The
Attack On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
By Dan Lieberman
08 October, 2007
Alternative Insight
Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, arrived in the United States with
a baggage of alleged demagoguery. He didn't have to bring demagoguery
here; the U.S. media showed it has enough to stock the world.
Ahmadinejad is not a leader
who appeals to progressive persons. He is faithful to the more extreme
interpretations of the Koran. He inflicts his religious convictions
on the Iranian masses, has agents aggressively monitor violations of
Iran's dress code and remove satellite dishes, is dishonest in many
of his remarks and has been accused of involvement in assassinations
in the Middle East and Europe.
With all this in mind, the
United States media had an opportunity to examine the motivations of
a well-educated and important Iranian - after all he is president -
who, although not a cleric gained a high Iranian position, and represents
the third world opposition to U.S. and Israel's common policies. Instead
of stimulating a dialogue, the U.S. media engaged in demagoguery, sarcastic
baiting, insult, insolence and diversions from meaningful arguments.
The meetings and interviews with Iran's president had a common focus
- discredit him with ridicule and prevent him from presenting reasons
why he contradicts U.S. and Israeli policies.
The right wing fringe started
it all with their usual extreme and disarming rhetoric of attempting
to associate anyone who criticizes Israel with being either a reincarnation
of Hitler, a Nazi, a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.
CBS reporter Scott Pelley,
in a 60 Minutes interview with the Iranian president, defined the media
thrust to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit. Pelley leaned forward in his
seat and, with a smirk on his face, asked embarrassing questions to
which he already knew the answer and which were only meant to annoy
the Iranian president. Examples:
"Sir, what were you
thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in
the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would
be insulting to many, many Americans."
"It is an established
fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans
in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?"
"For the sake of clarity,
because there is so much concern in the world about this next question,
please give me the most direct answer you can. Is it your goal to build
a nuclear bomb?"
Columbia University President
Lee Bollinger continued the unwelcoming tirade with an insulting introduction
that left any decent, cordial and open-minded person in gasps. Bollinger's
counter-productive comments lacked grace and knowledge. He could ask
himself some simple questions:
"Why was Iran President
Ahmadinejad not treated as cordially as Pakistan President Musharaff,
who is a known dictator?"
"Is President Ahmadinejad
more deceptive, cruel or petty than U.S. President George W. Bush?"
"Would it be accepted
that a forum for George W. Bush, or any President, be preceded by an
equally insulting introduction?"
Some of Lee Bollinger's "questions,"
with rebuttals.
"Mr. President, you
exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
How has President Ahmadinejad,
elected by an overwhelming majority of the Iranian people, exhibited
"signs of a petty and cruel dictator?" Compare his few nasty
occurrences with Olmert's daily pulverizing of the Palestinian people
and Bush's slaughtering of the Iraqi people.
"...the Holocaust is
the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for
many other reasons, your absurd comments about the 'debate' over the
Holocaust defy historical truth...."
Ahmadinejad made clear he
has not denied the Holocaust's existence. He feels history is being
gathered from preferential sources and being used to justify Israel's
oppressive actions. If Bollinger feels the research is ended, why doesn't
he complain about the daily media reports of the Holocaust, fifty years
after the event and be concerned that the first international conference
on the Holocaust was held in Spain during the same week that Ahmadinejad
arrived in the United states? Israel's Yad Vashem's International Institute
for Holocaust Research (IIHR) organized the conference. Slavery, genocide
of the American Indians and all other historical events are still gathering
information. Why exclude the World War II genocide from additional research?
Doesn't this attitude generate suspicion? The Anti-Defamation League
(ADL) initially denied the Armenian Holocaust. Was it because Israel
has good relations with Turkey and the ADL didn't want to disturb those
relations? Here we had an absolute denial for possible political reasons.
Why no slurs against the ADL?
"Twelve days ago you
said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed
a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two
years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should
be wiped off the map."
There is no question that
President Ahmadinejad wants Israel wiped off the map. So, do all other
Middle East nations, including many considered to be America's friend.
Nevertheless, the Iranian president has qualified his remarks; he wants
regime change in Israel, and for good reason - the present regime is
oppressing the Palestinians and is prepared to seize all of Jerusalem,
an Islamic holy site. Compare Ahmadinejad's ramblings, not backed up
by force, with U.S. and Israel's aggressive rhetoric that demands regime
change in Iran and threatens wholesale bombings. Unlike Iran, its antagonists
also have the weapons to carry out their threats.
"It's well-documented
that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups
as Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
None of the mentioned groups,
except for one or two ancient and unverifiable actions, have actually
been responsible for terrorism against the United States. Bollinger
must have known that and also realized that Ahmadinejad has no control
of Iran's military and foreign policies. Why ask him a question he can't
answer? Where is it well documented that Iran "is a state sponsor
of terrorism?" As a matter of fact, Iran has suffered greatly from
terrorism, much of which the U.S. has sponsored. Iran has been a consistent
enemy of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Compare it's minimal support for Hezbollah
and Palestinian groups to U.S. overwhelming support for Israel. Iran
feels it is supporting groups battling against a perceived oppression.
"Your government is
now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing
safe transit to insurgent forces."
Again! Bollinger must have
known that Ahmadinejad has no control of Iran's military and foreign
policies. Why ask him a question he can't answer? No proof has been
offered for Bollinger's remark, while the Iraq government has praised
Iran's efforts. Actually, the Iraq government has expressed concern
that the U.S.is now "arming and providing safe transit to (Sunni)
insurgent forces."
"There are a number
of reports that also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabilize
the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination."
Which verified reports?
"Can you tell them and
us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia
targeting and killing U.S. troops?"
Has this been verified? Even
if there were no Iran nation, wouldn't the war in Iraq continue?
"Frankly, Mr. President,
I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these
questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us.
I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes
so much of what you say and do."
Bollinger must have been
looking into a mirror when he composed this salutation. Ahmadinejad's
biggest mistake was not to walk out.
After creating a tense atmosphere for President Ahmadinejad, intensified
by tense questions that led to tensions, the Washington Post added a
ridiculous coda to the discordant theatrics. A headline stated:
IRANIAN LEADER FAILS TO EASE
TENSIONS
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might
be a demagogue and not beneficial to the Iranian people. Nevertheless,
he neither has the authority nor the following to be of any danger to
the United Sates. The U.S. media and public demagogues revealed themselves
as only interested in silencing criticism of the U.S. and Israel (USrael)
and promoting an agenda that is not beneficial to U.S. interests. That
was the most revealing feature of this shameful episode.
Dan Lieberman has been active in alternative politics
for many years. He is the editor of Alternative Insight , a monthly
web based newsletter. Dan has many published articles on the Middle
East conflicts. [email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.