Rouhani’s Holocaust Bullshit

What the Iranian president said in his interview with Amanpour:

“I have said before that I am not a historian, and that when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust it is the historians that should reflect on it … But in general I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people, was reprehensible and condemnable as far as we are concerned.”

Fisher analyzes:

For some in the West, Rouhani’s condemnation of the Holocaust was a remarkable step forward from 10 years of Ahmadinejad, and a significant gesture from a president who still has to answer to the hard-line supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, no friend of Israel and ultimately Rouhani’s boss. For others, though, his apparent deferral to Holocaust revisionists was a sad reminder of the degree of hostility toward not just Israel but Jews entrenched in the Iranian political system – and a sign that Rouhani is still of that system.

Marc Tracy accuses Rouhani of perpetuating Holocaust denial:

Imagine that a company or some other kind of organization with a history of believing that the world is flat appoints a new CEO who is more open to alternative beliefs about the shape of the world. “The world is not flat,” he says. But he doesn’t then say: “In fact, the world is a globe with a circumference of 24,901 miles.” He says: “I don’t know whether it is a globe. Maybe it is. Or maybe it is curved. Maybe it is jagged, like one of its many mountain ranges. Maybe it dips, like a crater. Maybe it is a series of steps hurtling through the cosmos. I am not qualified to judge.” Would you say that this person has come to hold the mainstream view on the shape of the world?

But again, obviously the remark is embedded in the difficult task Rouhani has in both getting a deal with the West, while not provoking insurrection from his more reactionary, hateful colleagues in the Iranian political system. Moynihan’s view:

It’s important to remember that the skilled Holocaust denier parses, dissects, and molests language, quibbling with the word “denial”—they typically acknowledge that many Jews died, but were victims of various typhus epidemics—and wondering why shadowy forces are hamstringing dissenting historians.

Jonathan Tobin piles on:

That these stands are calculated to convince Western elites that Rouhani is a decent person while still giving him cover at home is a tribute to the cleverness of the Iranian tactic. After all, contrary to some other statements uttered during the charm offensive, there is more to Iranian anti-Semitism than just Ahmadinejad’s personal obsessions. Iranian TV often broadcasts material that merges the two topics by claiming that Jews have exaggerated the extent of the Holocaust in order to “steal” Palestine from the Arabs and hoodwink the United States out of money. Rouhani’s mention of the doubts about how many Jews died is a signal to Iranians and other Islamists that he is very much on the same page as Ahmadinejad but knows how to talk to Westerners.

How do we know that it isn’t the opposite: a signal to the West that he is very much on the same page as indisputable, mainstream history, but knows how to handle Iranian domestic factions? It seems to me that this is a more plausible explanation.

All this debate on these principles is well and good, but it’s important to remember that the test, right now, is not whether Iran’s theocracy will suddenly become like the West, but whether we can do business with them on their nuclear ambitions – and whether Rouhani can effectively deliver his far right the way Obama will have to deliver the AIPAC-influenced Congress.