The Language of Iran

After Ahmedinejad made those statements about Israel, the United States and Israel might conclude that it would be ridiculous to try to depose of Iran's current regime through the use of degrading language. As we are well aware, it is common policy for US and Israeli politicians to call the Islamic Republic a rogue state run by zealous fundamentalist mullahs bent on destroying the free world, if not something much worse. Such language, however, clearly a threat to the Islamic state, will need to be backed by real measures to overturn the system of governance in Iran if it is to be proved successful.

It is problematic to think that the Islamic state came into existence by fluke and that it will run itself into destruction in the near future without significant force. It should not be forgotten that the revolution in Iran was organized by the masses to overrun a cruel autocratic regime. Unlike the Bolshevik revolution, Iran's revolution was a mass popular uprising, and whether the majority of Iranians wished for this specific type of government to come to power or not, the Iranian state was established. A more valid historical example similar to the Iranian Revolution is that of the Romanian Revolution in 1989, which led to the overthrow of the autocratic regime of Nicolae Ceausescu.

Using language that threatens to overthrow a state is in many cases considered an act of war. Israel earnestly perceived it a significant threat when the newly elected president of Iran suggested that Israel should be obliterated off the map. It seems the hostile politician did not wish to maintain this threat and retracted his words with a subtle apology.

Both Israel and the United States have years of experience dealing with insubordinate nations and have been calculating in their use of language when trying to bring down these states. Yet today it seems that these two nations are speaking with increasingly excitable language against the Islamic State. Common sense might tell us that the use of threatening language, especially when not backed by real imminent credible force, increases resolve and dissuades negotiation. Even realists disgree with these tactics, and would much prefer a swift and decisive military strike over extensive articulation about the US and Israel's general dislike of the Iranian regime (Israel's strike against the Osirak reactor in Iraq is an excellent example of this.)

If either the US or Israel is interested in overturning the Republic, now is the time to do so, stalling until after they attain nuclear bomb technology is not wise. If this is not in their immediate plans, then these countries might find it preferable to engage Iran as a normal, self-interested UN member state, no matter how displeasing that might be.