The Middle Ground Between Scylla and Charybdis

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a controversial, influential and incendiary figure. As world opinion bears down on Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad, Columbia's president Lee Bollinger was quick to use his area of expertise -- freedom of speech -- to defend his decision: "That such a forum could not take place on a university campus in Iran today sharpens the point of what we do here [...] This is America at its best." And he has a point. Freedom of speech means exactly that -- we do not discriminate against speech simply because it is hateful, unfounded, incorrect, and advocates the destruction of a people or a state. While Michael Ledeen and other hawkish pundits claim that the benefits of engagement are a "myth", I feel that engagement without appeasement is the only way to peacefully resolve our differences.

Yet, their side of that argument also holds water. We are giving Ahmadinejad a platform from which to preach his ignominious and repulsive rhetoric. We legitimize statements calling for the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, and the killing of American troops in Iraq. While his freedom to speak trumps our disdain towards him, his "views" (and I have trouble even giving them so much credence) are wrong. His calls for the destruction of America and Israel are serious threats to our security and that of our ally, and his unabashed quest for nuclear weapons must be stopped at all costs.

But still, I support Bollinger's invitation, because I uncompromisingly support freedom of speech in this country and around the world. True, we don't need Ahmadinejad to prove the resilience of the First Amendment -- we have the KKK for that. And we couldn't possibly be inviting him in order to understand his actions. There is no "middle ground" on executing a rape victim for "promiscuous behavior," on wiping Israel off the map, or on killing Americans in Iraq. We don't need to understand him when he's wrong. Then why bother engaging him? What can we stand to gain from talking, when it seems as though there is absolutely no room for negotiation?

The answer can be found once we realize that Ahmadinejad may not be an apocalyptic lunatic. Bin Laden is a lunatic -- there is no room for negotiation with al-Qaeda. If Ahmadinejad is a lunatic a la Hitler or bin Laden, then we cannot engage him, and we cannot negotiate with him. If, however, Ahmadinejad is simply a Bismarckian politician, then we can use his realpolitik to our advantage. If that is the case, Ahmadinejad's nationalist rhetoric, scapegoating, restrictions on freedom of expression, gender discrimination, and state-sponsored terrorism are all standard operating procedure for an Islamofascist dictator bent on consolidating his power at home and expanding his influence abroad, not a nutcase who wants himself and his country to die.

And then there is the nuclear issue -- both the problem and the solution. In Ahmadinejad's calculating but backwards head, saber-rattling gives him legitimacy, and nuclear weapons puts "the Great Nation of Iran" on equal footing with America. The West should not and will not let him have nuclear weapons; but now, he's backed himself into this corner, and he needs our help to let him save face peacefully.

America's opportunity for engagement is now: Iran's oil-dependent economy is in the doldrums, and Iran's young population wants to enjoy the virtues of capitalism and freedom. Now is not the time to isolate Iran -- isolation is what got Iran into this mess in the first place. Instead, we ratchet up the carrots and the sticks. We pass a third round of Security Council sanctions (one that actually has teeth), and we target Iran's ability to import refined oil (although it has huge crude oil reserves, Iran has little domestic refining capability). Simultaneously, we offer them economic assistance if they phase out their nuclear program. We offer to speak to them as a state, not as an evil enemy, and the dignity that Iran will get from this will allow Ahmadinejad to back off without hurting his nationalist credentials. Once that issue is resolved, the rest of the dominoes will begin to fall: Ahmadinejad will be the savior of his country, and he will be responsive to, not enemies with, the West. The world is currently facing a nuclear-tipped Scylla of appeasement and Charybdis of isolation -- assuming Ahmadinejad is not a lunatic, it is up to America to find the middle ground of tough engagement.

Comments

[Jane22]

As one who completely believes in non-vielence, we need to be the leader in an attempt to change the course of world affairs. Since this and all U.S. gov'ts are complicit in spreading weapons of death across the world, I don't see how we could facilitate such a bold move until we renounce killing as a way of life in this world. Were we to do this, we could regain our status as a true leader with a vision for the world we all want. Violence will never produce peace. A simple truth that few seem to embrace!

[cowboyjerkface]

We call others terrorist and insurgents and yet it wasnt Iraq or Iran that has invaded the U.S. It isnt Iraq or Iran that has nuclear weapons to threaten others with and an army on our soil. The people in the U.S. need to understand that just because we are told "America good...everyone bad" it doesn't make it true anymore than Hitler telling the Germans that Jews were bad and the Aryan nation was good. Do Germans still believe that today? I dont think so and I am sure if they had a chance for a "do-over" they would have chosen not to follow that madman. It is almost like the Bush regime is pushing the world towards oblivion all in the name of rapture. Why is this necessary? Do the right wing trolls of this nation think so little of their families and future that they are willing to allow this madman the right to destory us all? What the hell is wrong with these people? Is life so bad in this country that death is preferable because if that is the case why not just load up your 45 auto, take your family out back and shoot them and then turn the gun on yourselves. Must you take the whole world down with you just because your life sucks?

[Plowboy]

I think that people nearly always miss the real lessons of history. Take Nazi Germany. Hitler never got more than 37% (against 53% for Hindenburg) in any free election. His popularity was actually dropping when he became Chancellor (due to the senility of Hindenburg). But he became dictator through the Enabling Act. That was not an action of the People but of Politicians!
If you read Berlin Diary, you might note the glumness of the people when Hitler ordered troops into Poland. Yes, there were rabid Nazis. In Aamerica now there are rabid Neocons. But most people are not of such persuations.
However, the lesson here, I believe, is that when a people allows corrupt politicians to act as they will for too long, their nation is inevitably lost!
After a corrupt group takes power, it is hard or impossible dislodge them without externnal help. For quite some time the majority of the American people have opposed Bush, but he keeps having his way! And if he orders an attack on Iran, they might be glum, but they will accept it.
That is why I now hold in contempt those feckless Democrats who could act and have the obligation to do so but don't. nIt was such as they who betrayed Germany to Hitler and the Nazis. (The cooperative corporatists were also part of the treason! Doesn't that seem like home?)

[Plowboy]

Sorry, I cannot buy your assumptions. I have listened to Ahmedinejad and he is not as crazy or evil as some paint him. He is more reasonable than George W. Bush or his Neocon advisers, and less bigoted than bully Israelis who continue to steal from their neighbors. I would prefer to live in his Islamic republic than Jewish Israel. I'd have more rights there.
Frankly, the creation of a Jewish state on another people's land was a crime, to cover which its perpetrators felt compelled to villainize their victims and they have never let up.
Ther vast majority of people there at the time of that crime wanted a secular democracy. Those who claimed America to be a good nation should have agreed.
But from the start, propagandists worked hard to prevent Americans from thinking of the Palestinians as like ourselves; they were not called Christians and Muslim, but Arabs and Muslim. Never mind that native Jews were just as "Arab" and BTW opposed the crime! We Americas were told of our Judeochristian heritage and of a different people denying persedcuted Jews their rights. And obviously if you didn't buy the Zionist lies, you must be a Nazi.
Ahmedinejad has never advocated an ethnic cleansing like Israel began with (and continues still!) He merely advocates reversing the crime that began the conflict.

His argument would be stronger if his own nation had a secular democracy, but those who have observed recent histoty know whose fault that is. After we helped overthrow a democratically elected government to establish the dictatorship of "our" Shah with his Israeli trained SAVAK, the Iranian people kept giving their preference for a secular democratic state, but there was no effective support for that. "We" opposed any change that might affect "our" advantages. Finally, lacking other effective opposition to the hated Shah, the people joined Khomeini's Revolution. And perhaps, if America were not constantly threatening her, Iran might well, on her own, work out a more satisfactory governnment. But while we threaten they cannot unite for any major change.

[AlButerol]

The point has been made many times before on the Huffington Post and elsewhere that Ahmadinejad never said that Israel should be wiped off the map. I'm surprised to hear bloggers still repeating this myth.

[Plowboy]

Why? I am not surprised. Repeating a lie often enough makes it a truth nobody bothers to refute any more. That is a standard propagandistic ploy.

[sedalia066]

Engagement without appeasement works fine seems to me. Without some measures of ongoing interaction there is no hope of peaceful solution. Appeasment guarantees we lose, but diplomacy done right could bring a win for both sides. Just IMHO.

[ruchild]

Okay, have we forgotten the simple old fashioned attempt at saving face? That is what he is doing, if you can't see it for what it is, then you have been laboring under feminism for far too long. Have you ever gone out on a date and been humiliated that you went? Do you sit there and say how wonderful it was (save face) or do you go on and on about how you screwed up? Honestly answer that and you'll have the answer to the Iranian President's dilemma, he is a man in a man's world, albeit, a little behind the times, but this is the world he grew up with and he operates in, to understand him you have to remember that. Otherwise you're imposing your beliefs and constrictions upon him and he wasn't raised like that. He has to save face, he wants to nukes because he thinks it makes him equal, not to use them, no one actually wants to use them unless their delusional, and so far he has proven that he is far from delusional.

[nypoet22]

"assuming Ahmadinejad is not a lunatic..."

better stop right there and reconsider that assumption.

[CarmanK]

You have to have competent diplomats with a true understanding of international politics which really escapes the current State Departmentleadership. 2009 Can't come too soon for me. There is so much time left for Bush and Rice to continue their destructive behavior throughout the world.

[milo9]

I say let him speak. The more he speaks the more maniacal he will appear to the world. Few will want to give him access Nuclear Weapons.

[SharpenDC]

Yes, let him speak. If the US could stand to have Khrushchev visit at the height of his powers, it can tolerate having the President of Iran.

[Larenzo]

This guy has been demonized by the dubya regime and the complicit media. Some quotes have been erroneous translations. But he is definitely not a fan of the west. His nuclear boasting is just schoolyard bullying, bragging about things he doesn't have and probably won't. Yes, if sanctions were loosened in Iran, the populace would turn more westward and toss the guy out.

What really pisses me off is that he keeps shooting his mouth off about nuclear ambitions. That idiot dubya and the rest of the regime would love nothing more than nailing Iran. It has loads of oil, after all. Sound familiar?

[Danny]

"Caribde and Scilla" meant HELL or HELL.

[Danny]

I love the language used in the dilemma presented by this post --"Caribde et Scilla" (as I knew it). I haven't heard it since childhood.

[gilmanc]

And what of our leaders, who called for the destruction of Iraq (disguised as weapons of mass destruction) and now call for the destruction of Iran (disguised as saving the world)?

Would it be better if Ahmadinejad instead called for regime change in the United States because we cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons and regime change in Israel because they are ruled by religion?

[locanicole]

And thus, diplomacy!!! I cant quite get over how full of ourselves our nation is...why is it terrorism when another nation uses the same yardstick we use to decide to invade? We have massive WMDs...we are killing innocents...we are saber rattling...perhaps our Government needs a way to save face and cant just back away...remember,our government is the one feeding us all this information about Iran (remember Iraq, what a track record)...watch Syria now...gonna get ugly...

[Danny]

Gilmanc -- yes.

[Danny]

Yes.

[Tubby]

Sir, you make sense. I hope it plays out the way you describe.

[mommadona]

And then there is the nuclear issue -- both the problem and the solution. In Ahmadinejad's calculating but backwards head, saber-rattling gives him legitimacy, and nuclear weapons puts "the Great Nation of Iran" on equal footing with America.

The West should not and will not let him have nuclear weapons; but now, he's backed himself into this corner, and he needs our help to let him save face peacefully."

You have GOT to be kidding me.
When a man says something in a public statement, that's usually what they want
to say.

Don't be patronizing and 'talkin' the fool out of shooting himself in the foot"

This is PC "enabling" at it's worst.

[hoopoe]

no one is saying he misspoke - his rhetoric is intentional, but what is it's intention? that is what we're not asking. is is saber-rattling, psychological warfare, bravado, propaganda, playing to his dwindling base at home, or the honest ravings of a madman?

somehow, the last on that list seems the least plausible to me. he may speak provocatively, he may be offensive, but he is not a stupid man. how many politicians do you know who really speak what's on their minds without first calibrating it for their intended audience? politicians calculate, and their rhetoric is designed to have an effect. if you are going to assess the man and his statements, ask: what effect is he trying to achieve and is it working?

[nypoet22]

Not to draw an immediate comparison, but Hitler wasn't stupid either, and seemed to forward some of the same goals as Ahmadinejad. The fact that he's far from stupid doesn't necessarily mean he's not crazy.