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...)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Kristen....your post is great...
somehow, I wonder every people akcnowledge about Iran as Axe of evil (media and every body just copying and also Zionist propaganda) without further anaysis..?? do you think Ahmadinejad just want to have fun in ground zero??? why is he so extrimist??? in the first place while american mourn of 9/11......Ahmedinejad and many other unknown people in mid-east for the past 40 years has watch what is so called the biggest refugee ever in history for palestine, the massacre of sabra/shatila, bosnia and without any single media un US or politician pay sympaty?? oh I forgot...the deserve it??? what makes Ahmadinejad dislike for american when he said the truth??? " because jews hollocoust, israel has the right to act like barbaric???...silence on Israel attack on syria...without clarification about their report of NK nuclear supply??? why???do american just believe what israel intelligent said????? because what????...you know all??
Please...if you want peace, this is not the way US government should act...similar with terorist....
The term "Axis of Evil" is one of the stupidest ever coined by a leader of a so-called developed nation.
It testifies to the incredible ignorance of our Administration, that could only be willful, and thus inexcusable, in nature.
The only reason there has been no invasion of Iran yet is because the Government is afraid to impose a draft.
It shames me to have to write this about my country, but it is true.
1) It's not up to Iran to stop the heroin production in Afghanistan. It's up to NATO who caused the opium production to increase due to increased poverty, allying with the Warlords who use the opium money to support their militias and by overthrowing the Taliban who had opium production at a historical low.
2) Iran has bent over backwards to allow inspections of their facilities. They didn't have to. As a signatory to the NPT, they are allowed to pursue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. The United States does NOT allow inspection of their nuclear facilities. Why the double standard? Iran hasn't started a war of aggression... The United States has. Who's more dangerous? The US!
3) Iran is supporting Shia in Iraq... That's most likely the case... and have they indirectly caused the death of US Soldiers? Probably. BUT that being said, they're not doing anything the US hasn't done to them... the US supports the MEK, a terrorist group that operates against Iran... again a double standard.
4) Iran holds some US citizens in custody... they should be released... also, the US should release the Iranian diplomats that they have in custody... as well as the 400+ people they are holding in Gitmo... illegal combatants my ass... since when is it illegal to fight against an occupying army. There was an existing war going on in Afghanistan way before the US invaded... the "Northern Alliance" was fighting the "Taliban". Thanks to US assistance, the Northern Alliance won. Taliban prisoners that were captured were deemed as "Terrorists" and tortured by the Americans and sent off to rot in Gitmo. The vast majority of those people are not "bad guys or killers" as Bush says. Are the US soldiers "bad guys" when they kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan?
5) Do you blame him for hating Americans? I sure don't. He's been demonized by the western press over and over and over again... with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies told about him. Iran has been screwed over by the US over and over and over again...
Add to item 1)The opium coming out of Afghanistan is produced by, shall we say, friends of friends of the party in power. Farms of the competitors are the ones being busted.
Great points. There really is an enormous double standard. "Do as I say and not as I do" is basically official US policy in the 21st century. Unfortunately MSM is sitting on their complacent hands and not pointing out these things.
great points. i'd like to add to 3) that iran knows full well that the US had agents inside the inspection process in iraq gathering intelligence for future military strikes, and so are leery of inspections - even still they have cooperated according to their legal responsibilities.
There you go... that's not enough for this administration.
Iran has oil, it has brown people. They are game to the cabal in the WH.
elmysterio, beautiful and intelligent commentory. It's a shame that our war-loving corporate media cannot bring itself to tell the truth abou Iran. I guess if the demonization continues it will make it easier to kill a few millions of them. American and Israeli politician are already threatening Iran with nukes. Shame on them all for their blatant racism and their disregard for hunanity.
Peace.
What is it that makes you think that Ahmandinejad is misinformed, or that 'statesmanship' would have any effect on him? He's misinformed ... as in merely misguided? This man has no interest in being educated by us.
Yes - POLITICAL CORRECTNESS raises it's ugly little snakehead again.
"Can't we all jest git ALONG????"
No, we can't.
It's been posited in an "ideological battle" between religions, so, no, we can't "Jest git along"
And NO, DAMN IT - that little creep is lucky to have gotten a safe planeride over to this country. NO WAY is he going to be given A POLITICALLY LOADED MOMENT of STANDING AT GROUND ZERO - on the BODIES OF DEAD PEOPLE to spout his ideological crap.
Nope. Not in MY country.
We don't enable ideological zealots for THEIR benefit.
"Can't we all jest git ALONG????"
No, we can't.
It's been posited in an "ideological battle" between religions, so, no, we can't "Jest git along"
It's opinions like these that ensure that people of ideological difference can't get along. This isn't about religion. The people who flew those planes into the Twin Towers were not following Islam, or at least in the way the Prophet intended. The real reason terrorism and people like Ahmandinejad flourish is, bottom line, poverty. I can't for the life of me think of a significant political problem that hasn't stemmed from economic issues. So to blame this on Islam is to fall into the trap that Bush and his cohorts have so deftly laid out for us.
Give me a break.
Iran was one of the first nations to condemn the attack on 9/11.
Iran aided American efforts to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan.
Iran is not Al Quaida.
Iran did not attack us on 9/11, and having Ahmedinjad stand with us against those who actually attacked us would be a wise policy to weaken support for Bin Laden.
The neocon goal is to use 9/11 to conflate these conflicts. Endless repetition of their talking points means that to this day 30% of Americans still think Saddam was involved when he wasn't. These new talking points are aimed at convincing Americans to allow another pre-emptive attack on a nation that poses no clear or present danger.
Embracing a visit by Ahmedinjad to ground zero would be a PR coup that divides Muslims into those who support Al Quaida and those who oppose them.
Opposing the visit fuels the herd mentality supported by Bush/Cheney that may well lead to another disastrous war based on lies.
what about "Mission Accomplished"? What do you call that?
I'm glad you don't get to make any decisions then. Diplomacy should always be used, especially with people like Ahmahdinejad. The United States should be working with Iran, and if the man wants to go see ground Zero, I don't see why he shouldn't. Maybe he would learn something, maybe not, but why not give him the opportunity. I am so over war mongering, and horrible spelling and flagrant CAPITALIZATION.
I don't believe you own this country. Thank God. Even taking the most cynical view, ideological zealots of the "them vs. us" variety do not benefit from a "photo op" posted everywhere of a Muslim leader placing a wreath in honor of those murdered on Sept. 11. Perhaps that is the reason for your "MY country" rant.
Nor should he be "educated by the US"... I'm sure he knows WAY more about the real world than Americans do.
And you know that Ahmandinejad is and ideological zealot, CaseyBabes, how??
Because Bush and Co. says he is?
And edgwynn, how do you know that Ahmandinejad is misinformed or that he has no interest in being educated by us?
Has anyone at all in the Bush Administration attempted to approach him in any way?
At the last international conference which both Bush and Ahmandinejad attended, Bush made a public show of refusing to make any overtures, peaceful or otherwise.
I didn't say he was misinformed, nor do I think he is; I was merely questioning Breitweiser's assertion. As to the second half of your question, I would say that your hatred of Bush and Co. taints your judgement. Ahmandinejad is transparently trying to score points with the American general public while snubbing this administration - and he would do the same with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
How do you know? Have you spoken with him personally?
No one says we have to educate him, or agree with him. He doesn't even have to agree with us. The point is allowing us to co-exist peacefully. I cannot stand comments like these. How do we know what he is going to say or think if we don't try.
Is is possible he is looking to begin to talk with us? Maybe. As seen in a post below as well, Iran was one of the first nations to condemn the attacks of 9/11 and they helped us in Afghanistan immediately after, so its not as if his request here is inconsistent with his or his country's past actions.
Somehow, of course, the 9/11 attacks keep getting connected to the Iraq war and Iran. Its bull and it needs to stop.
great post
Except Alwhatshisname is an ideaological zealot.
True, but as the writer states accurately: "The fact is, people are transformed by visiting the open wound of Ground Zero."
Certainly, it is more transforming than the U.N. complex or an academic colloquium at Columbia University, which are his scheduled stops as of now.
It isn't wise to think we know what he can and can't learn, or that we know what his motives are. By allowing him to go to Ground Zero we would certainly learn a great deal about his character from his words and actions afterward.
Remember, this is a man who seems to need an education: He sponsored that Holocaust denial convention last year.
Ground Zero might be exactly what he needs to see.
So WHAT?
Is the answer to be blind ideological zealots ourselves?
What. And, like, we're not?
By "we're", I mean the neocons who are running the place right now.
Is not Bush and idealogical zealot? What a mess we are in because of this idiotic idea that we can only talk to people we like and agree with. God do we need Dennis Kucinich!
GW is just as much a ideological zealot.
Ahmandinejad is very unpopular with the young people of Iran and they make up a large segment of the population! Many are pro American and dislike the fundamentalists regime they live under.
The big hit on Iranian TV despite the rantings of their nutcase president - kind of a mirror image of our nutcase "religious" fruitcake was a show on the holocaust. Lets take a fresh look at Iran. Not the govt but the people - we are not represented by our govt and so it seems many of them are not by theirs.
She's exactly right. How did so many knee-jerk assholes get to be opinion leaders in media and government.
Because the knee-jerk answer is usually simplistic, easy to sound-bite, and easily becomes a rallying point.
Most of what our media has been telling us about Ahmadinejad seems to be wrong.
His letters to Bush and to the American people, sent in 2006, don't sound like the ravings of a lunatic:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15952309/
What gives?
His inviting David Duke to his Holocaust Conference last year in Tehran should tell you something right there.
It's not just what the Corporate Media says about Iran, it's what they DON'T say - when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to root out Al Queda it was the Iranian's intelligence that helped us achieve early success there. After The Naked Emperor had enough dead Al Queda photos to drum up support for the Iraq war he made his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech.
I can actually picture Dennis Kucinich meeting with President ImMadInTheHead, and somewhere in the depths of my soul (where the tiny bit of hope I still posess resides) I actually believe that it could be the start of something resembling progress. I wonder if President Carter has invited him to The Carter Center.
Kristen Breitweiser wrote: (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...) - Actually, I think that's the whole point!
As with any post concerning the Al Queda Attack on the U.S., the question remains - WHAT ABOUT THE SAUDI'S?
Grow up fool he is on his best behavior when he talks to us. Listen to what he says when he's talking to his own people.
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?
This post is primarily great only by comparison. The corporate media is running a smear campaign against Iran much like Hitler did against the Jews. The racist propaganda that compares human beings to vermins makes the our war terrorism much more acceptable.
Yes, I agree that it would be intructive to ask embarassing questions to Ahmadinajad. However, there are also many embarassing questions that needs to be ask of all American politicians. Why did we go to war against the people of Iraq, and why do we along with Israel, now threaten to nuke the people of Iran? Sadly, it seems like the war-profiteers are running our foreign policy.
Peace.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
