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
Hate and fear will always undoubtedly impede a productive dialogue. Bollinger prominantly injected these sentiments with his condemnation. The problem isn't legitemizing this man. It is a fact, this guy is the head of a state that has demonstrated for several decades an anti-western position. We cannot get on a stage, certainly not in our University's and engage in a contest that includes the setiment of "liar, liar, pants on fire". What we observed was yet another bit of posturing, and meaningless rhetoric. What was needed, was serious, productive and meaningful dialogue. This latest episode for the evening newsies on both sides of the pond, was just another vacuous time filler, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Good post. Nice to finally see some perspective that isn't just Achemenijob - sorry, not even going to try - bashing.
That is simply way too easy and, as is in the case of every time Bush speaks directly of Osama bin Laden by name, elevates him to a level of equality/stature that suggests he (or his country) matters at all. [Hint: Neither President Achimenemy nor Iran matters a whit, while Osama matters completely]
It is sad that we continue to fall for the same right wing fallacies and chase non-important despots and imminent bomb droppers who c/wouldn't hurt us in their wildest dreams.
Wake up sheeple! The alarm clock's a-ringing. Or just keep hitting that snooze...whatever.
Americans don't even know their own history, why would expect us to know Iran's?
REH
Excellent essay/post Mr.Sedaei.
What was really provocative and memorable about Ahmadinejad's address @ Columbia was the distinctive democratic opportunity that he took to speak knowing that he WOULD NOT and COULD NOT allow such democratic opportunity in his homeland. Remember, our President, whose very comments about democracy brings laughter from serious-thinking Americans, belies his autocratic, authoritarian and anal 'democracy rhetoric' while knowing that he (BUSH) has NOT spoken in a truly democratic forum in America because he is truly afraid of the freedom he espouses. EVERY GROUP, ORGANIZATION AND CITY IN WHICH BUSH SPEWS HIS 'DEMOCRACY RHETORIC' HAS A STERILIZED REPUBLICAN AUDIENCE THAT KEEPS AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZENS LOCKED OUT OF HIS 'DEMOCRACY.' For our Presdient to speak of 'democracy' is as outrageous as Iran's President espousing the freedoms he misrepresented in his own homeland.
Isn't that rather analogous of the situation the world finds itself in:
The President who uses his nation's historical democracy to impede justice and deny free speech in his own democracy....and
The President who uses the democracy of his enemy to misrepresent his own nation's lack of justice and denial of free speech....
Ironic? Absurd? Unbelievable? Only if you realize that democracy really means speaking your opinion in the arena of different ideas, ideologies and independent free speech. Neither BUSH nor Ahmadinejad represent or reflect what true democracy really is or what true freedom is about.
What is really FUNNY to me:
BUSH and Ahmadinejad are really more alike than they are different in regards to how they treat democracy and free speech!
When America grows up we may be able to see democracy beyond our own prejudices and polemics!
Very, very astute of you, sir. Cheers.
Exactly! Ahmadinejad is just a figure head for the Iranian governemnt. He is gaining power in the Middle East as a person to represent the Muslim interest. He is trying to plase himself because he has very little influemce and extremely unpopular among the people at home. The power in Iran does not want a powerful president. They jealosy protect their power and feel threaten by a powerful president. But if we elevate him in the Muslim world, poor us!
I was watching Bollinger yesterday and I was thinking "WTF??? YOU invited HIM to speak, and THIS is yout introduction?"
What a disgrace that was.
All day today on talk radio, the righties were calling in and saying idiotic things like Ahmadinejad has a 5th grade education and so on.
I also noticed that many of the callers had no idea that Ahmadinejad has only been president since 2005...one caller to the local rightwing station here in PA claimed that Ahmadinejad had killed Iraqis in the 1980s....I mean...c'mon people!
Apparently Americans love n
Also, whereas all attention is being paid to Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, its not clear if main stream media realizes how stupid it looks every day of the year.
Bollinger's introduction revealed a total lack of class.
Iran has oil, Iraq has oil, Saudi Arabia has oil, we need oil, if we can change that last part, this soap opera will be over...
Many of the questions he was asked, as in the disgraceful Scott Pelley questions on 60 Minutes, which he asked while urinating on Murrow's grave, had no good answer. If you answered them, they'd characterize you one way, and if you didn't, you're unresponsive. I'd recommend to him Hillary's laugh.
Compared to the lies and drivel sold us by the Zionists, this man comes off as an Iranian Abraham Lincoln.
Columbia University showed a complete lack of class and taste by insulting Mr. Amallforjihad, their invited guest. What class Mr. Amallforjihad showed in responding to the idiot head of the university.
Thanks so much for this right-on comment!
But I think it is unrealistic to expect that an audience at Columbia or anywhere else in America (since the Neo-Pahlavi Bushes have taken over) places a high value on human rights. In fact, many of us Americans confidentially get little thrills at the idea of hanging those we despise in public. Some really wouldn't mind if Brittany, Paris, Mel, and a whole host of Americans were locked up and the key thrown away. Most Americans really APPROVE of entrapment by vice officers. Many Americans approve of castration for certain sex crimes. In California, a recent confessed pedophile (who had not committed any crimes), showed us that most American Lynch-Mob Californians would gladly have meted out the same public punishment that was enacted against homosexual youth in Iran.
The America we once knew is really GONE, and no one has a clue as to how to begin finding it and/or restoring it.
For example, "God bless America" is not an ordinary patriotic song: it is clearly a Prayer to God put to music. Yet our Pahlavi Gospel singers have managed to parody that prayer; in the course of things, they have parodied ALL prayer that is not true to an ideology that Christ never preached or furthered. Christ evidenced a TOTAL LACK of INTEREST in how government is done. Didn't he encourage paying taxes to support an anti-Christian government?
Yes, indeed, the President of Iran is the smartest man in the room lately (except for Putin---remember "We don't want anything to do with the kind of democracy American "introduced" in Iraq?"
Yes, the democratically elected President of Iran is not only no more a dictator than Bush is, he is a LOT smarter!
Well, and University presidents are not chosen for their academic or thinking credentials: they are chosen on the basis of being able to raise money. Bollinger wasn't really qualified to LECTURE at Columbia, but he did!
Very insightful post. Thanks. It does appear in this light to be an opportunity lost.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
