The Great Iranian Hope

Former President of Iran Seyed Mohammad Khatami, who led the Islamic Republic from 1997 through early 2005, has declared his candidacy for a third term in that position in the June, 2009, election. He will face incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1) in a political battle that could determine the fate of the Middle East.

During his eight years in the presidency, Khatami strove to liberalize the Iranian regime while proposing dialogue with the United States and other western democracies. He suggested abolition of nuclear and chemical weapons, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, and supported the "two-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who was born in Iran, tried to converse with Khatami in Farsi at an international conference, but Khatami denied shaking hands or responding to Katsav.

Khatami's efforts at reform were thwarted at every point by the Guardian Council, the real power in Iran. In the struggle between hardline Islamists and those seeking modernization and reform of Iran, the former seemed to hold all the cards that counted: The Guardian Council, the Revolutionary Guards, and control of the military.

Viewed from a western perspective, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been an unmitigated disaster for Iran. His confrontational attitude toward the US, the UN and the EU over nuclear inspection has resulted in trade sanctions that have made life in Iran much worse for most people. His hyperbolic threats to destroy Israel have brought Iran to the brink of war. Even neighboring Arab states have privately expressed fear of Iran. (2)

However, for those Iranians imbued with the spirit of jihad and shahida (martyrdom), Ahmadinejad is just right. For them, he is the champion of Shia Islam and the arch-enemy of Israel and western civilization. He arms Hamas and Hezbollah, so that they can conduct a proxy war against the Jewish state. Although the President denies that his government is working on nuclear weapons, he defies the world by continuing the enrichment of uranium, which could be used for making them . (3) Under his leadership, Iran has sent a satellite into orbit. Those who admire his boldness and pride may not be a majority of Iranians, but they are a powerful sector of the electorate.

Even if Khatami wins the 2009 election, he will again be faced with the overweening power of the Guardian Council and its control of the security forces. But at least Ahmadinejad will be gone, and the government ministries will be returned to the hands of moderates and technocrats. UN inspectors will be re-admitted to all of Iran's nuclear facilities, so that the potential of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels will be eliminated. If so, international sanctions against Iran will be lifted, and diplomatic relations with the United States will be restored. If Khatami cuts off arms to Hamas and Hezbollah (which I believe he would, although he has not publicly promised to do so), the threat of war in the Middle East would be drastically reduced.

If I could vote in the Iranian presidential election, I would cast my ballot for Seyed Mohammad Khatami. The last presidential candidate endorsed by the Glazerbeam won, but this blog appears only in English, so it may have less clout in Iran .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The name, which means "of the race of Ahmed (Mohammad)" was invented by the President's father.

(2) It was reported that some Arab governments offered Israel the use of their airspace for an air-raid on Iran's nuclear facilities.

(3) Uranium must be enriched to at least 80% U-235 for making an atomic bomb, while 20% U-235 is adequate for generating electricity. ( Nearly all uranium mined is U-238, which means that each atom contains a total of 238 protons and neutrons. The lighter isotope, which has 3 fewer neutrons, is far more radioactive.)

NBC Softball in Tehran

NBC News anchor Brian Williams interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this past week on the lawn of his presidential residence in Tehran. The interview might have provided valuable information on Iran's intentions if only Williams would have asked some tough questions and the President would have answered them.

Although the well-coiffed news anchor had enough time to ask if Ahmadinejad expected to be re-elected next year (no comment) and if he was following the US presidential election (yes), he never got around to inquiring about the Iranian leader's threats to wipe-out Israel. For those who missed the broadcast (also available on msnbc.com), here is what was said and what should have been asked:

US-Iran Relations
Ahmadinejad said he welcomed better relations with the United States, and favored re-opening the US Embassy in Tehran. Williams was too polite to mention that the last time we had diplomats in Tehran they were taken hostage and abused for 444 days. (Some witnesses have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the captors.)

Enriching Uranium and Nuclear Power
The President re-iterated past claims that Iran was enriching uranium only for the purpose of generating electricity. He said Iran would negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but would not be threatened or bullied by anyone.
He emphasized that nuclear power was the most safe and efficient source of energy available today, and urged all nations to invest in new nuclear plants. He added that if a thousand more nuclear power plants were in use right now, the price of oil would be much lower. (1)

Atomic Weapons
As he has before, Ahmadinejad denied that Iran has any intention of making atomic bombs, which he termed "20th century technology" and not useful in the 21st century. He noted that the "Zionist entity" (Israel) has hundreds of atomic bombs, but that they were useless in fighting Hezbollah forces in Lebanon; Soviet nuclear weapons did not stave-off collapse; American nuclear bombs were useless in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What Should Have Been Asked

1. Why does Iran refuse to have its nuclear facilities inspected by the UN? (2)

2 You have said that "the Iranian people will fight till the Zionist entity is entirely eliminated" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Do these statements mean that you intend to attack Israel? If so, how can Iran win without nuclear weapons?

3. Are you willing to meet with Israeli leaders, as Anwar Sadat did in 1977, to prevent war between your two countries?

There is no reason to believe that Ahmadinejad would have answered these questions any more cogently or truthfully than he answered the "softball" questions that Mr Williams lobbed to him. Yet, they should have been asked anyway, if only to show the American people and the rest of the world whether Ahmadinejad is really committed to peace, as he now says.

I believe that the cordial tone toward the US expressed by the President of Iran in this interview ( in contrast to his belligerent attitude in the past) can be attributed to pressure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who fears that Ahmadinejad's reckless rhetoric may have provoked an attack by the US or Israel. The goal is not only to prevent an attack by the US itself, but also to get the Americans to restrain Israel.

I understand that this interview was a ratings-coup for NBC News, which cannot afford to offend such a valuable news source by asking tough questions. The deferential attitude toward newsmakers by reporters is well established in Washington for exactly this reason. This is lamentable: if we ever needed Edward R Murrow, we need him now!

Heck, I would even settle for Dan Rather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) If Ahmadinejad had seen the latest McCain TVads, he would know that real cause of high oil prices is Barack Obama. These ads are not now running in Tehran.

(2) As readers of the Glazerbeam know (but Williams might not), uranium need only be enriched to 20% U-235 for generation of electricity, but at least 80% U-235 for nuclear weapons (see our post of June 16, 2008 for details)

If the Words Don't Fit.....

"The US House of Representatives voted 411-2 on June 20, 2007, to call on the UN Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 UN Genocide Convention because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel."
AIPAC's Near East Report for July 14-20, 2007

The President of Iran has called for the elimination of the State of Israel several times, using somewhat different phrases. Since all his speeches are in Farsi, we (as well as members of Congress) must rely on translations to determine if he really broke the Genocide Convention. Since the Farsi speeches often included idiomatic or otherwise ambiguous expressions, genuine disagreements have sprung up between translators over the real meaning. For example, a famous call for "wiping Israel off the map" has also been translated as "the Zionist regime....will vanish from the pages of time." (He was quoting Ayatollah Ruollah Khomeini, a bitter enemy of Israel) Since I don't know Farsi, I don't know who is right on this.

A thorough Internet search of Ahmadinejad's public statements turned up plenty of calls for elimination of the State of Israel, but none at all for the elimination of the people of Israel; but only destroying the latter would constitute genocide. Over 25,000 Jews live in Iran, and there is no evidence that Ahmadinejad has done anything to threaten them. Only a handful have emigrated since he took office in 2005, despite big incentives to move to Israel.

Calls by national leaders for the elimination of another government are not especially rare, and have not historically been labeled attempted genocide. For example, in 1961 Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev predicted that "We will bury you (the West)." He later said that he meant this economically, not militarily. Still scary.

In August, 1984, President Ronald Reagan quipped into a microphone he thought was off " My fellow Americans,...I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes." Reagan characterized this comment as a joke, though I doubt that Russians who heard about it found it the least bit funny, especially since Reagan was then placing nuclear weapons on the periphery of the Soviet Union.

So far President Bush, whose emissaries are meeting with those of Iran to discuss stabilization of Iraq, has not (yet) instructed the US Ambassador to the UN to offer a resolution charging Ahmadinejad as Congress proposed. In the unlikely event that the Security Council approves the charge, it is even more improbable that the Guardian Council of Iran would allow Ahmadinejad to be extradited to The Hague for trial, even after his term as President expires in 2009. In September of 2001, a council of Muslim legal experts advised the Taliban government of Afghanistan that it would be forbidden by Sharia (Islamic law) to hand over a Muslim (Osama bin Laden) to an infidel court; I would expect the ayatollahs of Iran to follow the same ruling with respect to Ahmadinejad.

But even if he could be put on trial before the International Tribunal at The Hague, convicting him might be harder than pinning a double-murder rap on O J Simpson in South LA. That is because in a criminal case the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguous statements and translations must be given to the defendant, and Ahmadinejad's orations could plausibly be interpreted as calls for "regime change" in Israel, rather than genocide.

For example, if sometime in the future Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel, the Knesset may change the name of the country to Palestine, establish Islam as the state religion, and relegate Jews to the status of "dhimmi" (inferior persons), as they are in Iran. Such a course of events, as obnoxious as it would be to us, would in effect remove Israel from the the map without any violence, let alone genocide.

A genocide trial ending in acquittal, which is fairly likely, would be a tremendous victory for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic forces worldwide. Ahmadinejad, now increasingly unpopular in Iran and unlikely to win re-election, would be a global hero. He would be the toast of the college lecture circuit and talk shows.

And who are the lonely two members of the House of Representatives who would spare Ahmadinejad and the world this genocide trial? They are Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) and Ron Paul (R, Texas), both of whom are seeking their party's 2008 presidential nomination. Kucinich, a left-wing liberal, and Paul, a libertarian conservative, don't agree on much, but they do agree that US policy is tilted too much in support of Israel.

Ron Paul, who previously ran for President as a Libertarian, consistently opposes all foreign aid, and so has voted against aid to Israel. His district doesn't seem to mind, and he polled a respectable 9% in the Iowa straw vote on August 11. Despite his war chest of over $2 million, pundits give him no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Dennis Kucinich, a former mayor Cleveland (who led his city into bankruptcy), is described by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (July 12, 2007) as more popular with the Arabs in his district than with the Jews. He is contesting last place among Democrats with ex-Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. Although his visceral opposition to the War in Iraq has become a mainstream view among his fellow Democrats, his vindictive and self-righteous attitude dooms his presidential prospects in this lifetime.

Kucinich and Paul lost the House vote big-time, and are sure to lose their presidential campaigns as well. But they will probably prevail in their efforts to derail a genocide trial for Ahmadinejad, because his words simply don't fit the definition of genocide. And if the words don't fit, you must acquit.