Will Iran's President go the way of Sadam Hussein?

Will Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad end up following a destiny similar to Saddam Hussein?

Shimon Peres believes he will and said as much on Saturday, April 15, 2006.

'Iran's President to end up like Saddam': "Israeli veteran statesman Shimon Peres, responding to the latest verbal attack on the Jewish state by Iran's President, said on Saturday that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would end up like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. "

The verbal attach he was responding to came from President Ahmadinejad who stated, "Are the consequences of the establishment of this (Israeli) regime less than the Holocaust which you (the West) are claiming? If there are doubts regarding the Holocaust, there is really no doubt regarding the Palestinian disaster and holocaust."

President Ahmadinejad's statements are consistently targeted to his own constituency. It is obvious that he adheres to the age old maxim that all politics are local. His comments will undoubtedly be accepted at face value by the audience he has targeted. However, as with many of his statements, they sound completely different to anyone not in his target audience. To anyone that does not doubt that the Holocaust occurred, President Ahmadinejad's remarks would have to be interpreted as stating 'Since the holocaust occurred, you have to doubt whether or not the Palestinian's have faced a similar disaster or holocaust.'

The problem with communicating in absolutes is that people will consider you absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Depending on your subjective views and knowledge of events and history, a person will either consider Ahmadinejad entirely right or entirely wrong with few people in between.

President Bush and President Ahmadinejad share this trait in common. President Bush similarly speaks in terms of absolutes. Typically, based on principles. President Bush similar to President Ahamdinejad mixes his religion with his politics. The result is that his principles are guided by his religion. This creates for a decision making frame work based on what is right or wrong. Everything becomes pollarized according to the religious views of the speaker. As neither leader seeks to reconcile with other religions it pushes their countries and the world towards more dyametrically opposing positions.

What we are looking at is a battle of religious beliefs between a nuclear power and a soon to be nuclear power. President Bush's camp attempts to dispell the belief that the West is engaging in a new crusade, however, when they mix their personal religious beliefs with their public politics, the Middle East and East often times hear the absolutes in their speeches and hear exactly what they want to hear. This same problem occurs in Iran. Many in the West would like to see the religious authorities in Iran experience a decrease in power, so that they can 'reason' or negotiate with them.

The obstacle to negotiations is opposing religions. In order for either side to get past this obstacle, both sides need to first unilaterally disarm their religions from their public persona and represent their people at a political level, religion removed. The alternative is that the predictions of war and crusade like actions will become a self fulfilling prophecy. During the cold war, weapons and fear of their use kept the Soviets lined up against the US. Today, religion between the Middle East and recently the US has become the primary weapon, with physical force held at ready standby.