Crazy People

Eek.

I’m sure that all of you have at least heard of the letter sent from Mr Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, to Mr Bush. I presume that (along with most of the world, probably including Mr Bush) some of you haven’t read it. Therefore, I have elected to provide some highlights from the letter for your consumption and digestion.

On the whole, the letter is surprising. That is, it seems that everything I have heard about it (e.g., rambling, crazy, unorganized, religiously fanatic, etc.), is untrue. For the most part: the letter is all of those things, but not in any extreme or damning manner. It is rather simple, coherent, and even contemplative. Mr Ahmadinejad asks many questions of Mr Bush (with the obvious assumptions that Mr Bush will not read the letter, and that many other people will), the majority of which most of us, I think, would like to ask him as well. In this respect I find the letter refreshing. The State Dept (to my knowledge) has yet to find a sufficiently refreshing response.

Two points particularly interest me.

First:

Mr Ahmadinejad asks a question that has haunted me since I started paying attention. He mentions that he is a teacher, and talks about the questions that his students ask him concerning Israel. After recounting in a very abstract manner the historical anomaly that is Israel (e.g., “Throughout history, many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times”), after recounting in a very dry, unsympathetic manner the reasons for this anomaly (“six million Jews had been killed… Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state?”), and after recounting in a dry, sympathetic manner the pain this caused and continues to cause to those already present at the foundation of Israel, Mr Ahmadinejad puts the following question into the mouths of his students:

“Why is this regime being supported? …Why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Some people might find the student-teacher setup contrived. Yet in my experience they would be mistaken: I have had this discussion many times with students, and have made the great question mark that is Israel the subject of more than one lecture. After the attacks, I spent a period studying the history of the UN’s involvement (e.g., attempted and adopted resolutions, creation and definition of refugees, US coercion as a permanent member of the Security Council, etc.) with the Israelis and the Palestinians. Although I am no expert on American history and policy in the last 60 years, it is not a history that makes me proud of my citizenship. At best, I can simply say that I do not understand why we have acted in the ways we have, and I am at a loss as to why we seem not yet to have learned how to proceed.

Second:

The most interesting and unfortunate moment of the letter, in my estimation, is where the Iranian president makes the American president look like the more unreasonable person in the room. After asking about the legacies of leaders at some length (e.g., “Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress, and respect for human dignity, or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights?”), Mr Ahmadinejad asks the following:

“Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?

Where will this trend lead the world to?

How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?

How much longer will the specter of insecurity -- raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction -- hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people's houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, were would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud?

Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?

And, I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?”

I reproduce this for a selfish reason. Since the attacks, I have increased (ad nauseum) my consumption of media and history, particularly since WWII. Since the attacks, I have had many discussions with people on this list about the causes behind the attacks and the appropriate response to such attacks, both in the short and long term. Often in these discussions, I would make very similar statements to those by Mr Ahmadinejad when he proposes an alternative history, and I would make similar predictions as to the effects of such policy decisions (i.e., less people would hate us).

True, we have long been an example in the international community for giving aid and paying heed to the rest of the world. True, no one could ever expect a government (let alone the sole world superpower) to take on such actions as its primary definition of realpolitik (even though it escapes me as to why). True, these policies are in some sense a moot point without a radical shift in our minute policy decisions and overall strategy with respect to Israel.

True, Mr Ahmadinejad shows himself to be a terrible hypocrite here. I’m sure that there are millions in his country who would like to ask him why he is asking such questions of other leaders in the world, when he has proven incapable or unwilling to focus on such issues himself. Indeed, I’m sure there are millions more (many of whom now believe that he is a great leader) who would ask about this hypocrisy if they knew of it: if there was anything like free expression, press, dissent, etc. in Iran, I imagine his popularity would drop significantly. In other words, Mr Ahmadinejad looks most the fool right when he is most reasonable.

Nevertheless, all this gives me pause. Pundits are fond of referring to Mr Ahmadinejad as a nutjob. FOX News’ John Gibson recently pointed out that many of the letter’s statements are very close to the Democrats’ talking points, and then essentially asked his viewers to do the math. Apparently Iranian dictators, religious extremists, holocaust deniers, rogue nations in pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Democrats all share the same platform and values; if you agree with anything Ahmadinejad said, you show your true colors.

Stephen Colbert responded by asking if all vegetarians are proving that they share Hitler’s values.

Eek.

-W.