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.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[avvorio]

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.

[anechoic]

//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.

[Qbear]

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.

[Qbear]

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.

[caribconsult]

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.

[SilverBurlap]

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.

[MilwaukeeDan]

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.

[Robert59]

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.

[Hrotea]

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.

[FW]

Admandinajad and Bush are the same in at least one respect, they are both incredible liars!

[jcheadsup]

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.

[IntegrityIntact]

The Columbia event was so overblown and didn't live up to its hype. Ahmadinejad impressed me yesterday in his UN speech.

Who can challenge the fact that the president of Iran was very rational, powerful, insightful and most of all, TRUTHFUL, and sincere about wanting world peace? He eloquently called peace to all nations and acknowledged with great respect, the religions and gods of other religious doctrines.

[unitron]

"...and acknowledged with great respect, the religions and gods of other religious doctrines."

But he kept on lumping monotheism in with peace and friendship and justice and all that good stuff. I've got a feeling his version of monotheism is more likely to involve him telling me who and how to worship instead of the other way around.

Other than that the U.N. speech made several good points.

[peacehappens]

Is anyone concerned about the fact that Israel finally admitted, last December 2006 and by accident, that they have nuclear weapons but they have never submitted to inspections? I've read estimates of them having approximately 500 nuclear warheads.

Israel continues to refuse to cooperate with the IAEA and they will not sign the anti-proliferation agreement. Yesterday AP reported that, "Israel is looking to a U.S.-India nuclear deal to expand its own ties to suppliers, quietly lobbying for an exemption to non-proliferation rules so it can legally import atomic material, according to documents made available Tuesday to The Associated Press....The most recent tensions over Israel's nuclear capabilities surfaced at the IAEA's 148-nation general conference. On Thursday, the Vienna meeting's penultimate day, only the U.S. and Israel voted against a critical resolution implicitly aimed at the Jewish State for refusing to put its nuclear program under international purview."

The Jerusalem Post reported, this past summer, that the IDF was receiving indications that the US would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
Sept 6, 2007 Israel bombed Syria without provocation and Syria reported the incident to the UN. The UN reprimanded Israel. Again Sept. 14, 2007 Israel was 'flying reconnaissance" planes over Syria airspace and "had to drop bombs and fuel" to flee.

I'm sorry that Ahmadinejad did not say clearly that this was some of the hypocrisy that he was referring to.

Another thought, when Iran was being attacked with chemical weapons that we gave to Saddam to use against them, Iran refused to respond with the same type of weapons because it was against their state religion. Palestinians are claiming that Israel is using chemical weapons against them but the international community is not addressing the issue.

Basic Christian belief is love your enemies, turn the other cheek and do unto others ...
It would seem that bush and company are the anti-christ.

[timwilltell]

An even more unpardonable disgrace observed on both sides of the discussion, is the lack of respect for the dead, and the exploitation of human suffering for political gain. That needs to stop.

[rmreddicks]

My email to Mr.Bollinger
columbia.eduolumbia.edu)

"Lee Bollinger, President of a prestigious university, to the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." Apparently a prestigious university head is not immune to projection and transference.

Perhaps it was bold of you to allow an invitation to President Ahmadinejad to speak. Perhaps you simply allowed President Ahmadinejad to visit so you could show publicly your ignorance and cowardliness. Mr. Bollinger you should be ashamed of yourself for embarrassing Columbia University. Your remarks were uncalled for, "modern American" governmental political correctness. It seems that you are a corporate hack or government lackey. Perhaps you are both. Oh, that's right. You were just playing to your base, Columbia's donors and the owners of Columbia's endowment. So coward is the correct word. Another spineless non-entity in an important position.

I would suggest you consider resigning and accepting a sunset job with the Bush administration. Or possibly "60 Minutes". You and Mr. Pelley should have no problem seeing eye-to-eye. Whatever you decide, the important thing is that you now go away."

If you support Mr. Bollinger write him. If you don't support his conduct let him know. If you think he mocked his fellow americans, he needs to hear it.

My letter was certainly not the wittiest nor the pithiest and I do not support all of President Ahmadinejad's positions, but a person in such position as Mr. Bollinger must be spoken to when displaying rudeness, ignorance, and arrogance. Else we shame ourselves.

--
Robert M. Reddicks
609 Bakewell St.
Covington, KY 41011

[hoopoe]

good for you. he may be hearing from me as well...

[hoopoe]

great post.

"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."

i agree, and what's more, i am disappointed to learn that, at what is supposed to be one of america's finest universities, students are so ignorant of iran's history and political environment, and intellectually stunted, evidenced by their unwillingness to probe the real issues.

it seemed all they could do was parrot neoconservative talking points, instead of engaging in thoughtful analysis and critical thinking. if this is the cream of next generation's intellectual crop, we're all in trouble.