Clever Karl

If you think of Karl Rove as a basically malign person who doesn't care at all about the well-being of the American people or the world at large, this is a pretty clever point:

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

Obviously, the problem here is that it would be irresponsible for Obama to spell out publicly and in advance precisely what kind of deals he'd be aiming to strike with Iran or North Korea. Nobody negotiates for anything that way. But the plan here is that when Obama correctly declines to do that, Obama can then be mocked for allegedly having "secret plans" and so forth.

As with a lot of conservative national security gambits, I could easily imagine this working except for the fact that conservative foreign policy has at the moment been revealed as a huge and unpopular catastrophe which makes it easy to (accurately) shorthand these critiques as part and parcel of John McCain's determination to continue with Bush's failed policies. So I don't see it working. But qua talking point, it's a good one.

Comments

"If you think of Karl Rove as a basically malign person who doesn't care at all about the well-being of the American people or the world at large...."

Is there another way to think of him?

Posted by Ted | May 22, 2008 3:31 PM

That's easy: he'll just tell them to "cut out the bullshit."

Posted by Virginia | May 22, 2008 3:35 PM

Wasn't South Korea "deeply unsettled" when Bush junked the Clinton administration's deal-in-progress with the North in 2001? Conservatives were really deep into the "Why should we care what [name of country] thinks about what we do?" phase at that point. Now, apparently, soothing our allies is a deeply important point of principle for the right.

Other kids' games are all such a bore! They've gotta have rules and they gotta keep score! Calvinball is better by far! It's never the same! It's always bizarre!

Posted by Another Chris | May 22, 2008 3:36 PM

The first part is a standard bit of "cleverness" (asking for specific details where they are unwarranted), but I actually don't think that tends to work unless the target responds poorly (indeed, they don't necessarily need to respond at all).

The second part is actually pretty dumb. I guess he is trying to make some sort of veiled reference to Israel, but I think most people are predisposed to believe "our allies" (broadly defined) are as much looking forward to change from Bush's diplomatic policies as we are.

Posted by DTM | May 22, 2008 3:37 PM

One of the great things about Obama is that he's smarter than just about everybody one hears talking. Moreover, he's very competitive-aggressive-alpha (in a way that doesn't scare white folks all that much - another sign of his intelligence.)

I'm not worried about him being out-clevered by Rove.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | May 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Isn't the very act of meeting something that tends to reduce hostility? Isn't that, in part, why Reagan sat down with Gorbachev and Nixon went to China? I don't think either Nixon or Reagan insisted on preconditions. For example, the USSR was still fighting in Afghanistan at the time - Reagan didn't instist that they withdraw before talking.

Posted by blah | May 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Obama's opponents are going to ask him very specific (even silly) questions on how this new stance will apply in very specific situations - he should be prepared to offer at least one hypothetical - because that his how they will attack. Historic comparisons to what Reagan, Nixon, and JFK did as President is a good start, as is countering by asking specifically how sticking to Bush's failed policies will make us safer.

Posted by Colin Hicks | May 22, 2008 3:46 PM

Obama's opponents are going to ask him very specific (even silly) questions on how this new stance will apply in very specific situations - he should be prepared to offer at least one hypothetical - because that his how they will attack. Historic comparisons to what Reagan, Nixon, and JFK did as President is a good start, as is countering by asking specifically how sticking to Bush's failed policies will make us safer.

Posted by Colin Hicks | May 22, 2008 3:48 PM

"Unconditional" and "unilateral" are rather odd adjectives in this context. I suppose the first is meant to remind people of "unconditional surrender", and "unilateral" is meant to suggest liberal criticisms of Bush's crazy go-it-aloneism. But, in the context, "unconditional" can only mean without setting prior conditions of the "you must do our bidding and bend to our will before we condescend to talk to you" sort and "unilateral" makes no sense at all, as any talks are, at a minimum, bilateral and far from being unwelcome to our allies (with the possible exception of some, and only some, elements in Israel), are one of the things our allies would most like to see.

Posted by J | May 22, 2008 3:52 PM

Don't our allies (ex-Israel) already have various talks with Iran?

Posted by daveNYC | May 22, 2008 3:55 PM

I'm no fan of Rove's and am sure he is trying to trap Obama, but aren't there easy answers to these issues (if perhaps not as "specific" as might be implied by the statement).

The idea of meeting with Iran is to open dialogue to determine whether it is possible to strike a grand bargain -- they stop doing the things we want them to stop doing such as support for terrorism, interfering with Middle East peace process and developing nuclear weapons in exchange for opening economic and political relations. Assuming you could strike the bargain, implementation would have to be staged and conditional.

This shouldn't scare our allies (presumably Israel) because the premise is that we are seeking goals that they share, would not enter into an unconditional deal and would coordinate with them as negotiations and implementation progress.

The deal might not be possible and we have no allusions that the Iranian leaders are "good guys" but if 8 years of Bush and Iraq haven't proven to us that the "we don't talk to our enemies" approach is naive, costly and ultimately self-defeating, nothing will. (The few foreign policy accomplishments Bush has include when he struck a similar deal with Libya and belatedly returned to negotiations with North Korea.)

I just don't see this as a very good "gotcha."

Posted by Chunche | May 22, 2008 3:56 PM

It's true, one has to wonder about what terrible favors Obama would be willing to do for Iran. I mean, imagine this nightmare scenario: Obama agrees to make up a bunch of lies as a pretext for invading and destabilizing one of Iran's most powerful regional enemies, thus upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing Iran's sway in the region? I mean, what kind of President would do something so stupid and irresponsible? Certainly, a foreign policy mind as formidable as Karl Rove would never work in such an administration, that much I can tell you.

Posted by Jake H. | May 22, 2008 3:58 PM

"Isn't the very act of meeting something that tends to reduce hostility?"

Apparently you've never met Karl Rove.

Posted by Reality Man | May 22, 2008 4:00 PM

Pace many anti-war people's argument that Bush made the world less safe, I think it's more safe than a few years ago.

Even China's government is being sort of responsive to its people following the earthquake (unlike Burma).

The US met with evil Iran in Iraq to discuss Iraq. Bush wrote Kim Jong Il a letter, and they've been part of a group negotiating with North Korea. Obama should point to these instances and point to Israel meeting with Syria, via Turkey.

Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader anyway, the mullahs are. I'd point that out and educate Karl, who grand electoral strategies seem to have backfired in a big way.

Posted by Peter K. | May 22, 2008 4:01 PM

Pace many anti-war people's argument that Bush made the world less safe, I think it's more safe than a few years ago.

Even China's government is being sort of responsive to its people following the earthquake (unlike Burma).

The US met with evil Iran in Iraq to discuss Iraq. Bush wrote Kim Jong Il a letter, and they've been part of a group negotiating with North Korea. Obama should point to these instances and point to Israel meeting with Syria, via Turkey.

Ahmadinejad isn't the real leader anyway, the mullahs are. I'd point that out and educate Karl, whose grand electoral strategies seem to have backfired in a big way.

Posted by Peter K. | May 22, 2008 4:02 PM

If there is a God, Karl Rove will soon be contemplating his cleverness from behind the bars of a jail cell.

Posted by Jose Padilla | May 22, 2008 4:03 PM

Isn't it easier to challenge Karl Rove to name one ally that will be deeply unsettled by meetings with Iran or NK? Or why Karl thinks the goal is to get them to abandon their hostility?

Posted by Helter | May 22, 2008 4:05 PM

Robert Wright over at Bloggingheads.tv offered an excellent answer to this tactic today. To paraphrase:

Obama should answer that he isn't promising that his negotiations will lead to results, but that it is strategically advantageous to approach the table in good faith nonetheless.

If, after preliminary talks, he finds that Ahmadinejad (or whoever) is completely unreasonable and truly no good can come of such negotiations, he will have the credibility to say so. That's something that McCain will never have in the eyes of the world, or even in the eyes of a majority of Americans. Unless were pleased with unilateralism, such credibility is badly needed.

It didn't seem like Mickey Kaus got it.

Posted by MoonRooster | May 22, 2008 4:10 PM

Matt,

The problem with Rove's logic is this sentence: "He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies."

Why would it unsettle our allies? Might it be less unsettling than, say, a unilateral war of agression against Iraq?

Posted by freddiemac | May 22, 2008 4:12 PM

I disagree. It is delusional to think that Mr. Obama has some sort of wisdom or insight (that our current leaders lack) which would inable him to change the thinking and behavior of Iran's leader (and the mullahs)and lead them to renounce their call to see Israel 'wiped from the face of the Earth'.

Also if your logic is intact, why would it be 'irresponsible for Obama to spell out publicly and in advance precisely what kind of deals he'd be aiming to strike' when many on the left continue to call for timetables for withdrawl from Iraq? So I guess you don't believe in telegraphing your intentions to your opponent?

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 4:15 PM

I disagree. It is delusional to think that Mr. Obama has some sort of wisdom or insight (that our current leaders lack) which would inable him to change the thinking and behavior of Iran's leader (and the mullahs)and lead them to renounce their call to see Israel 'wiped from the face of the Earth'.

Also if your logic is intact, why would it be 'irresponsible for Obama to spell out publicly and in advance precisely what kind of deals he'd be aiming to strike' when many on the left continue to call for timetables for withdrawl from Iraq? So I guess you don't believe in telegraphing your intentions to your opponent afterall.

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 4:16 PM

I disagree. It is delusional to think that Mr. Obama has some sort of wisdom or insight (that our current leaders lack) which would inable him to change the thinking and behavior of Iran's leader (and the mullahs)and lead them to renounce their call to see Israel 'wiped from the face of the Earth'.

Also if your logic is intact, why would it be 'irresponsible for Obama to spell out publicly and in advance precisely what kind of deals he'd be aiming to strike' when many on the left continue to call for timetables for withdrawl from Iraq? So I guess you don't believe in telegraphing your intentions to your opponent afterall.

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 4:16 PM

I would answer that considering how well foreign affairs are going, doing the opposite of Bush seems a reasonable default position.

Posted by Slugger | May 22, 2008 4:20 PM

"It didn't seem like Mickey Kaus got it.

Posted by MoonRooster | May 22, 2008 4:10 PM"

Mickey Kaus is stuck in Groundhog Day, but instead of repeating the same day, every year is 1994. Somehow those of us living in 2008 and not scared of Mexicans are idiots.

"Also if your logic is intact, why would it be 'irresponsible for Obama to spell out publicly and in advance precisely what kind of deals he'd be aiming to strike' when many on the left continue to call for timetables for withdrawl from Iraq? So I guess you don't believe in telegraphing your intentions to your opponent?

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 4:15 PM"

You have made "opponent" here to be meaningless. Our opponents in Iraq are mostly people who are opposed to us being where we don't need to be while spending trillions of dollars and losing soldiers. They also often work for the Iraqi government during the day. The parties that run Iraq are even closer with Iran than us, often having been initially set up in Iran with governmental help.

Posted by Reality Man | May 22, 2008 4:22 PM

Why would it unsettle our allies? Might it be less unsettling than, say, a unilateral war of agression against Iraq?

Plus, as I snarkily implied above, it's hard to imagine Iran walking away from the negotiating table with a bigger gift than the ousting of Saddam.

Posted by Jake H. | May 22, 2008 4:22 PM

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility.

5 words he can say that will have a big impact:

"i am not george bush"

Posted by not george | May 22, 2008 4:23 PM

"It is delusional to think that Mr. Obama has some sort of wisdom or insight (that our current leaders lack) which would inable him to change the thinking and behavior of Iran's leader (and the mullahs)and lead them to renounce their call to see Israel 'wiped from the face of the Earth'."

It's not clear that A-jad said "Israel will be wiped from the face of the Earth." It's not even clear that it is even possible to express this sentiment in Persian. In addition, A-jad is not in control of Iranian foreign policy and has no control over the nuclear policy. The mullahs in charge took specific steps to ensure that he has nothing to do with nuclear policy because he kept on pissing them off. A-jad just needs us to bluster about him and threaten to bomb Iran so that he can wrap himself in the flag and get re-elected. He's not Hitler, just a huckster.

Posted by Reality Man | May 22, 2008 4:27 PM

Why would it unsettle our allies? Might it be less unsettling than, say, a unilateral war of agression against Iraq?

Plus, as I snarkily implied above, it's hard to imagine Iran walking away from the negotiating table with a bigger gift than the ousting of Saddam.

Posted by Jake H. | May 22, 2008 4:33 PM

Our actual allies in South Korea and Japan are opposed to attempts to freeze them out of discussions involving North Korea.

The goal isn't to mock Obama for having secret plans; it's to mock him for failing to understand that not everyone is a nice Hyde Park liberal. When Democrats suggest suing OPEC, Americans laugh at them. This is along those lines.

Matt's model of negotiating is very strange. He suggests that it's simply a matter of rational actors exchanging information and finding areas of compromise. If that's the case, then there's nothing to be lost by Obama spelling out what his position would be. The areas of overlap would be the same. The only thing that Matt could be thinking is that diplomacy isn't only about negotiating, but we know that's not his view.

Posted by Thomas | May 22, 2008 4:35 PM

He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

And since the GOP now seems to be pushing their belief that Ahmadinejad is the real power in Iran, and since Ahmadinejad is an elected official, McCain and Rove need to explain to Americans just why they think Iran is a legitimate democracy.

After all, if the Iranian election weren't a complete sham (and they appear to be more valid than Florida voting or Diebold machines), that means the president was democratically elected. And if he has all the power, Iran is a democracy, right? At least it's closer than anything else in the Middle East outside of maybe Israel. So why are we so set on "regime change" in a democracy?

Sorry, boys, but you can't have it both ways. Either you admit that Ahmadinejad doesn't have the power, or you admit that Iran is a functional democracy.

Posted by LFC | May 22, 2008 4:42 PM

I think that those like the reality man who believe that mahmood is 'just a huckster'thought Adolf was just a 'deranged corporal'. And it is clear that he said that his country's desire is to see Israel wiped from the face of the Earth. Not sure what part of 'wiping from the face of the Earth' you don't get.

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 4:48 PM

The answer to Rove's question is that it depends on the situation so there cannot be a definitive list of requirements. Obama's whole point is that diplomacy should not be ruled out. You have to be flexible about the way to approach things.

Posted by Micheline | May 22, 2008 4:55 PM

The more likely scenario is that Iran will agree to US terms and then simply not comply with them.

So the question really is, how will he enforce non compliance? How will he deal with Iran not complying with UN inspectors? I am guessing he will say more negotiations, which will lead to more deals and more non complaince with deals. Then eventually we will move on to UN sanctions and how to deal with the complete violation of those sanctions.

By the way, even his posposed policy has already been a coup for hardliners in Iran.

"Obama's words on "preconditions" have helped ease domestic pressure on Ahmadinejad to comply with the United Nations and the IAEA. The Iranian president is telling his domestic critics to shut up until after the US election. Why, after all, should he make concessions that a putative President Obama has already dismissed as unnecessary?"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_to_ajad__atomic_assist_111819.htm

Posted by Dave | May 22, 2008 5:17 PM

Since sitting down in a high-level summit for negotiation is in fact nothing but a diplomatic tactic, and one that Obama has had no problem telegraphing to the other parties, why would it not be sensible for Obama to go the rest of the way and reveal even more of his diplomatic tactics? It doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch from his current position.

Everybody seems to be missing the fact that the US, even under Bush, engages in diplomacy with our enemies all the time. The six-party talks with North Korea are American diplomacy. The EU3 gambits with Iran are American diplomacy, albeit relayed through third parties. Furthermore, public government statements about antagonistic regimes are diplomacy. You can argue--quite effectively, unfortunately--that they are ineffectual diplomacy, but they are diplomacy nonetheless. Obama is trying to cast the Bush administration's position as an absence of diplomacy, which it certainly isn't.

This whole kerfuffle ultimately is about one diplomatic tactic, not about whether or not to engage in diplomacy with enemies. The fact that Obama seems to have conflated this tactic with the idea of diplomacy as a whole may just be a rookie mistake on his part, but he's been awfully slow to identify it as such. That's going to be a weakness for him until he corrects it.

Posted by TheRadicalModerate | May 22, 2008 5:18 PM

The EU3 gambits with Iran are American diplomacy, albeit relayed through third parties.

That sounds pretty naive unless the Bush administration has given clear instructions to the negotiators from the EU3 about what can be presented as U.S. position and what can't be, or if the relays are constant and going to the highest levels of the administration. Judging from the Bush responses, I'd say that either none of this was true or the administration simply has no desire to negotiate, only to demand.

Posted by LFC | May 22, 2008 5:37 PM

It's not as bad as all that. Obama need only say that diplomatic negotiations are necessarily dynamic and flexible, so you can't enter into it with a set agenda of required outcomes. For one, as MY points out, you kill your bargaining position (i.e. "we'd settle for for x,y and z in the inspection regime, and would be willing to leave the mullahs in power, stand down on certain democracy promotion activities and cut off the Iranian satallite out of L.A. in exchange"--pretty much gives away the store). Second, Rove may in fact be right that the Iranians and South Koreans cannot be reasoned with, and all they understand is force. But by refusing them any opportunity to prove themselves reasonable, we can't make that claim. In fact, taking that position makes us the unreasonable ones, clinging to idiotic notions like "it would elevate their standing in the eyes of the world," as if America's standing is at such a high point no one else can touch. Which is why Rove is exactly wrong when he says that talking to Iran would bother our allies. Our allies would appreciate that we robbed cynical actors like Russia and China of their argument that these states are willing to cooperate and be good world citizens, or actign out of rational self-interest. It would strenthen our coalition before we took any steps to use force, and weaken our opponents.

The only reason why Bush did not pursue this tack in 2003 is because Hussien proved basically reasonable and compliant to our demands, plus the stupid notion that other nations dropping out of the action against Iraq was just "more oil for us" and they would be cut out of any profit made in rebuilding after the war. But the basic lesson that everyone has learned in the last five years is that they got virtually everything exactly wrong. This means that any allegedly "clever" rhetorical gambit by a wingnut on defending Bush's foreign policy usually has a gaping hole in its logic and is in fact very far from clever, as is the case with Rove here.

Posted by MSB | May 22, 2008 6:01 PM

My friends, many people do not believe in your Obamamessiah. These people do not believe that his utterances are the truth and the word. They are not as credulous as you or the media who are in the tank for hopey changeyiness.

So when he says he will hope and change the world into a place of doughnuts and dildos for all, he needs to be a little more specific about why he is the chosen one to accomplish these miracles.

But don't it feel great to get a little of that old time religion?

Posted by Doughnuts and Dildos For All | May 22, 2008 6:23 PM

"He needs to explain why meetings will not deeply unsettle our allies"??

Is that a joke? When our allies are in fact asking us to hold unilateral talks with N Korea? When no president in the history of the US has done more to deeply unsettle our allies than Bush? When any small hint that our allies would, you know, really really really prefer us to elect Gore or Kerry or Obama, sends the right into a frothing tirade about how the rest of the world's opinion should have zero bearing on any decision we make or action we take?

Posted by Will Hutchinson | May 22, 2008 6:28 PM

Following along with the above post, the opening page of the Atlantic website has become a Shrine to St. Obama!

Posted by EWard | May 22, 2008 6:36 PM

"Following along with the above post, the opening page of the Atlantic website has become a Shrine to St. Obama!"

Look at the Obammessiah smite the non-believers with lightining from his devine finger!

Smite them!

SMITE THEM!!!!!

DEATH TO THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!!!

Posted by Doughnuts and Dildos For All | May 22, 2008 6:41 PM

the fact that conservative foreign policy has at the moment been revealed as a huge and unpopular catastrophe

There's hardly anything conservative about invading other countries that have not committed an act of war against the United States and engaging in the costly task of nation building.

Better: 'Republican foreign policy'

Posted by Chris | May 22, 2008 6:42 PM

Matt: "Obviously, the problem here is that it would be irresponsible for Obama to spell out publicly and in advance precisely what kind of deals he'd be aiming to strike with Iran or North Korea. Nobody negotiates for anything that way."

Why?

Plenty of people have spelled out for months or years exactly what kind of deal would interest Iran and which would be in our best interests.

There's no secret here.

1) Offer security guarantees against attack on Iran by the US or Israel absent any direct military threat by Iran against US or Israeli assets.

2) Agree to follow the rules of the NPT and offer Iran technical support for their nuclear energy program, possibly including a multi-national fuel repository on Iranian soil or a neutral country acceptable to Iran.

3) Agree to renew diplomatic relations with Iran.

4) Agree to press Israel for a resolution to the Palestinian situation on fair terms.

5) Agree to press Israel to join the NPT, agree to IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, and press Israel to disarm its nuclear arsenal.

6) Cease all financial and economic sanctions on Iran.

In return, request Iran agree to the following:

1) Do not supply any weapons or technical support to militias or insurgents in Iraq and crack down on illegal sources of same coming from Iranian territory as long as the US makes progress in withdrawing its forces from Iraq.

2) Ratify the Additional Protocol and submit to surprise, intrusive inspections of all nuclear facilities by the IAEA.

3) Cease support for the Hamas and Hizballah resistance movements for at least the duration of Palestinian negotiations provided those negotiations show progress.

4) Agree to turn over all information and prisoners connected with Al Qaeda they might have.

There may be other issues to be discussed, such as Iranian assistance or non-involvement in Afghanistan. It's not rocket science.

None of the concessions made to Iran would cost the US a dime (except maybe the technical support for their energy program.) None of the concessions would cost the US any support in the world - except Israel.

None of the concessions made by Iran would cost them anything. Their viability does not rest on Iraq, Hamas, or Hizballah.

Iran offered a similar grand bargain in 2003 which Bush rejected. This would clearly be the starting point for any new negotiations.

The requirement for such negotiations to be started that Iran suspend enrichment during the negotiations would be dropped because such enrichment is their legal right. However, the offer could be made that during the negotiations, Iran might want to suspend enrichment as a gesture of good faith. The demand would NOT be for Iran to cease enrichment, merely to suspend for a specified negotiation period. If the negotiations failed, Iran could resume enrichment without penalty.

None of this would be news to anybody who has been following the situation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Will, why do you hate Japan and South Korea?

Posted by Thomas | May 22, 2008 7:07 PM

Boov! Boov For Leader!

COUGH SYRUP AND TEETHING BISCUITS FOR ALL !!

Posted by Anonymous | May 22, 2008 8:23 PM

I think that those like the reality man who believe that mahmood is 'just a huckster'thought Adolf was just a 'deranged corporal'. And it is clear that he said that his country's desire is to see Israel wiped from the face of the Earth. Not sure what part of 'wiping from the face of the Earth' you don't get.
Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 4:48 PM

The point, ken in birmingham, is that he never said it. That's an improper translation that has spread throughout the media, much like everybody thinks Bogart said "Play it again, Sam" in Casablanca, though that line wasn't in the movie.

He actually said "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And he was quoting Khomeini, anyway.

-----
From http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
-----

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

------

Posted by Eric | May 22, 2008 8:57 PM

What is it with the gratuitous use of Latin words? Is there anything that you get from "qua" that "as" couldn't do just as well? I guess it must be a Harvard thing.

Oh, well, at least we've managed to avoid any weird word substitutions in this one.

Posted by Sean Peters | May 22, 2008 9:12 PM

I appreciate reality man's Farsi translation and have no dispute with that, save for the parsing of words in order to explain away someone's ill intentions. So, reality man, if as the leader of a soverign nation bordering Canada, I proclaim my government's intent to wipe the Canadian 'regime' off the face of the Earth, that's ok? In your unreal world perhaps.

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 22, 2008 9:34 PM

ken in birmingham, you aren't making an argument anymore. You have no proof that A-jad definitively said that, so all you have left are insults. Should we freak out if the mayor of Zibo, China says that China should nuke the US? That mayor's belief is irrelevant to the American national security interest because he would have no power over the Chinese military. The same goes for A-jad. What he says about foreign policy actually doesn't matter. He has no control over foreign policy. Hitler had control over the military and the German foreign policy apparatus. That is a difference between A-jad and Hitler, among many. You are simply replacing insults with arguments and knowledge because you don't know anything.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 12:59 AM

Ken in birmingham is a moron.

The official Iranian policy is that Israel is an illegal state which does not represent the Palestinians. Therefore the Zionist regime needs to be eliminated in favor of a Palestinian one, just as the Shah's regime was eliminated in favor of an Islamic one.

It has nothing whatever to do with nukes, or war, or anything else. It's a policy statement that says Israel is a Zionist state which is illegal and oppressing the Palestinians.

Which it is.

Israel is an illegal (because the UN had no legal authority to create it), rogue (because it ignores UN resolutions), terrorist (because it conducts terrorist operations outside its borders), racist (because it is Zionist), imperialist (because it seeks to expand its borders) state - with WMDs (its nuclear arsenal which is uncontrolled).

Israel is FAR more so in ALL those areas than Iran is.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 3:41 AM

People of Israel and Jewish Americans - be afraid, be very very afraid, if the hack and the unreality man ever run of office. As leaders, they would ignore the terrorist ambitions of a Mid-East leader, bent of the elimination of Israel, and according to the hack, be ambivilent about stopping it, since, after all, your country, according to them, is illegitimate. I'd gladly be a moron or out of touch, as these two suggest, than delusional enough to suggest that Israel essentially has no right to exist.
These guys are pretty scary.

Posted by ken in birmingham | May 23, 2008 8:52 AM

Zionist freaks who would sell out the US for Israel are more scary.

Guess who's planning the attack on Iran at the Pentagon?

A former Israeli military officer, Lani Klass.

Tell me again who's running this country?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 5:07 PM