Scattered Thoughts on Ahmadinejad

1. The clip of Ahmadinejad denying that there are homosexuals in Iran and the audience's reaction is still making me crack up every time I see it.

2. It wasn't nice or pretty, but Lee Bollinger did the right thing in basically humiliating Ahmadinejad with his introduction and questions.

3. Having said that, I still think Columbia erred in having the man speak at the university. My reasoning: people will believe the most ridiculous things when they are repeated often enough on television. That may sound cynical, but I think the billions of dollars spent on advertising back me up on this. Everyone knew that Ahmadinejad's appearance would draw international coverage, and that his performance would later be watched by millions on television. In effect, Columbia University's decision gave the man yet another opportunity to repeat his lies and idiocy in front of a prime-time audience.

4. Ahmadinejad is probably not all that interested in what Columbia University students think of him. His real intended audience: Arab masses and disgruntled elites (not the Iranian people). His message: Iran is the true protector of Arab and Muslim interests - whether it be in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, or Iraq. His implicit target: the autocratic, US-supported regimes in the Middle East.

Iranians Humiliated?

Ahmadinejad releases Brits
(Photo: Iranian TV screenshot)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today announced that his country would release the 15 British sailors and marines that his country captured nearly two weeks ago. He made the surprise announcement at a press conference. It was apparently preceded by one of his infamous tirades, in which he harangued Britain for bringing the case up before the Security Council and complained about the invasion of Iraq.

Even if Ahmadinejad dressed it up as a "present" from the Iranian to the British people, I wonder how many Iranians will be convinced that the abduction was a smart move. There should be no doubt that Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials who supported this operation have suffered a humiliating defeat. On this matter, I could not disagree more with Zvi Bar'el, who sees the whole episode as a victory for Iran. According to the Ha'aretz writer, the British reliance on diplomatic means

will now be used by Iran as proof that even powers such as the U.S. and Britain are limited in their ability to use force when it comes to a minor border incident - and that the threat Iran poses is precisely in initiating local incidents that are not sufficiently important to lead to war.

I see no evidence for this. If this is what the Iranians have concluded, they will continue to make serious miscalculations. At the end of the day, the whole operation was for naught; I cannot see the slightest tangible gain that Iran might have derived from it.

True, the Guardian reports "speculation that the release was prompted in part by an agreement to let an Iranian representative meet five Iranians detained by US forces in Irbil, northern Iraq, in January." However, even if the Iranians obtained the rights to visit their diplomats or intelligence agents, no one is going to confirm this. Especially after the announcements by President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair that there would be "no quid pro quo," it will be difficult for the Iranians to point to any sort of favorable outcome. The British have repeatedly presented their GPS evidence to the Iranians and to international bodies; in the court of international opinion, the U.K.'s insistence that its troops were "well inside Iraqi waters" is likely to prevail.

Some might argue that at least the Iranians demonstrated their abilities to cause trouble for coalition forces. I would respond, however, that the British will be much more careful from now in all their patrols. They are unlikely to allow their troops to be captured again without some resistance. As for Iranian meddling in Basra and elsewhere in Iraq, it continues to harm coalition and Iraqi forces. But all this was clear before the Revolutionary Guards brushed up on their Piracy 101 skills. The statement by one British crew member, who thanked Ahmadinejad for his "forgiveness" will be seen by the world for what it is - Byzantine manipulation by a weak regime desperate to cover up its silly miscalculation.

In retrospect, it appears that the British did the right thing. By staying calm but not backing down on their core positions (at least not in public), they called Iran's bluff. When I heard about the release of the British troops, I wondered if the case might be instructive for other abduction scenarios - such as the one that sparked the Second Lebanon War. But I think that this is not the type of lesson we can draw from this particular incident. The kind of poker game that the British and Iranians were playing relies on the rules of the international system that regulates interactions between states.

Matters change dramatically when states are confronted with non-state actors. As much as I would criticize the nature of Israel's military response to the abductions of its soldiers, first by a Palestinian faction in the south and then by Hizbullah in the north - a response which ultimately proved ineffective - I don't think Israel could have obtained the kind of outcome that the British achieved. Neither the Palestinian factions nor Hizbullah respond to the threats of international sanctions. Their interests cannot be easily damaged, except by direct military confrontation. And even then, the options are very limited and likely to prove unsuccessful.

Fire at Monsey Synagogue Likely Not Arson

NK members facing their opponents in Monsey in January (photo: theyeshivaworld.com)

An air of suspicion still surrounds reports of a synagogue fire in Monsey, New York on Sunday evening, the eve of Passover, despite initial police reports that appear to rule out arson. The synagogue, Bais Yehuda, is home to members of Neturei Karta, the anti-Zionist hassidic sect now famous for sending a delegation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference on the historicity of the Holocaust. These suspicions were not entirely unfounded given the expressions of rage, the ostracism and harassment that the incident provoked. Just take a look at the comments on Yeshiva World News' post to get a sense of how vitriolic this issue has become in religious communities.

Self-Esteem and the Iranians

Ahmadinejad Spins a Yarn

I've long thought that many in the West underestimate or misunderstand altogether the role of Persian "self-esteem" in propelling the conflict forward. This is something I hope to take up in a future post. Of course this is not entirely off the Bush team's radar. Just last month, in unveiling to the press accusations of Iranian involvement in the production of roadside bombs used in Iraq, Bush spoke of the Iranian people's "proud history." And just last week, R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said of the Iranians, "They are a proud, well-educated people with a rich history."

Ahmadinejad's mastery of manipulating this emotion can only be gauged by someone who understands Farsi. Still, I thought I would post this notorious clip, which, I'm told, demonstrates this nicely. In it the Iranian President boasts of the native genius of a 16 year-old girl who discovered nuclear energy in her basement! Wikiquote had this translation:

"A high school student contacted me a little while ago, telling me "Mr. [Ahmadinejad]! We got a 13-16 year old girl, third year high school student, majoring in math/physics. She came to me saying, Ms. teacher I've discovered nuclear energy in our house. "Do something about it" I told her to set up a meeting at school, ask [the student] couple of questions, check how serious she is. They hold the meeting, examined her, and realized it looks to be serious. They informed me, [then] I called the head of the Iranian Atomic Agency and told him: "Dear Sir! A high school girl says something like this! Verify [her claim], if she's right then support her" [They] invited our nuclear scientist-whose average age is below 25. [The nuclear scientists] set up a meeting and invited her to inquiry. They found out she is right. They told her let's go to your house and see what are you up to. They went to her house and realized this 3rd year high school girl, with the help of her elder brother, has got some gadgets from the bazaar, assembled them and produced nuclear energy, FOR REAL! So now, [nuclear scientists] have [hired] her- now she's a nuclear scientist too. They have set up an escort for her, [she] comes, goes, has driving service, a chauffeur! This is self esteem!"

German Leftists fight Antisemites and Anti-Zionists

The caption above Ahmadinejad's head reads "I want nuclear holocaust."
The text below calls for a demonstration against "the most dangerous politician of our time."
See I Like Israel for info.

Germany today is one of the few countries in the world in which committed groups of non-Jewish, left-wing activists actively support Israel. In other European countries, the kind of coalition behind the upcoming protest advertised in the poster above would have been impossible. Just imagine an alliance consisting of religious and secular Jewish organizations, leftist anti-fascist student groups, Israeli-German friendship associations, and foundations (run and funded by non-Jews) committed to fighting antisemitism. Only in America would the kind of action organized by "I like Israel" attract a significant amount of support from non-Jews; it would come almost entirely from the right of the political spectrum.

While elsewhere in the world, radical leftism is synonymous with anti-Zionism, a small but significant number of German neo-Marxists and anti-fascists, who maintain a number of impressive print publications, unequivocally define anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism. Most of these pro-Israel German leftists define themselves as "anti-Deutsch" - that is, opposed to German nationalism. For several decades, they have been fighting what they perceive as the re-appearance of antisemitism and nationalism through the backdoors of leftist anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Zionism. They have also tenaciously opposed the self-serving equations of Nazi atrocities with Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories by some German intellectuals, in the process drawing attention to the convergence of Holocaust deniers, Muslim fundamentalists, and pro-Palestinian groups. Often, these young, highly-educated activists challenge neo-Nazi groups as well as the ubiquitous keffiyeh-clad shock-troops of the anti-globalization, anti-American, anti-Israel left on the streets of Germany's large cities. Unlike leftists in England, France, and Berkeley, California, they do not underestimate the virulent antisemitism sweeping through much of the Muslim world. They see it as the historical responsibility of Germans to oppose the genocidal rhetoric of individuals such as Iranian President Ahmadinejad and organizations such as Hamas.

Living in Berlin several years ago, at the height of the second intifada, I had the opportunity to meet a number of organizers from the ranks of the anti-Deutsche. Most of them emphasized that they are "unfortunately only a small part of the German left." They were often deeply critical and pessimistic about the German discourse on Israel and the Middle East, noting rampant bias against Israel in the media. At the same time, they also expressed fears about the resurgence of neo-Nazi groups in the former East Germany and the resulting increase in attacks on "foreigners." I was therefore pleased to read an article by Assaf Uni, "The good men of Leipzig ," in Ha'aretz a few days ago (thanks for the reference, Ima), which described the relative success of the anti-Deutsche in this city.