The ZamZam Cooler

Ahmadinejad's recent lecture at Columbia has sparked controversy about the university providing a public space for the "legitimization" of Iran's policy agenda and the limits of free speech.

I listened to his whole lecture and found it archaic and boring. He didn't talk about policy, the Middle East or even try to correct false perceptions about Iran and its cultural and civilizational heritage. Instead he lead this awkward and painfully tiring discussion on faith, science and inquiry. There was no central premise and he tended to oscillate widely between each theme without any meaningful cohesiveness (so as I felt). In the end, it left a lot to be desired and his presentation of the material was ostensibly unimpressive. So much for allowing Ahmandinejad to "spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage."

But none of that mattered and is all to be forgotten now. The real show started when he responded to Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's belligerent introduction and when he began answering questions from the audience. Aside from a question on the persecution of homosexuals in Iran, he presented strong arguments while being his characteristic unapologetic-self. There was no way he could have responded to the homosexual question any better than he did. Iran's hysterically inhumane treatment of homosexuals (that is forcing them to either have a sex-change operation subsidized by the government or be imprisoned until being summarily executed) is just completely indefensible. Trying to conjure up something in front of such an elite audience would have amounted to even more public humiliation than blatantly lying as he did very wisely. Former Iranian President Muhammad Khatami too, in his address at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard last year had to pull off a very diplomatic, skillful sidestep to a similar question posed by a student.

Notwithstanding the homosexual blunder, Ahmaninejad was assertive and convincing in his presentation. His performance was definitely a great service to his own image and that of his government as feared by critics. By articulating reasoned responses and demonstrating a willingness to engage criticism (a virtue only to be practiced in enemy territory as Iranians will very rightfully contend) he left an indelible imprint on the audience that this maybe a man who, to varying degrees, has been misunderstood. I don't think he changed the hearts and minds of anyone, but he proved to be more intelligent and more successful in his opposition than many may have anticipated.

Pointing out Bollinger's brazen partisanship and insulting welcome was a clear sign of poise and savvy on Ahmadinejad's part to which he received the positive acknowledgment of the audience. From there on, he lead a series of calculated rebuttals and reprisals, trying to craft his arguments to cater to the sensibilities of the the audience (you'll notice that he never mentioned 'Israel' explicitly). The most vivid example was his response to Iran's ongoing nuclear program and condemning the employment of nuclear technology to develop WMDs. He struck a cord with the audience by dissenting against claims of uranium enrichment strictly on moral grounds. And then he masterfully debunked the myth of a sincere Western offer to support nuclear technological research and civilian energy use in Iran. He compared the offer to the decades old (and still standing) US sanctions preventing Iran from obtaining the necessary spare parts to service civilian airliners. How was Iran to expect the West to suddenly have become genuine in their support of the Iranian people in providing something so contentious as nuclear technology.

He also did a great job of spinning the terrorism question by detailing America's historical support for Saddam Hussien and the Mujahideen-i Khalq Organization (MKO), a terrorist organization that led a campaign of murder and sabotage during the early years after the Iranian revolution. But as conservatives will rightfully point out, he was silent about Iran's current alleged involvement in Iraq despite being questioned over it.

Anticipating that Ahmadinejad would behave and put forth arguments in sensible and persuasive manner is exactly what prompted the controversy in the first place. The neo-conservatives original argument about supporting his effort to "legitimize" his policies was entirely disingenuous and used to cover the fear that Ahamdinejad might act as he did. That is Ahmadinejad will appear to be a mild mannered, half-reasonable person with whom you maintain serious disagreements but don't find to be a serious threat to American security. His lecture would (maybe fatally) undermine the neo-con and ziofacist demagogic salesmanship of war and confrontation with Iran to Americans, most of whom are already agitated by the prospect of another war. That fear prompted such an ad hominem campaign against one of the most prestigious universities and, given their objectives and what actually happened, was a very reasoned choice. If Ahmadinejad's answers to the questions posed during the forum become public knowledge, I think its very reasonable to say that it would be a major deterrent in galvanizing American support for any attacks or military incursions into Iran.

Overall, there is no discernible victor in this situation but there may be a case for freedom of speech. Its success isn't measured by any prospective policy changes in Iran or the silencing of the war drum in America but that its presence and force afforded the very real opportunity for people to judge this situation based on the merits presented therein. That is something exceptionally rare in this era of political expediency and a great boost to the health of public reasoning. And for me at least, thats more than enough to be happy with this entire situation. I was able to formulate a judgement without much inference and free of any meaningful prejudice ... save for my own :)