There are some apples and oranges in the Hitler comparison.
Iran is not, and has never been a democracy, where Germany was, at the time of Hitler's rise to power.
The comparison of the government's internal structure is therefore invalidated because Iran is a Theocracy. Over shadowing this is a so called elected president who exhibits fascist tendencies, but is impotent and not inner directed, except for his mouth.
The Theocratic machine that actually runs Iran is in the background at all times, and there is but one political power that can dislodge it. This power would be the people and public of Iran.
unfortunately for us, the construct of Islam prevents these people from going against it's government because the government represents Islam as well as Iran.
If you want a valid comparison to this, it would be Rome, and it's conquered territories, under the direction of the Vatican and it's Pope. This set up the situation where to go against one's government, you had to go against the leadership of your religion.
The primary intent of our Constitutional prohibition of the combining of church and state.
These people will need to be conquered, as talking and CIA covert funding of a hoped for public insurrection will be unsuccessful. IMHO
First off, Germany wasn't really much of a democracy. Moreover, well before Hitler it had been secretly been making moves to restore its military strength. Hitler didn't create that, he inherited it. His contribution to it was to accelerate the buildup and to make it overt. Ahneedajihad is in exactly the same position: he's inherited an existing effort, and has now made it overt.
I wasn't comparing Iran and Germany's political structures -- I was comparing Ahneedajihad and Hitler. My unspoken thoughts had to do with how these strong, attractive (to the natives) individuals might affect the direction of their countries. The comparison might just as easily be made with respect to any other charismatic tyrant.
The point is that charismatic tyrants have time and again risen to power and tapped into some national psychological dynamic in such a manner as to their countries to undertake wars of aggression. Hitler's an excellent point of comparison, because there really are a lot of parallels in how these two guys fit within the national dynamic.
If we accept the description in this article, we see that:
* both are/were engaging and able politicians who seem able to drive national policies in the direction they want.
* both are champions for the advance in power for their countries;
* both use the argument that their countries are being held down, and should be allowed to flower;
* both are able to tap in to a militant dynamic among the ruling classes of the country (mullahs being equivalent to the German General Staff, which quietly controlled the real power in Germany);
* both have at their disposal a fanatical military force
* there are distinct and definable enemies on which to focus the nation's energies. In the case of Germany, it was Jews and Communists. In the case of Iran, it's Jews and Western Infidels.
* Finally, and most important, there is a "positive" focus for their fanaticism. Hitler's was that slew of weird "master race" theories. Ahneedajihad's focuses on the 12th Imam. Both of these play very well with the fanatical military arms of their respective countries.
The quote from Ali Ahmadi is amazingly reminiscent of Germans at the time of Hitler's rise: they don't much like the man, but they like what he's doing for the country.