On Iran
Video of Iran testing US Navy DefensesSunday, October 14, 2007
Why I'm Glad He Spoke
On September 24th, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad spoke before an audience at Columbia University. The event
was the university's World Leaders Forum and it took place ahead of
Ahmadinejad's annual address to the United Nations General Assembly. And
I am glad that it took place.
I fully understand the anger and angst that some members of the Jewish
community levied on the decision to allow him a platform to speak. After
all, this is a man who has called the Holocaust "a myth" and who has
urged the "elimination" of Israel. He is reflexively anti-American and
was an active participant in the takeover of the US Embassy in Iran in
the 70's. However, for a number of reasons, this event proved to work in
the favor of those who find him reprehensible, as I do.
It Puts America's Brand of Democracy on Display
First, it demonstrates that the US is a far more
principled country than today's Iran. We give more than lip service to
the right to free expression, we live it. The US is a country where
Ahmadinejad is considered the "opposition" based on his views on America
and her allies.
And yet, here, he is free to express those views. In his own country,
the opposition is silenced - one way or another. If you express
opposition to the nation's leaders, if you criticize the actions of the
government, if you question the infallibility of the Prophet Mohammed,
the legacy of Imams, or the Supreme leader, or if you "insult Islamic
sanctities", you face severe consequences. The concept of freedom of
expression is severely hampered, and the consequences include
imprisonment, torture, or death.
In this country, we revere the constitution and the guidance it provides
the way that the Supreme Council in Iran reveres the Koran. The First
Amendment prevents the legislature from making laws that infringe the
freedom of speech, even when that speech is foolish and ludicrous. This
should be a clear demonstration to the rest of the reflexively
anti-American world (yes, I am speaking of those not just in the Middle
East, but in Europe) that we maintain our democratic values in the face
of adversity.
We have a history of going out of our way to preserve, even flaunt, our
democratic principles. We will even do so on behalf of someone whose
position and character we abhor. Go back to pre-revolution America.
Prior to the Revolution, American colonists could not enjoy the same
rights and privileges as other British subjects. The Boston Massacre was
seen as the most horrific and barbaric event to be inflicted on
Americans on her own soil at the time.
Outside of America, those that perpetrated such a
crime could not have expected a fair trial. But in the colonies, though
the patriots were committed to the resistance, the British soldiers were
brought to trial. The soldiers were actually defended by John Adams, who
staunchly believed that we needed to demonstrate the ability to conduct
a fair trial. In fact, those soldiers were acquitted, and that acquittal
signaled that the acts of the massacre, though horrendous, did not
violate British law as it was understood in the colonies. And there set
the tone for America as an example of democracy in practice.
So too with respect to Ahmadinejad. Though his views are reprehensible
and offensive to American sensibilities, we come out ahead by letting
him air them publicly. Richard Bulliet, an expert on Iranian history and
affairs at Columbia, called Ahmadinejad's visit "entirely appropriate".
Furthermore, the backlash is entirely appropriate. Freedom of speech
works both ways and it allows for this kind of discourse. Self evident
truths are by definition constant and unchanging.
He Proved Our Point On Our Behalf
Second, I am pleased that he had the opportunity to
demonstrate just how out of touch with reality he is.
For example:
He told this group of educated people who know that Iranian homosexuals
are routinely persecuted and executed that: ” In Iran we don’t have
homosexuals like in your country.”
He told the same group of educated people who have heard him time and
again call for Israel to be wiped off the map that: "We are friends with
the Jewish people. There are many Jews living in Iran with security".
And, my favorite, raising the conspiracy specter on 9/11 with: "Why did
this happen? What caused it? What conditions led to it? .. Who truly was
involved? Who was really involved and put it all together?”
In the scheme of things, I think that those who despise Ahmedinejad came
out ahead by his own voice. And it is not only what he said, it was his
half-answers in response to clear questions. In the end, he came across
as a very scary individual. Too bad that his fellow countrymen did not
see these. President Ahmadinejad's official Web site and Iran's state
news agency censored the speech. For example, they eliminated reference
to gays -- including his comment that they do not exist in Iran.
Agitation: That's What Universities Do Best
Lastly, universities historically have been the locus
of passionate and thought-provoking debate. Universities allow for the
whacked and the thoughtful to air their positions. It's tradition. It's
what they do. Of course, Columbia did not need to extend an invitation
to this dictatorial twit. But then again, if they didn't, points one and
two would not have been proven. In the end, mission accomplished: he
came across as an extremist. We, on the other hand, demonstrated what it
means to uphold dearly-held democratic ideals.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
60 Days of Hand Wringing
On December 23rd, the United Nations Security Council voted
unanimously to give Iran 60 days: 60 days to close one single
above-ground nuclear test facility (Natanz). Iran has been using Natanz
for quite some time now to enrich uranium. On December 23rd, the UN gave
them an additional 60 days. While the UN took 60 days to wring its
hands, Iran spent that time moving its nuclear program into high gear.
It took those 60 days to start moving its 3,000 gas centrifuges into the
facility. It took those 60 days to openly snub the Security Council.
My question: what incentive do they have to do otherwise? What teeth
does this organization have? The UN has repeatedly failed put together a
set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear
aspirations. In fact, the UN is so mired in its own wrangling and
nuance that there is very little that Iran is compelled to do. Look at
the
resolution itself. What are the consequences for Iran if they
fail to follow this 9 page resolution?
The following quote is nicely representative of how little authority the
UN holds in this matter. Russia's UN ambassador is quoted as saying that
UN sanctions (i.e., the consequences of Iran not taking positive steps)
are not the answer. To quote: "We should not lose sight of the goal, and
the goal is not to have a resolution or to impose sanctions."
Then what is the goal? It is well understood that Russia will benefit
financially from Iran expanding its nuclear program. Russia and China
are two of the very few countries left that outwardly support Iran's
nuclear development with contract work. And while the UN is arguing over
text, context, and nuance, the building continues. The research
continues. The enrichment continues. The underground development
continues.
At the end of the day, Iran will get, with Russia and China's help, what
they told the International Atomic Energy Agency they wanted all along:
54,000 centrifuges. That is twice the amount it would take to enrich
enough uranium for 10 bombs...per year.
In the mean time, the UN can't even agree whether or not there should be
a resolution. They can't agree whether or not there should be sanctions.
And if, by some stretch of the imagination, sanctions are agreed upon,
there is no will in the world body to enforce such sanctions.
The bottom line is that the UN has got to follow through with its recent
resolutions. It has to have the will to back those resolutions with
sanctions. It has to be willing to extend sanctions to those nations
that aid and abet their development for financial gain. In other words,
the United Nations has to prove itself to be relevant. Otherwise, Iran
will have the bargaining chip this administration has wanted all along -
a nuclear arsenal