An op-ed published this week in The New York Times repeats a number of well-worn claims about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Written by the Brookings Institute’s Saban Center senior fellow Suzanne Maloney and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Ray Takeyh, the article, entitled “Ahmadinejad’s Fall, America’s Loss,” attempts to argue that “the prospect of a nuclear deal between Tehran and Washington is diminishing” due to the recent political infighting between the Iranian President and the country’s clerical leadership.
Unsurprisingly, the op-ed is suffused with the usual boilerplate Western narratives about Ahmadinejad, and even Iran in general. The fellows write that he has “dabbled in Holocaust denial” and that, in June 2009, the conservative Iranian government conspired in “rigging the system to ensure his re-election.” Neither of these allegations stand up to serious scrutiny.
Maloney and Takeyh, who openly call for sanctioning Iran’s legal and IAEA-supervised nuclear energy program as well as supporting Iran’s minuscule and unrepresentative “Green” movement, also write that Ahmadinejad, “by deftly exploiting nationalist impulses and economic grievances” has “used every opportunity to build a power base and assert his influence.” That description of the Iranian President could also be used to describe literally every single American President since the nation’s founding, nearly every single member of the United States Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as the vast majority of local officials. So, in other words, they’re asserting that Ahmadinejad is indeed a politician. Good to know.
They go on to claim that Ahmadinejad’s “shrewd political instincts” have influenced his decision to “embrace the notion of negotiations with Washington” over the Iranian nuclear program, in spite of what they describe as “the clerics’ official ideology of anti-Americanism.” They then provide this nugget of analysis:
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s interest in dialogue was not motivated by any appreciation of American civilization or an impulse to reconcile. Rather, the provocative president saw talks as a means of boosting his stature at home and abroad while touting his vision of a strong nuclear-armed Iran.
Firstly, why would anyone expect (or even hope) that an elected executive of one country would make decisions based on a personal “appreciation” of another country’s “civilization“? This would seem to be an irresponsible and inappropriate basis for engagement and diplomacy. Is the United States providing Saudi Arabia with $60 billion worth of weaponry and military equipment because of its admiration of Saudi civilization? Are the P5+1 negotiating with Iran due to their collective affection for Persian civilization and its myriad cultural contributions like establishing the world’s first postal service, inventing architectural innovations like the flying buttress and the squinch and dome, and introducing the world to decimal fractions, almanacs, astrolabes, windmills, paisley, and polo? Doubtful.
Far more important—outrageous, even—is the contention, stated as indisputable fact by Maloney and Takeyh, that Ahmadinejad is bold, brash, and boastful in his outspoken intention to create a “nuclear-armed Iran.” Naturally, no evidence is provided by the authors to bolster this allegation, yet the New York Times printed it without hesitation.
Put simply, the claim is unsupported by all available facts. Quite the contrary, Ahmadinejad has consistently condemned the acquisition of nuclear weapons and has repeatedly called upon the international community to dismantle all nuclear arsenals and support the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
This is not about parsing Iranian intentions or scrutinizing IAEA reports, Israeli accusations, or N.I.E. assessments. It is not even about identifying the absurd neoconservative fear-mongering which litters the article with warnings about Iran’s “nefarious activities” and how an “increasingly confident and aggressive” Islamic Republic would be “unlikely to accept meaningful limitations on its nuclear ambitions or sever its ties to militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.” It is not about agreeing with Ahmadinejad’s political policies, personal beliefs, or rhetorical style.
No, this is about claiming that the Iranian President has openly declared (“touting his vision”) that he seeks “a nuclear-armed Iran,” as written by two senior fellows at influential think tanks and published by the newspaper of record. This claim, as written and printed, is not true. In fact, it is pretty much exactly the opposite of what the well-documented truth is.
So here we go again, in Ahmadinejad’s own words, for the record:
Ahmadinejad, speaking in August 2006, declared, “Nuclear weapons have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine and Iran is not a threat to any country…We are not a threat to anybody; even our solution to the Zionist regime is a referendum.”
In the same speech, he said, “the Iranian nation has always resolutely resisted bullying. The Iranian nation will never exchange its dignity and nobility for anything. However, some oppressor countries can not believe that a nation can be powerful and peaceful at the same time. They can not imagine that a nation can possess nuclear technology with no nuclear weapons. They just come to the wrong conclusions through wrong analyses.”
In a lengthy interview with CBS‘s Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes, Ahmadinejad explained, “Basically we are not looking for—working for the bomb…The time of the bomb is in the past. It’s behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges.”
The next month, Ahmadinejad was asked by NBC‘s Brian Williams about whether the Iranian nuclear program was peaceful. He replied, “Did Iran build the atomic bomb and use it? You must know that, because of our beliefs and our religion, we’re against such acts. We are against the atomic bomb.”
In 2007, Ahmadinejad was interviewed on CBS by Scott Pelley, who asked him, “Is it the goal of your government, the goal of this nation to build a nuclear weapon?” Ahmadinejad answered:
It is a firm “no.” I’m going to be much firmer now. I want to address all politicians around the world, statesmen. Any party who uses national revenues to make a bomb, a nuclear bomb, will make a mistake. Because in political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would have resolved the problems the Americans have in Iraq. The U.S. has tested new generations of bombs, many thousands of warheads you have in your arsenals. It’s of no use. And also the Zionist entity, they have hundreds of warheads. It’s not going to help them. The time of the bomb is past. The parties who think that by using the bomb you can control others, they are wrong. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don’t need the bomb. For 28 years we have defended ourselves in the face of enemy onslaught. Every day we are becoming more powerful. And, again, we don’t need such weapons. In fact, we think that this is inhuman.
A few days later, when interviewed by Charlie Rose, Ahmadinejad repeated himself, adding, “We’ve said many times before, we don’t need the weapon. It’s not enshrined in our defense doctrine, nuclear defense. And ideologically, we don’t believe in it either. We have actually rejected it on an ideological basis. And politically, we know that it is useless.”
Mr Shirazi should also take a look at the equally large number of lies that Ahmadinejad has said about things that everybody knows and which do not need any verification by spinners. His interviews and remarks in Iran provide more than sufficient examples, but some of the one he has made outside Iran are well know: The Holocaust, gays in Iran, freedom in Iran, prisoners in Iran, the economy in Iran, etc. How shameful of you to be giving credibility to someone as uncultured, illeterate and fascistic as Ahmadinejad who calls his fellow Iranians “dirt and scum.” Maloney and Perhaps Maloney and Takeyh may be wrong in their analysis, but at least they are honest. I wish I could say the same about Ahmadinejad or now even you.
“Maloney and Perhaps Maloney and Takeyh may be wrong in their analysis, but at least they are honest.”
What a ridiculous comment. Honest? Please take the time to actually read articles before commenting on them.
FYI. Read not just their recent article, but others, including their books.
Mr. Ahmid seems to also like to spin the words stated by the Iranian President. He never denied the Holocaust, he asked a question: Where did this event happen? He responded: “In Europe”; therefore why are the Palestinians paying the price for the attrocious conduct committed by others’.
Would you call this denying the Holocaust?
With regards to gays – you seem to be totally oblivious of different cultural norms. These type of questions may be normal in the West, but not in all 4 corners of this planet. Furthermore, what he meant which obviously you did not get is that “we (i.e. Iran) do not have the same phenomena (i.e. like in the West).
Demonizing the Iranian President seems to have been the hottest topic since he took office. Twisting his words, purposeful mis-translations and labeling has been a top agenda. He is neither stupid or ignorant – far from it.
Demonizing Ahmadinejad is what some people are doing. The Iranian people know Ahmadinejad and what he does and stands for better than people sitting in the West or anywhere, and judging him. Open any reformist or open minded Iranian newspaper and see how even Ahmadinejad’s own previous supporters – not his rivals – say what he is doing to the country, to the constitution, to the Majlis, etc. I understand the prooccupations with self criticism, but just as president Obama and other Iran watchers who criticised Bush for not “talking to Tehran” and who believed all that was missing was to extend a hand to Iran, soon realized that its was not the US that was the problem or interested (or disinterested in talks) but the Iranian regime. So, the US made some changes in its approach, and voila, nothing happened, except the sound of laughter that came from Iranian political circles. Anone who has worked inside the Iranian regime knows the political culture of Iran and how its leaders think, not the interviews they present. Image, is a central value in Iranian culture and the media are the instruments to that image. Irnaians use it well and people around he world – certainly not all – fall for their propaganda. The only time the Iranian regime moderated its policies was when it was under international pressure, whether direct or indirect (agreeing to the UNSC cease fire resolutions, freeing the hostages, allowing international observers to visit Iranian prisons – and here is a new one I am sure for you – Iranian prisoners for years were deprived of even being given fruit while in prison. Only when a group of the Islamic Conference Organization was allowed to visit Evin prison did prison authorities bring in fruit to the prisoners and allow them to spend a few minutes outside their cells to see light). Certainly there is propaganda around the world and certainly US policies have their issues, but dont defend a regime (or one of its leaders) whose nature, goals and workings you only hear from the media. Please don’t. And just because “there is no evidence” does not mean there is no nuclear weapon program. The Iraqi experience has so marred the vision among many, that it is now hard to accept reality because it bites. Don’t demonize anyone, Ahmadinejad, Bush, etc, but be realistic about what people like the Iranian president want and what is the value of what they want for ordinary people, wether Iranian, Lebanese, Iraqi, or a Muslim in India. Speak to Iranian Kurds, Baluchis, Lors, etc to hear their pain. You would be surpized to hear what even the Iraqi Kurds say about their lives today, 10 years ago, 25 years ago.
If you read Ahmadinejad’s comments in Persian when he spoke about gays would you understand what he said and what he meant, in the context of his culture. I have read that. Perhaps you should ask an Iranian what Ahmadinejad said and how true what he said is in Iran. Iranian gays are still in the closet. Interstingly, Iranian gays living in the US too are in the closet. In both cases because the Iranian culture (in Iran or among Iranian communities in the US) does not tolerate (let alone respect) gays. To Ahmadinejad, even street killings are insignificant (as he repeatedly said after the 2009 events). So if gays are in pain and have to lead double lives and prevented from all kinds of things if they declared their orientation, this is “not a problem” as he said in reference to the gays.
Ahmid:
I read Ahmadinejad’s comments on gay and other matters in Persian and with 100% confidence I can say that YOU ARE A LIAR and propagandist. Instead of lies, leave a link about Ahmadinejad’s comments, then we can talk about it otherwise SHUT UP ZIONIST. Many still remember Ahmadinejad’s comments on gay at Colombia University. He said: We don’t have gay the way you DO.” meaning our gays are not allowed to present themselves as gays in public by touching each others BEHIND. Get lost, now.
Azar
You are quoting the English translation. Please be civil, this is a discussion forum not a street fight in Tehran. And please read his interview in Persian. What he said is this “We do not have the kind of problems that you have with gays in the West.” This view can be debated, but not with your attitude and comments.
Ahmid:
Why should I read Ahmadinejad’s comments at Colombia university in Persian whcih is manipulated by ignorant Iranian “opposition” groups where are in the serivce of the Western agencies?
I know English and I have listened to his comments more than once. My understanding of his comments matches with the understanding of thousands of Westerners who have listened to it. It is YOU that should remove the veil of ignorance to see the facts as were presented, thus stopping your lies about somethingyou know nothing about.
Read Gilard Atzmon’s interpretation of Ahmadinejad’s comments and interviews, then you will be see how fool you have been.
Azar
The reason you should read the Persian text is because that is the language that Ahmadinejad used when he spoke at the university. The text of his talk and Q/As that followed are available on his own website, so you do not have to go to dissident sites to read them. But with the caliber of your English, I suggest you not read or write in English because: Ahmadinejad never visited “Colombia University” as you claim, because Colombia University is in Bogota, Colombia. He did visit Columbia University in New York, but you seem to be confusing the two. “… see how fool you are” is another example that demonstrates your competance in basic English and the nuances of the language. Back to the article, the quotes and references that are presented should be matched with remarks on similar subjects that Ahmadinejad has made in Iran – to see the hypocracy – and with the facts on the ground in the country. Today, he has lost credibility even among most of those who brought him to power and supported him. Because of this, the remarks quoted in the article carry little if any weight.
Mr Nima Shirazi writes: …. Iran’s minuscule and unrepresentative “Green” movement, …
When a demonstraion can paralyse the normal workings of a city as large as Tehran, it would be safe to conclude that those who particiapted in it were more than “minuscule and unrepresentative.” If the opposition exagerates the size, so does the regime. Independant observers have said that the demonstrations were the largest since those that toppled the monarchy in late 1970s. So by any standard, the demonstrations were not minuscule. It is precisely this attitude of negation and rejection of realities that discredits any valuable points that Mr Shirazi may have in the article. Serious opposition groups at the least claim to be inclusive, whereas this article is based on just the opposite.
Ahmid:
You didn’t leave me a link to present your nonesene. Instead, you focused on stupid things like Columbia,. If you don’t have anything to show then stop fooling yourself.