Hello class. The topic for this week was, of course, President Ahmadinejad. And with him comes your next chance for a posting comment.
You will need to comment on Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans. The link to it is on the left, under the link menu.
Basically, as an American, or at least someone who currently resides here, what is your reaction to this letter? What would you like to say to him as a reply?
Also, in preparation for next week, if you have the time I would suggest looking up some basic facts about the nuclear fuel cycle. This link may be able to help. It is a little technical, but just skimming it may give you some background knowledge and make this week's lecture a little easier to understand.
And finally, this is a link to a hilarious story about the FBI, falafel, and Iranian "terrorists" in the Bay Area. Falafel isn't even an Iranian dish! It's not for a comment credit, but it is good for a laugh.
See you on Monday!
-Amir
14 comments:
Ahmadinejad is a very clever man. Structurally, emotionally, and politically this is the perfect call to the American people. Structurally, he links the controversial issue of Palestine to the hotly contested Iraq War; the two don't have a clear connection, but citing one after the other seem to make it seem like there is a relationship between the two. Emotionally, he calls on religious values, emotions of motherhood, and he sympathizes with all people. He never condemns or strikes at any American ideas or values, but praises the ones that are common between Iranian and American society. Politically, he calls to the people and makes the administration the enemy as if there is no correlation between the two. He accuses the American administration of interfering and doing a poor job of protecting the American people.
My response to his honey-tongued words: I agree with his sentiment. Whether Ahmadinejad is honest in all of his claims and his desires is another question, but I do think that he eloquently pieces together the grievances of the American public.
To be perfectly honest though, I wonder why he wrote it. Clearly American people didn't pay attention seeing as very few people know about this letter so I wonder if its directed just towards the isolated American-Iranian population.
I think that Ahmadinejad’s letter to the American people starts off rather well, but later on it starts to feel like he was only trying to warm us up before bringing about some hard to swallow statements. I agree that America and Iran are similar, in the way that I agree that all people are similar and want the same things, but in the way that he holds the American people so close to the actions of our administration, I begin to disagree. He says that both Americans and Iranians “both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.” He later says that American’s foreign policy with Iraq and “terrorists” does not follow these values, and I have a hard time accepting that, as I feel that Ahmadinejad’s treatment of the Iranian people goes against those values as well. I’m offended by his discussion of America’s immoral activities, especially those relating to Guantanamo Bay, and implying torture, because I have personally heard horror stories of Iranian prisons, and I feel that their infrastructure ignores human rights. News reports come from Iran that women are executed after being victims of rape, and I find it disgusting and inappropriate for the president of such a nation to discuss immoral activity and harsh treatment of prisoners with such a track record. I want to ask him, Is there not a better approach to governance? Just as he has asked the American people. While I appreciate his respectful tone and excellent rhetoric, I cannot help but find the hypocrisy in his statements. Furthermore, I cannot help but feel that his plea to the American people to reexamine the current administration’s activities has an ulterior motive that would benefit him.
President Ahmadinjad's letter is a political and rhetorical masterpiece. All opinions aside, he has done a good job of finding common bonds with the US as well as finding means of criticizing American diplomacy. At the same time, he takes the time to both display and garner support for Palestine.
It is clear that within the current century, ideological discourse covers true intents of nations, as well as create a platform for communication. Ahmadinejad readily speaks of the negative images of the United States existing outside of the states. As the Americans have criticized and tarnished the image of the current Iranian administration, the Iranian administration, in return, openly criticizes the American image.
Behind the ideological dialogue lies the hot topic of American oppression and the respective blowback on one hand; and Iranian oppression and nuclear threat on the other.
It is clear to see the rhetorical influence of a theocratic nation. Religious texts are utilized as foundations of logic and ideology.
He creates a commonality with the United States government, although the Americans pride themselves on the separation of church and state. He states:
Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.
On an ideological level, he forms a common bond with the US and Iran. From there, he begins to speak of what, in his opinion, issues are of utmost importance. The Palestinian controversy is an example. Rather than showing the American image of a victimized Israeli community, Ahmadinejad portrays a victimized Palestinian community.
He brings about images and issues, as well as differing opinions therein, to the American public that has "imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors."
In essence, he criticizes the American government allowing capitalistic ideologies to affect the system.
My response would be that I understand his point of view. This is only because I am a student in a highly-respected university, and I have access to political, economic, and sociological information that other Americans may not be so privileged to be privy to.
There may be other possible forms of government that may be better for the American system. Perhaps we are not at Fukuyama's end of history. Or maybe democracy is the answer, but derivatives and variations must be found. I can recognize and understand the current ideological debate on both sides. Perhaps not within a subjective sense, but within an objective but analytical reality.
President Ahamadinejad has respectful prose, and he presents his rhetorical case logically. It is just that the foundations of logic and philosophy different between the US and Iran. Perhaps they can meet amicably on other ideological plains.
First, let me say that most of what President Ahmadinejad says is true. His comments regarding U.S. interventions around the world (covert and overt, especially in the Middle East), disillusionment among U.S. troops in Iraq, over-bloated military spending, the practice of extraordinary rendition, erosion of civil rights, image problems within the global community, and growing discontent among the American electorate are, simply point, dead on.
However, insightful as he may be, his claims are thoroughly couched in a kind of strange nationalist rhetoric designed to deflect attention away from the very same practices utilized by the Islamic Republic itself (think: random arrests of opposition leaders and intellectuals, social restrictions, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.). Further, his gratuitous appeals to God, nation, freedom, justice, and peace attempt to engage shared humanist values (assumed), but end up sounding more like empty phrases characteristic of those repeated incessantly by President Bush.
Unfortunately, his insistence on using inflammatory language when discussing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict does nothing more than incite both anti-Arab and anti-Jewish sentiment, and further close down the space for potential dialogue. However, the rather sticky subject matter of U.S./Israeli relations must be a matter of open discussion. Since the late 1970s (check out articles by Stanley Hoffman, Michael Lind, Seymour Hersch, etc.), neoconservative heavyweights like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, and Donald Rumsfeld have been producing and circulating various defense plans aimed at promoting U.S. hegemony throughout the Middle East (see the Project for the New American Century and its antecedents). This project has been actively supported by conservative think tanks and lobbying groups, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. My point is not to condone Ahmadinejad's barely-contained racist intent, but to suggest that his comments regarding the Palestinian situation are not completely unrelated to larger issues like the Iraq war, soaring oil prices, and a potential invasion of Iran.
Ahmadinejad in a diplomatic and well structured letter is trying to reconcile with the American people, demonstrating their peaceful direction towards the creation of the new Iran. The letter clearly is directed to the American people, in which he is trying to call their attention, by exposing them to the political issues that are currently affecting the US and the world. The budget deficit, the negative war agenda, US “terrorism”, and the delicate diplomatic relations are something we should all be taking into account as we read the news, and start thinking about the next developing story.
My response to his letter as an international student currently residing in the US is that I concur with his arguments and claims. However I believe his letter of reconciliation got blurred with his anti-“Zionist” arguments, which are out of place and shouldn’t be ignored. But, what is the main purpose of this letter? That is something we should ask ourselves.
My comment:
A politician is just a politician. Under the front of legitimacy, they are able to do many horrible and or great things. At first like the others that commented I was going to pick apart his speech piece by piece but then it dawned on me. Life isn’t that simple. We all know we should drop our stupid guns, tanks, and weaponry to hug one another but this will not happen. If I was Mr. Ahmadinejad looking at the USA and Israel I would be scared too. I believe this is why he’s talking to all of us. Innocent people on both sides are the ones that suffer. The problem is that “God” as amusement or on purpose has created a scarce amount of resources on this planet. To make matters worse, global population is growing exponentially. From my perspective, I just don’t see a solution. He commented on us being noble but we are in our own fight just to keep our civil liberties. With every passing administration we are coming closer to a police state. Oh, you want us to think about Iran now? Also, it is great that we are both God fearing countries (kind of) however for some reason it seems it’s a different god. “We are infidels wait no you are infidels.” It is that subtlety in which is all that is needed for legitimizing the taking of a scarce resource, propagating farce ideologies and creating more weapons for cleansing. All I got to say is, “I quit!” sheesh!
I really enjoyed reading this article. Ahmadinejad is quite a skilled writer, and he does a great job of addressing the "American" issues that would evoke strong emotions. He claims that both nations care about the world's well being, and "embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings." Clearly, this is said with some sarcasm, as I feel Ahmadinejad does not truley beleive the United States, or at least our government, cares about such things. He direclty follows this with a discussion of the conflict in Palestine. Being that the United States supports Israel, I feel as if Ahmadinejad is questioning why a nation who supposedly believes in such values would continue to turn their head to such oppression and bloodshed, and attack countries such as Iraq instead. Ahmadinejad then makes references to American kidnappings and Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. Again, he is provding concrete examples which contradict the morals and values we proclaim to have as Americans. The letter is very emotionally charged, and attacks the United States, but in a very educated and well-planned way. Although I'm sure there are a majority of Americans who would dismiss this letter based on Ahmadinejad's reputation, I find his examples and evidence hard to refute.
As has been mentioned a few times, this letter epitomizes how much of a skillful politician Ahmadinejad is. A specific term I found interesting in the article (which may be attibuted to the translator more than Ahmadinejad) is his referencing the plight of the Palestinians as "diaspora".
Whenever I have heard about diaspora in an academic sense, it has usually been followed by the example of Jewish Diaspora. By using the word "diaspora" Ahmadinejad instantly makes a parallel from the plight of Palestinians to the Jewish people.
This has the interesting consequence of putting a face on the Jewish plight, almost implying some sort of sympathy for the plight, while attacking the faceless "Zionist regime" in a sense that borders a conspiracy theorist.
I believe this instance of the use of the word "diaspora" to refer to the Palestinian plight exemplifies Ahmadinejad's rhetorical skill that can be found throguhout the letter.
As for a respnse to naomi's question in the first comment about why Ahmadinejad bothered to write a letter to the American people when they obviously wouldn't take the time to read it: Ahmadinejad knows that the real battle isn't public opinion but in neogotiations with leaders on an international level. Any appearance of reaching out to the oppressors people (much like Hugo Chavez declaring Bush the devil then offering to pay for the gas to heat homes in some US state) will help Ahmadinejad's credibility on the international front. Just because Americans don't read doesn't mean citizens of other countries don't read.
I feel as though Ahmadinejad is trying to show the similarity between the United States and Iran by saying that we both have the same ideas and values, however they are not the same ideas and values. There is a large separation between the United States and Iran because there is not much freedom in Iran. I feel like he is being hypocritical because he says we both believe in the well being of our cournties', however then he goes on to talk about all of the negativities that have occured, such as the budget deficit, etc.
I feel as though Ahmadinejad is not consistent. One day he is talking about how the United States is a great country and the next day he is talking about how the administration is the enemy.
Like some have pointed out, the Iranian president is quite a hypocrite for rebuking the American administration for its inhumaness when Iran suffers from the same sort of grave injustices which its government perpetrates. Iran's legal and justice code is far from inhumane and it treats its woman population in horrible ways. Although he is right to point out America's invividual liberties are under attack, he fails to mention that his government violates individual liberties on a daily basis. The president would do well to fight for individual liberties in Iran before criticizing countries like America which is far more democratic. In general, much more can be said about the president's hypocrisy, but I did find it interesting how informed he is of American politics, and particularly his appeal to America's religiousity. He is right to point out that Americans are pretty religious when compared to other advanced industrialized countries, and that they share this similarity with the United States. In all, its a political speech that aims to warm up to the American population, and its success can be judged by how many Americans believe and accept what he says and look more favorably at Iran. In fact, its an attempt to improve Iran's image abroad much like the visit to Columbia University. I couldn't help thinking of a video we watched in class as I read the part where he says America is destroying Iraq, and should lead to let the Iraqis govern. In the video, an Iranian historian says that before the invasion of Iraq Iran was assisting America and wanted to play a role in the aftermath to the invasion. In the letter he criticizes the invasion, yet no so long ago Iran was very keen on being a part of that invasion.
WOW!!! I will say this. Ahmadinejad has done his homework. He has been able to appeal to the American people by outlining some of our grievances of the present administration, assuring us that he understands and therefore assuring us that he is on our side and once he has done that really pushes for our support of his agenda.
I will admit, I don't know much about the Israel and Palestinian conflict and therefore his letter is quite compelling.
The one thing that this letter does for me is open some issues that I feel necessary to research fully. The more and more I learn the more I realize I don't know.
Of course this appeals to the American people. They have been lied to by their own president who has lost his trust and honesty. Thus, any leader other than Bush would appeal to Americans; however, Ahmadinejad shows good logic and argument. He shows honesty and Persians have his trust, something this country lacks. Bush has an approval rating of something like 13% and declining, and to say that the American people would never side by a "terrorist" country. Why doesnt Bush invade and attack us? Post 9-11 he stated "You're either with us or against us." We are definitely not with him...
Yeah, he is right, and obviously knows more about the US than his prospective audience. This is not the kind of address that can be scorned with dignity, let alone hope that a national mission can be revived for the US. I don't see any need to critique this or praise its "nuance", and anyone who cynically rejects its manner of calling for a dialogue should ask himself if he believes nations are sovereign and can work out the harmony of their interests. If you reject that then you don't really deserve freedom, because all you're going to get is bestial fear and you will degrade your people.
President Ahmadinejad's letter to the US Administration is a masterpiece in its entirety. It ought to be published, printed and then distributed throughout the US. And what's interesting, at least to me, is that this letter was so engaging that I had forgotten the author of the piece whilst reading it. I also think that it is, for the most part, timeless with regards to US history. Thirty years ago it seems that it would have been appropriate and for that matter, thirty years from now, it may still actually apply.
Quite frankly, I can spend my entire blog post word limitation explaining how I agree with the multiple issues President Ahmadinejad has addressed but, instead, I will mention a few that I feel are most important. First, Ahmadinejad brings up the issue of the displaced Palestinians. He simply questions the US administration's "blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime." He gives examples of various atrocities being committed towards the Palestinians in broad daylight and then remarks how the US administration ignores its own people's wishes by supporting a regime that commits atrocities towards innocent civilians. Basically, it seems as though Ahmadinejad is pointing out how American citizens are being openly ignored, as our government is busy fulfilling their personal goals overseas while neglecting domestic issues including the opinions of the people. Furthermore, he goes on to provide proof to his claim by briefly mentioning two aspects: the recent change in the House where the Democrats have taken over the Republicans and also the daily protests in the US, let alone throughout the entire world, against our president. He moves on to address the current Iraqi Occupation where as he states, "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed, or displaced," and that "terrorism has grown exponentially in Iraq…with the presence of the US military." Even though Saddam was overthrown, he adds, the pain and suffering going on now is much worse than before. He does not openly propose or threaten to remove the US military from Iraq, but he states certain facts that make us question why we even have our troops there in the first place. Perhaps then our support for the current Administration is outright wrong? And lastly, what I think is the best thing about this letter is the approach taken in composing it. This letter strictly addresses the negative aspect of US foreign policy and its side effects on the Americans as well as the rest of the world. To possibly remark then that it is hypocritical for Ahmadinejad to make such statements about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is irrelevant because the Iranian people have no such history of war outside of their borders along with torture cells and a violation of prisoner rights. Overall, it seems to me that it is almost impossible to list all the troubles the US administration is involved with both domestically and internationally, however this letter is the closest thing I have ever come across that addresses the most significant of all the current problems the US has a foot in. We need to realize that this is a very serious letter and if we simply put it aside due to media biases and stereotypes, we may be missing out on a true opportunity to engage in real diplomacy, something the US administration always advocates. The other aspect that troubles me about the letter is the response of people who can find no wrong in its substance and so resort to assigning a psychological motive to Ahmadinejad. The suggestion is that he is sly, conniving, calculating, etc...This approach is generally a bad idea in any intellectual discussion and borders on the outright racist. We have no way of knowing what his intentions are and at least by the recent revelation that Iran stopped its weapons program a few years ago and our administration knew, it would suggest that if there are motives to question, they are the ones of an administration that proceeds to war in the face of knowledge contradicting the threat of its enemy. The same people who criticize Ahmadinejad seem to falter when assigning a psychological motive there.
Post a Comment