Iranian Ire against Israel

President Ahmadinejad of Iran took the opportunity of Al Qudsday (Jerusalem Day), the last Friday of Ramadan, to call for the annihilation of Israel. In many European capitalsIranian ambassadors will have to come and 'explain' this outburst of hatred of their president. Most Arab nations are mum however.
Chris Morris (not to be confused with any of these Chris Morrises) forwarded me an article from Stratfor, some kind of strategic think tank that often have peculiar analyses of world affairs. They seem to base their analyses on local newspapers mostly (which is commendable because it means they actually have people who read those languages -- unless they only consult the English pages of the internet versions of these papers) and "country experts", but perhaps they have more sources.

Anyway, Stratfor seems to think that this is an interesting development and speculates about the presence of Al Quaida members in Iran. Leaving the speculation aside, Thomas Erdbrink, a Dutch reporter in Tehran who is married with an Iranian and has lived in Tehran for quite a while now, tries to downplay the fuzz. According to Erdbrink in today's NRC Handelsblad this is nothing new under the sun. Each week the Friday sermon ends with communal shouting of 'Death to America, death to Israel' (and not just in Iran -- I saw a documentary by Thomas Friedman from Egypt where the Friday prayer in the great Mosque of Cairo ended on a similar high note). Furthermore, this deat to Israel thing seems to be part and parcel of the Iranian myth of state. Ahmadinejad's statements echo those of Khomeiny and others from the beginnings of the current regime in 1979/1980 (is it that long ago already...). Erdbrink also stresses that the Iranian regime see the Palestinian conflict as a conflict between Islam and Judaism and their sympathies clearly lie with the former. (I remember that Erdbrink once wrote about the Jewish community in Iran, which apparently is quite large). So in a nutshell this is just business as usual for this regime and, contra Stratfor, this does not look like a mistake from an inexperienced politician.

Oh and here is the whole Stratfor text as it is by subscription only and I don't suppose many people have such a subscription

Geopolitical Diary: Thursday, Oct. 27, 2005

Iran took a sudden detour off the road to rapprochement with the United States on Wednesday, with two interesting -- though unrelated -- developments.

First, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech in which he repeated the call of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that Israel should be "wiped off the map." That certainly carries implications that are serious enough, especially considering that Iran is seeking the right to exploit nuclear technology and convince the world that it will handle that power responsibly. But making matters worse, German magazine Cicero issued a report on the same day, claiming that 25 senior al Qaeda members are being allowed to roam freely in Tehran by the clerical establishment.

The article, which will be published in Cicero's November issue, cites unidentified Western intelligence sources as claiming that the free-ranging jihadists hail from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Europe. The 25 reportedly include three sons of Osama bin Laden -- Saad, Mohammad and Othman -- along with al Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith. Reportedly, the al Qaeda members are living in houses owned by the country's elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also is providing them with logistical assistance and military training. Cicero quotes one intelligence source as saying, "This is not incarceration or house arrest," because "they can move around as they please."

There have been rumors of an al Qaeda presence in Iran before, but the Cicero report provides perhaps the most detailed descriptions to date. It is the first report to claim that three of bin Laden's sons are sheltering there (rather than just one, Saad), and to name them all. Second, the report makes no mention of Saif al-Adel, the shadowy al Qaeda military chief who, there is reason to believe, has taken refuge in Iran. Nor is there any mention of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who in the past has reported to be present in Iran (though we believe him to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan).

It is interesting to note, however, that in a recent letter to al Qaeda's chieftain in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri took a soft tone toward Shiite Muslims, saying, "What loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners -- many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries -- in the custody of the Iranians?"

Given the deep ideological differences between Shiite Iran and Wahhabi al Qaeda, Tehran likely is not harboring militant leaders or fighters out of good will, but rather is holding them, to be used at a time appropriate to its own interests. Therefore, the clerical regime could have a number of top al Qaeda operatives in its custody -- and intends to use them as a bargaining chip in any deals it might be pursuing with the United States to shed Iran's pariah status.

On that front, any recent warming between Washington and Tehran likely just took a new chill, with Ahmadinejad's fiery statements about Israel.

On the surface at least, the timing for Iran could hardly be worse: During the past week, both the Iranians and the Americans not only have acknowledged having had contact with each other, but also have stressed the need to create the appropriate atmosphere to conduct direct talks. With his warning that any Muslim leader who recognizes Israel would "face the wrath of their own people" -- and that the global Muslim community "will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland" -- Ahmadinejad made that atmosphere harder to bring about.

Given the context of the speech -- Ahmadinejad was addressing 4,000 students at a conference titled "The World Without Zionism" -- it seems quite possible that the president's statements reflect his own personal views, but not necessarily the official position of Iran. In other words, if he shot himself in the foot, it was with his own personal revolver, not a rifle cocked and loaded by the clerical establishment.

It should be remembered that, unlike the two presidents before him, Ahmadinejad is not a cleric. He also is relatively young and unpolished, having soared to the presidency directly from the mayoralty of Tehran, on the strength of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's endorsement. It is not unusual for Iranian leaders -- especially those rather right-of-center -- to make provocative statements against the United States and Israel, but they are usually adroitly calculated and less brazen in their rhetoric. Thus, it is quite likely that Ahmadinejad crafted his speech to cater to his own hard-line constituency

It's certainly not the first time Ahmadinejad has created controversy. In an interview published in the Oct. 1 issue of the Dubai-based Khaleej Times, he threatened to withhold the sale of oil if the issue of Iran's nuclear program was referred to the U.N. Security Council. Hours after the interview was publicized, the Office of the President in Tehran issued a fax in which Ahmadinejad denied ever having given an interview, either orally or in writing -- but the Khaleej Times stood by the story.

We also note that a number of Ahmadinejad's key Cabinet appointments have been rejected by the parliament -- controlled by his fellow hardliners -- on grounds that the nominees lacked experience for the portfolios. It appears that Khamenei is keenly aware of the downsides of having a loyal, but young and inexperienced, follower in the executive office -- which would explain why he recently granted significant new powers to former two-term President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was bested by Ahmadinejad in June's presidential election.

The unelected elders may believe they can cultivate Ahmadinejad into a shrewd politician, but the missteps -- especially with Wednesday's speech -- are getting hard to cover over with "spin." The damage to Iran's strategic interests might already be done.

Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.