Iran leader asks Merkel for help on Zionism

[Happy Times]

By Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN, July 20 (Reuters) - A letter written by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to German Chancellor Angela Merkel asks her to help solve the Palestinian problem and deal with Zionism, a German government official said on Thursday.

"There's nothing about the nuclear issue (in the letter)," the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity due to the extreme sensitivity of the issue for the German government.

"It's all related to Germany and how we have to find a solution to the Palestinian problems and Zionism and so on. It's rather weird," the official, who has seen the letter, said.

Iranian students news agency said on Wednesday that Ahmadinejad had written to Merkel, but until Thursday officials had not spoken about the contents.

Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, now the state of Israel. The fate of Palestinian Arab refugees is one of the world's largest and most long-lasting refugee problems.

Berlin's relations with Ahmadinejad have been complicated by his denial of the Holocaust, in which Germany's Nazi regime killed six million Jews, and his call for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany punishable with up to five years in prison.

"It's extremely touchy (for the German government)," said the official, adding that the government did not yet know if or how it would respond. "There are a lot of propaganda phrases about Israel and the Jews inside."

In May Ahmadinejad wrote U.S. President George W. Bush an 18-page letter discussing religious values, history and international relations.

In it, he took swipes at Israel and at the United States.

He sharply criticized Bush on many fronts, implying that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses of detainees in U.S. prisons in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib -- and his staunch support for Israel -- were somehow inconsistent with Bush's Christian beliefs.

But the letter to Merkel was different and was not confrontational in tone, the official said.

"It's not negative like Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush. He is not criticising Germany," he said. "It's basically about how we have to work together and solve the problems of the world together."

In February, Merkel compared Ahmadinejad's statements and stance to Adolf Hitler's rise to power when he and his Nazi party began threatening to exterminate European Jewry.

"Remember that in 1933 many people said it was just rhetoric," Merkel said.

The German official said it was interesting that the letter did not discuss Iran's nuclear standoff with the United States, European Union and other countries.

Iran is facing possible action at the U.N. Security Council over suspicions that it is developing nuclear arms. Tehran denies the charge, saying it is working on nuclear fuel only to run power stations. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20811361.htm

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

1- the situation in post WWI, preWWII Germany is significantly different than the current situation in Iran today... all comparisons are therefore the results of misinformation, or an outright attempt to promote a political/religious agenda...

2- doesn't this guy realize that Germany has built, and is building the current fleet of Israeli submarines, which would probably be used against his country in the event hostilites ever broke out... what kind of 'help' does he think he'll be getting...

--Mike

[Skybird]

German government has decided not to react to this nonsens in any way. Other western govenments has already been informed that they also will receive the honour of being adressed by such letters during this year. Bush was first, Merkel second. I wonder whom they will try next to brainwash. "Keine Macht den Doofen!"

[SnowStan]

In February, Merkel compared Ahmadinejad's statements and stance to Adolf Hitler's rise to power when he and his Nazi party began threatening to exterminate European Jewry.

"Remember that in 1933 many people said it was just rhetoric," Merkel said.

She just earned instant cred in my book. In 1933, Hitler was a joke, the Germans were a harmless confused muddle, and there was nothing to worry about. Good call, Merkel!!!

[August]

I get the impression that Ahmadinejad just can't understand why the rest of the world thinks he's a crackpot.

[tycho102]

I get the impression that Ahmadinejad just can't understand why the rest of the world thinks he's a crackpot.
He's not a crackpot. The Supreme Council would have chucked him out if he was. He's just a regular old Islamic Shariaist, just like he was back in 1979 when he stormed the American embassy in Tehran.

This is just another offer of da'wa. He worded it differently, and addressed Merkel as an "equal" kuffar, rather than just an ordinary kuffar, but it's still an offer of da'wa. I imagine she's not even a Person of the Book (the term is "People of the Book", but I'm using the singular congujation of the phrase).



Dude. What's the German word for "nuts"?

[August]

just like he was back in 1979 when he stormed the American embassy in Tehran.

Yeah i don't buy the claim that was a different guy either. I tend to go with the opinions of our people who had to look at him for 444 days, when they weren't blindfolded of course...

[Happy Times]

I get the impression that Ahmadinejad just can't understand why the rest of the world thinks he's a crackpot.
He's not a crackpot. The Supreme Council would have chucked him out if he was. He's just a regular old Islamic Shariaist, just like he was back in 1979 when he stormed the American embassy in Tehran.

This is just another offer of da'wa. He worded it differently, and addressed Merkel as an "equal" kuffar, rather than just an ordinary kuffar, but it's still an offer of da'wa. I imagine she's not even a Person of the Book (the term is "People of the Book", but I'm using the singular congujation of the phrase).



Dude. What's the German word for "nuts"? Merkels father was a Lutheran priest and she chose to be confirmed, not very common in DDR.. http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21678&sec=59&cont=5

[Ori_b]

Most of the world seems to neglect the fact that within a certain time amount the "crackpot" will have some nuks in his desposal and will still live by an extremist islamic codes.
Iran is turning the UN and EU around its finger, and time is runing out.

[scandium]

Most of the world seems to neglect the fact that within a certain time amount the "crackpot" will have some nuks in his desposal and will still live by an extremist islamic codes.
Iran is turning the UN and EU around its finger, and time is runing out.
This crusade against Iranian nuclear research/development might have more credibility if it wasn't led by a country that itself possesses 10,000 nukes, with a combined destructive power equal to 150,000 Hiroshimas, and still continues to outspend everyone else in nuclear weapons expenditures.

There was a time when the US, when dictating what other nations should and should not do, would lead by example. I guess in a way it still is... and others are getting the message loud and clear, especially when they compare the message to the fates of say North Korea vs. Iraq. Now pretend you're the leader of Iran, and the recipient of the exact same rhetoric aimed at NK and Iraq - whose fate would you choose?

There is nothing irrational about not wanting your country turned into another Lebanon or Iraq. Peace does not necessarily buy you security, nor does democracy. Nuclear weapons, however, guarantee you security. The only thing that surprises me these days is that every nation on earth isn't pursuing them as fast as they can.

[August]

This crusade against Iranian nuclear research/development might have more credibility if it wasn't led by a country that itself possesses 10,000 nukes, with a combined destructive power equal to 150,000 Hiroshimas, and still continues to outspend everyone else in nuclear weapons expenditures.

I can see your point Scandium, but if not the evil old US then who else would lead it? Canada maybe? France? China? Russia? Who? It seems to me that except for the US, nothing would be actually done about the situation at all.

There was a time when the US, when dictating what other nations should and should not do, would lead by example. I guess in a way it still is... and others are getting the message loud and clear, especially when they compare the message to the fates of say North Korea vs. Iraq. Now pretend you're the leader of Iran, and the recipient of the exact same rhetoric aimed at NK and Iraq - whose fate would you choose?

Any nation that would make such a simplistic assessment, ignoring Chinas huge role in the NK issue, would be making a big mistake imo.

There is nothing irrational about not wanting your country turned into another Lebanon or Iraq. Peace does not necessarily buy you security, nor does democracy. Nuclear weapons, however, guarantee you security. The only thing that surprises me these days is that every nation on earth isn't pursuing them as fast as they can.

What makes you think they aren't? Can you name any powerful weapon ever invented by man which wasn't pursued by anyone with the resources to do it? The bottom line here is that North Korea is somewhat contained both geographically and militarily, they know if they ever cause trouble China will flatten them, but a nuclear armed Iran, with it's present regimes finger on the button should scare the bejeezus out of everyone.

[scandium]

I can see your point Scandium, but if not the evil old US then who else would lead it? Canada maybe? France? China? Russia? Who? It seems to me that except for the US, nothing would be actually done about the situation at all.
Nothing has been done though, August. Some U.N. inspections, a lot of threats and antagonism, a limited dialogue between Iran and France, Germany, and the UK but that's about it so far. I think it obvious that anything militarily is out still, leaving a lot of middle ground between that and "axis of evil" type speeches; unfortunately it could have had the most impact before last year when the hardliners came into power, only the US was more preoccupied with Iraq and drumming up support for its war there, at the expense of its own credibility.

There was a time when the US, when dictating what other nations should and should not do, would lead by example. I guess in a way it still is... and others are getting the message loud and clear, especially when they compare the message to the fates of say North Korea vs. Iraq. Now pretend you're the leader of Iran, and the recipient of the exact same rhetoric aimed at NK and Iraq - whose fate would you choose?Any nation that would make such a simplistic assessment, ignoring Chinas huge role in the NK issue, would be making a big mistake imo. Iran is not as isolated as NK, and in fact much of there nuclear technology today, and support in the UN, comes from Russia. Would Russia intervene if the US attacked Iran? Nope. Like I said, the only absolute guarantee anymore of a nation's sovereignty and security are nuclear weapons, though for Iran it is gamble to continue trying to aquire them; but is it a bigger gamble not to? The ME is an unstable place, and there are already other nuclear powers in the region. Personally were I there I would want them.

There is nothing irrational about not wanting your country turned into another Lebanon or Iraq. Peace does not necessarily buy you security, nor does democracy. Nuclear weapons, however, guarantee you security. The only thing that surprises me these days is that every nation on earth isn't pursuing them as fast as they can.
What makes you think they aren't? Can you name any powerful weapon ever invented by man which wasn't pursued by anyone with the resources to do it? The bottom line here is that North Korea is somewhat contained both geographically and militarily, they know if they ever cause trouble China will flatten them, but a nuclear armed Iran, with it's present regimes finger on the button should scare the bejeezus out of everyone.

We've had the technology and resources to build nuclear weapons for decades (and already make use of nuclear energy as well) but have never built any. In a similar vein, South Africa at one time was a nuclear armed power but voluntarily disposed of them and has remained nuclear free ever since. As to a nuclear armed Iran, sure it scares the hell out of me - but to them it provides a guarantee of security in a region where there is very little of it (and the irony that it is Iran which is responsible for much of the instability in the region is not lost on me, no).

[Skybird]

As it is said in one movie: "I don't fear the guy with many nuclear bombs. I fear the guy who only wants one."

[SUBMAN1]

As it is said in one movie: "I don't fear the guy with many nuclear bombs. I fear the guy who only wants one."

That was one of those Tom Clancy ones. The last one - with Chicago going up in smoke from the pop machine. Forgot the name.

-S

[Skybird]

I thought it was Project Peacemaker, not by Tom clancy, but with George Clooney and Nicecold Kidman.

[Yahoshua]

The Sum of All fears....

Only remembered it cuz you mentioned the pop machine.

[August]

[As to a nuclear armed Iran, sure it scares the hell out of me - but to them it provides a guarantee of security in a region where there is very little of it (and the irony that it is Iran which is responsible for much of the instability in the region is not lost on me, no).

All i'm saying is that it is a false sense of security, and a dangerous one at that. Unlike NK they don't have a superpower to protect them. I believe that once they get the bomb, and i'm thinking they will regardless of any present of future efforts short of invasion, they'll either use it (possibly by proxy) or threaten to use it and at that point somebody will let loose on them.

[scandium]

[As to a nuclear armed Iran, sure it scares the hell out of me - but to them it provides a guarantee of security in a region where there is very little of it (and the irony that it is Iran which is responsible for much of the instability in the region is not lost on me, no).
All i'm saying is that it is a false sense of security, and a dangerous one at that. Unlike NK they don't have a superpower to protect them. I believe that once they get the bomb, and i'm thinking they will regardless of any present of future efforts short of invasion, they'll either use it (possibly by proxy) or threaten to use it and at that point somebody will let loose on them.

That's the most likely scenario I imagine: if they get too close to nuclear capability, or actually achieve it, they will be bombed (with conventional weapons most likely), as happened in Iraq when their nuclear facilities were bombed by Israel way back when. Therefore its a game of roulette for them that neither NK nor (I believe) Pakistan had to face, having been both been able to present their nuclear weapons as accomplished fact and with conventional power to hit back, severely, at US assets or allies in the region if any attempt were made to destroy their weapons.

[August]

That's the most likely scenario I imagine: if they get too close to nuclear capability, or actually achieve it, they will be bombed (with conventional weapons most likely), as happened in Iraq when their nuclear facilities were bombed by Israel way back when. Therefore its a game of roulette for them that neither NK nor (I believe) Pakistan had to face, having been both been able to present their nuclear weapons as accomplished fact and with conventional power to hit back, severely, at US assets or allies in the region if any attempt were made to destroy their weapons.

I agree with you regarding Iran. Nothing but saber rattling will be done for now.

Like i said though, NK has an advantage that's a lot more powerful than any minor nuke capability alone because they have the China ready to defend them if they're attacked without Pekings permission. Pakistan had similar backing from the USSR.

Iran on the other hand doesn't have a big brother to protect them, which is I think one reason why they've been making overtures to China.