How did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad become the strangest mystery of the Iran War?

 

How did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad become the strangest mystery of the Iran War?

‘You should know that this undesirable regime is on the verge of collapse. It will fall by the grace of God and no one will be able to save it. This regime has reached its end and will soon disappear from the geographical landscape.’

This statement made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one of the world’s most prominent anti-Israel leaders for years.

He questioned the Holocaust, called Israel a ‘phony state’ and defended the need to advance Iran’s nuclear program regardless of international sanctions.

Such positions and statements made Ahmadinejad one of the figures that Israeli officials often cited to explain the ‘Iranian threat’ to the world.

Now this same name has once again appeared in one of the strangest stories of the recent Iran-Iran war.

According to a report in the New York Times, before the Iran-Iran war began, the United States and Israel had considered a scenario in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be presented as a possible future figure of power in Iran, freed from the control of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s security forces.

According to the report, this idea was actually part of an Israeli plan that was prepared for the period after the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the instability in the central power structure in Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his close associates have not yet responded to this report, and there is no information available about Ahmadinejad's current whereabouts or condition.

Was Ahmadinejad an enemy who was beneficial to Israel?

To understand the sensitivity of this story, we need to go back to the heyday of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iranian politics.

He was elected mayor of Tehran in 2003 and until then was not a very well-known figure on the Iranian political scene. Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005 on the slogan of justice, simplicity and the fight against corruption, but he quickly became a prominent figure on the global stage, not because of his domestic agenda, but because of his statements about Israel, the United States and the Holocaust.

In October 2005, at a conference in Tehran entitled ‘A World Without Global Zionism’, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that ‘a world without America and Zionism is possible.’ In the same speech, he repeated a phrase attributed to Ruhollah Khomeini, which the Western media portrayed as if he had spoken of ‘wiping Israel off the map or off the face of the earth.’

Almost a year later, a controversial conference on the ‘Revisiting the Holocaust’ was held in Tehran, and the participation of prominent Holocaust deniers in the meeting provoked a strong international reaction.

Several Israeli officials and analysts have openly stated in subsequent years that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually acted in Israel’s interests through his hardline narrative and Holocaust denial. In 2008, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi called him “Iran’s greatest gift to Israel” because, according to him, Ahmadinejad’s statements made it easier for the world to take the Iranian threat seriously.

The affair led some of Ahmadinejad’s critics to question whether his policies and statements actually benefited Israel more than Iran or its government.

Ahmadinejad dismissed the sanctions on Iran as “torn paper,” escalated the nuclear issue to a more critical stage, led to several resolutions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council, and placed the country under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which means it is a “threat to international peace and security.”

Some international observers believed that he indirectly helped Israel to present the ‘Iranian threat’ narrative to the world by creating a living and loud example.

Of course, Ahmadinejad’s supporters argue that he pursued an aggressive and ideological policy within the confines of the official narrative of the Islamic Republic of Iran during this period, and that his goal was actually to confront Israel and the West, not to help them.

Change after power

But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not the same after the end of his presidency. He had disagreements with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran's powerful security apparatus, was disqualified several times by Iran's Guardian Council, and gradually began to present himself as a politician who was completely pro-government to a politician who was critical, public, and even opposed to some structures of power.

However, the support of the Supreme Leader during his time in the Pasteur (President's Office) ensured, at least on the surface, that Ahmadinejad was not completely ignored like other former heads of state, and he continued to serve as a member of the Expediency Discernment Council.

In those years, Ahmadinejad tried to create a new image for himself on social media, tweeting in English, congratulating the University of Michigan football team, or quoting quotes from the famous American rapper and hip-hop singer Tupac Shakur. He also praised Donald Trump for what he called his "struggle against American political corruption."

Raz Zimet, director of the Iran and Shia Axis Program at the Israeli Institute for National Security, responded to the New York Times report by writing: "Ahmadinejad was a combination of populism and opportunism during his presidency. A man who, on the one hand, spoke of the destruction of Israel and denied the Holocaust, but on the other, he also took sometimes contradictory and unexpected positions."

Zimet added that in recent years, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has tried to portray himself as more "moderate" and acceptable to the Iranian and Western public, but although some surveys suggest that he has the support of a section of Iranian society, it should be remembered that this support is not enough to gain power in Iran, a country of more than 90 million people.

According to him, the main problem in such a scenario is that Ahmadinejad neither has a strong organizational base nor is the Revolutionary Guards prepared to support him.

Big lie or hidden truth?

All this has revived an old question in the Iranian political landscape: was Ahmadinejad really who he claimed to be?

To some of his critics, his changing behavior, from his presidency to his foreign trips to his silence about the recent war, seems excessively erratic.

They say Ahmadinejad's policies have further isolated Iran internationally, brought the nuclear dispute to a crisis point, increased sanctions on Iran and provided Israel with excellent propaganda material.

This is not the first time that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been accused of trying to get closer to the forces with whom he has made hostility part of his political identity for years.

Ahmadinejad, who had gained much of his political credibility during his presidency from his confrontations with reformist leaders Mohammad Khatami and Mir Hossein Mousavi, appeared to be gradually changing his approach after being removed from power.

In September 2014, some local sources reported that he had tried to increase contacts with the reformists and even expressed a desire to meet with Mohammad Khatami, but the attempt was unsuccessful and no political cooperation was established between the two.

However, for Ahmadinejad’s critics, the attempt to approach a movement that they had for years described as a threat to “fitnah” and oppression was a signal that Ahmadinejad was ready to change his political stance and build new alliances, rather than being bound by ideological boundaries. This impression has now been re-examined in light of new narratives, which mention contacts and war scenarios.

On the other hand, there is no direct evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had any contact with Israel or the United States. Some analysts believe that the emerging image of Ahmadinejad is actually a combination of populism, internal divisions within the Islamic Republic, and misunderstandings by external powers, rather than a reflection of any secret relationship.

Finally, perhaps the most important point is that while Ahmadinejad may never have consciously served Israel’s interests, his critics believe that his foreign and domestic policies have effectively reinforced the Israeli narrative of the ‘Iranian threat’. This is why his name seems both strange and somewhat understandable in such scenarios.

It is not possible to draw any definitive conclusions yet. But the basic paradox is this: a politician who for years was known for his staunchly anti-Israel stance is now, according to some reports, considered a possible option for Iran’s future in the eyes of some circles in Israel and the United States.