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

[JayWilliams]

America is as goofy as the Mid-East zealots. America has lost its way as much as any country in the world. All we can do is hope that a dramatic change in the house, senate and white house occurs. Few of those politicians are worthy. Kucinich and Feingold are among the few keepers that come to mind.

[incinerate]

Your observations, sadly are right on the money. American educators and students missed an opportunity not only to tone down the insane Bush regime rhetoric to start a war with Iran, but to also ask Ahmadinejad for his position and explanation on human rights and cultural issues which purplex Americans. Instead the world got lies and a litany of Zionist propaganda. Lee Bolinger was an absolute disgrace to the University and the USA. However, I doubt this bothers any and I mean ANY American Jew. I've waited 50 years to truly find an American Jew who puts the interests of the United States before that of Israel. I have concluded I will die without ever finding a single righteous Jew in this country. In the last 72 years of my life I have seen this country for which I, my father, grandfather and great grandfather fought and built turn into a nation who serves only Israel and the Jew.

[CentredCanuck]

Can I call that anti-semitic. Methinks so.

[altohone]

The first half of your comment is spot on.
Then you lose it.

See todays post by Stan Goff.

Your uninformed rant makes you part of the problem.

[eddiestardust]

I doubt very much that you could get an honest answer from this guy.

Both presidents are much closer then they both believe, both are hippocrites.

[bronceye]

As far as wanting Iran to change their laws and traditions-why? They have been there and living under their laws and customs for 10 times as long as we have lived under our laws and traditions. We need about two thousand more years to see if our laws and traditions are really viable. It's like the prepubescent urge to condemn your parents for their antiquated ways. As for the Iranian pres., I was impressed and shamed at the same time that he could actually speak in full sentences. I listened (via translator) to his speech at the U.N. and heard him use God's name dozens of times and even Jesus Christ twice. How many times did bush say God? As for the American public being upset about Burma- they(Burma) have had this problem going on since the middle of WWII non stop. We're upset? We didn't even know. Please, someone who can be a statesman run for pres. Bill Richardson could but his D.N.A. will kabosh that just as Hillary's sex(or obvious lack of) will insure any repub and an extension of stupidity in the white house.

[esquire07]

Thank you for sharing your experience of living in Iran.

Of course ethnocentric Americans have no idea that it was the US that funded and suppled arms to BOTH SIDES in the Iran/Iraq war. The blood of Millions of Arabs and Persians in on the hands on the United States.

In America, if you even suggest thatIsrael is treating Palestinians inhumanly you are automatically labelled anti-semetic.

In America, most people get their news from the babling idoits on CNN, FOX and the other fear mongering News chanels - FEAR sells ads.

It is my understnading the the Iranian President is not well liked by a vast majority of the under thirty crowd in Iran - which makes up a majority of the country. The US has an opportunity to reach out to them - to make peace. It will not.

The bottom line is OIL. The World - lead by the United States will eventually be plundged into a Nuclear Holocaust in the quest to keep the Oil profits flowing into the pockets of the Bush/Cheney thugs who want to control the energy - and in turn control the World.

The whole thing is a big mess, and before the Criminal Bush leaves office (if he leaves office), I have no doubt things will get much, much worse.

Democratic cowards will stand by and do nothing as Bush plundges the nation into a final disaster for Oil.

The Bush criminals - and Democratic cowards - are a bigger threat to this nation than Iran could ever dream of being.

[Champlain13]

It makes no difference who "scored points". Amallforjihad looked pathetic when he failed to address the very specific points made by Bollinger. You say Bollinger was insulating and impolite, so what? Ding-a-ling could have got up and hammered back by proving the points false. Unfortunately for him, they were all true. Those who believe in free speech and the truth saw it for what it was. Those who choose to see this twerp as a Matyr are unreachable in the first place.

[ContraEgoiste]

You have never played a game of chess have you? Nor understand the essence of the essay or what others have posted here? Let me attempt to clarify.

He (Ahmadinejad) doesn’t care what you think. You were not his audience, he already knows what you think of him. He wasn’t playing to America. We were just the stage, the prop. He was playing to the rest of the world, but mainly to his Iranian supporters and the ME at large. And to our discredit and further humiliation, we performed like a trained seal exactly to his expectations. And Bollinger tirade couldn’t have played better for him had Ahmadinejad scripted it himself. I’m sure he counted on the stupid hubris of the wing nuts and commentators, but Bollinger became the cherry on the top, his crowning moment right there on that stage.

He will look to the rest of the world and specially his ME audience, to have walked into straight into the lions den and walked out not only unscathed but triumphant. This petty dictator will look to have been cool, collective, polite, and (gag!) reasonable as compared to our frothing at the mouth. And Sam Sedaei is correct, the only time the rolls were reversed and we barely had a semblance to an adult in that room, was on only that one question related to human rights.

We wasted/traded an opportunity to expose him and gain US support within his own country for hubris. Who will seem to be the fools to the rest of the world in this exchange?

[Champlain13]

Only a wanna-be intellectual would try to turn this into a chess match...Bo­llinger's speech was the opposite of a tirade. By definition a tirade is an out of control emotional rant loosely based on the truth. To the contrary Bollinger cooly laid out the truth as it is, and called a spade a spade. No emotion, just simple facts. You and your like are trying hard to find anyway to spin this. To all but the ignorant, Ahmadinejad looked pathetic when he failed to counter Bollingers very specific critisizms. In the end, this Columbia episode was not going to change the larger Geopolitical picture one way or the other. However it was an opportunity for the world to see this lunatic as he really is. If his "followers" saw it otherwise, it matters not, as nothing could change the way they see the world.

[ContraEgoiste]

You have never played a game of chess have you? Nor understand the essence of the essay or what others have posted here? Let me attempt to clarify.

He (Ahmadinejad) doesn’t care what you think. You were not his audience, he already knows what you think of him. He wasn’t playing to America. We were just the stage, the prop. He was playing to the rest of the world, but mainly to his Iranian supporters and the ME at large. And to our discredit and further humiliation, we performed like a trained seal exactly to his expectations. And Bollinger tirade couldn’t have played better for him had Ahmadinejad scripted it himself. I’m sure he counted on the stupid hubris of the wing nuts and commentators, but Bollinger became the cherry on the top, his crowning moment right there on that stage.

He will look to the rest of the world and specially his ME audience, to have walked into straight into the lions den and walked out not only unscathed but triumphant. This petty dictator will look to have been cool, collective, polite, and (gag!) reasonable as compared to our frothing at the mouth. And Sam Sedaei is correct, the only time the rolls were reversed and we barely had a semblance to an adult in that room, was on only that one question related to human rights.

We wasted/traded an opportunity to expose him and gain US support within his own country for hubris. Who will seem to be the fools to the rest of the world in this exchange?

[MmeFlutterbye]

His treatment as a guest was a bit unseemly, I think. Before castigating him, he should have been allowed to speak. His answers to questions would have been enough proof of his character and his intentions. That remark about no homosexuals in Iran made me think that he is no smarter than GWB.

[Larenzo]

Excellent and informative post. But Ahmadinejad really has to cool the rhetoric. Bogus or real news articles appear daily about how Iran is supplying Iraq with IEDs and missiles. AIPAC senators like Holy Joe Lieberman is beating the drums for an attack on Iran. Dubya and the rest of the criminal regime are just waiting for an excuse to unleash the bombers. So what is this guy thinking? Maybe there's a subtle logic to some of his actions, but he's providing a pretext for an attack. I have no doubt that the Iranian people don't particularly support him and his supposed views, and don't deserve an unwarranted attack. But then again, neither did Iraq. Remember, Iran has the oil and that's what all this mideast bungling has been about. What do you think those early Cheney energy meetings were about? He was just telling them that the US will soon be able to take over the mideast oil regions. So Ahmadinejad should be very afraid indeed and keep a low profile or he will cause his country to be devastated.

But an attack on Iran will not only hurt them. The Straits of Hormuz will be blocked immediately, and there goes oil to $200+ a barrel, which will not make the oil companies cry at all. Ahmadinejad will send suicide bombers to our major cities and shopping malls. If you think our citizens are scared now, just imagine the fear factor then. But this is part of the dubya agenda. A permanent state of fear is desired in the US so that the dubya regime can maintain power. You really think there will be elections in 2008? After all the power consolidation and perversion of the government by this regime, you really think that they will turn it over to a democrat? Wishful thinking, my friends.

And if our wonderful military does in fact attack Iran, then those generals will be guilty of even more war crimes. How blind can they be? Will they betray the people again? Something is seriously askew here.

[writechic]

I don't know if it's in Ahmadinejad interest to cool the rhetoric. While Saddam Hussein was pleading to the UN for protection and broadcasting he didn't have wmd, Kim Jong Il was screaming he had 'em and wasn't afraid to use them. Who did we attack? My point being it's better to be vocal and confrontational with the U.S.

Also, Russia and China get a lot of oil from Iran to the point where their economies could collapse with Iran out of the picture as a supplier. Since China holds our massive loan debt, I don't see us attacking Iran. The X factor, of course, is that the neocons are freakin' crazy.

(And I suspect our elections will be rigged for a long time which is infuriatin­g.)

There's a BBC special on Tehran that's quite good. It's sort of a day in the life documentary. If it weren't for the habibs (sp?), their malls look exactly like ours. And nose jobs are like boob jobs there.

To the author: fine post. Ahmadinejad has a PhD. He actually worked for a living, unlike our guy. Bush would never have put himself in that situation; he likes the sycophants. Ahmadinejad was one of the smartest guys in the room and had the savvy to make the best out of a bad situation. Iran has far to go on human rights, but we have little room to talk anymore do we.

[naijaman]

Ahem...Ira­n does not have a history of being linked to suicide bombers...­that dubiuos honor goes to the Saudis.

[TheHandyman]

Quite some time back I began to feel that the continued dummying down of our educational system was an attempt to teach children what to think rather than how to think. The fact that Americans continue to accept as fact what their leaders say it is rather than find out what is truly fact. That the President would have to tell his students what Ahmadinejad believed and stood for prior to the students listening and learning for themselves just proves the point.

One of the questions was nothing more than a play on the old "are you going to stop beating your wife" chestnet when Ahmadinejad was asked if he was willing to stop funding and supporting terrorist and would he simply answer yes or no." The dumbest fish in the Ocean wouldn't have fallen for that bait.

Ahmadinejad is a politician in the Bush, Cheney, Hitler, Mussolini mold. They know what to tell their audiences. He was speaking to Americans, he was speaking to the people of the middle east and we let him do that. By not letting him hang himself, ask questions that had to do with what was really going on in Iran we lost a chance to let the middle east hear what we really are concerned about, them as people!

I applaud the authors comments about this event. The two middle eastern experts on Anderson Cooper also pretty much made the made assertions even tho it was obvious no one wanted to hear them. And there's the rub, isn't it?

[TheHandyman]

Correction, I meant to say, he wasn't speaking to Amnericans.

[January]

Thank you for the Sedaei column. This brief discussion is the best I've seen on the issue. It illustrates clearly how msm simplification gets Americans to elect the Shrub. By being "beside the point" our national priorities get sidetracked and a frankenstein monster gets loosed.

[Peabodies]

YES, Mr. Sedaei shows us a different, informed, side of the issue. I was ashamed for Lee Bollinger's tirade against a guest to his university, and Mr. Ahmadinajad's performance had class and the expected reaction to how he was being treated. There are manners accepted around the world that Americans don't get. And the MSM aren't helping young Americans "get it".

[prairdog]

Good perspective, thanks.

If BushCo weren't beating the war drums for an attack on Iraq, then I think there might have been more questions about Iran's internal human rights abuses.

But the warmongers need their "talking points" to persuade the American people that 9/11=Afgha­nistan=Ira­q=War on Terror=Iran and, therefore, the US should bomb Iran 'back to the stoneage'. Liberating Iranian homosexuals from state oppression, isn't high on the US warmongers' agenda.

As you note, the President of Iran maintained the honour of himself and his nation in the face of hideous insults, by not lashing out.
I'm glad someone still understands the basis of international, diplomatic protocols. (Or are they also "quaint", like the Geneva Accords?)

I'm willing to accept Iran's olive branch of peace and see negotiations begin.
NO!to more US war and terror in the Middle East!

[mouselion]

I think you're right on with this. Perfect chance to ask the right questions in front of the whole world, but Americans with their own percieved interests and not with what's happening to common folks in Iran.

His form of Islam is repressive, and as 'peach pointed out, not unlike the right-wing ideologues of this country. That's one thing for sure, they're the same monster in conspiracy to control the rest of us through control and war.

RHR, think about the meaning and not the grammar. tEDDIEbear, you got it. Ol' Swivel Head rides again (if you were to stand behind this guy during his Columbia speech you'd find W's face on the back of his head, listening intently for new talking points.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Thanks. That was a great read and a good perspective of what others in the world may see.

I thought the 19 minutes of insults was ridiculous for a president of a university.

I have friends from Iran... and they would whole heartedly agree with you.

Good commentary!

[Garebear]

I as well think that this well done and I agree.

[RedWhiteandBlueState]

Your point about a missed opportunity is well taken. However, you've missed the point. This administration doesn't care about the Iranian people, or the Iraqi people, or any peoples outside of their own small cabal. There are a million "If only's..." that we can all lament from the past 5-6 years but this merely adds to the list. We need a whole new set of leaders with a whole new set of priorities and a whole new outlook. Only then will the dialogue change away from the talking points that have been beaten into our heads by a stubborn white house and a complacent MSM. The tragedy is that it seems we've lost another generation to the same old tired, divisive politics.

[VSamuels]

Exactly. One will not rectify the state of American politics with a mere reshuffling of the 'deck chairs.' It seems that there is little difference between those who hold leadership positions in the Democrat or Republican Congress. Although, I do believe that many of the rank-and-file members see and understand that our nation needs to forge ahead with new priorities and a new outlook.

Most people and organizations naturally resist change, and there's a zillion political scientists who can reason why. But, those who must stretch their necks out and go against the grain are often marginalized and or labeled as 'insane' or 'crazy.'

America, is really facing a serious internal crisis of ideas, and unfortunately it has a small window of opportunity to reject extremism and fear, and turn its attention to becoming a nation which can solve problems.

Personally, Hillary would be an effective task master, but she would hardly address the morrass that now is America, because she owes her very political career to its existence.

Lastly, there can be no change until truth and honesty becomes acceptable to spin, deception and outright lying.