Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior official in Iran's judiciary --- and brother of both the Speaker of Parliament and the head of the judiciary --- is on a public-relations tour in New York, this week, including a press conference for foreign media and an extended interview on CNN.
MSNBC, for its "Morning Joe" programme, decided to pit Larijani against three other guests, including Richard Haass, the head of the Council on Foreign Relations. James Miller summarises the outcome:
This interview is a perfect display of the problem with dialogue between the US --- the government, the media, and the "experts" --- and the Iranian regime. The representatives of the regime constantly use disinformation, hyperbole, and insults against their critics. Larijani accuses the US of being the single largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, and denies not only the existence of a militarised nuclear program but all other arguments made by the rest of the panel. A "mockery of the situation," as the host Mika Brzezinski,far from a neutral moderator, puts it.The "experts" --- Haass is an ideal example --- see that as a sure sign that the regime is not serious about dialogue and is a non-rational actor that is a dangerous enemy to the US and the region.
I would add a few warnings for these train-wreck interviews:
1. TUNNEL-VISION TOPICS: Apart from a bad-tempered exchange over the three US hikers held in Iran --- two of them for more than two years --- MSNBC's panellists are focused on the nuclear issue, Israel, and Iran with its (unspecified) "neighbours".
Needless to say, Larijani is prepared for this because they are the topics that come up in every chat with a US network. Because the "experts" have no follow-up depth to their queries --- asking, for example, if Larijani support President Ahmadinejad's recent opening to give up uranium enrichment if the US offers a guaranteed supply --- the discussion never goes beyond sound-bites.
And other topics, arguably as important and more likely to give Larijani a moment's challenge, are never considered. Just note that Larijani, officially the head of human rights for the Iranian judiciary, is never asked about human rights.
2. HARRUMPH, HARRUMPH. After Larijani makes his opening gambit on the nuclear issue --- which should be easy to anticipate, since he has used the same two points in every interview I have watched this year --- Richard Haass gives his far-from-considered reaction: "Preposterous!"
That is the cue for an exchange which could be reduced to "You Suck", "No, You Suck", "You Suck Most of All". And down we go, as we move from nukes to Iran and its (unspecified) neighbours, with Larijani putting out his provocative taunt that the US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world. As he desired and probably expected, the panellists erupt in denunciations of how lucky the Iranian is to be speaking on a free media in a free, not-terrorist country.
3. YOU DO KNOW THIS MAN IS NO FOOL, RIGHT? After Larijani is ushered from the studio, host Brzezinski and the panellists try to get their own back with four minutes of denunciation of Larijani and an Iran which is very, very bad and very, very menacing.
None of this is enlightening in terms of information, and it --- inadvertently --- highlights how Haass, who should know better as a former Administration official and head of America's premier foreign-policy think tank, underestimates his opponent. Larijani --- US-educated, fluent in English, a man with decades of experience inside Iran's system and on the international stage --- is reduced to a member of Iran's "first family" and their devious leadership of the country.
Watch carefully at the end of the discussion with Larijani. As Brzezinski gives her exasperated summary on the lines of "nothing ever changes with these guys", her Iranian guest smiles. Why do you think he does so?
4. LET'S GET HYSTERICAL. There are many sharp criticisms that can be made of Mohammad Javad Larijani and his defence of the regime, but "crazy" is not one of them. Throughout this discussion, he is in control not only of his talking points but where he wants the conversation to go. The clumsy traps --- will you, sir, recognise Israel or condemn it to oblivion? --- are easily sidestepped: note, for example, that Larijani puts out Tehran's line of a referendum amongst the Palestinian people on their future, a line completely missed by the panel.
But, in the debrief after Larijani is gone, the panellists all talk about the "irrational" leadership in Iran, winding each other up about how imminent the danger has become. The most-rational Haass explains that last week's Republican debate, which ventured solutions for Iran from US-supported insurgency to a military attack, "barely scratched the surface" of the possibilities.
And So It Goes, as Kurt Vonnegut and James Miller would say. This is not a problem with dialogue. This is a demolition of any notion of dialogue in favour of scene-setting for confrontation.