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
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
"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"
=======That is exactly right and these jewish and pro-israeli groups focus their protests on Irans false flag nuclear energy program because they know that Americans dont care about Iranians but they do care about themselves. So, a false threat has been created again, just like Iraq and Americans are told to be afraid and kill or be killed mentality of the war mongers will lead to even more death.
Great blog Sam. You're a voice of reason among all the chest thumping and primitive wailing.
I know and do understand the guy puts his feet in his mouth. But even in our culture, you don't invite somebody and thrash them before giving them the pulpit to speak.
Columbia's President dug himself a hole and he looked more stupid than the President of Iran.
We In America should be very careful when we understand people of other culture. I am not trying to defend him but in many cultures, homosexuals do exist but not accepted. Case in point, in this country, so called conservatives don't want any rights for Gays and Lesbians and won't even allow them to get married and you want to question an Islamic State of the faith of Homosexuals, ask Bush about Gays and Lesbians in this country and you will be supprise about his answer,sure the guy is stupid.
Shame to Bollinger and like Admandinajad said, if free speech is free speech then Bollinger should be fired and why don't concentrate on questions likes that Iranian president asked.Why to the Palestinians have to suffer for Crimes of Hitler and the Holocaust and (they) the Palestinians didn't have anything to do with the Holocaust?
To end this, do we in the US have a monopoly to science and research as a whole?
A University is supposed to be a citadel of public discourse, both popular and unpopular. When it stops being a defender of free speech, it has failed its mission and is a danger to the society at large.
Mr. Bollinger was absolutely right in providing Mr. Ahmadinejad a forum. That is, after all, what a university is about.
But to use this forum as a base to attack his guest before he has spoken is appalling and incredibly disgraceful. You do not invite a guest speaker to beat him up before he opens his mouth. This is not just bad manners in the Arab world, it is bad manners by any standard of good manners.
Columbia students should be embarrassed and Mr. Bollinger needs a tenure review. He managed to diss a foreign leader and the critical faculties of Columbia's students in one blow.
Worse, the popular press seems to be cheering. This is not just abominable, it is frightening. It affirms that people, educated people at that, feel that students and the society should only be exposed to one view, the popular view.
So how many foreign leaders will now accept invitations to speak at American Universities? Mr. Bollinger has done the academic community and the public an incredible disservice and should be viewed with scorn.
My god, what have we come to?
We are no longer any better than "they" are. (Maybe we never were.) It started with Abu Ghraib. In a decent society the uproar would have shut down torture immediately.
We as a people have fallen a long way since 2000. We can't just blame BushCo. The people have let this happen. 29% are still passive enablers.
Mr. Sedaei;
You list important questions:
" 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?"
Isn't that a world that you and other Irani's must build if you want it. We, as individuals, can support you in your efforts but you've seen the tragedy over and over when we, as a nation, use our hubristic might to impose. The United Nations may be in agreement with what you would like to see happen in Iran. But with the United Nations there is "no there, there". Progressive people of any nation (at this stage of the nation-state) must find their own solutions. Imposed solutions always devolve to local conditions.
I find it necessary to support President Ahmadinejad in his efforts to counter Mr. Bush and his coterie of U.S. hegemon's. I do not agree with all of President Ahmadinejad's theocratic views. It is the work of the people of Iran to counter such.
Typical american rhetoric, go after something thats dramatic and leave the substance on the floor. Bollinger acted like an ass and instead of giving Ahmadinejad the rope to hang himself, he put the rope around his own neck. Once and for all, this guy is crazy he is not stupid. Same goes for Bush.
That impression is also felt here in the US. Waht an obsolute boost to his legitamacy. Let him speak with our prelogue and let him have the freedom to make an Ass of himself amongst an open minded group. Is Bollinger on his payroll- if not Bollinger should at least ask for a per diem wage. But what do you expect our countries Pres (et al) at least act as though their on the Islamic Extremeist payroll too. Ignorance no longer flies- Bollinger (and Cheney) know exactly what their doing and saying at all times.Unfo
After the americain CIA overthrew the duly elected Mossadegh government, a governement who was pro western except for the giving away its natural resourses, oil,the USA supported the shah.
Then a police was created apparently trained by the CIA which persecuted the iranians who were in dsagreement with the new situation.
Does anyone really thinks that the situation for the people of Iran is worse now than it was at that time?
From what we have heard of the atrocities committed at that time, I do not.
If anyone in good faith wants to know why the Iranians do no trust the americains, look back to history.
As an American I was truly embarrased at the hostile, insulting introduction by the president of Columbia.
If you are going to invite someone - anyone - to speak at your university then you are obligated to show a certain amount of respect and decorum.
If you think that someone is a foul, evil person and don't agree with their points of view - then don't invite them to speak.
I am ashamed.
Great post from someone in the `KNOW`. Of course, your not American!
The first time I heard Ahmadinejad speak I thought, "Uh oh! He's a LOT smarter than our president!" I don't know how evil he is, since evil seems to be in the eye of the beholder, but he is definitely smart. He was smart enough to come to New York in the first place, the site of 911. He had to know how sensitive we all still are, that the pain is still there. He knew that, right or wrong, Americans tend to think all Muslim States are run by a bunch of terrorists who'd do it again if they had the chance. He was smart enough to know that we make a big deal out of free speech, and that we'd come across like world class hypocrites if we didn't let him speak.
He was also smart enough to predict that current PC practices in the US would require Mr. Bollinger to attack him in his introduction and thereby give him the opportunity to look sort of martyr-ish in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Ahmadinejad was smart enough to play the US. He knew he was in the most parochial city in the country, where people don't usually even understand there's a huge country out there, let alone a whole different world, and that most of the questions would be about foreign policy - a current US deficit in the eyes of other parts of the world-and not about domestic rights, which are non existent in his own country.
Khoumeni was evil, but he only managed to destroy Iran. Ahmadinejad is smart, and that's why he's scary.
I'd love to see king monkeyboy come to Venezuela, and asked to a University where he would be lambasted and insulted for 20 minutes (called a liar, and a mass-murderer, the stage smells like sulfur etc..) and then handed the mike.
OMG I'd pay to see that.
I'm broke but I'd borrow money from a payday loan shark to see that. That monkeyboy goes nowhere without a vetted audience. Including press conferences.
Maddogbitesback says, "Berating a guest is an acceptable thing with Moslems." But from my own limited knowledge of Muslim customs, I got the opposite impression. Specifically, that a guest is sacred and inviolate. Berating a guest is never never acceptable in their societies.
Secondly, Ahmedenijad did not request Columbia U. to invite him. It was the the way around. And after having themselves invited him, to start calling him all sorts of dirty names and that in an offensive tone, is outright bad manners in any country and in any society.
No one should defend that.
I hope one of the news networks hires this man. Whether one agrees with his observations or not, he's provided a a thought provoking perspective - outside the angry prattle that overwhelms our media and undermines mature discussion.
Good for you Sam. You forget to mention that in the east, in Iran particularly,to insult a guest- an INVITED guest- is unforgivable.
I'd love to see America's reaction if anyone invited G.W to speak and introduced him as a retard or an uneducated fool......
Besides,nobody seems to appreciate that Ahmadinejad doesn't have real power in Iran - that remains with the revolutionary council and now I would imagine that Rafsanjani is the man to deal with.
This is a good post. I mostly agree with it, but have a couple of reservations:
Before Americans can ask questions about Ahmedinejad's domestic policies, they will have to learn something about Iran. After all, Bollinger called Ahmedinejad a dictator, demonstrating that Bollinger is totally ignorant of the Iranian governmental structure. It is easy to find out that the army, the IRGC and the Quds force look to Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, not the President, as their commander. So the research Bollinger used to back up his name calling was very sloppy. Not only that, Bollinger got away with his sloppy research, since no one in the US media {with the possible exception of Christiane Amanpour} thought to point this out. Given this level of ignorance, it is probably just as well that the questioners did not try to engage President Ahmadinejad on the details of how well he is doing his job as President of Iran.
Also, the US public is fairly poor at keeping its outrage in check long enough to do comparative analysis. The Iranian human rights record is terrible; but Pakistan's is not wonderful either; I wouldn't hold up Saudi Arabia as a model; and the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories is not enthusiastically endorsed by Human Rights Watch. So Iran's poor record on human rights is not unique in the region, or even particularly remarkable.
At one point, a fair number of people defended the invasion of Iraq by pointing out that Iraq under Saddam was a human rights disaster. It was. This has now been forgotten due to the larger human rights disaster that we have created. I would prefer not to have American progressives supporting a Bush-Netanyahu promoted war as a pro human rights alternative to the current Iranian regime.
So I think that until we in the US have a better idea of what we're talking about, and are more careful about being manipulated by forces here in the US trying to exploit our outrage for their own ends, we are better off avoiding condemnation of foreign regimes.
A point of contention. Iraq was one of the more progressive states (socially) in the Middle East prior to our military and economic attacks.
The problem is that our military and economic attacks began almost immediately after the Iranian Islamic Revolution. Trying to guess which way the revolution would have gone without our opposition strikes me as a fool's errand. It might have gone in a socially progressive direction, or it might have been socially reactionary. We will never know.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
