Dr. Hoder prescribes medicine

I like Hossein Derakhshan (Hoder), though I have never met him. I have seen him on TV and I am an avid reader of his blog. He is very articulate and most of the time makes sense.

But not this time.

We have all seen those “Impeach the President” banners. We always assumed they referred to the President of the World, aka G.W. Bush.

Hoder has come up with a novel idea: Let’s impeach the other president: President Ahmadinejad.

He suggests that by doing so, we can bring back the civility of former president Khatami to Iranian politics. We might even satisfy the American/Israeli regimes who are poised to attack Iran.

Let’s review the facts: it was before Ahmadinejad was elected as Iranian president that Bush included Iran as part of the axis of evil. It bewildered many within the then reform-minded Iranian circles around the Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami, since Iran was cooperating with the Americans in their plans to remove the Taliban. Ahmadinejad wasn’t even a presidential candidate when the Americans invaded Iraq and had Iran in their sights. Only if things hadn’t gone so wrong in Iraq…

Hoder argues Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign affairs. The main reason for his removal would be that he has a big mouth. He has offended the "international community" by talking truth about American and Israeli atrocities in the region. He has questioned the Holocaust as a basis for Israeli occupation of Arab land. And therefore he has to be silenced.

Ahmadinejad has talked about this so-called "international community” on many occasions and has called for radical reforms in the structure of the UN Security Council, the same “international body” that has imposed sanctions on Iran. Here are some excerpts from his speech to the UN on Sep. 19, 2006:

“Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. When the oppressed are crushed by bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council which is charged with maintaining security for all countries?

“The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

“The question needs to be asked: If the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? …

“The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

“Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective…

“No one has superiority over others. No individual or state can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the `international community’.”

So what is so despicable about Ahmadinejad? Is it his upbringing or the way he dresses?

Or perhaps the way he can communicate with a large segment of the population who were ignored by Khatami and his reform-minded allies?

Hoder argues that another Khatami type should take the helm. The question is: Would that satisfy the Americans/the Israelis? I understand Hoder has been reading a lot of political theory lately, which might be the reason he has labeled the Iranian government as “the only true post-colonial state in the world.” If we accept his logic, then we can easily conclude the colonial powers will do their utmost to wipe such a menace off the map of the world.