April Fool

"They (US and Europe) resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering."
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, addressing the UN Conference on Racism (1)

Forty representatives of European countries (plus one Caribbean nation) walked out of the conference at this point, and it is not clear if they will return for other speeches and action on resolutions. The United States and eight other UN members had previously refused to participate in the racism confab because of the anti-Israel draft resolution that will be presented for adoption.

But were the delegates who walked out really so surprised to hear anti-Israel rhetoric? After all, what is a UN racism conference about, if not bashing Israel? This is like walking out of bar because people there are drinking liquor.

Actually, if Ahmadinejad had stuck to lambasting Israel for its actions in Gaza, as other speakers will no doubt do, I believe the 40 delegates would have sat through it. The President of Iran, unlike other critics of Israel, incurs the wrath of Europeans and Americans because he claims that the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax which spurred the UN to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Since the Holocaust has been documented as much as any other major event in recent history, Ahmadinejad exposes himself as either ignorant, dishonest, or both. His rhetoric, reeking of classical anti-Semitism, is an embarrassment to Iran, the UN and the Muslim world.

Holocaust denial plays an important role in the worldview of neo-Nazis, Muslim extremists and other adherents of the "Jewish Conspiracy Theory" because the truth that the Jews of Europe were innocent victims of an insane racism contravenes their contention that world Jewry is both powerful and evil. Open expression of this view is repugnant even to those who otherwise are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, such as European diplomats at the UN Racism Conference.

How should the US and the rest of the civilized world respond to Ahmadinejad? When former Austrian President (and previous Secretary General of the UN) Kurt Waldheim was exposed as a former Nazi officer, most of the world shunned him. The same should be done to Ahmadinejad.

In June the people of Iran will decide whether to re-elect this man as their President. The walkout at the UN Conference tells the Iranian people that keeping him in office will isolate Iran from Europe and the United States. Even the Guardian Council, the ayatollahs who wield the real power in the Islamic Republic, may be embarrassed by the President's rantings, and may pass the word that another candidate would be preferable. If Ahmadinejad loses, the chances of war in the Middle East in the near future will also be markedly reduced.

Ironically, this debacle (together with the imprisonment of an Iranian-American journalist) took place while the Obama Administration has been trying to re-open contacts with Iran. These diplomatic contacts, begun by the Bush Administration, should continue-----but should not involve Ahmadinejad. In the unlikely event that Iran proposes a summit meeting. Obama should insist on meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, his true counterpart in the Iranian regime. (2) Ahmadinejad, even if re-elected, should be persona non grata in every civilized country in the world.

I wonder why the leaders of African countries appear to have no objection to the agenda of every UN conference that might deal with their real problems getting hijacked by the anti-Israel crowd. Racism has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict (which is based on differences in religion and culture, not race), but it has everything to do with the slaughter in Darfour, in which many more people have been killed than in all the Arab-Israel wars and intifadas combined. The black racism of Robert Mugabe has hurt the people of Zimbabwe for many years, but that is not on the agenda of the UN Conference either. Tribal conflicts in Rwanda have created enormous suffering, yet African leaders ignore the problem.

I suspect that African leaders know all this to be true, but dare not confront the Sudanese Arabs, let alone the black tyrants among them. The only consensus among them is that Israel is evil, so they take every opportunity to agree on that, and forget about the contentious problems faced by their people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, April 21, 2009.

(2) The armed forces and security services of Iran report to the Guardian Council, so its leader is the true counterpart of our commander-in-chief.

Misusing History

"...We were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at a time when they were saying 'we're going to wipe you off the planet.' "
Senator Barack Obama in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008 (Assoc. Press)

The President of the United States has much more power over foreign and military policy than over domestic issues. Moreover, Congress can act as a restraining influence on a President whose actions are considered too aggressive and militaristic, but can do nothing when the President is too timid and accomodating toward hostile powers. For these reasons, statements such as that quoted above by Senator Obama are troubling, especially to those who usually support the Democratic presidential nominee.

First, I do not believe that any Soviet top leader ever made a public threat to "wipe you (US) off the planet." Even Premier Nikita Khrushchev's famous prophecy that "we will bury you" pales in comparison, and was meant (according to Khrushchev) economically, not militarily.

Although we know that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was developed and deployed for potential use against the United States, it is significant that Soviet rhetoric was far more restrained than Obama would have us believe. This is important because US-Soviet diplomacy was conducted in a more civil context than the relationship between this country and Iran, with whom Obama intends to confer.

Between the time that President Franklin Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the USSR and its collapse the American Embassy in Moscow was never taken over, nor were US diplomats ever taken hostage or otherwise harmed. (1) Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, both formal and informal contacts between the great powers continued, and they led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Obama uses the historical precedent of diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union to support his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other "rogue nations." If he believes that he can personally persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to moderate his policies, the Illinois senator vastly overestimates his persuasive powers. Although frequently noting the willingness of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to meet Soviet leaders, he never mentions that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to meet Adolph Hitler in Munich, where Chamberlain not only failed to influence Hitler, but seriously misread the Fuehrer's intentions. Similarly the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna in 1961 was a disaster, as the Soviet leader perceived Kennedy as weak.

Our history with Iran since the 1978 Islamic Revolution is far more relevant to the question of how to deal with the nation than any stretched historical analogy. The fact is that the Iranian regime permitted a gang of thugs to invade the US Embassy in 1979 and hold its staff hostage for more than a year. Despite being branded as "The Great Satan, " the United States initiated contacts with Iran under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, and even sold Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic. (2)

The US has held low-level talks with Iran (about Afghanistan and Iraq), even in the absence of diplomatic relations, until Iran broke off these contacts in March. In this context, an offer by the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran might not even be accepted. Worse yet, if such a meeting did take place, it would boost the standing of Ahmadinejad with his own people and make his re-election in 2009 more likely. (The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that he is replaced with a more reasonable man.)

In dealing with an adversary, such as Iran, diplomacy has its value if (and only if) it is backed-up by the credible prospect of military action. The blockade of Cuba by President Kennedy in 1962 was an example of this. Senator Lloyd Bentsen once remarked that Dan Quayle was "no John F Kennedy." Unfortunately, neither is Barack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The KGB did, however, bug the US Embassy in Moscow.

(2) Although a great fan of former President Reagan, Senator John McCain never mentions "The Gipper's" sale of weapons to Iran, which none of the current presidential candidates favors today.