Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2008, pages 32-34

Two Views

Ahmadinejad and the U.S. Media

Ahmadinejad Speaks—But Will Americans Be Able to Listen?

By Nina Hamedani

	Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (l) being interviewed by CNN’s Larry King, Sept. 23, 2008 (CNN).

AS HE HAD in 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traveled to New York City this past September to address the annual opening of the U.N. General Assembly. Although his travel was restricted to a 25-mile radius around U.N. headquarters, he nevertheless was invited to appear on such media outlets as National Public Radio (NPR), CNN’s “Larry King Live,” and Pacifica Radio’s “Democracy Now!” Americans thus had the rare opportunity to hear for themselves what Ahmadinejad had to say, both on his own behalf and as the representative of his country.

Those who tuned in to NPR or CNN, however, had to contend with a hostile interviewer or an ineffective translator, so those mainstream outlets may actually have succeeded in widening the gulf in understanding between the U.S. and Iran.

In its Sept. 23 “Morning Edition” story entitled “Ahmadinejad: ‘Who Exactly Is The Provocateur?’” NPR’s obviously biased interviewer Steve Inskeep established a confrontational tone from the outset, not only condescending to the Iranian head of state, but raising his voice in order to speak over both Ahmadinejad and his female interpreter.

Hurling questions that sounded more like accusations, Inskeep proceeded to dismiss Ahmadinejad’s answers as unsatisfactory, rather than engaging in dialogue (Heaven forbid!). When President Ahmadinejad said, “I think that it’s necessary to open up a bit regarding the relations between Iran and the United States,” as a way of opening a discussion on the 1953 U.S.-led coup d’état, Inskeep gruffly interjected, “My time is short—be assured I am aware of the history.”

“It has to be repeated to the people who are your listeners,” Ahmadinejad pointed out, to no avail.

Inskeep again emphasized his time limit as Ahmadinejad was attempting to explain the history surrounding his infamous—and misinterpreted—comment about wiping Israel off the map. “Everything is related to history,” Ahmadinejad insisted. “Imagine, somebody comes and occupies the United States and says it’s history, don’t say anything else about it.”

Inskeep grilled Ahmadinejad on the disqualification of candidates for Iran’s recent Majlis election, interrupting virtually every reply. Explaining that the system is not completely closed, Ahamadinejad noted that he was a professor before he ran for president. Inskeep interjected, “And if your supreme leader didn’t want you to run, you would not run.” Ahmadinejad then attempted to explain the differences among his previous opponents, at which point Inskeep jeered, “Eight people in the political spectrum from about here to here, and I’m holding my finger an inch apart.”

Toward the end of the interview Ahmadinejad managed to ask, “Can you ask your own president these questions? Can you really so freely meet with him so easily?”

That night Ahmadinejad appeared on “Larry King Live.” While King’s demeanor was professional as he raised controversial topics, the female translator’s screechy voice and drastic fluctuations in volume made it almost impossible to follow Ahmadinejad’s end of the conversation. One wonders how many viewers were able to stick it out.

According to the written transcript, however, Ahmadinejad made some important points. “We don’t have any issues with the American people,” he emphasized. “But when the American government uses the language of force, we have no choice but to defend against it...If you will recall, I sent a letter to Mr. Bush [to which Bush never replied—ed.]. The letter can be the start of a fresh endeavor...”

Concerning the nuclear issue, the Iranian president explained, “We…believe that the atomic bomb has lost its use in political affairs. In fact, the time for a nuclear bomb has ended. Whoever invests in it is going the wrong way. Was a nuclear bomb able to help keep the Soviet Union intact and prevent its downfall? Was it able to bring victory for the United States either in Afghanistan or Iraq? Can it be used to that end? Can the nuclear bomb save the Zionist regime? The time for bombs of that nature has ended. It is a time of thought, a time for culture and reason to prevail.”

On a possible Palestinian-Israeli solution Ahmadinejad stated, “In the Palestinian territory, there must be a free referendum and the Palestinian people should determine their own fate...Let us give the Palestinians an opportunity to have self-determination. This is the only viable solution.” He also wondered why “The world community that the United States claims to speak for…does not embody the voices of the Palestinians?”

Noting that Iranians “have no problems with Jewish people,” Ahmadinejad pointed out that “There are many Jews who live in Iran today...But please pay attention to the fact that the Zionists are not Jewish people. They have no religion. They have no religion. They’re neither Jews nor Christians nor Muslims. They just wear masks of religiosity. How can you possibly be religious and occupy the land of other people? How can you call yourself a religious person and kill women and children?”

Ahmadinejad proceeded to invite all members of the mainstream American media “to come and visit Iran. The Americans, I’ve noticed that in the news when they want to show Iran, they sort of show a small and underdeveloped sort of desert-like country. Iran is an extremely vast country and very developed and powerful...Maybe the politicians back…in the United States thought that with the severance of ties, Iran will die or that it will be weaker. But this didn’t happen, the reason was that they didn’t understand the Iranian people, the nation.”

Despite their large audiences, NPR and “Larry King Live” did little to enlighten them on the enigma surrounding Iran for Americans. By contrast, hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of “Democracy Now!” lived up to their reputation for covering news that goes underreported—or in Ahmadinejad’s case, is poorly reported—in the mainstream media. Both Goodman and Gonzalez sat down with Ahmadinejad in his hotel room, and aired their interview in two parts on Sept. 25 and 26.

Among the topics Goodman and Gonzalez covered were Ahmadinejad’s message to the U.S. and the U.N., his views on foreign involvement in the Middle East, nuclear development, a possible U.S.-led war on Iran, the human rights situation in Iran, including the reported execution of juveniles and the situation for homosexuals, the security of Iraq, and the president’s recommendation for a referendum on Palestinian sovereignty.

While some of their topics were the same as those raised in the NPR and King interviews, the “Democracy Now!” hosts conducted their interview in a respectful and coherent manner. All three participants worked patiently with the competent translator, thereby establishing a calm environment conducive to an engaging dialogue.

Another major difference was that, compared to the tendency of Inskeep and King to equate the U.S. viewpoint with the entire world’s—thereby inhibiting discussion of, for example, Iran’s rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty—the “Democracy Now!” interviewers treated treated U.S. policy as emanating primarily from Washington.

Goodman and Gonzalez supplemented their interview of Ahmadinejad with guests such as author Ervand Abrahamian, CUNY distinguished professor of history, and Kourosh Shemirani from Queer Iran Alliance, who critiqued, analyzed and provided context to Ahmadinejad’s statements.

Perhaps NPR, CNN and other mainstream American media outlets can learn from “Democracy Now!” that it is possible to conduct a dignified and in-depth interview allowing Americans to evaluate for themselves the measure of a country—unless, of course, that’s precisely what they fear.

Nina Hamedani is circulation director for The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Ahmadinejad Accepts Israel’s Right to Exist—So Where Are The Headlines?

By Peter Tatchell

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a remarkable announcement. He’s admitted that Iran might agree to the existence of the state of Israel.

Ahmadinejad was asked: “If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?”

This was his astonishing reply:

If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay...Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it’s very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.

Since most Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution, the Iranian president is, in effect, agreeing to Israel’s right to exist and opening the door to a peace deal that Iran will endorse.

Ahmadinejad made this apparently extraordinary shift in policy during an interview last week when he was in New York to address the U.N. General Assembly.

He was interviewed on Sept. 24 by reporters Juan Gonzalez, writing for the New York Daily News, and Amy Goodman for the current affairs TV program, “Democracy Now!”

You can watch the full interview and read the full text on the “Democracy Now!” Web site [<www.democracynow.org>].

Surprisingly, Ahmadinejad’s sensational softening of his long-standing, point-blank anti-Israeli stance was not even headlined by the two reporters. Perhaps this was a decision by their editors? Did they not want to admit that Ahmadinejad may have, for once, said something vaguely progressive?

Equally odd, the story wasn’t picked up by the world’s media. For many years, the Iranian president has been vilified, usually justifiably. Now, when he says something positive and helpful, the media ignores it. Is this because of some anti-Iran or pro-Israel agenda?

Why ignore a statement that is, from any political and journalistic perspective, a radical departure from Ahmadinejad’s previous unyielding anti-Israel tirades? Only a week earlier in Tehran he was saying that the Israeli state would not survive.

Confused? Aren’t we all. Will the real Mahmoud Ahmadinejad please stand up?

Is he a deceiver and an unprincipled opportunist who will say anything to further Iran’s political agenda? Or could it be that beneath his often demagogic public rhetoric against Israel he is, in fact, open to options more moderate than his reported remarks about wiping the Israeli state off the map?

I am not defending or endorsing Ahmadinejad in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I am on record as being one of Ahmadinejad’s harshest critics. I’ve protested dozens of times outside the Iranian Embassy in London and written scores of articles exposing his regime’s persecution of trade unionists, students, journalists, human rights defenders, women’s equality campaigners, gay people, Sunni Muslims and ethnic minorities such as the Arabs, Kurds, Azeris and Balochis.

You can watch my “Talking with Tatchell” online TV programs on the Iranian regime’s anti-Arab racism here, and on the rising popular resistance to its police state methods here.

But I also hope I am open-minded and fair. Even I can see that Ahmadinejad appears to have moderated his position and is now apparently willing, with Palestinian agreement, to accept the co-existence of two states: Israel and Palestine.

Many Israelis and their allies will no doubt say Ahmadinejad can’t be trusted; that his comments were part of a manipulative charm offensive during his visit to the U.N. in New York. They may be right. But even if he is being disingenuous, that fact that he’s made this public concession on Israel at all is a softening of sorts.

News of what he said will filter back to Tehran and he’ll have to account for his words to his government, including the hard-line anti-Israel ayatollahs and revolutionary guards. I wonder what they think?

Call me naive, but in my view Ahmadinejad’s words were of major significance. He ought be pressed by world leaders, and Israel, to repeat them and to clarify them. His statement might, and I emphasise might, be evidence that Iran is open to some negotiation on the future of the Israeli state.

If Israel’s leaders had any sense, they would ignore past provocations by Iran and seize this moment to have dialogue with the Palestinian and Iranian leaders on a two-state solution. What Ahmadinejad has said could be an opening to diffuse the stand-off between Iran and Israel.

I am not relenting one inch in my condemnation of Ahmadinejad’s regime, with its grisly torture chambers, execution of juvenile offenders and neocolonial subjugation of national minorities. But I do find myself in considerable agreement with the Iranian president’s analysis of why the Middle East peace process has stalled. He told Gonzales and Goodman:

The first reason is that none of the solutions have actually addressed the root cause of the problem. The root cause is the presence of an illegitimate government regime that has usurped and imposed itself on, meaning they have brought people from other parts of the world, replaced them with people who had existed in the territory and then forced the exit of the old people out, the people who lived there, out of the country or the territories. So there have been two simultaneous displacements. The indigenous people were forced out and displaced, and a group of other people scattered around the globe were gathered and placed in a new place...A second reason is that none of those peace plans offered so far have given attention to the right to self-determination of the Palestinians. If a group of people are forced out of their country, that doesn’t mean their rights are gone, even with the passage of 60 years. Can you ignore the rights of those displaced? How is it possible for people to arrive from far-off lands and have the right to self-determination, whereas the indigenous people of the territory are denied that right?

Much as I loathe his regime, Ahmadinejad is basically right. The key to peace in the Middle East is concessions from the occupying power. As the stronger, wealthier and conquering partner, Israel should take the initiative and help kick-start the peace process by withdrawing unilaterally and totally from the territories it has occupied illegally (according to international law) since the 1967 war. This means pulling out from all of the West Bank and dismantling all the illegal Israeli settlements.

The West Bank, plus Gaza, should become the independent, sovereign state of Palestine, backed with international aid and investment to create the infrastructure for economic development and for social provision (new houses, schools, hospitals, transport links and sports facilities).

Jobs and prosperity in Palestine will undercut and isolate the men of violence. They will lose support and become marginalized in a self-governing state where ordinary Palestinians experience the tangible benefits of peace.

This is so damn obvious. When will Israel’s leaders wake up and realize that peace with justice is the only way to give their people lasting security?

This commentary first appeared on the Guardian Web site, <www.guardian.co.uk>, Sept. 29, 2008. Copyright © 2008 Guardian News and Media Limited. Reprinted with permission.