Mahmoud the ShrewdAhmadinejad\'s Success at Columbia

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s explosive speech at Columbia was the quintessential media circus. The setup could not have been more perfect, the lights could not have been brighter, and the public relations victory for Iran’s regime could not have been sweeter. There was Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger, who berated Ahmadinejad for exhibiting “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator” and called him “either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” according to AFP News. Protestors came in droves, jamming two city blocks, and decried the leader we most love to hate these days. There was even an NPR interview with President Bush, later canceled, where he expressed disinterest in personally inviting the Iranian President, but felt his appearance at Columbia showed the “greatness of America.”

Watching the performance unfold, I felt a serious case of historic déjà vu. My mind turned to the final days of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where the Allies’ “Big Three” gathered to shape the post-WWII order. It was a psychological and political mismatch, with Stalin holding the initiative on most of the major issues. Self-determination and free elections in Poland came up for discussion, as did the fate of most of the Eastern European states. Roosevelt, barely clinging to life, could hardly keep himself awake and continued to entertain fantasies of Stalin as a man he could work with. Churchill, fiery as always, was largely irrelevant. The Soviets had six million troops in Eastern Europe, two million of which were in Poland, and gave little thought to leaving. Stalin, probably thinking his guests amusing and useful idiots, was already planning thirty years ahead. Yet on paper, the Soviet leader assured his colleagues that he took their concerns fully to heart. With little leverage available and resistance basically futile, the Allies resigned themselves to Stalin’s word and signed away half of Europe.

At Columbia, everyone stuck to script. Ahmadinejad (replicating the character of Stalin at Yalta) calmly denied the existence of homosexuals in Iran, read Koranic verses, questioned the official version of the Sept. 11th attacks, and reiterated his deep concern for the Palestinians’ plight. The Iranian leader had given dozens of speeches virtually identical to this one since taking office, which have worked to win his regime thousands of admirers on the Arab streets, agitate his Sunni neighbors, and make him the Middle East’s most popular anti-Western symbol. Nevertheless, as president, Ahmadinejad’s only real power lies in managing domestic affairs. As far as military and foreign policy, he is largely subservient to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. Furthermore, there are growing signs of possible replacement, the most important being the appointment of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s rival and former presidential opponent, as chairman of the highly influential Assembly of Experts. Consequently, contrary to the clout he actually has, Columbia allowed Ahmadinejad to further cement and exploit a distorted view of himself to western audiences.

Bollinger was Roosevelt at his frailest, playing right into the Iranian’s hands. I really did not think he would do it, but Columbia’s President actually got up and challenged the “astonishingly uneducated” Ahmadinejad on the veracity of the Holocaust and his denial of freedom in Iran. Bollinger took his place in a long line of western intellectuals who have made fools of themselves in similar situations. Did he have such contempt for Ahmadinejad and his broader diplomatic aims as to believe that he would engage him in a debate about human rights regimes? Apparently what is intuitive to most has not reached Bollinger’s comprehension, which is that his introduction was just what the Iranian President wanted. In no small part due to performances like these, Ahmadinejad, without firing a shot, has conducted one of the most impressive diplomatic campaigns of the last decade, has cut holes in numerous American efforts to contain him and is rapidly increasing ties with Russia and China. I could only imagine how hard he was laughing after the event concluded.

The waves of protestors gathered outside the lecture hall, mostly Jewish liberals, were the saddest players in the drama. Terrified and incapable of confronting some of truly sensitive and difficult issues facing Israel and the Jewish people, they attacked the easiest of all possible targets. I hope someone can explain to them that Holocaust denial has been a hot craze in the Middle East for quite some time, from the man on the street to such “peace partners” as Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. Most of these protestors seemed anxious to assuage their guilt and, as good liberals, attempted to strike a balance between backing Israel and not stepping on too many wrong toes. I do not see how bashing Ahmadinejad for Holocaust denial does anything, for example, about Arab members of Israel’s Knesset selling secrets to the country’s enemies. Nor do I see how this helps the displaced Jews of Gush Katif or advances a serious discussion about Israel’s demographic problems. The entire show was an example not of strength and solidarity, but pathetic weakness.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s performance at Columbia, if tied to his political image and perception on the Arab street, was a massive success. Everyone seemed to know their roles and carefully stuck to script. Ahmadinejad, calm and methodical, proceeded to give a speech he had probably committed to memory, ridiculed the United States in its own backyard and used the media to his advantage. Bollinger, who actually took himself seriously, made a mockery of western intellectualism and gave the Iranian president a de facto blank check to pursue a pre-planned public relations strategy. The protestors, uniting against what is most easy, have demonstrated their inability to confront what is most hard and most important.