Amadinejad's Provocation

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 6, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

             Spewing more venom, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacked the U.S. version of Sept. 11 as a “big lie.”  Faced with growing internal dissent over a disputed June 13, 2009 election, Ahmadinejad resorted to a familiar theme, bashing the United States for its meddling in Iranian affairs.  While not likely, Iran faces tougher U.N. sanctions for failing to rein in its nuclear enrichment program, some believe aimed at building its first A-bomb.  When Iran threw the International Atomic Energy Agency for a loop Nov. 25, 2009 and revealed a new nuclear enrichment facility in the ancient city of Qom, the United States ratcheted up pressure for a new round of U.N. sanctions.  Since then, Ahmadinejad has been on the defensive, violently suppressing a growing protest movement led by reform candidate Mir-Hussain Mousavi, a defiant voice against Iran’s brutal crackdown.

            Known for pernicious propaganda, Ahmadinejad’s recent rant mirrors the Arab street, blaming Sept. 11 not on renegade Saudi-born terrorist Osama bin Laden but on Israel.  Ahmadinejad latest salvo at the U.S. duplicates past ones against Israel where he prides himself in denying the Holocaust.  “September 11 was a big lie and a pretext for the war on terror and a prelude to invading Afghanistan,” Ahmadinejad told Iranian state TV.  He insinuated the U.S. staged the attacks to justify going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, calling the Sept. 11 attacks a “complicated intelligence scenario and act.” Reflecting Mideast paranoia, the Iranian president gains sympathies, like Bin Laden, for his anti-Semitic rhetoric and justifies his ongoing crackdown on pro-Democracy protestors.  He also wants to send a loud signal to members of the U.N. Security Council that he won’t back down on enriching uranium.

            Calling Sept. 11 a “big lie” sets up more confrontations with U.S. President Barack Obama, busy pressuring the Security Council to back a new round of tough sanctions.  Ahmadinejad’s provocation and recent bravado stem from recent reports that Brazil, Lebanon, Russia and China oppose new sanctions.  Given the unrest in his own country, Ahmadinejad would like nothing more than to either provoke Israel or the U.S. into a military confrontation.  Obama knows that the prospects of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions with a new round of sanctions has grown less likely in recent days, prompting a new strategy.  While visiting the U.N. in 2007, Ahmadinejad was denied by the U.S. government a visit to Ground Zero.  He stated on Iranian TV that the attacks were “a result of mismanaging and inhumane managing of the world by the U.S.,” referring the U.S. support of Israel.

            Iran announced Feb. 20 it intends to enrich its uranium by 20%, putting it dangerously close to weapons’ grade.  Frantic diplomatic moves by the U.S. to push the Security Council for more sanctions have backfired, leaving the U.S. in the unenviable position of having to go it alone.  U.S. allies worry about unilateral action against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, now in underground bunkers darted across Iran.  U.S. officials hoped that U.N. sanctions would stave off Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, the hawkish MIT-trained Israeli leader.  Despite Ahmadinejad’s bluster, Netanyahu shows no signs of backing down from his promise to stop Iran from producing A-bombs.  Nuclear experts believe the window is growing short on Iran’s nuclear program, getting closer to the weapons grade uranium needed to produce it first nuclear bombs.

            Before former President George W. Bush decided to go to war in Iraq March 20, 2003, it was Iran, not Iraq, that presented the threat to U.S. national security.  In a recent interview, his chief strategist, Karl Rove, admitted the Iraq War was the fatal mistake of the Bush presidency.  Rove referred to the blow to White House credibility when no weapons of mass destruction were found, the alleged reason for going to war.  Taking down Saddam Hussein was far easier than regime change in Iran, where Iranian military prowess, especially missile technology, was far more sophisticated.  Nearly seven years later, the U.S. military and U.S. economy is in a weakened state, spread too thin by the Iraq and Afghan Wars.  Ahmadinejad knows full well and takes advantage of current U.S. military commitments.  With more sanctions less likely, Obama must keep all options on the table.

            Calling the Sept. 11 attacks a “big lie,” Ahmadinejad provokes the U.S. like he does Israel when he denies the Holocaust.  Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei seized the U.S. embassy in 1979, holding 53 Americans 444 days, the U.S. has had unfinished business in Iran.  Iran nuclear program precedes the Khomenei’s Islamic Revolution, when a friendly Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi sought U.S. support, much like Iraq during the same time, to reinforce military defenses.  Unlike the Shah, Khomenei sought to dominate the Persian Gulf and spread his Islamic Revolution around the Middle East.  Over the last 30 years, Iran’s military buildup has swayed the balance of power toward a dangerous adversary.  Denying Sept. 11 and boasting about Iran’s missile technology, Ahmadinejad sends a loud message to the U.S. and U.N. Security Council that he has no plans to halt his nuclear program.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.