Let Slip the Dogs of War and Demonize Ahmadinejad
My column at Salon.com is online: Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1: Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war." Excerpt:
'Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.
The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.
Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament. . .
The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state. '
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Iran
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/24/2007 06:48:00 AM
|
Facebook
19 Comments:
If you recall, demonetization of Ahmadinejad started almost before the vote count for his election were in.
It would be interesting if you can go back and look at the dates of the initial story of Ahmadinejad being responsible for the taking hostages.
Not wanting to sound like conspiracy theorist, but it is amazing that media all at once,based on some grainy pictures, attacks the man as a hostage taker, then again all stop the hostage taker charge and start a new dis-information campaign.
if the u.s attacks iran it will clearly demonstrate the depth and extent of the world's economic crisis
Arpropos demonizing Ahmadinejad, and the contortions it forces people into, Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) had a very funny rant on his blog the other day, turning their points inside out:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html
I just watched and listened to the Columbia session. President Bollinger's introduction shocked me; to me, about 50 per cent of those comments were justified, but they were embedded in a propagandistic framework that sounded very like cowardice in the face of popular and probably political pressure.
I thought that Dean Coatsworth (he was the moderator, yes?) was much more reasonable, although tough in pressing for straight answers. Of course the audience were right to erupt in hoots of laughter when Ahmadinejad insisted that there are no homosexuals in Iran, eg. And I hope that had some effect.
Mainly, though, I was struck by how reasonable and intelligent and certainly well informed Ahmadinejad is, sometimes witty, even, and I'm left wondering why so many Americans cannot see how silly they look to the rest of the world when they demonize a guy like this. There are reasonable debates to be had, maybe with him, maybe with someone better than him. But ... why not? Why is it so important for American leaders to make pompous speeches against obviously vulnerable political leaders from cultures that Americans don't understand?
I guess I should add that I'm writing from Canada.
If anyone finds either a complete transcript or substantial quoted text from Ahmadinejad's Columbia speech and questions and answers, please post a link here.
AP's selected quotations
Seem both incomplete and selected as the most demonizing statements of the engagement.
We can not wait until the idiots who masterminded 9/11 complete masterminding a third war. God has to prove himself that he has the final world. The most important aspect about a war with Iran, is that the American people will pay the price of being relegated to have the Dollar worth 3 Canadian Dollars and One Syrian Lira will be worth 50 cents rather than 50 Liras. But that is just the start of it all, the rich is of course immune to economic hardship but a devaluating Dollar (Bush Pesos) and $200 a barrel of oil that are not circulating back to the “Jewish Coffer” will be felt by those 290 out of 300 million Americans that live on fixed income rather badly. But those are the one watching Fox news and sending own husband, wife and kids to be brain damaged in Iraq.
No idea why Ahmadinejad did not head my advise and rather than going to this dump called New York, talking to some creatures that I personally will not allow my dog to stoop down to bark at, he should have gone to Irvine, California and talked to an audience of 200,000 Iranian Americans that are very concerned and upset about all the threats the Jews are making against their homeland. But like Assad, he got the same bad advisers that are most likely on the CIA or Mossad payroll just like Askari was.
Next time Mahmoud, listen to the Agha, don’t make the same mistakes that young Assad makes and now you are humiliated yourself and Iran just like Assad humiliated himself and Syria.
Professor Cole bravo, for a well balanced and fair analysis can’t be said better
Ahmadinejad at Columbia
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=66834e8b-de4c-41f7-b78e-3f57966eaf40&f=00&fg=copy
Oh, thank God (and Juan Cole). I just finished watching Glenn Beck on CNN and I thought I was going to suffocate under the thick layers of stupidity. He even invoked taqiyya (though not by name) to justify continued paranoia despite the facts ostensibly contraindicating for it. Thank you for the fresh air.
After reading about the introduction of Ahmadinejad at Columbia University, I was struck by two things: First, there are probably two hundred million Americans who yearn to see George Bush treated to such pointed questions and clear antagonism. Second, George would never consider doing what Ahmadinejad did, opening himself to pointed questions. His audiences are hand picked and all alternate views are banned. George limits his horizon to the marsupial pouch of true believers, which is a constraint Ahmadinejad does not share. Yet...I would love to see George go to Iran and stand in front of a room of Muslim clerics.
I would have put this at Salon, but there are like 400 comments there. Plus, many in the comments said the same thing I will. This man didn't need to be demonized by Washington. He's done it to himself through his own words and deeds.
To start with, the phrase "wipe Israel off the map" first came from the Iranian press agency, not the neo-cons.
Second, you have to look at the context of the statement and the speaker himself. At the time of his speech, he was standing in front of a backdrop with the words "A World Without Zionism" prominently displayed in Farsi and English, and during the speech several times he referred to the "Zionist regime" in Israel. Shortly after this speech, he headlined a Jerusalem Day ceremony in Oct 2005 (an annual rally to show Iran's support for Palestine), where there were tens of thousands of participants:
Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire.
Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".
Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words."
Or, if you don't believe the media, you can watch video of him whipping up a rally crying "Death to Israel" here at a rally in January this year, captured by Memri TV on YouTube. And these aren't exactly aberrations. "Death to Israel, Death to America" have become routine slogans in Iran everywhere from political rallies to grade school assemblies. Reference links for the above can be found here.
And he has never invaded another country? Technically true, but he sure has had a hand in attacking other countries. Not only in supplying arms and training to insurgents in Iraq, but in arming Hizbollah so they can fire rockets into Israel.
And he didn't "allow" Iran's Jews to have representation in Parliament. That is framed in Iranian law; there is exactly one seat in Parliament reserved for a Jew and one for a Zoroastrian. It's there strictly for PR value, and Juan Cole fell for it. Iran's Jews live under a whole host of legal restrictions and discrimination.
The neocons strike back
Unfortunately, the ongoing counteroffensive of the neocons appears to be the only reasonable explanation of the current media hysteria about moveon.org ad as well as Ahmadinejad's visit to NYC.
In the end, the ill-fated NYT ad boils down to the simple and obvious fact that US administration is engaged in heavy fact-cooking on the Iraqi war. Not surpringly, in their typical swiftboating manner, the GOP used the wording of the ad's title as a pretext for a heavy pro-war propaganda campaign and special Senate resolution.
Also, not surprisingly, Sen. Clinton demonstrated in action the real meaning of her anti-Bush rhetoric and supported the anti-moveon resolution! Maybe she does hate Bush's ties or something, but when it comes to anything serious, HRC is all too predictable. Equally predictable was the spineless reaction of NYT and their fast condemnation of the ad.
Not less gloomy is the situation with Ahmadinejad's visit to NYC. The neoconservative logic is actually pretty straigtforward - if bullying works perfectly with the dems, France and Russia, then why should the Iranians be any different? Knowing for sure that this is not the case and Khomenists won't wink does not make one any more comfortable. The prospect of continuing and widening war in Iraq is too deadly.
Professor Cole,
I would appreciate it if you could offer your thoughts on Lee Bollinger's comments introducing Ahmednijad. In my view, reciting chapter and verse neocon progaganda against Iran and reinforcing the silly Ahmedenijad as the new Hitler line hardly fits within the parameters of open and honest inquiry.
The entire transcript is at the Washington Post.
It's really hard after reading it to claim that Ahmadinejad has called for either attacking or physically destroying Israel or that Ahmadinejad claims that Holocaust didn't happen, which are the main charges against him.
I'm sure the claims will still be made, but making and defending those claims is now harder.
The question about homosexuality exposed Ahmadinejad as very ignorant but I doubt the Republican base is going to go to war footing over that.
Mr Cole, the "Holy Defense Week" is an annual event that falls on the anniversary of the Iraqi invasion. It is regularly held, and every year there is a parade. Nothing extraordinary about it, the way you make it out to be.
I read the full text of both speeches. Bollinger's presentation, in substance and timing, leaves me stunned and nearly speechless. I also ask that you offer your views on Bollinger. Given the university setting and policy context, I am inclined to the view that Bollinger's conduct was xenophobic, spineless, and disgraceful. Your views?
wasn't bollinger the head guy at the University of Michigan before going to Columbia ? what was he like at U of M ?
Denying homosexuality in Iran: Actually what he said was that there is not an openly gay community in Iran like the west. Anyone who knows Farsi and pays attention to what he said and the translation would acknowledge that he was saying homosexuality is not out in the open in Iran, which is true.
I got to the end of the second paragraph of the quoted article, the part about the candlelight vigil and the opportunity to find a common bond with others who have suffered when my thoughts leaped to what became of Assyria.
Karen Armstrong's "The Great Transformation" is a look at history in a very novel way. It seems we have not yet learned the lessons of history.
Post a Comment
<< Home