Ahmadinejad, Rock Star

Ahmadinejad's visit to New York is creating an even bigger frenzy this year than the last two times. He's a politician and that's exactly what he wants. Some though of course not all of the fury against him in the U.S. is politically generated by the bourgeoning confront-Iran industry.

His interest in visiting Ground Zero struck me as pure showmanship. When I interviewed him in Havana prior to his New York visit last year, he showed no interest in going there, to pay homage to the victims of terrorism or otherwise. I well understand the anger over his plans to visit the site; given Iran's connections to past terrorist acts involving the deaths of Americans, the visit would have been widely viewed as dishonoring the 9/11 victims.

When it comes to his Columbia University appearance, however, let him speak. Among other things, it will remind many people including folks back home who desperately want it that there is something sacred called freedom of speech. Let Americans hear what he has to say, first hand, and let Ahmadinejad hear how Americans react to his views. It has not helped either country that our governments have refused to be on speaking terms for the last 28 years, especially now when many believe Iran is building a nuclear bomb and Bush is considering an attack on the country to prevent it. It's not appeasement to talk. It is foolish to fuel a dynamic that encourages war. Americans, for good reasons, don't like Ahmadinejad's policies. (Many Iranians don't like them, either--read what Akbar Ganji is saying today.) Iranians have some good reasons for opposing American policies. It's crucial for the future of the Middle East and perhaps the world that the U.S. and Iran find a way to develop a dialogue; sparring with Ahmadinejad in New York isn't a bad way to start.

One of the finest pieces of American statesmanship in recent years was when the Clinton administration extended an olive branch to Ahmadinejad's predecessor Khatami seemingly with that aim in mind. In a speech to the American-Iranian Council in 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright did a remarkable thing: on behalf of the U.S. government, she acknowledged America's responsibility for overthrowing a popular Iranian prime minister and installing the shah, backing the shah's brutally repressive regime and later supporting Saddam Hussein's bloody war against Khomeini's Iran.

...There is much common ground between our two peoples. Both are idealistic, proud, family-oriented, spiritually aware and fiercely opposed to foreign domination.

But that common ground has sometimes been shaken by other factors. In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent.

As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq, during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein.

Alas, that speech didn't produce any dramatic, immediate breakthroughs. It was a start. It touched a lot of hearts and minds in Iran, and perhaps got Americans looking at the Islamic Republic through a different lens, too. Lately, we've all been heading down the opposite course.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo