Reading Mahmoud in Tehran: Ahmadinejad Engages (and Wins) in US Television Interview

Video and Transcript: Iran’s Ahmadinejad on ABC’s This Week (26 April)

ABC News, after its posturing earlier in the week over the Roxana Saberi case, finally broadcast the substance of its interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday.

This time, the signals are significant. Behind the rhetoric, Ahmadinejad made clear: no short-term breakthroughs, primarily because of June's Presidential elections, but the path is being laid for long-term talks. And, in preparation for those talks, Iran is reshaping the issues on the table: the priority is not Tehran's nuclear programme but a meaningful approach --- in which Tehran plays an accepted and significant role --- towards Palestinian statehood.

Even the fact that an interview took place carries weight. The last time that a crew from a major US network visited Iran was last autumn, for NBC's Today Show, and their stay did not include an audience with the President. The granting of the visas to ABC, plus 30 minutes face-time with Ahmadinejad, is an acceptance of engagement.

Which was not to say that the President was going to make the process easy. Responding to ABC's framing of Obama offering "a new relationship", Ahmadinejad gave the assurance, "We are calling for peace and security for all," but then put the burden of symbolic concession on the US:

In the past 29 years, different U.S. administrations have opposed the Iranian people. Now they say that we have given up that enmity....An administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I’m going to kill you, and today says that I’m not going to kill you?

Ahmadinejad backed this up with the clever reminder that he had made the first step to reconciliation: "I sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Obama [when he was elected President]....I am yet to receive a response."

Doing this, the President could present an Iran biding its time to consider the possible change in US approach. On the proposed direct talks over Iran's nuclear programme, he said, "Planning needs to be made, and some timetables need to be set....Many new issues have been added to the agenda, so to speak, and we are reconsidering our proposed package."

ABC's George Stephanopoulos, turned into a teenager wanting his allowance now, begged, "Why not sit down right now with the U.S. and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?.... Tell me your proposal....I just want to know, when will Iran sit down with the United States and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?", which only reinforced Ahmadinejad's play-it-cool position:

We should just have a clear-cut framework for talks. The agenda should be clear.

This, however, was not just a case of a President stalling or holding the line. Turning around Stephanopoulos' bumbling presentation of the standard charges of Iran's anti-Israel policy and Holocaust denial, Ahmadinejad put forth Tehran's defence of rights and a just solution for Palestine:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why do you insist on questioning the Holocaust even when it’s established as an historical fact, and even when politicians here in Iran worry that that kind of talk isolates Iran?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I’m going to talk about that as well. Don’t be hasty. I have posed two questions over the Holocaust. My first question was, if the Holocaust happened, where did it take place? In Europe. Why should they make amends in Palestine? The Palestinian people had no role to play in the Holocaust. They had no role, for that matter, in the Second World War. Racism happened in Europe, but amends are made in Palestine?

Perhaps more significantly, Ahmadinejad knocked back Stephanopoulos' next attempt clubbing --- Iran will never recognise Israel --- with this response:

AHMADINEJAD: we are asking for the legal rights of the Palestinian people. What we are saying is that the Palestinian people, like other peoples, have the right to determine their own fate....Nobody should interfere. Allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide....

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people.

It will be interesting to see how the President's interview is received within Iran, but my reading is that he successfully balanced the need to hold open the door to US-Iran engagement while putting off any substantive discussions during his bid for re-election. Washington undoubtedly recognises this; the immediate issue is whether it accepts this and holds off on any pressure against Tehran.

Then the interesting part begins. As Ahmadinejad tries to hold office, the US is making its (so far stuttering) move for a Middle Eastern reconfiguration in which Iran looks in from the outside --- that is why the Obama Administration needs a substantive advance on both Israel-Syria and Israel-Palestine talks.

Ahmadinejad's most important message, therefore, was: You can't keep us out. And, indeed, if the US makes little progress before July --- whether or not he still is President of Iran --- he might be right.

Video and Transcript: Iran's Ahmadinejad on ABC's This Week (26 April)

Latest Post: Ahmadinejad Engages (and Wins) in US Television Interview

VIDEO (PART 1 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMwdlOk2wMw[/youtube]

VIDEO (PART 2 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77eeYWxbqWQ[/youtube]

SPEAKERS: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST

PRES. MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRAN

STEPHANOPOULOS: During the last administration, no other world leader next to you was as critical of the American administration as [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez. Yet, look at this picture right here. Is this a picture that you would like to see, you and President Obama? And what do you think the Iranian people would think of you and President Obama meeting, shaking hands, engaging in conversation?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, we are calling for peace and security for all. We would like international relations to be based on just this and friendship. Wherever a hostile relationship turns into friendship, that would make us happy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama says that’s exactly what he wants right now. He says he wants a new beginning in a relationship with Iran. He sent a message to the Iranian people on the occasion of the Novruz holiday, where he called Iran a great civilization.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Very best wishes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: He talked about the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he signaled that he wasn’t interested in regime change, and he talked about his vision for the United States/Iranian relationship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It’s a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you share that vision?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): You need to appreciate that the American administration, 29 years ago, unilaterally cut its relations with Iran. In the past 29 years, different U.S. administrations have opposed the Iranian people.

Now they say that we have given up that enmity. That’s fine. We have welcomed such comments. But an administration which, up until yesterday, was saying that I’m going to kill you, and today says that I’m not going to kill you?

STEPHANOPOULOS: So there is change, though. What will Iran do in response? The United States has said that the United States is ready to talk with Iran and the other great powers -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Are you prepared to sit down at those talks without preconditions?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, previously, first of all, I sent a congratulatory message to Mr. Obama. This was a major decision, although the Iranian people were very much dismayed with the conduct of previous U.S. administrations, and I was criticized here at home in Iran.

Nevertheless, I did that. I am yet to receive a response.

With the European group and the American group, we will talk. We have announced as much, that we are going to negotiate. But...

STEPHANOPOULOS: When will you join those talks?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): ... again, based on justice and mutual respect.

Well, after everything is said and done -- well, planning needs to be made, and some timetables need to be set. We believe in talking, in negotiating, based on sincerity and respect and justice. But the U.S. administration severed its relations with us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that was the past administration. And now President Obama said he is prepared to sit down, along with the other European powers, without any preconditions. And it sounds to me as if you’re suggesting now Iran is the one with the preconditions, echoing, in fact, the policy of the last U.S. administration.

Are there preconditions or not? Why not sit down right now with the U.S. and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Last year we proposed a package of proposals for talks. Everyone knows that in this year many changes, developments have unfolded on the international stage. Many new issues have been added to the agenda, so to speak, and we are reconsidering our proposed package. We are adding new issues to the realm, if you will, of the talks. And we are going to make that public as soon as possible. We are always ready to talk...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not now?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): ... with no preconditions.

What should I do?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tell me your proposal.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Should I share that with you, sir?

STEPHANOPOULOS: The world, American viewers.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): We are going to do that officially. We think that we should prepare the ground so that all states and peoples can have their say.

We are ready to contribute to international security, peace, and global friendship and global disarmament.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say you want to talk on the basis of respect. The president has expressed his respect for the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he said he is ready to talk. I just want to know, when will Iran sit down with the United States and the European powers to discuss the nuclear program?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, the nuclear issue of ours is a special issue. We think that the nuclear issue needs to be resolved in the context of the agency and regulations.

We are just utilizing our legal rights.

I have no reservations when it comes to talking.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re ready to talk without preconditions?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): No, no. We should just have a clear-cut framework for talks. The agenda should be clear.

But so far we have only heard this from the media, the newspapers, that they’re interested in talking. And obviously, they’re going to receive a response from the papers.

I was fully expecting Mr. Obama to participate in the Geneva Conference. What issue is more important than racial discrimination? The United Nations has organized...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, sir, since you bring that up...

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): ... such a conference. I don’t think or believe that Mr. Obama supports racism. However, the gentleman should have been there and should have condemned outright racism and racial discrimination.

This is a good possibility for talks and cooperation. We should all cooperate with one another to help racism to go away from the international...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What he doesn’t agree...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... with, if I may (inaudible), is the idea that Israel is a racist state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I found many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad made, particularly those directed at Israel, to be appalling.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, frankly, many in the West look at your speech in Geneva, and they wonder whether you really do want a better relationship with the West when you deny that there was a Holocaust when it’s an established historical fact. They believe that you’re not showing respect for the West and the beliefs of the West.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, I was talking against the Zionist regime in the racism conference. The first proviso for successful talks would be to give the other party the freedom to speak. Mr. Obama has the right to have his own opinion, obviously.

He is ready to express his points of view. But the Geneva conference had been organized to combat racism, to oppose racism. My point of view is that the Zionist regime is the manifestation of racism.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet when you speak at that conference, Western diplomats walk out. Even the U.N. secretary-general condemns your remarks.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): That’s fine. That’s fine. They are free to have their own points of view. Why do they want to deny me my ideas?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why do you insist on questioning the Holocaust even when it’s established as an historical fact, and even when politicians here in Iran worry that that kind of talk isolates Iran?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I’m going to talk about that as well. Don’t be hasty. I have posed two questions over the Holocaust. My first question was, if the Holocaust happened, where did it take place? In Europe. Why should they make amends in Palestine? The Palestinian people had no role to play in the Holocaust. They had no role, for that matter, in the Second World War. Racism happened in Europe, but amends are made in Palestine?

My second question about the Holocaust. If this is indeed a historical event, why do they want to turn it into a holy thing? And nobody should be allowed to ask any questions about that? Nobody study it, research it, permitted to research it. Why?

STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s the most studied historical event in history. AHMADINEJAD (through translator): If this is a historically documented event, why do Western states show so much sensitivity towards a historical event?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about...

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): (inaudible) the lid to be taken off.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about what’s happening right now.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I am asking them to permit studies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama has appointed Senator George Mitchell to help negotiate a peace between Israel and Palestine. Do you support that effort?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, we are asking for the legal rights of the Palestinian people. What we are saying is that the Palestinian people, like other peoples, have the right to determine their own fate. Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. We should -- they should allow them to engage in elections, free elections and a free referendum to determine for themselves their own fate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe President Obama’s new effort is repeating the mistakes of the past?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, I am yet to have a clear idea about Mr. Obama’s Palestinian policy. However, the gentleman’s support of the massacre of Gazans and support for the criminals who were responsible for that atrocity was a major mistake on the part of the gentleman.

I think that if Mr. Obama wants to help with the Palestinian issue, he has to move in accordance with justice, fair play. And also, again, I am calling for the right for the Palestinians to determine their own fate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two-state solution, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Nobody should interfere. Allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s all I’m asking. So if they choose a two- state solution...

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): It is the right of all human beings.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... with Israel, that’s fine?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two-state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel’s existence, Iran will as well?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinian people decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’ll ask them. But I’m asking you if they decide to say Israel should exist and (inaudible) Israel, would Iran support that?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Can I ask you questions as well?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m not part of the American government. I’ll put that question to the American government, but I have a question for you as president of Iran.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): That’s fine.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people.

However, we fully expect other states to do so as well. The U.S. administration, European governments. The right to determine their fate by the Palestinians should be respected by all of them.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you one final question. You are up for election on June 12th. If you are successful in this reelection, what is your hope for the Iranian-U.S. relationship over the next four years?

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Well, Iran and U.S. relations are dependent on the decision taken by the U.S. administration. Mr. Obama sends us messages of friendship, but in the communique issued by the five plus one, enmity can be seen. So this is a dual route, if you will.

I have sent a message to Mr. Obama myself. We welcome change. We are praying to the Almighty for that. And we will help to bring change about.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. President, thank you very much for your time.

AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Thank you. Good luck. And please convey my regards to the American people.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Durban II: The Conference Against Racism Gives Way to Israel Against Iran

At the end of the Second United Nations World Conference Against Racism, here is one near-certain outcome: there will be no third conference.

Racism may be a subject which demands sincere and strong steps from every country in the UN, but once again it has been used primarily for realpolitik. This conference has been hijacked both by Iran or Israel with their stubborn and boundary-producing discourses, shaped by  their policies of "security".

This conference again demonstrates that we still have not learned how to put the common humanitarian values of the UN Charter into practice. While mistreated millions have been looking for a solution against racism and discrimination, leaders of these people are merely bringing the effects of that racism to a climax.

Let’s start from the Israeli side. After the delegates of 23 Europeans walked out during Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s speech, Israel wasted no time in framing the threat from Tehran. The Jerusalem Post reported that German soldiers, for the first time, took part in the March of the Living on Tuesday at the former Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. So while Iranians have been 'sharpening their swords’, the West (of which a redeemed Germany is a part) has already showed "the main difference" between Western and Iranian mentalities by walking out of the conference hall. Iranians are the ones living on ‘the wrong side’ of the history.

The message was clear: even as German soldiers can walk with Israelis to show their sensitivity to the seriousness of the subject (Holocaust), it is certain that there are still some people (Iranians) who have not understood what Israelis feel and who are posing the greatest threat against Israel’s existence. Therefore, with the possibility of a new Holocaust, Israelis must do whatever is needed. After Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva proving how Tehran is full of hatred against Israel, it is Iran and not Israel constructing the ‘legitimacy’ of an Israeli pre-emptive strike against the source of the danger. ‘

Speaking at the March of the Living, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom framed the response of Israeli security, “Sadly, today we are again facing an existential threat just like that of sixty-four years ago, and I wonder if we have learned anything since then?” The Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, Reuven Rivlin sent an impassioned letter to parliamentary counterparts abroad on Tuesday: "This time, Hitler has a beard and speaks Persian."

Indeed, for Vice President Shalom, Ahmadinejad is worse than Hitler:

Can there be anything more terrible than the methodical annihilation of a whole nation, burning their holy books, stealing their dignity as human beings, their hair and even their teeth, turning them into numbers, into soap, into ashes and dust at Treblinka and at Dachau? The answer is yes! There is something more terrible. It is even worse to do all those terrible things and then to deny them. Denial of the Holocaust not only desecrates the memory of the victims and wounds the survivors, it also denies the world the opportunity to learn the lesson of those events - a lesson we must learn again today, just as we had to sixty four years ago.

Shalom continued, “Iran represents a threat to the very existence of Israel, but not only of Israel! Iran represents a threat to the existence of the entire free world, and it is vitally important that we realize this soon.”

Thus, Tel Aviv is standing up for all "free" peoples against the greatest menace in modern history, “Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas - all these have become Iranian agents. Today, it is still Israel that is fighting the war against terrorism for the whole world, but today more than ever, the world must understand that these agents of Iran can reach them too.”

Here is the most subtly-designed paragraph of Shalom's speech:

The March of the Living is not only about the importance of paying our respect to the millions who were murdered and to show all those who seek to destroy us that we are stronger than any evil - it is also about lighting a beacon of warning for every person wherever he or she lives. This beacon of warning will ensure that the memory of what happened here will remain alive and that through that memory, the words 'Never Again' will truly be realized.

That "beacon of light” was an important symbol for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption of imminent threats. As George W. Bush put it,   “America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” Moreover, the statement has deep roots in Jewish culture with the belief that the Jew would become a “light unto the nations” (la’goyim) or a beacon to the world.

Thus the UN conference is merely the backdrop for Israel to link both the hope of the "beacon of light" and the prospective doom in the "beacon of warning" to past horrors which are now imminent. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed, "We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people. This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister."

Beyond this construction of the Iranian threat, however, there was an equally important --- if destructive --- process coming out of the UN conference. Put bluntly, President Ahmedinejad was setting out the exact same "security" framework as his Israeli counterparts.

Ahmadinejad succeeding in giving the "necessary" message to his countrymen. Iranians stood up against the European and American supporters of Israel in Geneva. Iranians have no fear of criticizing the ‘occupying’ Israel, ‘the real threat’ to the world. Thus, they are on ‘the correct side of the history’ and they must continue to be ‘the proud side of humanity’ against ‘ignorants.’

The Iranian President first set out the background of the Israeli threat:

Over the last centuries, humanity has gone through great sufferings and pains. In the Medieval Ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade. Innocent people were taken captive in their millions and separated from their families and loved ones to be taken to Europe and America under the worst conditions. A dark period that also experienced occupation, lootings and massacres of innocent people.

Then Ahmadinejad brought this background into the post-1945 tragedy of Palestine:

Following World War II, they (Western powers) resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

And the Iranian President Ahmadinejad then took the short step to the present day:

It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza.

So, "racist" Israel, which has been "backed up" by Western countries, is the "threat’"against freedom and innocence. Israel is the country that has been "committing genocide". Ahmadinejad argued, “World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face.”

Who is going to act against this ‘racist regime’? Ahmadinejad continued:

Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

For Ahmadinejad, Iran is not the threat to the international community but its prospective leader, standing up against racism: "It is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.”

In coming days and weeks, there will be much more in the international press on the prospect of Israel vs. Iran. Each side has stoked up the "threat" of the other, and each is vying for support in its just and right cause.

Yet, even if this confrontation does not end in military action, there is an even greater political cost that is emerging. The collapse of the UN Conference is only symptomatic of a wider collapse that leaves a vacuum. Tel Aviv and Tehran step up to "lead" because other countries and leaders, caught up in their political calculations, fail to do so. At Geneva and beyond, no one stepped up to restore the common cause for humanitarian values and against racism to the top of the agenda.

The criticism, in the end, is not that Israel and Iran have seized the "beacon of light" to control the "beacon of warning". It is that we let them.