Targetted words

The Iranian president's fiery comments on Israel have caused controversy inside and outside Iran, reports Rasha Saad

---

When he said Israel should be "wiped off the map", it is not clear that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was aware of the fallout the statement would generate. The president's words have caused a storm of criticism and made headlines worldwide.

Leaders of EU countries, Russia and the United States, condemned the comments. According to reports, Iranian envoys in European capitals were summoned to explain the remarks.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called for the expulsion of Iran from the United Nations. "A country that calls for the destruction of another people cannot be a member of the United Nations," a statement from the prime minister's office quoted Sharon as saying. The sentiment was echoed in the US House of Representatives. Arab countries, including those who have signed peace treaties with Israel, refrained to comment.

Statements of ultra-conservative President Ahmadinejad also caused a split inside Iran, with Tehran's centres of power plunged into a spin of contradictory briefings, with hard-liners -- including the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the speaker of parliament, the secretary- general of the Supreme National Security Council and the powerful minister of intelligence and security -- backing Ahmadinejad. Iran's diplomatic body, meanwhile, sought to play down the comments, asserting that the Islamic republic has no intention of attacking Israel.

Though the Iranian Foreign Ministry blasted a UN Security Council statement that condemned Ahmadinejad's comments as "unacceptable" and refrained from refuting the comments, it issued a statement stressing that "the Islamic Republic is committed to its engagements based on the UN charter and has never resorted to, nor threatened to resort to, force against another country."

The Iranian Embassy in Moscow issued a statement that belittled Ahmadinejad's comments, saying: "He did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

Ahmed Nateq Nouri, a senior conservative cleric and member of the Expediency Council, also played down the president's comments arguing that, "what the president meant was that we favour a fair and long-lasting peace in Palestine."

Reformists, however, are not happy. Former president Mohamed Khatami criticised Ahmadinejad, saying, "those words have created hundreds of political and economic problems for us in the world," the Iranian news agency (IRNA) said. According to some reports, senior officials in the reformist camp have hinted that Ahmadinejad may have not been fully aware of the impact of his speech, which he addressed to a domestic audience of conservative Iranian students at a routine conference in Tehran ahead of the pro-Palestinian rally of Jerusalem Day, which always takes place on the last Friday of Ramadan. Some have begun to wonder whether Ahmadinejad has the political wisdom or acumen to lead Iran at such a crucial juncture.

Ahmadinejad himself refused to back down. He took part in Friday's rally and cheered by hundreds of thousands of supporters, insisted on his comments saying, "my words were the Iranian nation's words." He has also reportedly recalled the Iranian ambassador to Moscow as a result of his statements downplaying Ahmadinejad's comments.

While it is not uncommon for senior Iranian officials to criticise Israel, Ahmadinejad's comments, coming at a time of international suspicion regarding Iranian intentions, are likely to confirm fears that the recently elected president is reverting to a hard-line foreign policy. Over the preceding eight years of President Khatami's moderate style of government, reformists adopted a successful policy of reconciliation with both the West and the Arab world. During Khatami's era, Iranian officials stated more than once that they would accept what the Palestinians would agree to; a stance regarded at the time as a softening of Iran's position, leaving the path open for a two-state solution.

Ahmadinejad's defiant comments seem anything but pragmatic, leaving analysts with raised eyebrows as to their ultimate meaning. The timing of the comments is also significant, coming weeks before a crucial meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), from which Iran may be referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Adding fuel to fire, Ahmadinejad also said Sunday that, "Iran will not return to a full freeze of its disputed nuclear fuel activities," and that "Western demands for such confidence-building measures are unacceptable."

According to Iranian analyst Mohamed Sadeq Al-Husseini, Ahmadinejad's comments might well represent as a clear and bold message that Iran, unlike Syria, has decided that "attack is the best policy of defence." The message, according to Al-Husseini is that "Iran will not give up its legitimate right regarding peaceful nuclear activities." Al-Husseini argues that the message is not only directed at the US, "which is trying hard to curtail Iranian diplomacy [in its endeavour to reach a peaceful solution]," but also European negotiators, "which Tehran believes have procrastinated [in nuclear negotiations] and thus deserved to be blamed."

For several years the US, now joined by Europe, has raised doubts about Iran's nuclear programme; that it might be a façade to develop secret nuclear weapons. Iran has always rejected the charge, contending that as party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has taken its international obligations seriously. Nonetheless, in September, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, declared Iran in non- compliance with the NPT, giving Iran until its next meeting at the end of November to show it was prepared to co- operate fully. Failure to convince the IAEA of progress could lead to the referral of the issue to the Security Council where a range of options, including sanctions and ultimately the use of force, would be considered.

Fears are that even if Iran is sincere about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, the president's rhetoric gives Iran's foes a free hand and pretext to strike the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities. His comments also offer an opportunity to reinforce the argument that Iran is a threat to world peace. After summoning Iran's ambassador to Moscow to explain Ahmadinejad's comments, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made note that such inflammatory sentiments but boosted the arguments of those -- like Britain and the US -- who want the issue of Iran's nuclear programme to be taken up by the Security Council.

While prospect of Iran being referred to the Security Council faces staunch opposition from some countries, including Russia, China, South Africa and Brazil, fiery comments by Iran's president do little to comfort Iran's supporters. Some, including Venezuela, distanced themselves from Ahmadinejad this week. Meanwhile, some analysts believe that the Iranian president might have purposely timed the comments as part of Iran's strategy ahead of the IAEA meeting, and while the US is embroiled in Iraq, and with the Europeans divided over what to do next.

Supporting this interpretation -- seeing Ahmadinejad's comments as an extension of Iranian brinkmanship -- it was reported this week that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan will go ahead with a scheduled visit to Iran where he is expected to meet top officials. Annan, who was originally scheduled to travel to Iran to discuss "other issues," intends now "to place the Middle East peace process, and the right of all states in the area to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats or acts of force, at the top of his agenda for that visit," his spokesman said.

The fact that the UN condemnation of Ahmadinejad's remarks was delivered in the form of a press release, rather than a formal council meeting which would have given it more weight, is a further proof that the storm may well pass safely.