Ahmadinejad's Press Conference: Without the Spin

[Iranian Monitor]

I watched Ahmadinejad's press conference on television here live. I will try to give a full account of the press conference, both the substance as well as the symbolisms surrounding it.

Before opening the conference to questions to the press, Ahmadinejad went over mainly his administrations efforts to fulfill its domestic promises. He mentioned that inflation had come down, that the GDP growth outside the oil sector had been 5.7%, that increased spending is being met with increased production and productivity (and investments in projects to bring those increases) to make sure inflation is brought under control. He also touted his administrations practice of bringing government to the people throughout the country, and not just Tehran, by travelling so far to 9 provinces and holding cabinet meetings in each of them. He promised that by the end of the new Persian year he would complete such full cabinet visists throughout all of Iran's provinces. Lastly, he mentioned his government's commitment to giving back to the private sector the many economic projects that are now in the government's hands. This campaign for increasing privatization, as well as at the same time insuring an equitable distribution of incomes, is being waged carefully according to Ahmadinejad in a pilot project in a couple of provinces where government owned industries and companies are being sold to the private sector in those provinces with the shares given to the residents in those provinces. Apparently, around $1,000 in such shares per family have been distributed in the two provinces where the pilot project is being implemented and that figure is expected to double to around 2 million tomans or roughly a little more than $2,000.

After discussing domestic affairs, Ahmadinejad did go into a rambling speech about World War II and how many countries bearing no responsibility for it are paying its price. Although you could make out the point Ahmadinejad was trying to make, and some of those points had greater validity than others, this portion of the presentation was not his strong suit. It was often rambling and not always coherent and articulate. Sometimes, in this part of his speech, he sounded rambling like Bush.

When it came to responding to the press, what stood out were 3 things. First, the sheer number of domestic news agencies (70) represented in the press conference, speaking to what anyone who has visted a newstand in Iran can attest to. This country has a lot of newspapers and media outlets! Second, the format was interesting in that for the first two dozen questions, it alternated between a representative from a foreign news agency (Independent, CBS, ABC, Moscow Times, Arab press, AP, etc) and a representative from an Iranian news agency (MEHR, FARS, IRNA, ISNA, QUDS, Hamshahri, Keyhan, etc).

As for the questions and answers, I felt Ahmadinejad accomplished his main task. To project an image that Iran is not going to be cowed by pressures on its nuclear project, while trying to enlist broad domestic support for his agenda. Ahmadinejad, as such, was careful to sound a very liberal note on social issues and women's rights, a moderate on economic issues standing as an arbiter between the interests of labor and business, with almost a pacifist stance on war and peace issues rhetorically while being rather strident in terms of Iran's rights and the more specific foreign policy issues facing the country. In the background, while making his comments, was a giant photo of the 22 Bahman rally in Iran from last month with hundreds of thousands/millions in attendance, with the picture designed to show Iran united and moving forward.

While some of the Western media reports tried to find some comment they could spin to add to the subtext of painting Ahmadinejad a nut, the worst that could be said about Ahmadinejad after the press conference is that he is somewhat uninitiated when it comes to his understanding of historical events. Another legitimate criticism, IMO, would be that despite trying to pretend otherwise, I felt Ahmadinejad showed himself a bit too thin skinned. At least compared to Khatami, who was quite graceful taking every insult and attack thrown at him. On the other hand, in fairness to Ahmadinejad, few have had to endure the kind of ridicule and hostility that he has faced domestically and internationally.

[nekounam]

Thanks for posting this.

[Scarecrow]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/25/iran.rice.ap/index.html

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran threatened Tuesday to begin hiding its nuclear program from the United Nations -- while its supreme leader said Tehran was ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries.

Iran's warning to the U.N. watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, came from Tehran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. They were the country's sharpest rebuttal yet ahead of a Friday deadline, set by the Security Council, for Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or material for warheads.

And people wonder why we don't trust Iran....

[ViscaBarca]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/25/iran.rice.ap/index.html



And people wonder why we don't trust Iran....
then again, absolutely no-one in their right mind trusts the US, and they are full of nuclear power stations and nukes...
and before you come with the standard 'ah, but iran supports terrorists' line you might want to check what kind of people the US supports.

[#10 Jersey]

then again, absolutely no-one in their right mind trusts the US, and they are full of nuclear power stations and nukes...
and before you come with the standard 'ah, but iran supports terrorists' line you might want to check what kind of people the US supports.

Do you believe the US has done anything positive for the World?

[ViscaBarca]

Do you believe the US has done anything positive for the World?
yep, quite a few things. but what does that have to do with my post?

[Scarecrow]

then again, absolutely no-one in their right mind trusts the US, and they are full of nuclear power stations and nukes...
and before you come with the standard 'ah, but iran supports terrorists' line you might want to check what kind of people the US supports.

But the US hasn't said it will share its nuclear technology with terrorists. Please go right ahead and list with links all the groups the US does support.

Iran supports Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas. All 3 of these groups have openly stated that they are terrorist groups who strap bombs to their members and kill women and kids in bus stations, etc....So while you may say it is a standard response, that does not make it any less a fact now does it? Also Iran has not been wholly forthcoming with their program and in fact hid their program for some time. The puppet masters and their loudmouth puppet are the problem in Iran. But then they are preparing for the 12th iman so it is only a matter of time before they try to start WWIII right?

[ViscaBarca]

But the US hasn't said it will share its nuclear technology with terrorists.
neither did iran.

Iran supports Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas. All 3 of these groups have openly stated that they are terrorist groups who strap bombs to their members and kill women and kids in bus stations, etc....

ah yes, i forgot you believe that if an official millitary does exactly the same thing it's perfectly alright.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

So while you may say it is a standard response, that does not make it any less a fact now does it?
the problem is that it's only half of the picture. a half truth is a lie!!!

[Scarecrow]

neither did iran.

ah yes, i forgot you believe that if an official millitary does exactly the same thing it's perfectly alright.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

the problem is that it's only half of the picture. a half truth is a lie!!!

The amount of dead civvies in Iraq has not been proven. It is highly unlikely that over a 100,000 died because of the US invasion.

So what is the half I left off? Iran supports terrorism. This is a fact. There is no half truth to that.

Iran has stated that they will share their nuclear technology.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/25/iran.rice.ap/index.html

The remarks on sharing nuclear technology by Iran's top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, came as he met with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

"Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country. ... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists," Khamenei told al-Bashir.

Al-Bashir said last month that his impoverished, war-torn country was considering trying to create a nuclear program to generate electrical power.

[ViscaBarca]

The amount of dead civvies in Iraq has not been proven. It is highly unlikely that over a 100,000 died because of the US invasion.

i thought at one point that you are going to reply something like that, but dismissed that thought immediately as ridiculous. seems it wasn't as ridiculous after all...


So what is the half I left off? Iran supports terrorism. This is a fact. There is no half truth to that.

there are two sides in this conflict. by only looking at one you only get half the picture.


Iran has stated that they will share their nuclear technology.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/25/iran.rice.ap/index.html
i know that. but you claimed they stated they will share it with terrorists, which they didn't.

[Scarecrow]

i thought at one point that you are going to reply something like that, but dismissed that thought immediately as ridiculous. seems it wasn't as ridiculous after all...

Well I dismiss those reports until they have real tangible proof of the claims. Right now I have no idea how many died in the invasion, at the hands of the US or at the hands of Saddam and his followers. Hell his followers and the sunni's are killing Iraqi's everyday.

there are two sides in this conflict. by only looking at one you only get half the picture.
What conflict is Iran in? As I understand it they are not currently at war with anyone, although they do support terrorists and their attacks against Israel.

i know that. but you claimed they stated they will share it with terrorists, which they didn't.
Well perhaps a better understanding of the Sudan is in order:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1881397.stm
Mr Liby, who has a $25m (£17.5m) reward on his head, is thought to have joined al-Qaeda in 1992 in Sudan, and quickly become a key technical expert in the organisation's operations.

UN sanctions imposed on Sudan for failing to hand over suspects in the plot to kill Mr Mubarak were lifted last September after the country was said to be co-operating with the US in response to the 11 September attacks.


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060424-1512-sudan-binladen.html
KHARTOUM, Sudan – Sudan dismissed Osama bin Laden's renewed calls for “jihad” in its troubled Darfur region, saying on Monday that it will not harbor terrorists or allow foreign interference in the country.
But outside experts said the chaos in Sudan – already spilling over to troubled neighbors like Chad – is exactly the kind of place al-Qaeda has successfully exploited in the past and might again.

In a tape issuing more threats against the West on Sunday, bin Laden urged followers to go to Sudan to fight a proposed U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur. Muslims must “get ready to conduct a long war against the crusader plunderers in western Sudan,” he said in the audiotape, broadcast on Arab TV.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/urbang/articles/20060427.aspx

Bin Laden urged his followers to go to Sudan and Israel and support the fight against Jews and Christian "crusaders." In Sudan, bin Laden was offering his services to kill Western peacekeepers that have not yet shown up in western Sudan (Darfur), where northern (largely Arab) Sudanese Moslems are killing southern (largely black African) Sudanese Moslems. Islamic radicals in Palestine (Hamas) and Sudan (the government) promptly and publicly rejected bin Laden's offer.

http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B11BB5A41-5433-46B6-BE96-AFEC8E9047DB%7D&language=EN
United Nations , Apr 24 (Prensa Latina) The UN Security Council will analyze this week several projects for deploying 20,000 heavily supported UN troops in the violent Darfur region of western Sudan, officials of this organization confirmed on Monday.


This has been preceded by recent calls from the Islamic extremist Al Qaeda organization for a "holy war" against the UN blue helmets in Darfur.



According to a declaration attributed to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the sending of UN troops to Darfur is part of US plans to steal oil from that vast Sudanese western region.



Sudan is the sixth greatest oil producer in Africa, with tested reserves up to 563 million barrels, according to official statistics.

Well it certainly seems as though Sudan is a hotbed for AQ, and with Iran willing to share their nuclear technology with Sudan, and the AQ supposedly being held in Iran (yeah in posh hotels) it isn't hard to connect the dots.

[#10 Jersey]

yep, quite a few things. but what does that have to do with my post?

because you have made a terrorist sponsoring nation the equivalent of the US.

[Txtriathlete]

The US does not support terrorist organizations?
Now thats just plain silly.

[Scarecrow]

The US does not support terrorist organizations?
Now thats just plain silly.

Like I said, what groups are those? What proof is there?
I mean it is common knowledge that Iran supports Hezbollah, they just gave $50 million to Hamas, and they have given training to Hezbollah as well. IM has made that statement here numerous times.

[Txtriathlete]

Like I said, what groups are those? What proof is there?
I mean it is common knowledge that Iran supports Hezbollah, they just gave $50 million to Hamas, and they have given training to Hezbollah as well. IM has made that statement here numerous times.

Does Iran support Hezbollah? yes they do. Thats common knowledge.

Has the US supported terrorist organizations? yes they have.

[Scarecrow]

Does Iran support Hezbollah? yes they do. Thats common knowledge.

Has the US supported terrorist organizations? yes they have.

Ok, but my question to you is who? When? How?

The statement may be true, but I am saying it is unfounded except for an accusation. I would like to see some proof of this "terrorist" funding.

Meanwhile I think I have shown where Sudan is a terror threat in sofar as their past with AQ and the current situation in Darfur and OBL's recent call to arms there. Now couple that with Iran saying they would share their nuclear technology with Sudan and I think a strong case could be made that this is a very bad idea and it seems like it would be very easy for nuclear materials to fall into AQ's hands as a result. And it would be Iran's fault. Now couple this with the AQ being "held" in Iran and a disturbing picture begins to paint itself.

Hopefully the reformers in Iran can see this and perhaps they can do something to stop the madness that the mullahs seem intent on bringing to the region. Unless they also think the 12th Iman is on his way too.

[Txtriathlete]

Ok, but my question to you is who? When? How?

The statement may be true, but I am saying it is unfounded except for an accusation. I would like to see some proof of this "terrorist" funding..

Funding? If you say that Iran supports terrorists, how do you not support the fact that the US manufactures them?

I honestly dont have the time or the need to explain myself, however I stronly recommend that you start by looking up such things as the...

'School of the Americas' (SOA) which was actually supported by our very own tax dollars right here in the US for forty some odd years.

AQ, how did it start? who funded them and why do they hate us?

MEK does everything that you claim Hezbollah does and they have a 'legit' US lobbying group.

Im not going to provide links simply because in the past it has resulted in cheap shots in return for things such as 'source' and 'content'. Nothing I provide in links will ever suffice to 'legit' proof, do your own research and take away what you wish from it all.

[Scarecrow]

Funding? If you say that Iran supports terrorists, how do you not support the fact that the US manufactures them?
I don't agree with that statement. Exactly how does the US manufacture them?

I honestly dont have the time or the need to explain myself, however I stronly recommend that you start by looking up such things as the...
Well if you are going to make such statements don't you think you should at the very least support your arguement?

'School of the Americas' (SOA) which was actually supported by our very own tax dollars right here in the US for forty some odd years.
I will look them up, I have never heard of them til now.

AQ, how did it start? who funded them and why do they hate us?
Well OBl got his funding and training from the US to help them fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That was just a terrible thing for the US to do. I mean imagine during the cold war the US was actually helping someone fight the Soviets? Kinda like the Soviets were helping the VC in Nam? As for why they hate the US, well hell who do AQ like? They pretty much kill anyone who doesn't subscribe to their sect of Islam.


MEK does everything that you claim Hezbollah does and they have a 'legit' US lobbying group.
Well I disagree with the level of support many claim the US gives MEK. I wouldn't say the US goes to the lengths that Iran does for Hezbollah or now Hamas. I mean does the US train MEK? DO they give them $50 Million?

As for a lobbying group, there are so many lobbyists in the US it shouldn't surprise anyone that they may have one as well. Hell if I look I bet I could find one for the Pals, for the Communist Party, and for any number of other groups that support some cause or another.

Im not going to provide links simply because in the past it has resulted in cheap shots in return for things such as 'source' and 'content'. Nothing I provide in links will ever suffice to 'legit' proof, do your own research and take away what you wish from it all.


I don't recall taking cheap shots at any of your posts, as for the legitimacy of the sites, I look at those on a site by site basis. Again you have been here long enough to know that if you make a statement you should be prepared to back it up.

It isn't up to me to prove your argument.

[!Bob]

Let's review:

Iran = bad.

Reasons; (bear with me here because the "ifs" and "buts" get complicated)
1. they want to give nuclear "technology" to terrorists. Link to terrorists? They want to give nuclear technology to Sudan. Sudan has links to AQ. How? Bin Laden said people should go to Sudan to fight Christians and there have been recruitments in Sudan.

I'll draw a parallel: Bin Laden said they should also go to UK and US to fight. Recruits have been made in both as well. Hence providing say nuclear "technology" to the US and UK is supporting terrorism.

2. Iran supports Hamas (the legitimate current Palestinian authority). Iran = terrorist. Iran should be bombed.
Russia provides financial support to Hamas.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and I don't know which other Arab countries provide financial support to Hamas.

3. Iran "holds" AQ members. Definite danger.

Pakistan has nuclear technology+bomb. Pakistan isn't an NPT signatory. AQ has VERY strong links to Pakistan. AQ has a lot of support in Pakistan and among Pakistanis. There is no worry of transfer of such "technology" to terrorist organisations.

India has the bomb and isn't an NPT signatory. US shares nuclear technology with India which goes against the NPT.

Finally, US doesn't support any "terrorist" groups. I wish I could remember all the South American countries that US instigated rebellions/revolutions against the popular and legitimate government. One example which the US was caught with its pants (pants means underwear among the English and not trousers) down was support of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. That is just that part of the world. Don't want to even start in the rest of the world because we'll be here all day. US has "illegally" interfered in the affairs of over 100 countries, largely by supporting groups that operate beyond the ambit of the law or (rarely) directly.

God Bless America.

[352klr]

Funding? If you say that Iran supports terrorists, how do you not support the fact that the US manufactures them?

I honestly dont have the time or the need to explain myself, however I stronly recommend that you start by looking up such things as the...

'School of the Americas' (SOA) which was actually supported by our very own tax dollars right here in the US for forty some odd years.

AQ, how did it start? who funded them and why do they hate us?

MEK does everything that you claim Hezbollah does and they have a 'legit' US lobbying group.

Im not going to provide links simply because in the past it has resulted in cheap shots in return for things such as 'source' and 'content'. Nothing I provide in links will ever suffice to 'legit' proof, do your own research and take away what you wish from it all.


Read a ********ing book if you think the US funded, trained, and/or supported al-Qaeda. All US funding during the war in Afghanistan was funneled through the ISI and went to Afghan groups. The US and the ISI avoided Arab groups, especially the Office of Services.