Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Ahmadinejad as Hitler

He called for more "research" into the unequivocal facts of the Holocaust, said Iranian women were among the freest in the...

Print Friendly

He called for more "research" into the unequivocal facts of the Holocaust, said Iranian women were among the freest in the world, and declared that homosexuality did not exist in his country. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad courts controversy wherever he goes, and his visit to New York last week was no exception. Addressing the UN General Assembly last Tuesday, Iran’s president said he considered the dispute over his country’s nuclear program "closed." Even before his arrival, he had asked—and was denied—permission to lay a wreath at the site of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York.

But it was Ahmadinejad’s appearance last Monday at Columbia University that generated the most press buzz and protests. In a chiding introduction that has since generated sharply divided reactions, university President Lee Bollinger described the Iranian leader as "exhibiting all the signs of a cruel and petty dictator" and condemned his denial of the Holocaust as "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

Ahmadinejad came out swinging, calling Bollinger’s words "insults" and proceeded to deliver a speech to the university’s faculty and students that meandered between a religious sermon and a treatise on science. He repeated provocative statements that at times bordered on the absurd. He remained evasive on questions that ranged from human rights abuses in Iran to his call for Israel to be "wiped from the pages of history," often responding to them with opaque rhetorical questions.

When asked for a one-word answer—"yes or no"—as to whether his government desired the "destruction of Israel as a Jewish state," Ahmadinejad responded: "And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn’t really a free flow of information. … I’m asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no." His answer received laughter and applause.

Ahmadinejad’s visit comes at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, with the George W. Bush administration pushing the UN Security Council for a third round of economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic for its refusal to shut down its nuclear program. Analysts suggest that the Iranian leader’s meandering monologues and fiery rebuttals are all part of a contest of rhetorical muscle, a classic game of political theater.

"It’s a last bid to divide the West," said Michael Hirsch, a senior editor at Newsweek magazine, during a forum at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He added: "I think it’s generally a good idea when you’re inviting people to your university not to tell them upon arrival that they’re not welcome, because then you look crazier than Ahmadinejad."

Ahmadinejad has used the Khomeinist-inspired rhetoric of the Islamic Revolution to his advantage, playing a widely despised villain in the Western media while pandering to his domestic base and projecting an air of defiance toward U.S. power.

But experts say that the Iranian leader has also drawn heavy domestic criticism for his mismanagement of the Iranian economy, as well as his brash remarks about the Holocaust, comments that, in the long term, threaten to derail any possible improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations.

"I was astonished when I was [in Iran]. I actually had more on-the-record conversations criticizing Ahmadinejad with Iranian politicians and businessmen than I have here in Washington criticizing Bush," said Hirsch.

In one interview with an Iranian newspaper editor, Hirsch said that the editor remarked: "You know, one of the things we say around here is that Bush is your Ahmadinejad."

"They’re similar personalities, both sort of pandering to their conservative religious political base, crudely spoken, not especially masters of their native languages," said Hirsch.

The rhetoric portends an ominous future for the tense standoff between Israel and Iran, which analysts believe is a geo-strategic conflict that is largely being couched in ideological terms.

While it appears the Iranian government has made an explicit effort to bring Israel into the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad’s comments about the Holocaust have angered many inside Iranian elite foreign policy circles because they distract from the more pressing issues of the country’s security.

"[Ahmadinejad] actually crossed an invisible red line that exists inside Iran’s own internal politics," said Trita Parsi, an Iran specialist and head of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council who also writes for the Inter Press Service.

"Criticizing Israel was never something the Iranians were sensitive about—they’re quite thick-skinned about it to be frank—but talking about the Holocaust was no longer about Israel, and this was something about the entire Jewish experience," he said. "[Ahmadinejad] caused a tremendous amount of anger."

It appears that Israeli politicians are also using the rhetoric to their advantage.

"[Benjamin] Netanyahu, he has a metaphor. It’s 1938, and Iran is Germany, and he goes on to imply that Ahmadinejad is Hitler," said Parsi, referring to the former Israeli prime minister and head of the right-wing Likud bloc in Israel’s Knesset. "If Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is Hitler, who in his or her right mind wants to play the part of Neville Chamberlain?"

It remains to be seen what impact Ahmadinejad’s visit will have on the more crucial issues at hand. So far, Iran’s attempts to foment division among the key members of the UN Security Council appear to be working.

Six nations—Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—agreed Friday to delay until November a new resolution that would toughen sanctions against Iran, waiting to see if Tehran cooperates with UN nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei and answers outstanding questions about its disputed nuclear program.

To more discerning critics, Ahmadinejad’s U.S. visit only adds more smoke and mirrors to an already-tangled political situation in the Middle East, one that the United States cannot afford to exacerbate further by militarily confronting Iran.

"The overwhelming tide of opinion that Bush is hearing from the Pentagon is that this would be foolhardy and extreme and result in many repercussions in Iraq," said Hirsch. "Bush knows that Iraq is his legacy, and that has sucked all the oxygen out of the room."

Khody Akhavi is a writer for the Inter Press Service.

 

Citations

Khody Akhavi, "Ahmadinejad as Hitler," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, October 2, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share