(HOST) For the past few days America’s most infamous visitor has been the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This morning, commentator Barrie Dunsmore has some thoughts on the Iranian leader and his reception.
(DUNSMORE) "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." So began Ahmadinejad’s introduction by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Bollinger was apparently responding to attacks by politicians and the news media for his having invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia.
I’m not sure that asking someone to address your student body and then trashing him in your introduction is entirely appropriate. But it is symptomatic of the often hysterical reaction Ahmadinejad seems to arouse in this country. I know he is a holocaust denier and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, but so have other Iranian and Middle East leaders over the years without provoking the same visceral revulsion.
Giving Ahmadinejad the status of an Adolf Hitler vastly overstates his position in his own country. The real power in Iran is in the hands of the Ayatollah Ali Khameni, the supreme leader and final authority on all matters civil and religious. Ahmadinejad is neither the head of state nor its commander-in-chief, meaning he wouldn’t have the power to launch a nuclear attack, even if Iran had nuclear weapons. But, as the New York Times reported this week in an analysis from Tehran, "In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of ineffective economic policies."
In trying to read Iran, I am a firm believer in the old adage – where a man or country stands, depends where they sit. Right now Iran stands for extreme hostility toward the United States; for the use of terrorism in attempting to dominate its region; and for developing nuclear weapons. But from where Iran sits – in other words, its view of the world – that is not surprising. It looks across its border with Iraq and sees 160,000 American troops. Proximate threats are the worst kind: remember how World War III nearly occurred over Soviet missiles in Cuba?
Then there is American-Iranian history. In 1953 the CIA plotted the military coup that returned the Shah to power and toppled Iran’s elected Prime Minister because of fears he might nationalize Iran’s oil industry.
The U.S. strongly opposed the Iranian revolution and later provided arms and spy satellite intelligence to Saddam Hussein during the long, bloody Iran-Iraq war. More recently President George W. Bush described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" – and then promptly invaded Iraq.
Over the years, there may well have been persuasive strategic and economic arguments for America’s Iran policies. But from their perspective, the Iranian clerics are clearly justified in fearing another U.S. attempt at regime change.
So, if America and the world are to avoid the catastrophe of all out war with Iran – something that seems ever more possible – we absolutely must deal with Iran with far less emotion and much greater wisdom.
Barrie Dunsmore is a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for A-B-C News, now living in Charlotte.