Rick Steves' Travel as a Political Act Blog - Bombast and the Axis of Evil

Bombast and the Axis of Evil

The disparity between the warm welcome I enjoyed from the people of Iran, and the "Axis of Evil" and "Death to America" bickering of our two governments, got me thinking about bombast and history.

The word “axis” conjures up images of the alliance of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito that our fathers and grandfathers fought in World War II. People in these countries now believe that each of these leaders maintained his power with the help of his ability to stir the simplistic side of his electorate with bombast.

Today, bombast still hogs the headlines, skewing understanding between the mainstream of each country. For example, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a kind of Hugo Chavez notoriety around the West for his wild and provocative statements and actions: calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” denying the existence the Holocaust, insisting on Iran's right to nuclear arms, and persecuting gay people in Iran. Ahmadinejad is an ideologue, and Americans who find him outrageous are fully justified.

But, much as we might viscerally disagree with Ahmadinejad, it's dangerous to simply dismiss him as a madman. To him, and to his followers, his logic does make sense: if Germany killed the Jews, why are Palestinians (rather than Germans) being displaced to house the survivors? Everyone in Iran understands — better, perhaps, than we foreigners — that Ahmadinejad is more extreme than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And, crucially, the Supreme Leader is more powerful than the president. Many locals I talked with discounted Ahmadinejad's most outrageous claims as overstatements intended to shore up his political base. While that doesn't justify the hateful images and slogans I couldn't avoid as I explored his country, it might help explain them.

Meanwhile, Iranians get just as fired up about the rhetoric of American politicians. During our visit (in the summer of 2008), Iranians were still buzzing about the potential presidencies of John McCain (who jokingly rewrote the lyrics of the Beach Boys classic song, “Barbara Ann,” to become “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”) or Hillary Clinton (who said she would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel). For Iranians, hearing high-profile representatives of the world's lone superpower talk this way was terrifying. Unfortunately, that fear enables people like Ahmadinejad demonize America in order to stay in power.

Ask anyone who has lived in a country where they disagree with the leaders: Attention-grabbing bombast does not necessarily reflect the feelings of the man or woman on the street. Throughout my visit, I kept thinking: politicians come and go. The people are here to stay.

About This Entry

You are reading "Bombast and the Axis of Evil", an entry posted on 08 March 2010 by Rick Steves.

6 replies to this entry. Add your comment below.

Previous Entry, Do Iranians Hate Americans?, posted Mar 05 2010

Next Entry, Living in a Theocracy, posted Mar 10 2010

Comments [ top ]

And I think there is more to be gained by working with Iran than demonizing it. Iran and Israel are among the most stable governments in the Middle East. Iran's government leans towards being populist and practical. It's brand of Islam, Shia, seems far more rational than Islam's Sunni militant branch who practice takfiri (which says you are either with or against us and if you are against us you are a legitimate target to be murdered). Takfiri wants to go back to the 7th century, like the Taliban. The U.S. and Iran may indeed turn out to be like two porcupines trying to make love but any kind of rapprochement between our two nations could keep Iran from becoming strongly allied and indebted to Russia and China. And as the number two producer of natural gas in the region, Iran could offset any attempt by Russia to shut off heat to Europe some winter soon just to flex its muscles. There are lots of reasons for negotiating with Iran: 1979 was 30 years ago; we don't want to keep spending at the rate of 2.5 trillion dollars every 10 years to do the impossible - control the Middle East;Iran could help control fractious Iraqi's; it will help keep oil prices stable; it reduces the possibility of wars involving Saudi Arabia; and Israel; it reins in Hezbollah and Hamas and the PLO; it stops Iran meddling in Iraq. Sanctions probably won't work anyway. Iran can buy what it needs from Japan, China, Russia and Turkey. Ahmadinejad is former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and a demagogue but he is more figure-head than country leader. Clerics lead because Khomenei and now Khamenei set up the govt. to be run by the clerics most scholarly about the Koran.

Posted by: Bill Kester - Mar 08, 2010 12:50 PM

Statements such as "Politicians come and go--the people are here to stay" just don't make any sense and lead to the false assumption that faith in the populace will make the bad politicians disappear. On the odd, rare occasion in the history of our world that has happened, but it doesn't mean that we can simply wait out the bad guys. The politicians are people too and must be dealt with as they are, not as we wish them to be.

Posted by: louisa - Mar 09, 2010 5:30 AM

People often do not realize that Ahmadinejad has little real power. He is just a spokesperson. Similar to our White House press secretary. A big part of his job is to keep Americans scared and confused. This is an understandable strategy since America has overthrown and supported various governments in Iran in the past. Interestingly, it recently came out that he was born into a Jewish family that later converted to Islam. I remember him being quoted as saying that it is not good to make decisions when you are angry, people make bad decisions when they are angry. Like invading and occupying Iraq. Fear and anger are potent political tools. Just ask the American Republican party, Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh. A great moment was when he was giving a speech in New York City. When he said that there are no gays in Iran, the audience laughed. I do think that the Clinton and McCain expressions of potential American aggression against Iran are unwise. However, more ambiguous statements of military support for American allies could be made, such as we will respond with appropriate force to any attacks.

Posted by: bill - Mar 09, 2010 11:57 AM

Politicians should wear suits like NASCAR drivers showing their sponsorships. Once you see the logo's, you know everything about our domestic and foreign policies.

Posted by: w - Mar 09, 2010 1:48 PM

Nothing grows in unfertile soil, Rick. While it is convenient for those in Germany and, to a lesser degree, Italy (ever see the Mussolini figurines in the markets?), to believe their parents and grandparents were merely duped by bombast, we must remember that their views found a very receptive audience. Painful as it is to confront, it was normal, kind, schnapps and chianti drinking Europeans that committed the barbarous acts of WWII, not their charismatic leaders. No nation has a leader or major political movement that doesn't enjoy some support. Dismissing that support as clueless, unrepresentative, or duped doesn't make it go away. As a liberal that has been heavily criticized, surely you must realize that rhetoric does sometimes match the opinions of those in the street?

Posted by: Dan - Mar 10, 2010 6:48 AM

I read that Iranians have lots of pride and they are indeed religious as their martyrdom during the 1980's Iran/Iraq war attests (thousands attacking fortified Iraqi positions even tho they had no weapons). But there is also no doubt that the Iranian state snuffs out dissent quickly. It may be that if in our own country we lobby to permit our corporations like Microsoft to permit Iranians more access to available social and info networks, Iranian citizens will be more enlightened and more influential in their own country. It's a start.

Posted by: b - Mar 10, 2010 8:47 AM