    “I asked when the Bush administration’s widely expected air war against Iran would begin. This was not a subject my hosts cared to discuss.
    Dr Lani Kass, Checkmate’s formidable senior civilian official, a former Israeli military officer who had somehow morphed into a senior Pentagon advisor, dismissed my question, insisting no decision to attack Iran had been made.
    She called a possible air war “unlikely”. But I was ready to bet plans to blitz Iran were being drawn up in an adjoining office. One could feel a buzz of excitement among Checkmate’s hard-eyed officers who wore combat flight suits and tensed up every time I mentioned Iran. Pentagon sources say the air force has selected 3,000-4,000 targets in Iran, and that some US and British special forces are already operating there. However,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Strange indeed how Israelis would be running the the US’s AF’s most prized planning group.
    You have to ask who put these foreign people with into these very important US postions. Anyone who thinks that Israelis inside our most sensitive sectors isn’t compromising US security is insane and a fool.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Another theory on the great unnamed forces behind the new realist Bush.
    A new cabal, let’s call them the old guard establishment cabal, is getting rid of the neo and Israeli cabal, weeding them out.
    But they don’t want us to know that. Cabals don’t like publicity. Cabals all claim they don’t exist anyway.

    Reply

  16. Carroll says:

    Oh no..terrible thought..maybe “the bad people” have kidnapped Annie and Oakely and are holding them hostage to make Steve be ‘reasonable”.
    Show us doggie pictures…with a dated newpaper in the photo or we are calling the FBI and PETA.

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    O.K….I have figured it out.
    Steve has been kidnapped and some one else is writting this stuff.
    Or.
    There is a plan afoot to show all this support recongizing Bush as not really stupid and doing the smart thing by not attacking Iran so as to shore him up among the public and netroots and offer him reinforcement in his wise decision not to attack Iran.
    Or.
    Steve is speaking in code about forces he cannot name and things they are doing he cannot say.

    Reply

  18. Carroll says:

    My real question for Steve is..just how do we guard against an “accidential war”?
    It took how long…for us to learn about the Gulf of Tonki “misrepresentation”? Who is going to be watching for or preventing or reveal a accidently on purpose accident? The American press? Judith Miller? The pentagon?
    We just saw Israel attack locations in Syria claiming they had “intelligence proof” that North Korea had sold nuclear materials to Syria.
    I would be more comforted if the names Steve named actually had some power somewhere other than the netroots. They may all agree that Bush isn’t primed to attack Iran, I agree with that part, but congress is if not primed for it, definitely not showing any signs of being against it, quite the contrary. Check next week and see how many voted for Lieberman and Kyle’s resolution on Iran. And if we have an “accident” our craven congress will be pressuring Bush right along with the Lukids and Cheney.
    I don’t know…I have absolutely no faith in congress, none. The usual suspects there are ginning up war talk and Iran resolutions every day all day long and Genral BetrayUs is backing them up. And unless we know who or exactly what powers are holding Bush to reality on Iran we can’t feel too confident about that either.
    I can’t imagine us attacking Iran but then I couldn’t imagine us attacking Iraq either…but we did.
    One thing I do know, the Israeli Lukids and their lobby are insane. For them, especially after the Iraq disaster has ruined US power projection in the region, this is do or die time. Their hope for a pipeline from the Kurd oil fields to Israel thru Syria, their hope that a defeated Iran who cut off their oil after the Shah was defeated will have to give them the same oil deal they had before, the same kind of oil deal defeated Egypt had to give them in the US arranged peace settlement after that war….all goes up in smoke. It is now or never or they will have to learn to live with Iran as a player and without the US strongarm in the ME. I have no faith in the US Lukids or Israel government’s ability to refrain from suiciding themselves…or us.
    I have to agree with Dan, if you have something really concrete you can tell, like who and what has turned Bush back let’s hear it…this is keeping us sleepless.

    Reply

  19. Dan Kervick says:

    Steve, I honestly don’t know where you are trying to go with this piece and your previous article. It’s not even a question of agreeing or disagreeing with you. I simply can’t even understand what you are trying to say or what you are trying to do. You seem to be scattered all over the place in this post, and your writing has lately reached new heights of cryptic and coded obscurity. Could you perhaps try to boil down your thesis to a single brief and direct paragraph? I can’t decipher the weird and allusive signaling that is going on here.
    As far as I can tell, you seem to think that whether we go to war with Iran, or do not go to war with Iran, will depend not so much on what Bush and Cheney and their team are determined to accomplish, but on how much opponents of war “hyperventilate” about it. If this *is* your view, could you please explain the reasoning behind it? Because it strikes me as a sort of pundit version of abused child syndrome. Maybe if we all simply calm down and go into our happy places and think happy thoughts, the bad things won’t happy. If I settle down and stop being bad and noisy, my parents won’t hit me, or neglect me, or get divorced. If I stop my hysterical hyperventilation, I won’t get another smack across the face. Or maybe if I will myself to believe that it is not daddy who is trying to hurt me, but the evil bald ogre named “Cheney” who lives in his closet, then I will be all right.
    I hope you haven’t convinced yourself that by saying nice or conciliatory things about Bush, and putting all the blame on Cheney, you can blog the Decider into changing course. GW is in his room late at night thinking, “That Steve Clemons fellow is right. Dick is crazy and evil, but I’m better than that! No more wars for me!” If you think Bush is paying attention to you and your message, you have succumbed to a bloggy form of “legend in his own mind” syndrome.
    It is blindingly obvious that there are *many* people “who would connive to trigger a seemingly accidental, fast escalation war.” It is blindingly obvious that the setting of these triggers is moving forward apace. We hear every day about some new provocation, some new tripwire on the Iran-Iraq border, some new covert op inside Iran, some new escalation of accusations about Iranian behavior that frequently surpass all logic. My God, the Israelis just ran a bombing mission into Syria in an attempt to provoke some retaliation. What more do you need? It’s happening. It’s being set up. *We’re” being set up.
    And all over this country, armies of hapless stooges are falling for the lies all over again. And instead of just saying, “these are lies; it’s all bullshit”, people who should know better engage in idiotic too-clever-by-half strategems, agreeing with three of the lies for every one they reject. I guess they think they need to do this to maintain their “credibility”.
    It is impossible to believe that this transparent pattern of escalation, which will inevitably terminate in the successful manufacture of the needed pretext for war, is all just the work of Darth Cheney and his secret cabal working behind Bush’s back. What is going on involves daily command decisions on the battlefields of Iraq, frequent coordination with US intelligence agencies, coordination with the State Department, and coordination with foreign governments. And yet you persist in hanging on every insider rumor: Condi wants this, Burns wants that, Bush isn’t sure. You and your water-cooler level friends in the Washington labyrinth are in abject denial. You’re being played. Snap out of it!
    Instead of reproving the people who are sounding the alarms, while huddling safely in the middle, why don’t you try choosing a definite side. You might find it invigorating. Of course, if you do choose a side, there is always the chance that your side will lose. It might not be so great for your brilliant career, which appears to be based on compulsive networking, safety in numbers and self-protective positioning so that you will come out in an viable political position no matter how things go.
    At some point one can’t avoid the observation that some people enjoy being lied to. The lies seem to satisfy some deep needs within them. Or else, accepting the lies is the only psychically acceptable alternative to the grim moral responsibilities that come with eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

    Reply

  20. Carroll says:

    I didn’t see anything pugnacious in Ahmadinejad’s responses. Sincere or not, he came across to the public a lot better than that little fart from the National Press Club who asked the questions.

    Reply

  21. easy e says:

    Ahmadinejad questions 9/11.
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html
    So should everyone…..including believers in democracy and the U.S. Constitution.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

    Reply

  22. Willem van Oranje says:

    It would be extremely easy for the Bush Administration to derail Ahmadinejad in Iran and the Middle East forever: openly support and praise him.

    Reply

  23. Carroll says:

    Posted by JohnH at September 24, 2007 11:36 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    Ditto. Spot on.

    Reply

  24. JohnH says:

    It really doesn’t matter what Ahmadinejad says, or whether you believe his rhetoric or not. The whole story is made for TV, a narrative manufactured to make any Iranian authority figure appear as evil incarnate.
    As Juan Cole says, the hidden issue is the American elite’s “fear of Iran’s rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.”
    And you have to admit, Iran has a lot of trump cards: immense oil and gas reserves, a strategic location astride convenient distribution routes for Caspian oil and gas, and a strategic position on the Strait of Hormuz where all Persian Gulf oil passes.
    So I can see why the West is concerned about Iran. Most would try to make the country a friend, like China and Japan are doing. Sadly, America’s gut reaction is to dominate, ensuring enmity.
    Ahmadinejad has said that Iran does not want or need a nuke. I believe him. All Iran needs for real deterrence is enough conventional fire power to pose a credible threat to the Persian Gulf oil industry, most of it sitting within a couple hundred miles of Iran’s shores. Destruction of the Persian Gulf oil industry would destroy the industrialized world’s way of life for a long, long time.
    Unfortunately the political elites have decided that Americans are not mature enough to be presented with the real strategic facts of life. What should happen is for a real discussion to take place: Shoud America a serious effort to find win-win solutions (trade and commerce) with Iran or pursue a lose-lose one (war)?
    But a real policy debate is the last thing the inbred, group-thinking policy elites want. Justin Raimondo brilliantly analyzes the problem in his piece “The Wall of Silence: America’s Foreign Policy Discourse.” So sad, but so true.
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11648

    Reply

  25. easy e says:

    NEW YORK, Sept. 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, spokesman of Neturei Karta International, issued the following statement on the eve of the group’s meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
    “It is always our pleasure to visit with President Ahmadinejad. This will be the third such meeting, in addition to our many visits to Iran in the past. We have each time emphasized to the Iranian leadership that, despite media hysteria and the statements of some misinformed Jews, we have found the Iranian people and their leaders to be friendly and respectful.
    “Likewise, although we as Jews are not to be involved in politics, (According to Jewish law, Jewish people are required to be loyal citizens to the countries wherein they reside), We have found the Iranian President to be a deeply religious man, dedicated to a peaceful world, based on mutual respect, fairness and dialogue.
    “Judaism seeks peace. Unfortunately, there are some Jews today, influenced by the barely century old, philosophy of Zionism, who feel that the proper Jewish response to enemies, be they real or fantasized, is aggression and calls for violence and unfortunately attempts to drag other nations down the path of war.
    “It is sad that so few have actually attempted to speak to the Iranian President or seek the true opinion of Iranian Jewry who live in peace and practice their faith throughout that nation. We have met this man who has demonstrated time and again that he is sincerely interested in the well being of Iran’s Jewish community and has deep respect for world Jewry and their Torah faith, The Zionist attempt to socially isolate this man and his people is immoral and disastrous.
    “Zionism is antithetical to Torah beliefs. It believes in creating our own sovereign entity which is expressly forbidden due to the Divine decree of exile. This ideology leads to aggression against nations and is incarnated in the State of ‘Israel.’ This State continually oppresses other people in the name of Judaism and the entire Jewish people. This movement has exacerbated anti Semitism throughout the world. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad understands this distinction between traditional Judaism and Zionist distortion.
    “We view our approach to Iran as a model for all Jews and all mankind. The Torah is the Almighty’s blueprint of mercy and justice for all creation. We have followed this modal in our dealings with the Iranian President and found in him an individual dedicated to these same ideals. There is much to be gained by talking and listening and everything to be lost by raising the rhetoric in the direction of war. The grave tragedy of our era is the inordinate power garnered by Zionism, whose acceptance of force as the only means to reconcile conflicts, has influenced some to abandon Torah fundamentals. We hope and pray that they too will adopt the traditional Jewish approach of dialogue, respect and reconciliation.
    “War is a horrible thing. The dark clouds of a future conflict are now on the horizon in the Middle East. Torah Jewry hopes and prays that this may yet be averted.”
    In conclusion says rabbi Weiss, “Out of great respect to the Iranian Nation and their leadership we proudly welcome the Honorable President Ahmadinejad to New York, WELCOME!”

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *