What Brian Williams Should (But Probably Won't) Ask Ahmadinejad Tonight

NBC will air Brian Williams' new interview with the Iranian President, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The interview is significant for several reasons. First, whenever the American people are directly exposed to hearing from world leaders instead of being repeatedly spoon-fed with those leaders' caricatures and out-of-context sound bites, it's a good thing. Secondly, dialogue is arguably the most effective way of preventing a premature armed conflict. When there is dialogue and people listen to one another, it has a humanizing effect and may even lead to a few moments of recognition, making it harder for people to justify military action as a method of addressing our challenges. But most importantly, the interview is an exceptional opportunity to energize human rights activists in Iran and help cause change in Iran.

Brian Williams and NBC have, no doubt, arranged this interview with Ahmadinejad, in part, because of Iran's refusal to give up nuclear weapons. And since the American media has been a consistent failure when it comes to challenging the Bush administration's talking points and framing of debate, Williams is likely to continue to obsess about two issues throughout the interview: Iran's nuclear program and Ahmadinejad's rhetoric on Israel.

However, those have always been the wrong issues on which to pressure Iran. On the issue of its nuclear program, the fact is that as a Non-Proliferation Treaty member, Iran has the legal right to have a nuclear program. This includes its inalienable right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The United States helped establish Iran's nuclear program thirty years ago and did not object when Iran became a NPT member. A lot of Western observers have asked, why does Iran -- an oil-rich country -- would need a nuclear program? First, NPT does not require Iran to answer that question. But the short answer is that although Iran is oil-rich, it has to import most of its refined oil because it does not have enough refineries. Persians have vast crude oil resources, but they have to export its own oil to neighboring countries to be refined and buy it back at a multiple rate at which they sold. Iran has had to ration gas for cars, a situation the United States has never had to deal with. Besides, it may come as news to those who worry about starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that Israel, which is not even a NPT member, started that arms race when they began obtaining their nuclear weapons decades ago, which now adds up to more than 300. "Hypocrisy" is the word.

But the question itself can be seen at best elitist and at worst western supremacist. Here is why: why is it that the same experts who ask why Iran needs a nuclear program despite having oil won't ask nuclear energy proponents in the United States, Canada and other Western countries with oil resources the same question? Obviously, because lack of oil is not the only reason one may be inclined to move toward cleaner and more efficient means of producing energy. Al Gore, in his recent speech on the environment, quoted an OPEC member who had eloquently said, "stone age didn't end because of the shortage of stones." But the reason many western observers would ask Iran that question is because they consider Iran not enlightened enough to care for the environment. Not sure how they can make that point since few drive SUVs in Iran and just about every new car in Tehran gets better mileage than anything GM or Ford makes.

And Williams is also likely to focus on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric on Israel. The Western media's obsession with this issue is puzzling and pathetic. The Iranian government has been chanting "death to Israel" for thirty years since the 1979 revolution. As someone who went to public and private schools in Iran for ten years, I remember the way school administrations would line up students in the school yard to listen to announcements, get their clothes and hair styles checked for uniformity, and on some religious holidays, chant "death to Israel" before heading for the first class. But despite the slogans, Iran has not attacked another country in over a hundred years. The notion that Ahmadinejad's words on Israel are either new or should be taken as anything more than empty rhetoric for domestic consumption is ridiculous. And the worst part about it is, despite the apparent panic, Israel better than any other country knows that these chants are not foreign policy declarations. Besides Ahmadinejad isn't even the one who makes decisions on foreign policy; it is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who is also the head of the Revolutionary Guards, as well as the Guardian Council that decides who can or can't run for president. The fact is that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is now in the middle of a major corruption scandal and is a lamer duck than Bush. And as he has learned from Bush and Ahmadinejad, the best way of surviving turbulent political environment at home and distract the public from own failures is to play the fear card.

The fact is that the issues the Western media have focused on have not emerged as the result of deliberate thought processes, but as the result of the media's shameless lack of independence from the talking points of the Bush administration. They did before we went into Iraq, and they are doing it again.

But there can be a positive outcome from any such interview with Ahmadinejad, and that is by keeping the focus on human rights violations in Iran. The fact is that Iran is the signatory of the declaration of human rights. And yet, people have watched as Ahmadinejad has curtailed their most basic freedoms. Women face ever increasing pressure in the streets to abide by strict dress codes, activists are regularly arrested and jailed without trial in the name of national security, homosexuals are hanged, satellites TVs are banned, internet is censored, elections are staged, and Kurds and Baha'is are treated as sub-humans.

Brian Williams should keep the focus of his interview on these issues for several reasons. First, because the state runs the media in Iran, interviews with western reporters are extremely rare in the sense that they are the only times when a reporter can ask the president anything he or she wants and have that report broadcast. All such interviews are immediately made available to Iranians inside Iran through YouTube and Persian Satellite TV channels (which millions of Iranians illegally own). When the nuclear issue is made the main topic of discussion over every other issue, it doesn't bring out people's love for the United States, but their nationalism. People will see the interview as another way in which the United States is trying to bully Iran to deprive it of a legal right and also show the U.S.'s continued willingness to obsess about Iran's nuclear program at the expense of Persians' human rights. It will also help Ahmadinejad rally the people around himself. But if Williams were to press Ahmadinejad on human rights issues, it would have a significant effect in terms of energizing freedom activists and scoring major points for the United States in terms of strengthening pro-American sentiments among Iranians.

The second, but equally important aspect of the interview can be the political impact it can have on Iran's own affairs. While Ayatollah Khamenei continues to be in charge of Iranian foreign policy, a fracture has appeared between Ahmadinejad's administration and Khamenei and The Guard as the result of Ahmadinejad's appetite for power. This led Khamenei to give his blessing to a prominent former foreign minister, Ali Akbar Velayati, to write an editorial for the French paper, Libération, in which he reiterated that the Supreme Leader is the ultimate decision-maker in Iran. Khamenei would not have done this if he didn't feel insecure.

Iranian factions understand how to use the western media and it's time the western media caught up. Williams has an extraordinary opportunity to contribute to exploiting the fracture within the Iranian government by pressing Ahmadinejad on those differences between him and Khamenei. He should even ask Ahmadinejad one question very bluntly: "President Ahmadinejad, who makes the ultimate foreign policy decisions in Iran?" Regardless of how Ahmadinejad answers this question, the United States as well as the people of Iran will benefit. If he responds, "I am the ultimate decision-maker," this will likely cause significant friction between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei and may actually lead to competition for power, which is one of the ideas at the core of the definition of democracy. This will weaken the regime and strengthen the people who are pushing for change. And if he says, "Ayatollah Khamenei makes the decisions," then the American people will know once and for all that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is nothing more than empty words with no weight behind them.

Western journalists have an exceptional opportunity to not only do decent and independent journalism, but also help improve America's image, help nonviolent activists in Iran establish a democracy for themselves and help the cause of human rights.

Keep these thoughts in mind when you watch Brian Williams' interview tonight and let us know your thoughts on the interview.

Comments

[shameoniri]

But despite the slogans, Iran has not attacked another country in over a hundred years. The notion that Ahmadinejad's words on Israel are either new or should be taken as anything more than empty rhetoric for domestic consumption is ridiculous. And the worst part about it is, despite the apparent panic, Israel better than any other country knows that these chants are not foreign policy declarations

Are you suggesting that Iran has been ruled by the Islamic Republic over the past hundred years??? I thought the Islamic Republic came to power in 1979. Do you also further suggest that Khomeini did not extend the war with Iraq for 6 more years in order to return Jerusalme to its "rightful owners"??? The slogan was, "The road to Jerusalem is via Karbala (a city in Iraq)?? Are you fruther suggesting that the holocaust-denying, Ahmadinejad and Mesbah Yazdi, are just pretending when they talk about "A world without America and " A world without Zionisms"?? Are you suggesting that when Ahamdinejad calls Israel, " A stinking Corpse", the Israelis should laguh and pretend they are enjoying a stand-up comic in a comedy club??? Are you a reformist????

[debrouillard]

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice every where"

The action of the USA,UK and a vast majority of their western European counterparts is making sure our world will never know peace. They always seem to set the standards differently for others. They will ask Iran and others questions which they them self will never answer.

It has always been this way.I have always ask the question,Why is it right for the USA,UK,Isreal and a few others to have NUKES but not acceptable for others like Iran to? Why is it not an issue for McCain to base his campaign on Attacking and killing Iranians,building Nuclear stations and yet,non of thust must be uttered by any Iranian?

[Agent420]

Gas was rationed, along with other commodities, during World War II.

[shameoniri]

The IRI does not see itself as a Nation; it views itself as a "cause". One of the main goals of the IRI according to the Iranian Constitution is to Spread Islam throughout the world. By Islam of course, they mean Khomeini's version of militant/political Islam; and if you review the foreign policy action items of the Islamic Republic since its inception, a clear picture of this agenda will emerge; from establishing Hizballh in Lebanon 28 years ago, prologning the Iran-Iraq war needlessly despite calls for ceasfire by Saddam. (Khomeini's main objective was to liberate Qudos=jerusalem and that he said was Via Karbala in Iraq.--In fact, if you study the underpinning ideology that drives the Islamic Republic, you will notice that the Islamic Republic has always put the interest of Islam ahead of the interests of the Nation of Iran both domestically and internationally.
Two years ago, Mr. Williams to failed to ask Ahmadinejad how
dare he can talk about referendum in Palestine as a means
of deciding the future of the state of Israel and Palestinians in Palestine while in Iran people have been jailed or killed even at the suggestion of holding a
referendum on *Velayat Fagheeh* (the absolute rule of Supreme
Leader), which gives a blanket veto power to a single un-elected clergy over all elected officials.--
Just yersterday the regime mass executed 29 people in one day.
http://iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/29-executed
read the comments as well.
ref:Iranian.com

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

HuffPost's Pick

You are making a lot of statements with nothing to back it up. Just to give a single example, if everything you said about Iran being so sincere about its relationship with Islam, how do you explain why they secretly purchased weapons from the Christian United States during the Reagan Adm. to use against their brother muslims in Iraq? And how about Iran's many secret dealings with Israel? (read Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States). Iran produces a lot of empty rhetoric. The easy thing is to believe everything the neocons tell you about Iran. The harder thing to do is to actually read the historical examples that shatter those misconceptions, listen to the thoughts of those who've lived in Iran and those who actually know about Iran.

[shameoniri]

I don't know what happened to my previous comment; however,

Dear Sammy: You must be very young...you seem to be very ill-informed about Iran and have nothing new to offer.

Do you even speak or read Persian?

Did you ever live in Iran before, during, and after the revolution?

Did you live in Iran during the 8 year war between Iraq-Iran???

Did you lose any of your family members to that war??? I did...

I suggest you learn some manners before you demand substantiation of anything. You're a lazy pseudo-pundit who doesn't like to read.

Intoning Trita Parsi's Treachrous Alliance or Khomeini's arms dealing to enrich the Military Industrial Complex does not make you an expert on Iran, my very young friend....You need to do better than that. If and when you decide to learn a few things beside what you've been fed so far by the status-quo, you can email me and politely ask for citations, references, and guidance. Until then, you have not earned the right to demand anything...

[shameoniri]

The job of a journalist like Williams is to do his homework. He did not do his homework last time he interviewed Mahmood. Ahmadinjad peddled the IR's propaganda without a hitch because Mr. Williams did not bother to check how this regime operates or whether any of Mahmood's assertions were grounded in reality or fiction. In fact, Ahamdinejad used Brian Williams as a propaganda tool without any objections from our esteemed journalist.

[GZLives]

Too bad no one has ever asked him to explain this quote:

In 1984 Khomeini declared to the entire world:

"In order to achieve the victory of Islam, we need to provoke repeated crises, restore value to the idea of death and martyrdom. If Iran has to vanish, that is not important. The important thing is to engulf the world in crises. Those, who are called to export revolution, will lose their unhealthy desire for comfort and will attain the maturity needed to fulfill their mission. The road to Jerusalem goes through Kerbala (an Iraqi town)".

Le Point, no. 599, March 12, 1984, pp. 89-90

[wayoutleft]

good point. since generally journalists worldwide have some sort of relationship with their government, it's a natural assumption that the williams intewrview would have, or should have, some sort of "official" policy role. on a deeper level, williams and nbc may well have a policy agenda shaping the interview. it's another step in the media's progress from covering the news to managing events by selectively exercising information and image control.

[tinkaboutit]

Brian Williams, like any other self-styled american journalist, will be champing at the the bit to lick zionist a**hole. if he doesnt he will get a tire necklace from AIPAC, et al.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Sam says:

If he (Ahmad) responds, "I am the ultimate decision-maker," this will likely cause significant friction between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei and may actually lead to competition for power, which is one of the ideas at the core of the definition of democracy. This will weaken the regime and strengthen the people who are pushing for change. And if he says, "Ayatollah Khamenei makes the decisions," then the American people will know once and for all that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is nothing more than empty words with no weight behind them.

ApolloSpeaks

The people who want real substantive democratic change in Iran, who want a counter revolution, are either in jail or quietly fear for their lives. With revolutionary ferver and triumphalism returning to the mullahs democratic reforms and diplomacy are even more difficult now than in the late 1990s.

Ahmad is a spokesmen for the Khamenie regime. He tows their line. What he publicly says is in concert with their plans and designs.

[BrettnCalgary]

Hmm... that contradicts a number of things I've read on the topic, but I've got an open mind. Got a reading list for me?

[ApolloSpeaks]

You can start with the "The Iran Threat" written by Iranian dissident Alireza Jafarzadeh:

Then consider Michael Ledeen's: The Iranian Time Bomb.

Another very good book is "Iran Awakening" by Nobel Prize winning Iranian author and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi. A great and good woman.

While Jafarzadeh and Ledeen are hawks on Iran they are proponents of violent regime change from within and oppose military intervention. Ebadi, on the other hand, is opposed to insurrection, says that the fight has gone out of the Iranian people and believes that peaceful reform of the regime is possible.

Between these three books you will get a rounded education on the Islamic Republic.

And lastly you might also visit my blog and read my essay: The Sign of Columbia: Nuclear War in the Middle East and the Coming End of Fascist Iran.

I warn you that what I write is not for the fainthearted or conventional minded people. Unlike the above authors I am an interventionist hawk on Iran with an apocalyptic vision of the Middle East who prays to God that he is wrong.

Google "The Sign of Columbia" + "ApolloSpeaks"

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

Your portrayal of Iran is very inaccurate. There are real factions within the Iranian regime and the fracture is real. And I know hundreds of activists who are free and are engaged in nonviolent civil rights campaigns in Iran and making progress. I don't know if you've ever been to Iran. I was born there, lived there for 17 years and am now constantly in touch and tune with activists who are fighting everyday. Your denial of their existence and appreciation for their achievements will not lessen the their heroism and courage.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Sam says:

the interview is an exceptional opportunity to energize human rights activists in Iran and help cause change in Iran

ApolloSpeaks

Without guns the human rights cause in Iran is hopeless. The murdering mullahs like Saddam Hussein will slay millions of their people to stay in power.

Sam says about Iran's quest for nuclear power:

.... Although Iran is oil-rich, it has to import most of its refined oil because it does not have enough refineries.

ApolloSpeaks

The billions Iran is spending on its "peaceful" nuke program can be used to build refinaries and drill new wells. That is why the UN, the EU, the US, Israel and the Sunni Arab world don't buy the "atom's for peace program." Outside of developing the bomb it makes no sense.

Sam says:

... it may come as news to those who worry about starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that Israel, which is not even a NPT member, started that arms race when they began obtaining their nuclear weapons decades ago, which now adds up to more than 300.

ApolloSpeaks:

Why do Arabs join Israel's Jews in fearing the mullah bomb while not fearing Israel's nuclear arsenal? Israel is a nonthreatening peaceloving democratic state that wants to be left alone in peace. Iran has imperial designs on becoming the regional hegemon and more. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia threatened to build the bomb in fearful reaction to Iran's nuclear weapons program, not Israel's

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

If your theory on guns were true, then the following nonviolent movements should not have succeeded: the Civil Rights Movement, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the overthrow of Slobodan Melosevic, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, Danish Resistance of the Nazis during World War II, etc. Please read Gene Sharpe and Bob Helvey for more on nonviolent conflict. Iran's problem in building refinaries is the lack of adequate technology, which they have been unable to acquire because of sanctions. That's of course besides the point I make here, which is a country can have many reasons to want to pursue nuclear technology, not the least of which is it is a much cleaner and sustainable form of energy. And Arabs aren't the ones who are making the noise on Iran's nuclear program. Not to mention that Arabs have never been on good terms with Iran because of the shi'ite/sunni thing. But in perspective, Arabs would give 10 Israelis for 1 Iranian. Arab countries still do not allow anyone who has an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering their countries. Iranian passports are welcome. Let's not give the impression that Arabs and Israelis are that cozy.

[TRYKER]

No matter what Brian asks or the answers he gets, NBC/GE will edit the interview to their own ends and we will know no more than we did before.
It will be biased toward American hegemony in the Middle East.

[bascombe]

close to the exact words Ahmadinejad used.

[bascombe]

brian's first question will probably be about the surge!

then brian will ask about why Iran supports Al-Qaeda.

then 'some say' that blah... blah... blah...

[continue ad nauseum with reichwing talking points]

finally, be sure to link Ahmedinejad to Barack Obama]
finally, be sure to link Ahmedinejad to Barack Obama again]
finally, be sure to link Ahmedinejad to Barack Obama again and again]

[kingofscotts]

Mr. Sedaei,

While there can be no real argument against your call for serious questions about Iran's human rights situation; that does not negate the need to call Ahmadinejad on his insanse rhetoric toward the Jewish State.

Would it really be a waste of time for Williams to ask him why on earth he continues to call for Israel to be destroyed? I for one would love to hear that answer. I don't actually expect him to give a serious answer to the question but I would like to see him asked. Do the leaders of Israel call for the country of Iran to wiped off the map? No they do not. This is a serious question and should be asked.

As for the nuclear issue, it too should be mentioned. If in fact Iran only intends to use it's nuclear program for peaceful purposes then why are they not complying with the UAEA? And yes in fact they are required as part of the NPT to do so. It's a completely legitimate question.

And lastly I hope when the push to expand our own nuclear energy capacity is proposed (and it will be and has been) I don't see you on here arguing against it given the positive things you say about it's use (when it comes to Iran).

Nuclear power is clean/safe power.

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

The rhetoric on Israel is nothing more than empty rhetoric for domestic consumption. Besides, when did he call on Israel to be "destroyed." I doubt you speak Farsi and are carelessly paraphrasing whatever he's said. His most controversial statement called for a regime change in Israel ("This occupying regime - (NOT ISRAEL) - must vanish from the page of time.) And as for the nuclear issue, I assume you mean IAEA, and Iran IS abiding by IAEA and IAEA is saying nothing but. And unlike many of my good liberal friends, I am in support of the use of nuclear energy, as long as there is a safe way to dispose of the waste.

[kingofscotts]

Mr. Sedaei,

First of I have a tremendous amount of respect for any Huffpo blogger who comes back to engage the posters. This almost never happens and I for one truly appreciate it.

Yes in fact I did mean the IAEA, but no they are not in full compliance with that body. It is a fact as expressed many times by ElBaradei. I am confused as to why you would argue they are in compliance when such a statement is not subjective but a matter of fact.

Also in a previous response to a comment you mentioned that one of Iran's problems with increasing refinery capacity is the technological ability.

Are you serious? So you're telling me that they have the technology to enrich uranium and build nuclear power plants but can't seem to figure out how to build more refineries?

That makes zero sense, especially considering the oil nations with whome they have healthy relations who would gladly help them. I would love an answer on that.

With respect. Cheers.

oh link to Iran's non compliance. If you don't trust the site that's ok becuase they link the actual reports from the IAEA.

htthttp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-051124-usia01.htmp://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-051124-usia01.htm

[kaspean]

I disagree Sam. If it were for domestic consumption, then you would making the point of your detractors by substantiating their claims that Iran is seeking to destory Israel, and not just rhetorically. Rather, it is generally seen as a weapon Ahmadinejad uses to drum up support in the Arab world by drawing a cleavage between their governments, who either have signed peace treaties with Israel or are not hostile towards her. You keep citing Trita Parsi--that's what he and many others (Vali Nasr, for example) roughly argue. It seems to measure up empirically. Why would Ahmadinejad say such nasty things to drum up domestic support? Iran has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel in the region. It certainly does not get him any votes by bashing Israel. Ahmadinejad was elected on an economic platform. During his campaign economics were almost inseparable from his political views.

You are correct, however, in your transliteration of his many statements re Israel. Unless you speak Persian, the American press (and their translators who can speak Persian) have done less than an admirable job in translating his quotes.

[MourningDude]

So your argument is that since Iran is a signatory to the NPT, we should believe that their intentions are pure, and if they do anything overtly to contradict that belief, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

And yet, although Iran is also a signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights, they have no intention of keeping it, and if they do anything suggesting that they are breaking their vows, we much immediately condemn them.

Is that just about right?

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

There is a difference between the 2 treaties. The Declaration of Human Rights is a document that outlines a set of obligations, whereas the NPT creates obligations AND gives rights. Another difference is that the NPT has an international focus whereas the Human Rights Declarations only impacts the residents within a country. A country like Iran can very well be inclined to abide by an agreement such as the NPT because a. they, in return, get the right to enrich uranium, and b. feel compelled to do so because they would otherwise be confronted with strong adversaries, but at the same time walk all over a human rights agreement because a. it only impacts its own citizens who are powerless and b. the international community stays silent when it comes to such matters and doesn't impose any sanctions, as opposed to the nuclear issue.

[JonathanDS2U]

It would be quite difficult to argue that our country isn't susceptible to propaganda, not after "we" elected George W. Bush in 2004, and that is why a character like Ahmadinejad being on TV in this manner makes me somewhat apprehensive. However, I do tend to think that Americans are at least a little less susceptible to propaganda than repressed societies - so that tonight when Ahmadinejad condescendingly refuses to answer certain questions, we won't just feel that some social moree with which we are unfamiliar had been violated by Williams. But as long as being an American also means marrying your will to that of amazingly crude and stupid people (was I supposed to mince my words?), I cannot see only good coming from this interview.