Ahmedinejad's statement is a serious realpolitik position being adopted in a turbulent region. The US has been demonising and isolating Iran; America is intent on taking Iran to the UN Security Council, for being subjected to mandatory sanctions, depending upon votes in the UNSC. The threats of US or Israeli military action, in addition to full blown undercover subversion, are not hot air, either. Nor are Israeli/American threats against Syria, a virtual ally of Iran, hot air. The Iranian president's statement is to be seen against this complex background.

Remember, the Iranian orthodoxy was losing its hold on the loyalties of the unemployed, students, and women. This was what Americans did not appreciate. Had they done so, they could have resorted to masterful inactivity to let the dynamics of Iranian politics evolve its own path to a relaxed, if not democratic, dispensation. President Bush's recent hard-line stance against Iran strengthened the hands of the orthodoxy, which is now intent on wiping out expressions of dissatisfaction with its near totalitarian rule. With this hard statement, Ahmedinejad hopes to reunite the Iranians under the Islamic orthodoxy's banner. The gains the marginalised sections had made under Khatemi are at risk.

Comparison between the US power, competently assisted by powerful Israel, with Iran's is obviously unequal. Iran is incomparably inferior in military capabilities. Even so, the Iranian position is not foolish. The particular statement has to be seen in perspective of the Iranian perception. Starting with the assumption that the US would attack, they had nothing more to lose. The efforts by Rafsanjani and Khatemi to emphasise inter-civilisational dialogue and also favouring Iranian/American negotiations, overt or secret, were ignored by the Americans, who seem to have prepared for action. Therefore some desperation is to be seen among Iranians. Thus the first requirement for Iran in this situation is to create national unity under the ruling orthodoxy. American actions have favoured the Iranian clergy against the forerunners of democracy.

The Iranians may also be aiming at Arab opinion. The Sunni Iraqis and Syrians may be sufficiently anti-American to listen to Iran. It may go some way toward recruiting Iraqis and strengthening the Arab forces that want political change in replacing old monarchical regimes with democratic ones. Iran is projecting itself as a strong and reliable anti-Israeli force. It wants the old enmity between the Arabs and Iranians to be subordinated to the anti-Israeli cause by supporting Iran. Instead of being foolish, Ahmedinejad is taking up a realpolitik position that challenges the American (and Israeli) colossus. Iran wants to play a dominant role in ME and win over the anti-Israeli Arab opinion. Who can say that they will succeed or not. But they are making an effort to mobilize Arab opinion.

This design can be interpreted as an essay in reviving the old Khomeini efforts to hammer out a modus operandi between Shias and Sunnis, politically bridging the historic schism. He almost shared the Indo-Pakistan concept of Pan-Islamism. The effort did not quite succeed largely because of the threat felt by Sunni regimes in ME to themselves. So they promoted anti-Iranian and anti-Shia sentiment, particularly through blowing up territorial disputes over Gulf islands. Whether this effort will succeed is uncertain.

The statement goes far: it makes the genesis of Israel a proposition to be debated again. The role of British imperialism in the last century has to be revisited. What the British did through their Balfour Declaration of 1917 was a promise of creating a Jewish national home in Palestine with the specific proviso that it would not abridge Arab's social, cultural and political rights. How well did the British respect that proviso is a question that still needs to be asked.

There is the reasoning: Israel as a state exists; it is powerful; it has to be accepted as a fact of life; the Arabs can do very little about it; the best course is to recognise a fact of life and live with it. The only conclusion that emerges from this is the Arabs must obey Israel and whatever treatment it metes out to the Palestinians is OK and whatever it leaves for the Arabs to pick up has to be accepted. That is supposedly realistic and pragmatic politics. It is a total denial of historic Arab rights over Palestine. Since Israel has the power and international support, it can impose any settlement it likes; that's OK.

Few fair-minded people can accept it. One does not have to be an Arab to appreciate this. True, Arabs do not endear themselves to outsiders. But that has nothing to do with their inherent human rights even in other Arab countries, particularly in Palestine. Palestinians' inherent rights have to be recognised. The stark historical fact is that Zionist leaders actually refused to recognise there were any people in Palestine. To Golda Meyer it was like an empty desert where a few Bedouins might have been there, but no Palestinian people as a nation existed. Do we have to accept in the 21st century this kind of realism?

The Arabs and other supporters of the Palestinians have not done a good PR job. The genesis of Israel only details deceit and lies by the British and Israelis. It is about time to revisit Israel's genesis and work for a fairer deal for the Arabs.

The Iranian leader knew what he was saying. What he said is that Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. What Ahmedinejad's meant was "come and get us." True, Americans and/or Israelis would be able to destroy much of Iranian infrastructure or state structures.

But beyond that, what they can do amounts to nil. Iran itself would be ten times of Vietnam to conquer and incorporate into the western system. Sure, the Americans and the Israelis can get into Iran. But how will they get out?

Merely to rely on aerial or naval bombardment would leave smouldering Iran bereft of modern structures and probably will have to be nuked. The Iranian oil will disappear from the world market for God knows how long. The Americans will still not be able to restart the oil industry. It will create such a turmoil in the international oil market that a depression in the west may not remain avoidable. All in all, the destruction of Iran might be conceivable. But what others can gain from it is hard to imagine.

Iranians may be relying on a changed world. Other centres of influence are emerging. Americans are not very popular in Latin America and the rest of the third world, especially in Asia. Even Europe is tired of American leadership. Global opinion, operating through American opinion, may finally emerge as a countervailing force. Is Ahmedinejad right? Who can say.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.