Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

5th November 2007A go out to capital of S byh Carolina University and the chaotic aftermathAfter being allowed to address the capital of South Carolina University, Persian president Mohamed Ahmadnijan showed a rargon use and a in high spirits level of social hardness. He blasted the American conjunction and look there was no gays in Iran. The eccentric draw of the republic of Iran is plann as a controversial and as an inspiration in the extremist movement. His slip and virtues that aim at drawing out need to wipe Israel out of the map and to destabilise the due west through all sayings of concerted military unit and extremist principles, axiomaticly resonate as great and atomic number 18 indicative of what the extremism followers should look up at in a leader. He has funded terrorist organizations and helped the insurgency in Iraqi with a purpose of frustrating the atomic number 74 and the effort of the inter terra firmaal familiarity to stabilise Iraqi.Insults to th e UN and the USThe Iranian leader laid-off the United Nations and ridiculed its authenticity and legitimacy. What he implied was the inability of policy at heart the structures of the UN and project the US as the sole decision shamr at the body. This go steady is myopic and absurd. He launched a scathing attack on the US at Columbia University.Controversial character and intentionsHis visit to Columbia University on seventeenth September 2007 has further transformed the leader to a major brat to the Wests relationship with the center(a) East and other Moslem countries. Mohamed received a hostile reception at the University. His visit indoors a literally accession was designated to be a typic truce with the Wests culture and system only due to a rigid perspective on him and the commonplace attitude and general perception, Ahmednijads aims and objectives were not understood.He realised within his faculties, the hatred and fear the American nation regarded him with. Subse quently he truism how ready the West was to at either chance to get rid of him. Diplomacy came to a dead pole with the senate at Columbia coming under criticism for allowing him to address the University gathering. Ahemdnijan was mark a holocaust denier and a perpetrator of terrorism. The Columbia University president termed him as an intellectual mind set and an un-educated leader. This is the hatred Ahmednijad saw and felt in the United States Columbia University. His behaviour and character as seen in place setting before this was not focussed on neither intonation nor odious ethos to state of wards America but symbolic and reaching out moves which in the aforementioned(prenominal) context were not seen nor recognized by the American society.What sparks this controversial and detest towards the Iranian leader is the fanatical and anti West fanaticism in him, also his strategic positioning of Iran as a pillar of Islamic extremism, consistent attacks on American foreign pol icy and blasting of diplomatic efforts to end the atomic standoff which has invoked sanctions on Iran.In reciprocation to this anger Ahmednijan sought to commence his fall back position through diplomacy. He replied in a principled perspective.He confronted within the same schematic speak to the Americans had fage. He questioned the integrity of the Columbia University president Mr Bollinger and subsequently claimed the flops of Iran to own nuclear weapons just as the West owned. According to Anthony F and Robin W., (2007) Ahmadinejad, who in the past has argued that Israel should be wiped off the map, repeated his assertions that the Holocaust should be researched from variant perspectives and said Palestinians should not be paying the price for an event they had zilch to do with. The Iranian leader also blasted U.S. sanctions against his pastoral, insisted on Irans right to nuclear development and declared his willingness to dialogue with U.S. leaders. His behaviour by t hen was characterized with apt criticism of the West hypocrisy and desire to see that they managed the greater global policies. He repeated that the holocaust needed to e researched. The aftermath was an onslaught on his sanity and audacity as a leader.Diplomacy and amnestyAhmednijad might drive home opted to appease Americans through diplomacy. There are many issues within the history of the West problem with Iran. Both resume each other as a threat to the others concern only that the West is autonomous, militarily stronger and more strategic economically and politically. Iran is only a minnow with more strategic position within religious lines and political-religious positions.This aspect has spared it the possible military strike by Americans. Although the United States has been more cagey with Iran, the debut of France in the anti Iran sentiment and the promise of military accomplishment as an eventuality add panache to the West desire to tick Irans strategic position gro wth. Ahmednijad wants to prove he is the key to the Middle East problem since he represents the radical ness and the extremist policies the Islamic community.The Iranian leader acted in speed to show his stand and diplomatic aspects as a leader. He advised his government to release a Californian businessman Ali Shekri who had been jailed in Iran. He morally was desire retribution and sought to justify desire to establish peace and cohesiveness. only due to the abrasiveness and blindness of the American lawmakers and leaders, the Iranian leader saw no relenting. Subsequently his general issued a statement that insinuated that Iran was more militarily steady and ready. There was also the launch of two air cart aircrafts which symbolised the industrialised and military king of Iran. This was an act of provoking the international community especially the United States.His character complexity and moral perspectivesHowever his character is seen as more re-proactive and meant to seek the elasticity of the Americans hate and military options against Iran. The Iranian leader was ready to visit the ground zero. This would fork out been a symbolic and a significant gesture. He was to lay a wreath and probably make a speech. However the tensions after the Columbia University incident would render the broad(a) visit for him dangerous.There were emotions and protests were all over. University students and civilians were on the streets chanting anti him. This was enough campaign to refuse him the chance to go to the Ground-zero. But contextually, what was the motive of his intentions? Why would such(prenominal) an anti American leader wish to make a symbolic visit to a place where people from his religion and community killed thousands of transparent lives? This makes the Iranian leader controversial. In the event of a visit, no adore Ahmednijads comments and sentiments would be more controversial than his remarks about the Jewish holocaust. He mght have justified jihad and the death of these people. He might have intercommunicate the Palestinian deaths within this situation as what the Americans paid with the September 11.Further within this issue, Ahmednijan could not be a target of American extremists, obviously they dont exist, and hence, he was not amused that, it was only a issue of distaste and the hate American legislators felt for him. It might be obvious he knew he could never get a chance to visit ground zero but confirming it through seeking the license to is outward and provocative. This as seen within an academic perspective is a character that is seeking to find lee modalitys and fissures in the American society and government so as to achieve personal goals. These goals are two-way-traffic. The Iranian leader might be seeking to make peace and dash in American foreign policy and become part of the international community, or is acting with impunity as an agent of the large extremist world to need and find weakness in the A merican system.Worry and pessimism in Iranian leaderThough exuding confidence, the Iranian leader projected fear and desperacy to avert a war crisis. His intentions in the United States depict this character. The leaders is troubled and more in a quagmire than in good stead. Most probably he is upset(a) by the french Foreign minister Bernard Kouchner remarks that France should prepare for war if Iran makes nuclear weapons, a sentiment shared by the United States. Ahmednijan might have weighed his options And saw he could not counter such brute oblige militarily. He knows the strength of Maericans through the Iraqi conflict but knows cryptograph of the French.Through visiting such a prestigious government funded Columbia University. David J (2007) argues that the Iranian president has been in a cage, he wants out but what he does every time he leaps up is to hang on in even when his foot is outside. He escalates in his justification of his country having nuclear power Ahmednijan asserts in his Columbia interviews that Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of acquirement and research by the big powers. What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?So were quite clear on what we need. If the US has created the fifth part generation of atomic bombs and are test them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole penetrate of humanity. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, or testing them, making them, politically they are backward, retarded.This seems a strategy to appease the American public on the Iranian nuclear intentions so as to pre-empt the French threat and be left with the US animosity and military hitch plans. Ahmednijad shows fear and strategic shift of his policy on nuclear weapons. This way the public debate transforms from the context of his violating the proliferation faculties and embracing religious backed extremes.Going to Columbia is an insignia of his acknowledgement of American education and federal system.He is trying to be place with the community and seeks to tone down his strong desire to be call against these institutions and instead be seen as a moderator of policies. He wants to prove his actions and statements are basically intended to mend and project positive perspectives in the interest of the Iran and the Middle East.His character raises the storms at home where his popularity is waning drastically. He is seen as an Islamic leader rather than a president of a republic. He is not dwelling on domestic issues but constantly criticizing the West and the Israelis. His actions do not represent the majority of his supporters and political cronies as more pressure mounts on Iran making military strikes inevitable. Though his approach to popularity is myopic, he is a symbol of Islamic rise against Western imperialism. Noor, M., (2006)SourcesNoor Mohamed 2006 Ahmednijads travel popularity in the domestic front. Daily Nation Kenya