I was asked by friends if I saw Charlie Rose’s interview with Mahamoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, and how Ahmadinejad had disarmed Charlie Rose winning the arguments. I had seen the interview and I must say I was very much dismayed. I did see that Charlie Rose was not at his best. However, it was not so much that Ahmadinejad won the arguments but rather it was Charlie Rose who lost it.
Charlie Rose and the rest of the US media once again satisfied Ahmadinejad’s deepest urge and wish, by providing him a platform to ‘shine’ on. You have to be familiar with his psychology and temperament. Ahmadinejad is a strong believer of Oscar Wilds motto, “The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”. It was for this very reason that in previous years he accepted the invitation of Columbia University, knowing full well in advance that the president’s opening remarks will be harsh and insulting. He accepted because he wanted to be talked about and subsequently spin the whole thing for the audience in Iran, which he did with beneficial results.
The question is why the media continues to give him these opportunities and submit to his conditions like providing the questions in advance, and not to cut him off when he meanders, rambles on or answers a question with a question and worst of all blatantly lies.
Ahmadinejad has no qualms about lying. He knows that by the time the lie is caught the intended effect has taken place. We ourselves are familiar with this tactic in our partisan politics in America. Take the lie about connecting 9/11 with Saddam Hussein or about Obamas Muslim faith. Today in spite of clarification by the highest authorities that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11, and Obama is not a Muslim. Still over 20% believe in the original lie.
So when the media gives him the questions in advance and agrees to his terms and conditions for the interview, they are accommodating him in achieving his goals all be it unwittingly. Why an experienced and respected journalist like Charlie Rose would go through with the interview under imposed conditions is a question that only Charlie Rose can answer. My guess is that he wants to have him back in the future.
An interview with controversial and colorful people as distasteful as they may be is always good for ratings. However, Charlie Rose and the media should be aware that their action is counterproductive both for the US and the Iranian people who are trying to become free of this regime, and hopefully gain democracy that has eluded them despite several attempts. In Iran already the spiritual leader (Khamenei) has used this interview to attack the moderates in the government and the reformist outside the government. At the same time spin doctors are hard at work depicting America as a hypocrite and a bully and a country in turmoil. Khamenei declared his support of Ahmadinejad and took the wind out of the sail of those who in his own party were beginning to form an opposition to Ahmadinejad.
Also this event is used as a means to strengthen peoples resolve, by making the acceptance of the hardships caused by the sanctions a virtue. Thus at worst nullifying and at best lessening the effects of the sanction the US is so much counting on.
First, let us see why Ahmadinejad appear to come off well in the interview. The answer is that he attacks our weaknesses. How? There are many examples, I will attempt to give a few and then proceed to show how I would conduct the interview and what questions I would ask of him.
(1) When Charlie Rose asks him questions about the nuclear issue, Rose is on shaky ground. Israel, our ally, is not a signatory to NPT whereas Iran is. The US does not want to even address this issue, or place any pressure on Israel to become a signatory despite the fact that the UN has asked Israel to do so. It is an open secret that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
(2) When asked about Iran’s role in terrorism and hampering US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Issue of US supporting Saddam Hussein in an eight year war against Iran comes up. In addition it is pointed out quite correctly that Iran is surrounded on three sides by US and coalition forces (though not mentioned in this interview, the US saber rattling and change of regime talk has been alluded to in previous interviews). Put yourself in Iranian regime’s shoe. Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found out that enemy forces were in Canada and Mexico and in addition the whole of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico was full of enemy vessels. On top of that the enemy is constantly asking for regime change and threatens military action. Be honest, would you roll over and play dead?
(3) There were questions about the execution of a certain murderer that happened to be a woman and an adulterer. Again he is not on solid ground. We have the highest number of people in prison and on death row per capita in the world. We just executed a woman for murder when she was mentally a border line case. Thirty five other women are waiting in line on death row behind her. If it is a question of how the punishment is carried out, that is the stoning of the woman, then what about beheadings by our dear friends in Saudi Arabia? Why doesn’t our secretary of state get involved there?
(4) On questions about the Middle East peace affecting the Israeli Palestinian issue, again we are not on solid ground. We have a party that was elected in an election, namely Hamas, that we do not recognize. However, we recognize PLO’s leader Mahmoud Abbas who did not win the election as a representative of the Palestinian people.
If I had to give this reprobate a platform by giving him an interview, this is how I would conduct it:
I would not give him the questions in advance. The interview has to be at least one hour long with no commercial breaks. There will be no conditions about interruptions. I am the interviewer and I conduct the interview as I see fit. I would have prominent scholars of Quran whose native language is Arabic and is fluent in English also present. After all he is the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He claims that all their actions are Islamic and do not contradict the Quran.
CNN would be the venue of choice. The wider the audience the more likely he would accept my terms and condition. Remember, he accepted in advance that the opening remarks by the Columbia University president will be harsh and not flattering. I would have video footage of various events in Iran ready and show at appropriate times.
What issues would I put to him? I would use his own tactics and attack his weaknesses, in areas that he is standing on shaky ground. Here are a few examples:
(1) Mr. Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the UN in front of the general assembly you accused the US of being complicit in the 9/11 tragedy. You asked for an international committee to investigate this matter. This implies that you have no faith in the US investigation. May I remind you that you are not of this country, and you are asking for an international investigation in a matter that affected a country that is not yours. However, when in your own country millions of your own countrymen poured into the streets of your capital and other cities simply asking for an investigation by the UN into the election that you allegedly stole, you refused. They then requested investigation by a nonpartisan committee; you still refused and instead responded by attack and imprisonment of peaceful demonstrators who only wanted their vote counted. You responded by attacking the demonstrators, and then went further by killing, imprisoning and torturing your own people who were entitled to what they were asking for under your own laws. Now you have the audacity, to come to our Country and demand that there should be an investigation by an international body. Do you expect people to take you seriously? First, get your own house in order and only if you succeeded then and only then proceed to dish out advice.
(2) Nehzat Azadi, (freedom movement) one of the oldest political parties in Iran during your presidency requested that the election be carried out under the rules and the regulations of the UN, to which Iran is a signatory to. The Leader (Khamnei) said that this was insulting to Iran. It is deemed an insult when one of Iran’s oldest and most respected political party requests something that the government of Iran has signed off on to be adopted in Iran. However, you from another country telling the US that it must accept international investigation in its internal affair are not insulting?!! But I forgot, you are part and parcel of the same regime that thinks the West’s concern on human rights is an interference with Iran’s internal affairs, but openly declare s that the Islamic revolution must be exported! If there was a prize for hypocrisy you would win it hand down.
(3) Mr. Ahmadinejad, it is alleged that you stole the election. If this was not the case why were there so many irregularities at every turn in the process? The Guardian council who was responsible for the election was bypassed and the number of days for the due diligent process to take place was cut short and announcement of the winner came a few hours after the closing of the polls by an authority whose jurisdiction had nothing to do with the election. I don’t want to embarrass you more by pointing out that these were hand written ballots that had to be hand counted. If the number of the people that you claim voted is correct, there is no way that it could have been counted in the time period that the winner was announced. In your haste to steal the election, in some areas you announced more votes than there were registered voters. Why did the spiritual leader (Khamenei) take side, your side in the election? By your own laws is he not supposed to be neutral? You step on your own laws and constitution and then claim legitimacy. If the whole thing wasn’t so sad it would be a joke.
(4) Mr. Ahmadinejad, at every opportunity you declare that Iran is the most fair and free and democratic nation in the world. Let us look into its freedom and democracy and fairness. First let us look at its freedom. For a free country you have the highest number of newspaper reporters and journalists in prison or in exile. Why do you imprison people for their lawful activities under your own laws? Why do you give harsh prison sentences for writing a blog? What kind of freedom exists when a prominent Islamic scholar Ahmad Ghabel writes an opinion that came from his analysis of various verses in the Quran, by quoting them he points out that whenever human rights and divine rights come into conflict, human right always trumps divine right. He quotes the verses, and shows its consistency with other examples and events and writes his conclusion. Why should he be imprisoned for an opinion? When he appeared in court for his trial it was as if public enemy number one is on trial. His hands and feet were shackled. This frail old man was not a member of any political party, did not belong to a militia or any group. Why was he treated this way? Is this your notion of fairness?
(5) When you are so callus and merciless with your own people why do you expect the world to trust you with nuclear technology that has the potential of bomb making?
(6) Mr. Ahmadinejad, you are by your own reckoning the President of The Islamic Republic of Iran. Is that not the case? The Islamic ideology runs through the country and all the laws and regulations must by necessity be in accordance with Islamic values and in accordance with the Quran? In the Quran in several places it has been mentioned that God commands “Muhammad you, (meaning Muhammad) are not an enforcer of Islam, you are just a messenger. Talk to people, and the people will hear you. What they decide to do is not up to you, but up to them. They will be with me at eternity.” Mr. President, how do you reconcile this with the way your government conducts its self? Your Government forces the women to wear the veil; it does not allow members of the Bahia faith to enter college etc.
(7) Again, in the Quran, God tells Muhammad “If we wanted one race and one religion we could have done so. We did not do so and you must not force as such” (not allowed). There are numerous passages and verses indicating Gods leniency and people’s right to live with freedom of choice and dignity. Yet, somehow you feel that the commands God gave Muhammad does not apply to you and somehow you are above that. How else would you explain the fact that you and many members of your government on numerous occasions have declared that if people want to change the Islamic Regime by vote (velvet revolution) then they are deemed as deposers of Islamic rule and by extension in war with God and are punishable by death. How do you reconcile this attitude with the verses in the Quran? That in no uncertain terms allows freedom of choice in one’s religion and in no religion. Is the Quran wrong?
(8) You Mr. President keep claiming that there is no place more fair free and democratic than Iran. The facts indicate otherwise. Only people that meet with the approval of the Islamic republic can run for election. However, when those who were selected to run but were felt that they would not win did actually win, then you trampled on all your own rules and regulation and stole the election. You then proceeded with the brutal crackdown of your own people, who demanded nothing more than a supervised recount. You lie without hesitation, such as when you said on your visit at Columbia University that there were no homosexuals in Iran. Look in the archives of your own daily newspapers and see pictures of people who were hanged because of homosexuality! Read those reports.
(9) Why do you make up a story that it was a German newspaper that started the rumor about Stoning of Sekine Muhammadi. Look in to your own daily newspapers that reported the stoning verdict. No wonder you have a reputation as a liar in your own country.
10) Why do you pressure the academia and the universities to teach “Islamic sciences”? What is Islamic chemistry and Islamic Physics? Pray, do tell.
11) Mr. President, so long as your actions with your own people continues to be like what it has been so far, do not expect the world to trust you and have faith in your promises. As such, you will not be allowed to have nuclear technology, and rightly so. If you come to your senses and turn a new leaf by respecting your own citizens and treating them decently, then the world will have no objection to Iran having peaceful nuclear technology, and in fact will help you achieve it.
