By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to Iranian media reports, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was killed in recent Israeli and U.S. strikes, along with his bodyguards. Ahmadinejad, who served from 2005 to 2013, was a prominent figure in Iran’s nuclear program and known for his anti-Israel rhetoric and Holocaust denial. Despite leaving office in 2013, he remained popular with some Iranians and continued to be outspoken, even criticizing government corruption.
Read the original article here
The recent reports of former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s assassination have sent ripples of surprise and speculation across the globe. For many, Ahmadinejad, though a significant figure in his time, had faded from the forefront of international attention, making his reported demise all the more perplexing. He had even been notably disallowed from running for president in 2024, suggesting a diminished, rather than heightened, political profile within Iran. This raises the immediate question: why would he be deemed a valuable target now, after a period seemingly out of the direct political spotlight?
The notion that his public pronouncements, particularly his lighthearted wish for the University of Michigan to regain its football glory, would be remembered fondly, even in jest, highlights a peculiar aspect of his public persona. It’s a stark contrast to the more serious and often controversial policies and statements that defined his presidency. This unexpected mention of his Twitter activity, specifically his desire for the Wolverines’ gridiron resurgence, offers a glimpse into how even the seemingly trivial could become a point of recall, overshadowed by more substantial, and often troubling, aspects of his legacy.
The rapid succession of high-profile figures, from national defense heads to intelligence officials and even the Supreme Leader, being implicated in or becoming victims of violence, paints a grim picture of instability. The addition of Ahmadinejad to this list, if confirmed, further fuels the narrative of a systematic dismantling or purging within the Iranian political landscape. It seems that anyone who surfaces, even with a seemingly innocuous claim to influence or a historical connection, is swiftly removed from the equation, creating a volatile environment where power vacuums are constantly forming and being filled.
There’s an almost surreal quality to the sheer volume of editing occurring on platforms like Wikipedia, where “is” is being relentlessly changed to “was” and “former” is being appended to an ever-growing list of individuals. It speaks to the speed at which this narrative is unfolding and the desperate need to accurately reflect a rapidly changing political reality. Some might even jokingly suggest that one of Ahmadinejad’s most significant “atrocities” was his earnest tweet about hard work leading the University of Michigan back to its glory days, a testament to how even minor public statements are being re-examined in light of these developments.
The speculation surrounding his potential assassination also brings to mind his past public interests, such as his reported fondness for tweeting about American basketball games. This particular detail adds another layer to his multifaceted public image, contrasting sharply with the more serious international concerns surrounding his presidency. The comparison to characters in films and the observation that he was “batshit but entertaining” in interviews because he genuinely believed his pronouncements, paints a picture of a figure who, while controversial, possessed a certain undeniable charisma or conviction that captivated attention.
The idea that assassinations, outside of large-scale military operations, are becoming increasingly rare is a thought-provoking one. The implication that more covert, targeted methods are being employed suggests a calculated approach to eliminating perceived threats and, crucially, preventing any potential for a political opposition to emerge and claim power. This is particularly concerning when considering the possibility of external forces seeking to install their own preferred candidates, thereby creating a controlled environment rather than allowing for organic political evolution within Iran.
Many recall a time when Ahmadinejad was indeed a central figure on the global stage, witnessing his rise and the international attention he commanded. The juxtaposition of memories, like being at home and seeing him on the news, versus more personal experiences, highlights how individuals can occupy vastly different spaces in collective memory. The lyrical snippets that emerge, even if presented humorously, touch upon the visceral reactions he elicited, demonstrating a complex emotional response that transcends simple political agreement or disagreement.
The pronouncements attributed to him, such as the infamous “No gay people in Iran” and the crackdowns on protests during his tenure, serve as stark reminders of the darker aspects of his presidency. These are not easily forgotten and cast a long shadow over any attempt to paint him as a figure solely defined by his more eccentric public moments. The fact that he was a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite is particularly significant, suggesting that certain actors, like Israel, would not have forgotten these stances.
The discussion around the motivations for such an act often circles back to the idea of eliminating political opponents. However, the complexity arises when considering that Ahmadinejad might have held a certain sway among reformers and pro-democracy groups, as well as the working class. His reported anti-Israel and anti-American stances could have made him a rallying point for discontent, and his elimination could be seen as a preemptive strike to prevent him from capitalizing on any potential instability or transition.
The chilling observation that “the US wants to execute any politician of any country” and the thought that “we use selective annihilation of mayors and government officials, for example, to destroy the presence of the state and create a vacuum” presents a deeply disturbing, albeit hypothetical, scenario. This perspective suggests a strategic, calculated approach to destabilization, where the removal of key figures is not merely about eliminating an individual but about dismantling a system and creating conditions ripe for external influence or control.
The sentiment of “good riddance” is undeniably present, particularly from those who remember his more egregious actions and statements. However, there’s also a pragmatic concern that his removal, especially if orchestrated to create a power vacuum, could inadvertently strengthen the regime against external perceived threats or lead to the rise of another, potentially more dangerous, figure. The notion that this could be a “misstep” by those responsible, given his potential popularity among reformist elements, adds another layer of strategic consideration to the unfolding events.
The broader geopolitical implications are also being considered, with the argument that without nuclear weapons, nations are vulnerable to being “taken out” by those who possess them. This fear can drive a desperate pursuit of such capabilities, creating a cycle of escalation. The idea that anyone with ties to the regime could be eliminated to make way for figures aligned with Mossad or the CIA points towards a potential scenario of external manipulation and control.
The regime’s survival is questioned in the face of continuous “dismantling of their human resources and infrastructure.” If Ahmadinejad was a figure who could potentially bridge divides or represent a popular base, his removal could be seen as a strategic move to prevent such unification. The prospect of a “power vacuum” leading to Iran descending “into shit asap” reflects a cynical view of the region’s political future and the potential for chaos following such a significant event.
The reports that Israel has stated that if he is dead, it was an accident, add a layer of plausible deniability and diplomatic maneuvering to the situation. This statement, however, does little to quell the underlying speculation about the targeted nature of his death and the broader implications for regional stability and the future of Iran’s political landscape. The question remains: who benefits from this alleged assassination, and what does it portend for the future?