Hey Sam, if you're Iranian you should know at least know that the Supreme Leader isn't Khomeini, who died 18 years ago, but Ali Khamenei.
You deplore the fact that the Columbia audience didn't challenge Ahmadinejad's stance "on issues that mattered the most" - in your view, human rights in Iran. Well, most people might believe that the greatest human right is the right to life, so I think one should keep one's eye on the priorities, i.e. preventing a bloodbath inflicted on Iran by the U.S.
In view of the political system existing in Iran, it is absurd to demonize one man, Ahmadinejad, since the power to make or change policy does not lie with him, as you must well know.
The U.S. successfully demonized one man in 2002-2003, and now more than a million Iraqis lie in their graves. Is this what you want for Iran too?
Smartest Man in the Room
Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University has been getting an incredible amount of attention in the media, political and activist circles around the country. As someone who was born in Iran and lived in Tehran for 17 years, I want to give you my assessment of how I believe Ahmadinejad's visit will be viewed elsewhere in the world with the main conclusion that as he said his goodbyes to the audience in the university's hostile environment, one thing became clear: regardless of what you may think of his values (or lack thereof), he proved to be the savviest person in the room.
Let's begin with the massive protests. It was no surprise that there were thousands of people in the streets of New York protesting unconditional freedom of speech and his right to speak his mind. He knew that the city was home to over two million Jews, and that he would face massive protests. But that is precisely the martyr-like image that he was intending to create. Standing on that stage after a hostile introduction by the Columbia University president and in the face of thousands of protesters may have made him look lonely and illegitimate in the West. But to the eyes of many around the world, he looked like a hero and someone who was speaking what they are likely to consider "the truth" in the face of a bully. On August 31, this blogger wrote that one of the main reasons why the United States has not effectively addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and vetoed 47 UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel (14 under Bush II, 7 under Clinton, 7 under Bush I, and 19 under Reagan) is the strength of Jewish lobby in America and "the willingness of millions of Jews in America, including many liberal ones who normally support sensible foreign policies, to roll over, make an exception, keep silent and even vocally cheerlead America's support for the Israeli occupation." Massive protests in New York very much reinforced that assertion as almost all of the signs related to Iran's nuclear program and none relating to its actual human rights violations. I would have had a lot more admiration for the protesters if they focused more on Iran's primary crimes on women, youth, homosexuals, Baha'is and political dissenters instead of a predicted imaginary military attack against Israel that has not happened. Iranians will watch the protests and see that the main concern of the American people is not the oppression of Iranians, but Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric.
The president of Columbia's criticisms of Ahmadinejad's crimes before his speech was very constructive. But Bollinger did the cause of free speech and America's image in the Middle East a great deal of disservice when he went on for almost 19 minutes name-calling Ahmadinejad before allowing him to speak and not really thanking him for accepting Columbia's invitation to speak. Ahmadinejad scored a second point when he criticized the Columbia president for giving the audience what he called a "vaccination" before Ahmadinejad had a chance to speak. He said that in Iran, they allow students and professors to freely exchange ideas without instructing them how they should feel about things. That, of course, cannot have been farther from the truth. Nonetheless, many in the room related to his argument, promoting the students to applaud, hence ridiculing those who introduced him. It is understandable why Columbia would be inclined to give such an introduction to defuse some of the pressure that was asserted on the university due to massive criticisms of the institution for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. But he went too far, which gave Ahmadinejad the opportunity to successfully attack back and score some sympathy.
But the most tragic part of the event was the Q and A segment. The Iranian regime is as vulnerable with regards to its domestic policies as America is with regards to its foreign policy and war in Iraq. It is true that Iran has occasionally funded various groups that have been hostile to U.S. interests. But the United States has done the very same thing to Iran and much more. An example which Ahmadinejad pointed out to was Reagan's sales of weapons to Saddam, which he used against in Iran for eight years. I can still vividly remember the sound of sirens, duct taped living room windows and American-funded air strikes.
And yet, most of Bollinger's questions focused on Iran's foreign policies. By keeping the focus on international issues, Columbia gave him an easy way to turn the conversation around time and again and criticize American policy. One question was why Iran was enriching uranium, which Bollinger naively ended with "would you stop?" And why should they stop? There is no evidence that they are building a bomb, they are a member of the NPT, which gives them the right to enrich uranium, and their two main open enemies -- Israel and America -- both possess nuclear weapons, with the former not being a member of NPT and the latter breaking its rules by not moving toward the treaty's ultimate goal: elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Many Iranians hoped that Columbia would take this opportunity to keep the focus of questions on Iran's brutal domestic policies. And yet, of the five or six questions that were asked, astonishingly, only one related to human rights, with women and homosexuals put together in one question as if they didn't deserve their own individual questions. But for the most part, the questions that were asked of him were significantly superficial. This is not because questions with regards to anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric aren't important. But rather, they are nothing new! Iran has been issuing such empty rhetoric since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Yet that's what they have been: empty rhetoric for domestic consumption, not an official policy declaration. But human rights crimes, stoning of women for infidelity, arresting unmarried people for dating or holding hands in public and killing homosexuals for being have been going on for almost three decades. As someone who was arrested in Tehran at age 16 for the crime of being on a date, I can attest to that fact. Here are some questions Bollinger should have asked: Will you allow women to have the right to initiate divorce from their husbands or obtain a passport without the consent of their husbands? Will you allow boys and girls to date or go to school together? Do you promise that the people in Iran can be safe in publicly criticizing you or the Supreme Leader Khomeini? Will you guarantee people's rights to wear whatsoever clothing they choose in public? Will you allow people to convert away from Islam to other religions? Would you support a free UN-administered referendum for your people to vote on whether they want an Islamic republic or a secular democratic republic? If yes, will you respect its outcome?
Without asking these significant questions or any meaningful understanding of more than 2,500 years of Iranian history, Columbia provided an environment for Ahmadinejad to criticize American policy, divert every viewer's attention from the country's brutalities and oppression and play to the audience's idealist beliefs that scored him more applauses than any meaningful challenge to his stance and record on issues that mattered the most.
Comments for this post are now closed
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
"you should know at least know that the Supreme Leader isn't Khomeini, who died 18 years ago, but Ali Khamenei."
He already explained this in another note. "If you have been to Iran, you know that you cannot say anything bad about Khomeini even 18 years after his death. That was the point here."
"Most people might believe that the greatest human right is the right to life, so I think one should keep one's eye on the priorities, i.e. preventing a bloodbath inflicted on Iran by the U.S."
The way to do that is not by asking if Ahmadinejad would stop enriching uranium without telling him why they should, which farther legitimizes this demand. The nuclear issue could have been brought up, but Bollinger's question contained premises that have not been established, especially when he implied that enrichment should stop without saying why. If a possible bloodbath is your concern, then Ahmadinejad isn't the person who want to talk to. You may rather invite our own President Bush to Columbia to ask why Iran should stop enrichment in light of American and Israeli nuclear powers.
I agree that it is very true that Ahmadienjad has been heavily demonized. And I think Bollinger very much contributed to that effort.
I do agree that Ahamdinejad was able to score some points. I don't see that as trickery, rather that his position was closer to reality than the prevailing propaganda.
Bollinger sounded more like a Fox news pundit than a University president. He was asking questions he knew the speaker would not have time to answer and at the same time said "I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions." I find the president of Columbia university to be dis-honest and terribly un-informed.
Unlike you, I think the audience questioning were appropriate. Their questions had to concentrate on foreign policy. Ahamdinejad is visiting US for a UN speech,. The context of the trip is possible invasion of Iran. The pretext of invasion is nuclear rights of Iran vs international demands and claims that Iran is arming Iraqis. Furthermore, Various people have accused the Iranian president of being worst than Hitler. Unless the absurdity (or validity) of the accusation is established, there is really no point in asking question like: "Will you guarantee people's rights to wear whatsoever clothing they choose in public?".
We also know that US has reputation of supporting dictators. Iraq and Afghanistan war shows that human rights are not the first priority. It would be highly hypocritical to have American audience ask about due process when the same laws are being violated by US.
Human rights should not be used as a tool for regime change propaganda. The fact is that you wont advance case of human rights by asking questions from politicians. The only way human rights can be improved is by removing restriction on interaction of people (in this case Americans and Iranians). Bush administration has been doing the exact opposite. It was interesting, for instance, that Ahmadinejad is inviting Americans to go to Iran but Iranians have hard time visiting US. In a way Iran seems more confident about itself than US does about herself.
"Their questions had to concentrate on foreign policy. Ahamdinejad is visiting US for a UN speech,. The context of the trip is possible invasion of Iran. The pretext of invasion is nuclear rights of Iran vs international demands and claims that Iran is arming Iraqis. Furthermore, Various people have accused the Iranian president of being worst than Hitler. Unless the absurdity (or validity) of the accusation is established, there is really no point in asking question like: "Will you guarantee people's rights to wear whatsoever clothing they choose in public?".
" Several things are wrong with this argument: Nobody "had to" anything, it's still a (somewhat) free country. And there are questions that strike a stronger chord than "Will you guarantee people's rights to wear what they choose in public?" Arguments that rely on sophistry serve reasoned discourse poorly, when they serve at all.
"Human rights should not be used as a tool for regime change propaganda."
The only pretext that would justify military action against Iran is if it is proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Iran is an imminent threat to the security of the United States. The point of bringing up the human rights questions was not to make a case for war in Iran. The point would have been to demonstrate Americans' concern for the wellbeing of Iranian citizens, helping Americans' image in Iran and energizing the pro-western reformist movement that has suffered so much as Bush's rhetoric over the past seven years has cut the legs from under them.
I want to underline this idea. America has NO RIGHT to invade Iran unless Iran is proven to be an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and this judgment should be made by the United Nations, not the United States alone.
See a tongue-in-cheek graphic titled "Mahmoud Dearest", which has a little fun with the Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his unbelievable comments at Columbia University...particularly the one whereby he asserts that there aren't any gays in Iran...here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/09/mahmoud_dearest_scrubbing_the_gay_out_of_iran.php
Yeah (about the 12th Imam thing) its not like over here where people know the TRUTH- that the Rapture will occur in the next few years.and 144,00 people will be rise to sit next next to God and Jesus to sweep the world into an age of Christian glory and governance.Those crazy Shiites...
The civil rights of the Iranian people weren't brought up as victims of MA and the theocracy because we're about to bomb them into dust.The leaders don't want to remind Americans of their humanity and that many of them are opposed to the government they exist under and in fact take great risks to try and push the freedoms they have..Better we think of them as evil terrorists so we can wipe them out without guilt.Its the American Way.
1.It is absolutely true that US admin. installed the Shah in the misguided attempt to defeat left-leaning government.
2. This does NOt excuse current mullahs from being against EVERYTHING Western civilization stands for and oppressing and terrorising their own population.
3. And we in the West ( Europe, N. AMerica) will assess any danger Iran poses to us. This is the prerogative of the strong over the overreaching weak. C'est la guerre..
If we decide we can live with nuclear Iran, so be it. If not, let the them beware.
I think the mullahs know which way the wind blows n the West, thats why they're attempting a PR campaign. Too bad they chose a blow-hard ex-terrorist to represent them.
Might DOES NOT make right. And once you start thinking that way, it almost always makes WRONG; when it does make right, it's almost always accidental.
It isn't the perogative of the strong over anybody. It is overweening pride (hubris) to think that being stronger carries any "rights" whatsoever. Responsibilities, almost certainly, not RIGHTS. It's this stupid "We're the cock of the block" attitude that the US has had for about 70 years, that has played out behind the scenes in its bullying foreign policie that has fomented this situation.
And as for ex-terrorists to represent them, at least he's EX-. Good ol' boys DIck and George have lied us into a war, with people who didn't attack us, occupy a nation that didn't attack us, gut the country of both all internal supports AND A LARGE PART OF ITS CITIZENRY, IN VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, CONDONES AND ENCOURAGES TORTURE OF PEOPLE CAPTURED, with constant human rights violations on these prisoners, and HE'S NOT A TERRORIST? (That's called a rhetorical question, you needn't answer; I already know the answer.)
And, beware of WHAT, exactly? Imminent attack? THAT'S WHAT'S GOTTEN THINGS TO THIS POINT.
This sounds like the current US philosophy of "might makes right," and it's one of the reasons the US is now seen as a hated bully, even by some of our own allies. In the long run, this makes us less safe.
"3. And we in the West ( Europe, N. AMerica) will assess any danger Iran poses to us."
Let's hope our "assessment" of Iran's danger to the US is better than the one we had before our preemptive invasion of Iraq.
Well put.
Ahmadinejad could well have looked at Bollinger after the insults and said "I must have been misinformed, I thought I was invited to speak here" and walked out.
When are we going to learn to stop imposing our values onto the rest of the world?
We inject others with these values like some sort of inoculation which turns out to be a viral contagion that ends up killing the patient.
Our democratic missionary work is a huge charade aimed at setting the rules of the game for all the other players while we get to operate above them.
It simply renders other systems inert while we scoop their resources.
Wake up people.
Americans are over reacting to what Iran is doing. Iran has internal problems. They are not perfect like most countries but who are we to sit in judgement as to what they should or should not do.
Mr Ahmandinejad's opinions are only opinions that we may not agree with but you could say that about most leaders of the world. He is not a threat to anyone but possibly his own people.
The US should be more worried about our own problems that will be affecting most of much more than a possible terrost attack- a recession is looming, our trade deficits are increasing, the middle class is disappearing,China and Russia and Europe are become the economic leaders, etc.
Leave Iran alone and start paying attention to what our leaders are not doing right in our country.
Why? is the United States and Israel so bent on making war with Iran. I can say only one thing, when that happends there WILL BE A DRAFT, for I am on the Slective Service System. Just stop and think so far there has been 3800 killed in Iraqi so far and about 30,000 woundes. What is those were the number that were killed or wounded in a week or a few days. all you think about is air strikes let me say this there will be more comming from IRAN than what we know or think about, these people are not stupid.
it seems all governments and their leaders are comically stupid. unfortunately, it's hard to laugh with a soldier's boot on your throat.
ha ha gurgle....
Sam,
I generally credit your analysis, but I think you missed something. MA's rhetoric while playing to the Iranian public and those sympathetic in the Muslim world was quite like the more hidden support the Saudi kingdom gives to the Wahabbists in their own country. It psychologically enables hate and violence against anyone not in power in those countries.
The Administration in this country does something similar but generally uses proxies to do it; agianst "moonbat lefties," "envirowackos," abortion doctors, homosexuals, "illegal aliens," victims of corporate greed, and any kind of non-white or non-christian-church-going group, and the lawyers who dare to support them. MA could be seen as the proxy mouthpiece for hate for the religious powers of Iran.
Looked at in this way, his savvy is perhaps even more disturbing than you suggest. I would not blame the University or the US citizenry for their foolishness, rather lay the blame on the religious leaders in Iran. Clearly MA has gone far in deflecting that. Clearly the US is complicit in the blame because it was only through religiously supported revolution that Iran could cast off the Shah.
Your analysis and insight is welcome and I just wanted to share my perspective. Thanks.
joeb.
Matter of note: Israel has been condemned by the UN more than any other nation. If Israel used its nukes and wiped out its Arab neighbors, more Americans would be upset about the long term effects of nuclear fallout than the death of the Arabs.
It's suprising how many ordinary Americans are pro-Israel. Unlike the far left, they do not forget the terrorism of Araft & the PLO or the bombing of our embassies.
This author gives Ahmadinejad way too much credit. While it may be true that he can be slick with his public relations calling him the smartest man in the room is laughable. I applaud the members of the audience being able to sit through his speech. Watching him give a lecture to Americans on freedom and ethics is like watching Bush give a speech on economics and disaster relief. I can tell this author has a secret crush on Ahmadinejad but now it seems the secret is out.
umm, maybe you should read the whole piece rather than just the title...
Poetic Justice for Ahmadinejad,
An Iranian beautiful lesbian getting close enough to his inner circle, to spray a whiff of Chernobal #9 in this queer=killer's face.
Agree with your thesis and conclusion. Except for their base and placating politicians who wanted to cut funds, this was an empty charade and Ahmadinejad won just by being civil in the face of calculated buffoonery. What a waste of time, when we have so little to communicate on any level. Right-wingers said MoveOn insulted Petraeus personnally with their ad, but Bollinger's personal attacks on Ahmadinejad were hailed all over CNN and other media outlets as boldness in telling him what you think to his face. Such an obvious double standard decreases US credibility drop by drop throughout the world. Simple manners should have tempered Bollinger and would have served him well but he played to his masters and came off looking badly.
//Right-wingers said MoveOn insulted Petraeus personnally with their ad, but Bollinger's personal attacks on Ahmadinejad were hailed all over CNN and other media outlets as boldness in telling him what you think to his face. Such an obvious double standard decreases US credibility drop by drop throughout the world.//
a very interesting comment...one I agree with very much! nice insight.
Ahmadinejad is not powerful or popular in Iran, and this spectical in NYC aided his prestige and popularity among Iranian citizens.
I wonder if Bollinger had merely ended his speech, with only the plea for the release of the imprisoned professor, it might have played differently to Iranians...but that didn't happen.
Bollinger did show inhospitality to a guest, a major mistake for airing to an Islamic audience with very strict protocals to guest-friends. America's past, (in all it's decades of disastorous dealings in the Middle East,) also gave Ahmadinejad ammunition to sound victimized. The ONE major gaffe Ahmadinejad revealed was his statement on no homosexuals.
His world so dismisses gays/lesbians he felt no reason to prepare for such a charge by students, and it undermined all his credibility to EVERY NATION. How that will play in the Middle East where there is universal hatred of gays/lesbians, (even in Israel) will be interesting to see how it plays out. Western and modern countries will ridicule Ahmadinejad's gaffe on gays, comics are already making Ahmadinejad look the FOOL.
I fundamentally agree with your assessment. But it seems to follow the trend of Q&A sessions, whether they be presidential press conferences or political debates. The hard questions, the pointed questions that reveal a person's thinking, are not asked. Softball questions, or questions on irrelevant issues teach us nothing.
But then, what can you expect when the questions are pre-screended, and by whom are they screened? It would be interesting to see what questions were left on the 'cutting room floor,' as they say in Hollywoood.
Once again Mr Sedaei, I applaud your ability to get everything absolutely right.
Its clear that the questions asked were directly influenced by the people who were protesting his arrival the loudest. Pro-Israel lobbies in this country are unbelievably powerful and when i say unbelievably i mean it in every sense of the word. I as a somewhat secular America cannot understand how our secular government is influenced so much by such a religious group, especially when they have consistently gotten in the way of peaceful interaction.
That said, I agree with you when it comes to the questions asked but i still think more good came out of this then bad. Ahmadinejad's decision to come here was a good diplomatic move, as was Columbia's decision to criticize him. Yes, Bollinger went over the edge and yes, the wrong questions were probably asked but one cannot deny the good it may have done when it comes to public image of him in our country.
Now that there is a face on him, it seems to me that it will be easier for Americans to warm to him in the future. If a smart democratic candidate is elected in 2008 then we may be well on our way to start asking him the tough questions that we missed this time around.
Great post as always young Mr.Sedai. Now if we could get a couple of thinkers like you in the next administrations' State Dept. What we don't have there now is someone who can think outside the box.
Sam,
You should be working for the State Dept. Well written. I'm ashamed at the way Columbia's president treated Ahmadinejad. Talk about pandering to one's base, angry alumni.
And you're right. We missed a golden opportunity. Ahmadinejad has been reaching out to us; his letter to Bush was brilliant.
Bush should trust his generals. If Abizaid says we can live with a nuclear Iran then we can. Or is it time we label him Abitraitor.
And why did we invade Iraq? And why didn't we ask germane questions? And why can't we admit we did screw people out of their land with the creation of Israel? And why can't we talk about facts on the ground and that reparations in the form of dollars and economic assistance might be a way to make up this injustice. And since we didn't force Germany to cough up Bavaria why not insist they pay the Palestinians?
Discussing the rights of gays in Iran when women don't have freedom, when there's not freedom of religion, when there's not true freedom of the press, or true freedom of assembly, when minors don't have freedom (honor killings) shows a complete lack of understanding on our part about Iran.
Gay rights came after, not before, freedom of religion and the press were guaranteed, slaves were emancipated and after women had the right to vote, and after the poll tax ended, and institutional racism was outlawed.
This reminds me of the Spanish American War; there's this air of jingoism. Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran, the day after Darfur, next week Myannmar, next month Cuba and Venezuela.
Bush has war fever and quite a few Americans share the same illness.
AHMADINEJAD DESERVED TO BE CRITICIZED, YES; TO
BE PERSONALLY INSULTED AS HEAD OF STATE, NO
By Hermie Rotea
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran was invited to speak at Columbia University by its president Lee Bollinger. He agreed to the format that included a question-and-answer session after his speech.
But in his introduction, Bollinger personally and repeatedly insulted his own guest, calling him all kinds of bad names and things. Apparently it was to reassure his critics that he did not forget that the guy is an enemy.
Enemy or not, still Ahmadinejad deserved some respect and courtesy as a head of state. Never mind that protesters shouted that he was not welcomed to New York City and to Columbia University.
Not to be outdone, the New York Police Department rejected his request to put a wreath at Ground Zero, site of 9/11 terrorist attack, in a reconciliatory gesture. They feigned security problem.
They displayed anger and emotional outbursts rather than acted as educated person or institution. Yes, they have good reason to be mad at Ahmadinejad for saying that the Holocaust did not exist and for threatening to wipe out Israel.
But Iran is a member of the United Nations Organization and he went to New York to represent his country and was scheduled to speak before the General Assembly. He was also invited to Columbia University.
Without condoning what he said about Israel and without minimizing charges that Iran supplies missiles to Iraqi insurgents that kill American soldiers in Iraq, still he deserved to be treated with some respect and hospitality as a UN member and as an invited guest.
The mark of true education is the ability to use one"s head over emotion. Besides, the problems with Iraq and Iran cannot be solved militarily but with diplomacy. And certainly, not by acting like a bully.
Admandinajad and Bush are the same in at least one respect, they are both incredible liars!
What we have here is dictators dictating to dictators, and the only question remaining is, who the biggest dictator is? Now we may have more rights here in America now, then the people of Iran do. But if we don"t stop taking our "prescribed" medication, and wake up. We"ll soon be in the same stupor the Iranians are in. I guess it just goes to show, that having a collage education has no bearing intelligence.
Loading comments…
Posted September 25, 2007 | 05:42 PM (EST)