Ahmadinejad: The Audacious provocateur
Eremias Woldemikael
October 18, 2007
Few weeks ago, Columbia University’s President Lee C. Bollinger called the Iranian President, “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Ahmedinejad is the first of the choices. He is a well educated man who holds a PhD and still is a professor so he is not uneducated. He is an audacious provocateur for the Palestinians plight. As Ahmedinejad stated in his speech [President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University - washingtonpost.com], he does not question whether the holocaust happened, but he raises the Palestinian people’s plight by provoking the world with inflammatory and “hot button” words.
Such tactic, however, has neither worked to help the Palestinian people nor the nation of Iran. Instead, he continues to alienate both peoples and is driving away sympathies from western governments, media and eventually the western population. Based on the way the US news media have reported his story, with the exception of 60 minutes and Charlie Rose, or entire transcripts of Ahmedinejad’s speech in Columbia (see hyperlink above), none of them have captured the essence of the man’s arguments or the content of his speech. The whole event at Columbia was reported as if it was a school yard brawl of middle-schoolers. Here, I will try to provide my understanding of the man, his message, and the real reasons of the West’s objection to his anti-Israel speeches and his nuclear programs.
On Both the issues of Palestinian plight and right to access for Nuclear Technology, Ahmedinejad has fair arguments to make. Yet, he can not make them in a threatening manner by increasing the nervousness of already suspicious nations.
For Ahmedinejad and the rest of the Arab and Muslim World, the issue of the Holocaust is related to the subsequent creation of the Jewish state. If there was no state of Israel in the Middle East, they would probably join in the condemnation of the history of anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly in Germany. Since that is not the case, they have come to view the Holocaust and anti-Semitism through the prism of Israel. To them, Israel is a mistake that should have never been allowed to be created in 1948. That basic understanding of Israel as an error requires correction. The way to correct the mistake must be by holding a referendum which should have been then and now the proper way of resolving the issue of the territory that was known as Palestine in the pre-1948 days for centuries. To them the historical existence of Judea or Israel as Jewish states more than 2000 years ago and the desire of European Jews to go to their ancestral lands is irrelevant
For Ahmadinejad and others raising the question of the Holocaust is an indirect way to first raise the fairness of the creation of Israel and second, raise the fairness of its treatment of Palestinians. Their question always is, may be there was a holocaust committed against Jewish people in Europe, but how does the persecution of Jewish people in Europe follow the formation of a new state in Palestine for European and others kinds of Jews? Why must Arabs and Muslims pay for the sins and cruelties of Europe? In other words, if one must create a haven for the protection of European Jewish people, then one must create the sanctuary- state for them in Europe. If the cruelties of the Holocaust had occurred in the Middle East, then may be there should be a haven for Jewish people in the Middle East. But, the occurrence of the holocaust in Europe does not entail the forceful creation of a haven in the Middle East.
Secondly, once Israel was created, must the state of Israel also be behaving and treating Palestinians in the way it does today? For Ahmedinejad the answer is a no. His hopes of provoking these questions however fails and he is left to be condemned or be described in the way the Columbia president did by politicians, the media, and average people in Western countries.
The Nuclear issue on the other hand is a completely different matter and is directly addressed and argued for. The arguments of Ahmadinejad are like all nations Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear technology, and Iran does not want nuclear weapons. One can not say what the intention of the Iranians may be. The reason why western nations are reluctant to allow access to today’s Iran as opposed to enthusiastic support of the Shah’s Iran is simply because they trusted the Shah and they are afraid of the Ayatollahs of Iran, represented by Khomeini and his successors. The west does not want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons, but it does not also want Iran to have any type of nuclear program. The policy of the west can be summarized as “Nothing Nuclear for Iran period!”
If one is to believe Ahmedinejad words that Nuclear Weapons are not part of the defense doctrine of the revolutionary theocratic state, then they do clearly have the right to a peaceful energy program. However, the core obstacle is the issue of trust. That is, none of the western nations trust Iran to posses any type of Nuclear Technology regardless of its peaceful or non-peaceful intention. Trust is the most fundamental issue.
The west has been claiming Iran has violated IAEA rules for peaceful energy and Iran has been denying that. Possible solution was the providing of controlled Nuclear Technology supervised by Russia, but according to Ahmedinejad’s speech in Columbia as well as his interview with Charlie Rose, Iran will not fall for that. He claims at one time Western nations ranging from Canada, Britain, France, and Germany had signed a contract with Iran to provide Nuclear Energy Technology. They, however unilaterally withdrew from the contract.
Based on that experience, Iran does not trust the western nations to handle any of its technology needs. Iran does not want to be dependent on Europe or Canada for its needs when it could do it on its own. To be fair, why should they? Who would want to be dependent on somebody else when he or she could be independent? I suspect no one. The following words from his speech speak for themselves.
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.
If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?
For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed.
It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law.”
The best possible scenario for moving on to the future is probably dialogue on both sides to build trust. On one side the West and Iran must cooperate on ways of solving the Palestinian Israeli conflict. On the other side, the west and especially the US must come to terms with its historical errors of interference in the domestic affairs of Iran. The opposition of the US and subsequent deposition to a democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50s was the first Error. The US must never have supported a despotic rule of the Shah at the expense of Democracy. Once the Islamic revolution occurred, despite the ugly way it occurred, illustrated by the holding of US citizens as hostages, the US should have reconciled with the strategically important nation. Instead, the US went on to back Saddam Hussein, when he decided to invade Iran. It is time for the US to start mending its relations with Iran and rectify the past. Once Trust is established between both nations, then the nuclear issue will be easier to solve.
Such tactic, however, has neither worked to help the Palestinian people nor the nation of Iran. Instead, he continues to alienate both peoples and is driving away sympathies from western governments, media and eventually the western population. Based on the way the US news media have reported his story, with the exception of 60 minutes and Charlie Rose, or entire transcripts of Ahmedinejad’s speech in Columbia (see hyperlink above), none of them have captured the essence of the man’s arguments or the content of his speech. The whole event at Columbia was reported as if it was a school yard brawl of middle-schoolers. Here, I will try to provide my understanding of the man, his message, and the real reasons of the West’s objection to his anti-Israel speeches and his nuclear programs.
On Both the issues of Palestinian plight and right to access for Nuclear Technology, Ahmedinejad has fair arguments to make. Yet, he can not make them in a threatening manner by increasing the nervousness of already suspicious nations.
For Ahmedinejad and the rest of the Arab and Muslim World, the issue of the Holocaust is related to the subsequent creation of the Jewish state. If there was no state of Israel in the Middle East, they would probably join in the condemnation of the history of anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly in Germany. Since that is not the case, they have come to view the Holocaust and anti-Semitism through the prism of Israel. To them, Israel is a mistake that should have never been allowed to be created in 1948. That basic understanding of Israel as an error requires correction. The way to correct the mistake must be by holding a referendum which should have been then and now the proper way of resolving the issue of the territory that was known as Palestine in the pre-1948 days for centuries. To them the historical existence of Judea or Israel as Jewish states more than 2000 years ago and the desire of European Jews to go to their ancestral lands is irrelevant
For Ahmadinejad and others raising the question of the Holocaust is an indirect way to first raise the fairness of the creation of Israel and second, raise the fairness of its treatment of Palestinians. Their question always is, may be there was a holocaust committed against Jewish people in Europe, but how does the persecution of Jewish people in Europe follow the formation of a new state in Palestine for European and others kinds of Jews? Why must Arabs and Muslims pay for the sins and cruelties of Europe? In other words, if one must create a haven for the protection of European Jewish people, then one must create the sanctuary- state for them in Europe. If the cruelties of the Holocaust had occurred in the Middle East, then may be there should be a haven for Jewish people in the Middle East. But, the occurrence of the holocaust in Europe does not entail the forceful creation of a haven in the Middle East.
Secondly, once Israel was created, must the state of Israel also be behaving and treating Palestinians in the way it does today? For Ahmedinejad the answer is a no. His hopes of provoking these questions however fails and he is left to be condemned or be described in the way the Columbia president did by politicians, the media, and average people in Western countries.
The Nuclear issue on the other hand is a completely different matter and is directly addressed and argued for. The arguments of Ahmadinejad are like all nations Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear technology, and Iran does not want nuclear weapons. One can not say what the intention of the Iranians may be. The reason why western nations are reluctant to allow access to today’s Iran as opposed to enthusiastic support of the Shah’s Iran is simply because they trusted the Shah and they are afraid of the Ayatollahs of Iran, represented by Khomeini and his successors. The west does not want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons, but it does not also want Iran to have any type of nuclear program. The policy of the west can be summarized as “Nothing Nuclear for Iran period!”
If one is to believe Ahmedinejad words that Nuclear Weapons are not part of the defense doctrine of the revolutionary theocratic state, then they do clearly have the right to a peaceful energy program. However, the core obstacle is the issue of trust. That is, none of the western nations trust Iran to posses any type of Nuclear Technology regardless of its peaceful or non-peaceful intention. Trust is the most fundamental issue.
The west has been claiming Iran has violated IAEA rules for peaceful energy and Iran has been denying that. Possible solution was the providing of controlled Nuclear Technology supervised by Russia, but according to Ahmedinejad’s speech in Columbia as well as his interview with Charlie Rose, Iran will not fall for that. He claims at one time Western nations ranging from Canada, Britain, France, and Germany had signed a contract with Iran to provide Nuclear Energy Technology. They, however unilaterally withdrew from the contract.
Based on that experience, Iran does not trust the western nations to handle any of its technology needs. Iran does not want to be dependent on Europe or Canada for its needs when it could do it on its own. To be fair, why should they? Who would want to be dependent on somebody else when he or she could be independent? I suspect no one. The following words from his speech speak for themselves.
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.
If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?
For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed.
It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law.”
The best possible scenario for moving on to the future is probably dialogue on both sides to build trust. On one side the West and Iran must cooperate on ways of solving the Palestinian Israeli conflict. On the other side, the west and especially the US must come to terms with its historical errors of interference in the domestic affairs of Iran. The opposition of the US and subsequent deposition to a democratically elected leader of Iran in the 50s was the first Error. The US must never have supported a despotic rule of the Shah at the expense of Democracy. Once the Islamic revolution occurred, despite the ugly way it occurred, illustrated by the holding of US citizens as hostages, the US should have reconciled with the strategically important nation. Instead, the US went on to back Saddam Hussein, when he decided to invade Iran. It is time for the US to start mending its relations with Iran and rectify the past. Once Trust is established between both nations, then the nuclear issue will be easier to solve.
Print
Email
