Debate: Ahmadinejad vs. Moussavi - Part 3/9 (Translated)

The writer: A friend (non-Iranian) asked me today, why is Moussavi different from Ahmadinejad? Are they not both pre-approved by the guardian council? Are they are not essentially both the same even if one is more moderate than the other? Why the people of Iran rallying behind a man (Moussavi) who still very much supports the Islamic Republic of Iran?

The question did make me pause. I have been contemplating on the same issues since the protests broke out a few days ago. My only logical thought is that these protests are not about whether or not people want the Islamic Republic or not. There are many factors:

1. They have no other leader behind whom they can rally

2. Moussavi is one of "regime", therefore supporting him is safer than supporting someone radically opposed to the regime such as the exiled son of the former shah of Iran. Even though fights have broken out and slogans are being shouted, still the main calls on the roof tops is Allaho Akbar (God is great) which is essentially a call to prayer and ultimately a religious call. No one from even the most radical of the Ahmadinejad group can drag you away to jail if you are protesting using their own weapons.

3. For better or worse, people of Iran are still culturally very much Moslems. A massive change will not sit well with the majority now, no better than it did during the last 15 years of Shah's reign when he was on a mission to modernize Iran.

4. It seems the most logical explanation that, the main goal of Iranians who live inside Iran is achieving a democratic Islamic government. Some might call it an oxymoron, but just because it has not been done before, who is to say it cannot be done?

The most enduring and deepest of change comes over time not over night and more power to the people of Iran for seemingly being able to understand this well. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 of 9  |  2 of 9 

Part three  of nine - pre-election debate between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5OmDJjNLgo&feature=related

Then our leader (Ahmadinejad) took a trip to Iraq . Out of nowhere he claimed that Americans had plotted to kidnap him. They were Americans of course, they must have been. They were the same group who provided us with fuel so we could actually go there. Then we went to an area called “Khazar”, an area that is under the control of the Americans. That is where we held out meeting. Then we took photographs with American soldiers. Exact same situation repeated itself in Italy. We again claimed that they were going to kidnap us (Ahmadinejad).

My point is, do we need to let our imagination take this much flight? Especially on the international scene where it is directly related to our national well-being? Do personal acts like this benefit us in anyway? It only causes problems. It costs us dearly.
Then the incident of Saudi Arabia happened. As I have had dealing with that country before, it is very important how the invitation to visit them is made, how one takes a trip there and so on. We kept sending them messages: call us to visit you, invite us for a trip. And I have direct evidence from my connections and friends in that country that it was we that constantly asked to be invited there.

So now that the trip has taken place, an outcome needs to be drafted. The result of this trip needs to be clear, if for example our relations with Saudi Arabia are better or worse. But we (Ahmadinejad) spoke against their foreign minister quoting words from that country’s leader. We created a big strife for our country against that ruling regime, against that dynasty.
My point is why? Why are these actions taken? Who has to pay for these mistakes? Do these actions leave little damage or bigger and deeper scars?

Also, we constantly say United States is falling apart; it will be destroyed. If that is the case, why have we traveled there four times? Why have we written two letters to them? Why are we constantly chasing their President? And in a particular manner too, along with the president of Switzerland where this man (Ahmadinejad) has gone to their assembly and has so openly lied about claims that Obama has called him directly and asked to speak about resolving Iran/US conflicts before US elections. That in some ways Iranian issues should be resolved that way or a dialogue should take place. So, is this beneficial to our country?
I speak quickly, giving only small examples as the debate began about the international policies. In fact on international level, we have not only damaged our nations honor and pride, it has also affected our own internal growth and progress. We have created deep tension with other nations.

(The host warns him about his time – only ten minutes, no more!)

Also about holocaust , we opened the dialogue there and after so much damage was created for our country, after it created so much conflict, strain and tension, an amendment was passed that it was now a crime to even speak about holocaust. We had letters from Russia and also the incident in Switzerland recently on the same issue. And if I had not seen the images myself I would not have even imagined our president can be so disrespected. Our present represents our country. Represents us.  He should not accept being treated this way. He should not find this acceptable. In the continued parts of our debate I will speak about Imam Khomeini and his particular insistence and sensitivity about the image of Islamic republic to the world.
Later this incident was called an epic saga. What saga?! There were only damages such as the new amendment again about holocaust, about the strain of relations between Europe and Israel, about Europe lining up behind Israel in the face of all the crimes that have been taking place in Gaza. Where have we been able to secure the good of our own people anywhere on International level? I can see that my time is up and I will come back to these lengthy issues later on.

AM.  Thank you very much. Dear Mr. Moussavi. If all your ideas and opinions are based on these incidents, you need to very seriously reconsider your beliefs. I am speaking on friendly terms. I like you very much.  These judgments based on such wrong information are not good.

The British marines were arrested. The incident became more and more serious. Mr. Blair wrote an actual letter, apologized and said they will change their foreign policy when it concerns Iran. This letter as evidence is now in the ministry of foreign affairs. Then we actually did a great thing. In my opinion this was one of the most beautiful ways of handling the situation with these marines. In the last 27/28 years, including during the time Mr. Moussavi himself held office, they (the British) accused us of being anti-humanitarian, anti-human rights, brutal and hostage taker. In that incident, we separated the people of England from its government.  In my opinion this was the best thing we did.

About Saudi Arabia incident , as I am not sure where Mr. Moussavi gets his facts from, in the gathering of OPEC, Mr. Malek Abdoullah, from the get go, he had already talked to me last year telling me to come to Mecca, I will invite you. That was in the gathering of Islamic leaders. I said, no, I have come here, and I have no time, as it is the beginning of our term of office.  During OPEC meetings he asked me again, if I invite you, will you come to Mecca? And I said yes I would. If you invite me, I will be there.  The trip was purely a pilgrimage to Mecca and had no political reasons. And I had hoped that Mr. Moussavi had seen the images from that trip than when we entered among the pilgrims, what change came over them, what rallies took place and what speeches were made, what words of praise and love were shouted out towards the people of Iran.

On the holocaust incident, it is very interesting. In Saudi Arabia it should be compared what our relations are like with them and what it was like between our countries when Mr. Moussavi held office. I don’t want to talk about the incident in which from this country what was taken there with this passport and how it was confiscated and what scandal that was. I only say this that the relations between the two countries were severed all together. It was done in such a manner during Mr. Moussavis time in the office that the relations with Saudi Arabia were completely gone. And now I am baffled. He is worried about our rapport with Saudi Arabia? Who kept writing letters and propaganda against that country? These are the same people who are now active participants on the scene and are helping the Mr. Moussavi’s campaign. They damaged us the most; they were not even believers (in relations with Saudi Arabia).

About the occupied Palestine incident, I suggest Mr. Moussavi take a moment and review his own stand on that matter. Mr. Moussavi declared openly: “ we will send armed troops to fight along side Palestinian resistance so they may fight against the occupants”. This man announced that the Zionist regime should be wiped away.

But Mr. Moussavi, if we want to enter into these details and talk about governing techniques we will go stray. Today, general diplomacy is the most advanced and scientific diplomacy.  When the enemy has conquered the main locations of the world, if we go and play in THEIR field then of course we will lose. Exactly as it happened during the office of Mr. Hashemi and you supported it. It also happened during Mr. Khatami’s rule and you also supported that. We have come and worked out side of the formula as designed by the big powers of the world.

And that is direct learning from Imam (Khomeini).  He never followed the formulas of the foreign powers. If we had accepted their ways, we would not have had a revolution.

On the issue of nuclear weapons, you are well aware that in the last government, the policy of “zero conflict” went so far that all our nuclear energy facilities were completely shut down. And two contracts were forced onto our people. One, “the surrender protocol” without any amendments from the senate and against the constitution; and the other two “calls to action.”

In the protocol, it was agreed that the nuclear inspectors are free to inspect any part of Iran at any time.  And what is their aim? To discover our defense capabilities and pass it to the enemy. And, in the two contracts there was an amendment in which it was said, any ideas, any plans for advancement in relation to nuclear technology even forms in the heads of our scientists, these inspectors need to be informed. There is nothing worse for our people than these forced contracts. Even though based on MPT, we can conduct any nuclear research and 180 days before reaching enrichment we should make it public. 

All our facilities were shut down, all the doors locked and sealed. [It was] the heaviest of obligations. Two contracts were accepted. During that time, dear Mr. Mousavi, I am explaining so you are aware, seven legislations were put forward against us by the general assembly ... (contin. in 4/9)