If you were invited to interview Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, what kind of conversation would you anticipate? Would you prepare to hear him ramble for hours about the fact that homosexuals do not exist in his country, or about how he wants to wipe Israel off the map? These were some of the questions that passed through the minds of ten CISLA students as we boarded a bus to head to a question-and-answer session with one of the world’s most controversial heads of state. However, when we sat down to hear President Ahmadinejad speak last week, he did not, much to our surprise, live up to those expectations.
The Iranian Permanent Mission to the United Nations invited 100 students and professors from 12 universities, including the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, Princeton Graduate School, Fordham, Columbia, Bard and Hofstra, to meet with Ahmadinejad at the Warwick Hotel in New York City on the night before he was to address the General Assembly of the United Nations. Ten
CISLA International Relations majors attended, accompanied by Professor Tristan Borer of the Government Department and Professor Marc Forster of the History Department.
After an hour-long wait and an elaborate Persian buffet, we were ushered into a narrow room crammed with tables, each of which was equipped with headsets to allow for simultaneous translation. After being introduced by an Iranian diplomat to the UN, President Ahmadinejad, rather short in stature, began the evening with a short speech and then opened the floor for dialogue. Each university was given the opportunity to ask one three-minute question.
One of the most anticipated topics was the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations. When Ahmadinejad was asked about Iran’s official position on the issue, he pointed out that the Palestinians have inalienable rights, including the right to freedom and independence that is guaranteed by the UN Charter. He also spoke about the history of the conflict and stated, “The reparations for World War II, a war that took place in Europe, were drawn from the pockets of the Palestinians.” He ended by asserting, “It is in the best interest of the American government to stop backing the Zionist movement as it has outlived its usefulness and will only negatively affect the United States.”
Another popular subject for questions was Iran’s nuclear program, to which Ahmadinejad replied bluntly, “We are against nuclear weapons. We consider them to be anti-human.” He stressed that creating a nuclear weapon would be pointless, as one bomb would be ineffective against the stockpiles of weapons owned by other countries. Pointing to the collapse of the USSR as an example, Ahmadinejad claimed that nuclear weapons do not improve national security or reduce conflict, and should not be considered a legitimate form of warfare. He ended his response by stating, “Quite clearly we are not afraid of anyone. If we wanted nuclear weapons, we would have readily announced it.”
There were also several questions asked regarding the strain in U.S.-Iran relations. Ahmadinejad emphasized how after 9/11, Iran was of great assistance to the American government at the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, and U.S.-Iranian relations seemed to be improving at that time. However, relations turned sour after then-US President George W. Bush unexpectedly included Iran in the so-called “Axis of Evil” in his 2002 State of the Union Address. Ahmadinejad declared that today the countries “have no common interests” because the U.S. refuses to bestow equal power in decision-making to the rest of the world. However, he claimed that the U.S. and Iran would have “unlimited” common interests if both countries were aiming to create a more just international political arena that promotes self-determination for all countries.
Representing Conn, Manuel Jimenez ’12 asked about Iranian-Iraqi relations and the role of Iran in the process of state building in Iraq as the United States withdraws troops this winter. In response, the President stressed the shared culture between Iran and Iraq: citizens intermarry, cross the borders for work and travel and friendly relations exist naturally. Ahmadinejad asserted that “because all conflict between the two countries is due to foreign occupation, the withdrawal of the U.S. will permit a healthy friendship to blossom. Iran has only been involved in the state-building at the request of the Iraqi government. We do not accept politics of imposition and force and we want to leave all decisions to the Iraqi people.”
Throughout the night, Ahmadinejad repeatedly targeted the “meddling of Western forces” as the source of all conflict in the Middle East. Cristóbal Pérez ’12 commented that “while some of these statements may come as a shock to many of us, upon reflection they hold a lot of truth. After the Second World War, most if not all conflicts in the Middle East have been created or sponsored by Western European powers or the United States. Furthermore, the U.S. has not played the peacekeeping and liberating role that is portrayed in the American media.”
Many of the Conn students and faculty present were surprised that Ahmadinejad’s responses to the questions seemed rational and reasonable. He diplomatically maneuvered through each question in order to emphasize his stated goals of increasing understanding and participation in world affairs, especially through the framework of the United Nations. He repeatedly emphasized the importance of a common love for humanity and the need for transparency in negotiations.
The tone of the Iranian president remained light and positive throughout the evening. On numerous occasions he even made witty comments. For example, when asked by a professor from Bard College about his opinion of the FIFA ban on the Iranian women’s team due to their headscarves, he joked, “I think FIFA needs to figure out who they are: an athletic organization or a fashion house?”
At the end of the night, we were all left wondering how much of what Ahmadinejad had said reflected his true values, goals and perspective and how much was said in the interest of appearances and politics. There are clear contradictions between his domestic policies and his international political rhetoric. Influenced by Western media and politics, however, we often view foreign perspectives of the global order as irrational or illegitimate. We have learned, however, that understanding is improved by considering the points of view of disparate actors on the world stage. Whether or not an agreement is reached, a treaty signed or in this case, academics and world leaders are satisfied with one another, we all learned the value of constructive engagement between individuals, likeminded or not.
That same lesson was reflected in President Ahmadinejad’s closing remark that he and his country sought nothing more than that of total involvement and participation in decisions in world affairs by all states, and that his personal wish is to replace weapons with pen, paper and dialogue. •
