Hmmm? What did Ahmidinijihad mean by this doctrine?

Question

In August 2005, President Ahmadinejad presented a 7,000-word manifesto to the Islamic majlis (parliament) which detailed his Government's "short- and long-term" plans. The document states that the region is heading for a "clash of civilizations" in which Iran represents Islam, and the U.S. carries the banner of a West that has forgotten God. Ahmadinejad presented the driving force behind Iran's policy as the belief that the decadent U.S., which is "in its last throes", is an ofuli (sunset) power, destined to be superseded by the tolu'ee (sunrise) power of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the developing multipolar world, other "sunset" powers include the European Union and other "sunrise" powers include China and India. But the most dynamic power will be Iran, the "core power" around which all Muslim powers will coalesce. Furthermore, he stressed, Iran is prepared to develop its nuclear programme regardless of the concerns of the "outside world". (29) Further, his policy is: "a jihad to reshape the world and ensure Islam's universal dominance".

If the writing isn't on the wall now then we will see the rise of another Hitler!

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/07/if_iran_says_no.php

Theres one source of others Ringo ....now criticize it as you would the hundred others I could post as that is all you do is whine.

Coragryph, the people of Iran love America and have had extreme Islam crammed down their throats for 28 years. Yes most of the ones are under 30 years old that love America, but guess what that is 70% of their population-

Free press....Invasion on the ground would be foolish. Though the Iranians are pro-western they are very proud and deservedly so. Iran (Persia) has the only unchanged borders in the Middle East for the past millenium. There is a reason for this. Their land is sacred. They would tolerate tactical airstrikes at military targets but I would never advocate boots on the ground unless it was the ONLY way to stop their nuclear program. We would lose tens of thousands of U.S. casualties. Surrounding them by invading Iraq was a far better stratedgy than invasion. The pressure the extremist government will feel can embolden the young adult, vastly unemployed, and pro-west people of Iran. Thus losing the least amount of American casualties and taking out another tip of the Axis of Evil.

Ringo: Your second link validates many of my past questions here. The Iranian people are misunderstood tremendously. Yet their government DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM! It is a beautiful NON ARAB country that depending where you are could appear as if you were anywhere in Europe. Face it the government must be toppled from within with NO INVASION! Iran is quite capable of getting Uranium which is not contaminated by metals that form a mass inside a centrifuge. Ritter is a lobbyist now for moveon.org.

LADYSHONDRA- I am impressed with your source. It's content is very powerful. The LA Times usually wants nothing good to be said about the war which adds even more credence to the progress that the surge has produced. That is the most optimistic piece I have read about the surge to date. WOW, and coming from the LA Times. Good Job

Answer 1

it means that he intends to establish his rule over the middle-east. they are dedicated, committed and we should not under-estimate these devotee's aims and objectives.

progress report on Iraq from a credible source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rubaie21jul21,0,1967280.story?coll=la-opinion-center

an eye opening on 'the peaceful religion' with supporting facts on the objectives:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Answer 2

Look at the context.

Prior to 2004, Iran was ruled by a progressive western-friendly govt. Then the US invaded both countries on either side of Iran, and the Iranian people demanded a hard-line nationalist to protect them from the threat of the US forces. So, the elected the current leader.

Of course he's a hard-liner, that's what the people wanted because they saw themselves surrounded and threatened by the US. Whether justified or not, they acted out of fear, and put someone in charge who would get the job done and protect them from the enemy at their doorstep. Sound familiar?

Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, going back (along with China and India) almost 4 thousand years. So, yes, they have some cultural and national pride too.

So, a lot of it is just political posturing -- like the US declaring a war to end terorrism in the world. And a lot of it is nationalistic fervor -- to protect them against the enemies who would seek to destroy them.

And with so many people in the US advocating nuking Iran, can you blame the Iranian people for being scared?

Answer 3

it's been pretty clear for sometime that he has an agenda and his arrogance is reminiscent of Hitlers early career. Islam claims to be poised to dominate the world but I don't think they will look to him as their leader. he may be a tyrant without a significant following.

Answer 4

Remember he just wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes - yeah right

Answer 5

Hooray for the Glorious Iran.

Answer 6

What ever! the greatest threat for just and peace in the world is the fascist USA.

Answer 7

I agree with you, this guy is out for our destruction and we sit around wondering what Pelosi was doing over there!

Answer 8

well said,,,so does America wait until the mushrooms clouds to initiate the needed military draft,,or do we just free willy...chow

Answer 9

Did he even say it this time? Where are your sources?

Source(s)

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter :-
http://www.youtube.com/v/VG-IxXl9LCQ

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1363826.ece

Answer 10

give me a link.