Ahmadinejad in New York: The Hyping of a Pseudo-Event

By Brigitte L. Nacos
After reading this morning’s featured news headlines on Yahoo, especially the ones about (1) the world’s largest “Chicken Dance” during the world’s largest Octoberfest outside Munich in Cincinnati (“Zinzinnati”  as they spelled it in mocking the accent of Germans and German-Americans—mine included) that drew some 500,000 visitors and (2) the massive protests organized against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech and question-and-answer session at Columbia University, I decided to take some time off for a round of golf. After hitting some pretty satisfying drives and short iron shots—never mind the poor putting—, I read and listened to accounts of Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia and concluded that I didn’t miss a thing. Just as the world’s largest chicken dance and record numbers of bratwurst (it is actually “Bratwuerste” in German) sold in Cincinnati over the weekend were trivial, Ahmadinejad’s remarks at Columbia did not add anything to my understanding of Iran’s overt and covert policy goals. Indeed, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran did not say anything that he did not articulate during his interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, his session with the National Press Club earlier this morning, or any number of public appearances in Tehran or elsewhere inside and outside Iran.

Since no-one in his/her right mind could have imagined anything new or different coming out of Ahmadinejad’s mouth during his controversial visit at Columbia, one could well argue against the  rationale for the invitation in the first place. Columbia, by allowing Ahmadinejad to make his familiar case at the university, and various groups, by organizing massive anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Iran protests, played into the hands of a man who strives on staging outrageous anti-American and anti-Israeli political theater and propaganda shows that guarantee massive news coverage around the globe before, during, and after such media events.

By cleverly exploiting the media’s appetite for controversy and conflict, Iran’s leaders keep themselves and their country on the first tier of mass-mediated global players and states. Ultimately, today's  non-event was hyped into a media event by all parties—Iran’s president, Columbia University, organized protesters, and last but not least the news media.

Columbia University’s president Lee Bollinger and his supporters had a point in highlighting the contrast between the exercise of free speech in the United States and the restriction thereof in Iran. An excellent test of Iran’s alleged freedom of expression would be to follow up on President Ahmadinejad’s invitation to Columbia’s faculty to travel to Iran and speak unabridged to Iranian students. But one wonders how Ahmadinejad would welcome Columbia professors in Tehran after the hostile “welcome” he received from his host. As the New York Times put it, “the president of Columbia, under intense attack for the invitation — one protester outside the auditorium passed out fliers that said, “Bollinger, too bad Bin Laden is not available” — opened the event with a 10-minute verbal assault on Mr. Ahmadinejad” (read President Bollinger's full remarks). This is not or should not be the way to treat an invited guest before he has opened his mouth. If such an “introduction” is deemed imperative, it would be far more prudent not to invite such a leader in the first place.

Comments

[Tony]

I am more concerned by Bush's sanctions re Myanmar than any pressure building in Iran. But I agree with Dr Nacos that Bollinger passed up a golden opportunity to extend courtesy to an invited guest, with a completely different set of cultural expectations. Hollinger sounded the way Bush admin flacks sound.

[Brigitte]

Eric:
Today, more than ever before, global communication/media inform all sides about friends and foes. Tehran knows that the U.S. military is stretched to its limits in Iraq and that another major commitment, say a conflict with Iran, is simply not in the cards now or soon--at least not as long as this reality guides Washington decision-makers. On that count, it is unlikely that Iran's leaders give an inch for fear of military attack from the U.S. This does not mean that they do not have any security concerns and that it is impossible to get them to participate in bi- and multilateral diplomacy.

[Eric Chen]

Professor Nacos,

I think so, too, but the perceived threat of American military force is essential to effective diplomacy.

The fundamentals still apply as time goes by - "Annan Says Iraq Will Never Be Fully Disarmed", Oct 1998 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/annan101798.htm):

Annan diverged from the U.S. position that Iraq must accede unconditionally to Security Council orders and UNSCOM's inspection schedule, saying that getting Iraq to cooperate realistically might require UNSCOM to take a more flexible and conciliatory approach in the way it operates within Iraq. The problem, Annan said, "is that we have a very intrusive mandate [for UNSCOM] in a situation where the government is very nationalistic."

Asked whether a shift to less intrusive inspections amounted to permitting Iraq to change the conditions that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War, he replied: "You have to look at the reality of the situation on the ground. . . . It is not fair to simply say this is what was agreed to eight years ago."

He noted that the United States, which had forced Iraq to back down in previous confrontations with the United Nations by threatening the use of force, now is unwilling to resort to that option because it has no support from other countries.

"What do you do when the will [to use force] is not there, when the council is divided, when you don't have public support?" Annan asked. "Our objective is to disarm Iraq. If they won't cooperate, we have a problem. In the worst-case scenario, they might throw UNSCOM out altogether. That would pose a very grave challenge to the international community. . . . And the United Nations would be stuck with the mess."

--

I don't believe we'll go to war with Iran anytime in the foreseeable future. Part of why is that as long as we're committed to Iraq, we don't have the resources to commit to war with Iran. And President Bush will be committed to Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. On that score, much 'anti-war' sentiment is quite hawkish in that some war critics want military resources freed from Iraq in order to project them onto other perceived threats, like Iran.

It would be a heck of a bluff if the Bush admin can inspire respect for the military option in Iran while so many resources are committed to Iraq.

[Brigitte]

Eric, fair enough--I am convinced, though, Hitler, too, would have used this public stage for his propaganda without saying anything different and new.
In the case of Iran, though, I continue to argue for bilateral and multilateral diplomacy--military conflict is not in the interest of the United States or Iran.

[Eric Chen]

Hi Professor Nacos,

I think President Bollinger saw a golden opportunity to answer in real life the hypothetical question: What if I could have faced Adolf Hitler on a world-broadcast 'stage', circa 1934?