Stunt or Statesmanship? Ahmandinejad Goes to Ground Zero

This morning I was bombarded by a series of phone calls from the press. Breathlessly, they all asked how I felt about Ahmandinejad, the president of Iran, visiting Ground Zero.

Wasn't I outraged?

Didn't I want to protest such a flagrant act of disrespect by this world outcast toward one of our country's most sacred sites?

How could a "terrorist leader on the level of UBL" have the audacity to visit Ground Zero?

By the third call before 9 a.m. I was fairly irritated. Mostly because the only news show that has made any real effort to get the American people to better understand Iran is The Today Show, which sent Matt Lauer to Tehran last week. (Incidentally, we should all commend Today Show producers for that effort -- this was the best morning television programming that I have seen in years, largely because it was not about "reprogramming" Americans for yet another war.)

So, no, I wasn't angry that Ahmandinejad wanted to visit Ground Zero. I was angry, however, at the "pack mentality" of our leading journalists. I was also dismayed -- but not surprised -- at the similar mentality of our current crop of political officials and presidential candidates, several of whom provided the same predictable, politically-correct sound-bite: "We are OUTRAGED!"

What I would have preferred was some real statesmanship.

Real statesmanship would be a presidential candidate with the courage to encourage potentially dangerous, misinformed leaders like Ahmandinejad to visit Ground Zero, in the hopes that they might learn something.

Real statesmanship would mean proposing a new dialogue with Ahmandinejad and other Iranian leaders, searching for some common ground between America and Iran while there's still time to avert disaster.

Real statesmanship would not be intimidated by the O'Reillys and the Ann Coulters of the world. Real statesmanship would not view this kind of diplomacy as weak, but wise. Real statesmanship would not be based on knee-jerk reactions, but on long-term vision.

So far not one presidential candidate has seized the opportunity to do something "out of the box" and important on Iran -- like actually meeting Ahmandinejad at Ground Zero and challenging him to a real dialogue.

Can you get the visual? Extending hands like an olive branch -- saying to the world that it is high time for Iran and the U.S. to join together to end terrorism, root out rogue extremist groups, and combat the injustice that nurtures them? That would be bold action, not cheap, tough talk. It would show the world that we are strong and confident enough to deal directly and squarely with our enemies, inviting them to join these common battles.

Imagine Rudy or Hillary actually engaging Ahmandinejad in a dialogue at Ground Zero, asking him tough questions about what his real intentions are, explaining the pain that Ground Zero represents to Americans, and why we all must work together to root out terrorism.

Of course, if Ahmandinejad really wants to walk in freedom around the freest city in the world he should also be prepared to address to the legitimate concerns of Americans and the world. So, as a quid pro quo, real leaders (like Rudy and Hillary claim to be) should also demand that Ahmandinejad answer the following questions:

1. Will you continue to crack down on illegal drugs flowing out of Afghanistan? Would you be interested in collaborating with the U.S. in this?

2. How can we secure adequate UN inspections of your nuclear facilities? What guarantees are you willing to give the world about your nuclear intentions? Do you really not understand how concerned we are about them?

3. What role is Iran currently playing in Iraq? Are you aware that the military aid you've reportedly been providing may only be prolonging the U.S. presence?

4. What is the status of the half-dozen American citizens that Iran is holding under arrest? How soon can we secure their release? More generally, why does Iran hold so many political prisoners in its jails, and why is your government so reluctant to allow any real political opposition?

5. Just last week you reportedly stated that you "hated" Americans. Do you really feel that way? If so, why have you decided to visit a place that Americans hold dear in our hearts?

Would Ahmandinejad answer these questions truthfully? Probably not -- that's not what any political leaders have much practice at. But that is beside the point. The point is that there is a strong case to be said for looking the man directly in the eye, precisely at a place like Ground Zero, demanding answers to these questions, and demonstrating that we are also capable of answering his tough questions.

The fact is, people are transformed by visiting the open wound of Ground Zero. Perhaps it is naïve to hope for this when it comes to Ahmandinejad. By September 2007, however, we have come to understand a few things. We can no longer go it alone as a nation, when it comes to fighting terrorism and making our world a safer place. We need a global approach. This necessarily means talking to scoundrels, rogues, and unsavory characters that we don't like.

Maybe President Ahmandinejad's trip to Ground Zero could provide a first step toward forging a new relationship with Iran. Maybe not. But this is, after all, Ground Zero. To me, there could be no better place for the dialogue to begin.

(And, frankly, if it weren't for President Bush, this dialogue (and many others like it) might have commenced six years ago in the wake of 9/11. But then again I digress...)

Comments

[pablopianos]

As correct as Kristen Breitweiser's viewpoint is, I wonder why the United Nations is NEVER mentioned by anyone.

Kristen says that we (the U.S.) can't go it alone when we fight terrorists. That is certainly correct. But why can't any sober individual realize that multi-nationalism is the result of WWII -the United Nations.

We decide that the UN is irrelevant. It will only work when we join in and strive for global peace.

If the U.S. must "wage the war on terror" alone, then let's bill every taxpayer monthly for the true cost of it.

Other than our men and women who are dying each day in Iraq, the two most salient concerns are how we as a nation are becoming paupers, and how much of financial drain the war is.

Rather than $250 million for each F-22, let's build schools, pay bonuses for premium teachers and whatever as opposed to financing the military/industrial complex.

How can we believe in democracy when the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the military hardware corporations are powerful enough to stifle any congressional dissent in these areas?

[Raster]

Statesmanship? Don't look for it in the US political class. What's needed is a bell-ringing, wake up call.

[jdgnevada]

Missy - you're right on the money! Last time I checked, dude had nothing to do with 9/11, and doesn't the fact that we're a free country guarantee his right to do what he wants as long as he's been granted a visa and isn't breaking the law?

[ruchild]

My 2cents is this, if a President of a foreign nation wants to visit Ground Zero let him. The politics surrounding a State Visit such as this is just horrendous. Why do people want to deny him an opportunity to pay his respects? Do those in charge truly think no Muslims died in the towers that day? Do they think that someone from Iran cannot understand? I believe after 9/11 there were declarations of unity with us in Iran on the streets, from the government for such a horrendous tragedy as 9/11 was. Who cares why he wants to go, he wants to go and that decision is between him and his God, not for us to quibble over or be bad hosts and say, no you can't go because we don't like you. When did we become such rude hosts? Is it when people in DC decided that Iran was our next target possibly?

[Remembering]

I agree. If the Bush administration were conducting diplomacy instead of pursuing war Ahmandinejad's request to visit Ground Zero would be decided upon by the State Department.
The gesture would be considered as a possible opening, not as an affront. Even if refused his request should be handled in a diplomatic manner.

[Witchitalineman]

I totally agree with you.

[old new englander]

A rare voice of sanity.

[rabun666]

Denying him access to "ground O" is an attempt to morph Iran with the 9/11 terrorists. Listening to Bush reveals this is what's happening. The gullible American public was lead into believing that Sadaam and al-qaeda were successfully morphed even though Sadaam was al-qaeda sworn enemy. Now the same is being done with the only difference being that the Q in Iraq has been changed to an N for Iran. Iran is also al-qaeda's sworn enemy because they are Persian and Shia.This is how the Bushit'es consider the American public, completely and utterly stupid and they are more right than wrong.

[nancytheragingliberal]

Kristen, your husband was a strong man and I am so sorry for your loss that of your family. We need more individuals with the strength he displayed. Not these pseudo fake, "strong" folks who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. I agree that we need to engage Iran. Sadly, this excuse for an administration only understands war, not talk. Listen to the verbal delivery of our so-called Pres......Well, you get the picture. I agree that we have not had true media representation for years. Maybe that will change, but somehow, I doubt it. We need comments and discussion from both sides of the aisle, not this endless drivel from one side (repub.). Please continue to write your posts. You are a very interesting, articulate woman.

[josieb]

I don't see any difference between Ahmandinejad and Bush. Bush goes to Iraq, so why shouldn't Ahmandinejad see the WTC?

[brutus948]

one difference. Ahmadinejad didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Bush is the reason we are in Iraq and the reason that country is destryed.

[MainSpark]

mommadona
"We don't enable ideological zealots for THEIR benefit."

We don't?!? Oh, wait. Perhaps you're referring only to "foreign" ideological zealots. If that's the case, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I think that there may be a home-grown ideological zealot or two running loose in this country, fully enabled.

[crawfishpie]

When Fidel Castro came to the United Nations in 1959, a leader hungry for recognition after having fought an entire revolution against the very bloody dictator Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar, Eisenhower refused to meet with him.

It was that refusal of Eisenhower's to meet with and recognize Fidel Castro, that pushed Castro right into the hands of Kruschev and Cuba into Communism.

Bush is following the same Eisenhower arrogant path of not speaking to a world leader, Ahmadinejad ... I see this as a Bush maneuver to push Ahmadinejad into escalating ill will against the U.S. -- Hopefully Ahmadinejad is wiser than Bush, and hopefully he will not take Bush's bait like Castro took Eisenhower's...and hopefully whatever ill will this Bush/U.S. refusal to recognize Ahmadinejad creates in him, it will not escale us into giving Bush the sought after excuse to attack Iran.

[BritPatJax]

If you take in the high handed responses that you hear from many about this it begs the question as to whether the center of International Affairs should move? Too many seem to forget that they have a privilege to have United Nations located here? Perhaps London should now be chosen as the center of the universe and a place where there is not so much insular bigotry and shortsightedness? I am sure that Londoners would see it as it is and not raise a hackle about such things as 'life is too short'. Wow, Khrushchev wanted to see Disneyland also? That was awful? London calling London Calling....Leader of Iran wishes to visit the Cenotaph whilst in London at the United Nations. Stop Press. "Whatever next? Chavez will want to go the Madame Tussaud's"? Move United Nations to Paris I say. Get real people please?

[linkunlovr]

You are right about the idiotic response from
the candidates. All they do is posture for the
media. Only Kucinich has the vision to understand that this would be a propaganda plus for the US having this guy acknowledge the horror of 9/11. The rest of these people are an embarassment and the Republicans, and their copycats like Hillary are from the take no prisoners school of foreign policy. This is why we're in the mess we are in now.

[vippy]

Our president is snubbing Ahmedinejad. Iran
is not behind all those attacks in Iraq. Every
article we read involves Saudis but we don't hear a thing about that. Majority captured in Iraq are Saudis. Bush wants to get the oil of Iran and uses the media to attract our attention
to this country and fools such as we are, believe the crap they feed us again. Disgusting! Bush is a coward who won't debate with Ahmedinejad because the truth will come out
and that is the furthest from his intention.