http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17084566%255E2703,00.html

 

Although there could scarcely be two more different political capitals than Washington and Tehran, experts have found remarkable parallels in the careers of the Iranian and American presidents. Were it not for their different languages and family backgrounds, Bush and Ahmadinejad might be political "soul-mates", according to Juan Cole, a Middle East historian at the University of Michigan.

 

Both men relied on right-wing religious forces for their recent election success. Both campaigned as comparative "outsiders", denouncing their respective political establishments. Bush first ran for president as governor of Texas and frequently criticised Washington insiders; Ahmadinejad ran as mayor of Tehran denouncing central government corruption.

 

Both men have exploited their personal piety -- Bush with evangelical Christians and Ahmadinejad with fundamentalist Muslims. And both see themselves not as intellectual policy-makers but as down-to-earth problem-solvers.

 

Bush, a former businessman, runs his administration on a corporate model; Ahmadinejad, who has a doctorate in engineering, made his political reputation as a manager of Tehran's sprawling municipality.

 

The similarities may also extend to an unswerving belief in their nations' rectitude and a refusal to admit to mistakes. In the case of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the two men are set on a collision course that neither seems interested in avoiding.

 

Yet just as Bush is struggling to placate his right-wing supporters after a series of embarrassing setbacks, so Ahmadinejad may soon find it hard to keep up his belligerent approach. The Iranian President has already suffered the Bush-like indignity of having one of his nominees rejected for a government post -- the parliament recently vetoed his choice for the key post of oil minister.

 

His outbursts represent a striking departure from the more outgoing foreign policy moderation favoured by Mohammad Khatami, his predecessor. They may also be raising eyebrows among a significant minority of Iranian reformers who see opening up to the West as inevitable. In a direct contradiction of Ahmadinejad's remarks, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, the former president who is regarded as a moderating figure, told a prayer ceremony on Friday: "We have no problems with Jews and highly respect Judaism as a holy religion."

 

Although the new President remains close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's powerful spiritual leader, he was elected mainly on domestic pledges to clean up government and to spend oil profits on the poor.

 

His promises largely depend on buoyant oil income that might rapidly dry up if his anti-Zionist rhetoric precipitates an international crisis.

 

Iranian officials have already moved to soothe the oil markets after Ahmadinejad was quoted by a Dubai newspaper as saying that Iran would restrict its oil sales if it were referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.

 

All of which explains why Bolton limited himself to saying that Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel were "pernicious and unacceptable". The US is beginning to learn that the less it says about Iran, the more pressure is generated on the regime from elsewhere.

 

One more similarity... both scare me

while I think the article was strechting it a bit in the comparison... Bush hasn't made remarks to incite the populous to wipe a nation off the map, but still, I suppose the comparisons were interesting.

Bush hasn't made remarks to incite the populous to wipe a nation off the map

 

Over here we call it "liberating"

Over here we call it "liberating"

 

exactly... intent is everything. We want to liberate Iraq and convert them to democracy. Iran wants to destroy ISrael and possibly kill all their citizens in a nuclear holacaust. I think there's a difference.

exactly... intent is everything. We want to liberate Iraq and convert them to democracy. Iran wants to destroy ISrael and possibly kill all their citizens in a nuclear holacaust. I think there's a difference.

 

Your sense of humor seems to be somewhat lacking

Your sense of humor seems to be somewhat lacking

 

or maybe I'm just bad at recognizing it

If Iran goes in, takes out the top guy, kills some people, then stays there to help rebuild the place, costing billions - then I would agree with the similarities.

 

Right now, the Iranian dufus is looking like Mussolini

i think you're a few powers of ten off

This thread is the product of an opinion/rant, not an objective political observation.

 

Just to give an example of how much wild and fantasaical spin there is in the original article Bud was quoting:

 

Bush, a former businessman, runs his administration on a corporate model; Ahmadinejad, who has a doctorate in engineering, made his political reputation as a manager of Tehran's sprawling municipality.

 

Uh, one's a businessman and the other's a bureaucrat? That's an example of them being similar? Riiight. By that reasoning Ted Kennedy and Alan Greenspan are two peas in a pod!

 

I don't have a problem with the basic analysis of Ahmadinejad's political position, though. I also don't have a problem with the general comparison of religious-versus-secular politics (comparing Iran to the US).

 

But notice how he stops short of doing an actual comparison of Iranian versus American politics. The author knows full well, of course, that they are night and day.

 

So in fact the purpose of this article is to scare people. That's it. There's no real useful analysis here at all.

 

How ironic that I should read it on Halloween!

 

(Thanks for the perfect punchline, Bud!)