But in a recent speech to the United Nations, Ahmadinejad charged that "nuclear apartheid" dominates international relations. He may have calculated that his rhetoric would appeal to non-nuclear states and win their support for Iran's resistance to pressure from the United States to stop enriching uranium. While the International Atomic Energy Agency Board stopped short of referring the Iran case to the United Nations Security Council, its resolution recalled "Iran's failures...to meet its obligations under the [Non-Proliferation Treaty] Safeguards Agreement." Ahmadinejad's harsh rhetoric did not go over well, even among Iran's well-wishers.

President Ahmadinejad's recent verbal attack on Israel was a throwback to the early days of the Islamic revolution. In 1981, Ayatollah Khomeini told Iranians that he "regarded Israel as equal to the United States in oppression." By repeating Khomeini's call to wipe Israel off the map, Ahmadinejad echoed the passionate rhetoric of the early revolutionary days when Israel was depicted as the "illegitimate offspring of America, the godfather of the twin evils of Zionism and American imperialism."

Such rhetoric will not help Iran's standing in the world today.

It was predictable that such anti-Iranian hawks as John Bolton, a veteran pro-Israeli and neoconservative in the Bush administration and the current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Israeli leaders Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon would seize the opportunity to attack Iran's international legitimacy, as they have. Nevertheless, Iran must take note of the statement of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Annan said he had read "with dismay the remarks about Israel attributed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," and reminded "all Member States that Israel is a long-standing Member of the United Nations with the same rights and obligations as every other Member." The members of the U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Iran then attempted to contain the political fallout. The Iranian Foreign Ministry said that "Iran is committed to its obligations stated in the United Nations Charter and it has never tried to use force or threat against a second country." It added that "in Palestine, a durable peace will be possible through justice, an end to discrimination and occupation of Palestinian lands, the return of all Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state" with Jerusalem as its capital. This was merely a restatement of Iran's long-standing position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Appropriate international discourse is a vital aspect of international norms and no state can escape the consequences of inappropriate rhetoric. Even America, the world's sole superpower, periodically faces international reproach for statements seen as objectionable.

Witness the outcry in the Arab and Muslim worlds against President Bush's use of the term "crusade," the dismay among America's allies at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's distinction between "the old and the new Europe," and widespread criticism of President Bush's "axis of evil" phrase.

A state may harm its international legitimacy by going against widely accepted norms of international discourse. Meanwhile, international relations theorists of all stripes recognize that international legitimacy adds to a nation's material power. Hans J. Morgenthau, the world's leading traditional realist, said: "Prestige has become particularly important as [a] political weapon in an age in which the struggle for power is fought not only with the traditional methods of political pressure and military force but in large measure as a struggle for the mind[s] of men."
Iran's pro-Palestinian stance preceded the Iranian Revolution, but revolutionary ideology intensified it. President Ahmadinejad's strident anti-Israeli rhetoric reflects an ongoing imbalance between ideology and pragmatism in Iran's foreign policy.

In recent years, a new chasm has opened between Iranian society and the state.

Millions of young, Iranian women and men quietly believe in a pragmatic, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but their voices have not yet been heard in the clerical corridors of power. They are the ones who could strike a balance between the ideals of the revolution and pragmatic realities, both in Iran's domestic politics and in its foreign policy. Eventually.

For now, Ahmadinejad's election promises -- social justice, moderation and enhanced international prestige -- remain unfulfilled.

R. K. Ramazani is professor emeritus of politics at the University ofVirginia. He has published extensively on Iranian foreign policy.

Our Honorary Board member, Professor Ruhi Ramazani, provided a guest commentary to The Daily Progress for Nov. 13, 2005, headlined 'Iranian Rhetoric Harmful. With the permission of The Daily Progress, AIC is making the opinion piece available to its readership.