Hello from Lahore, Pakistan!  I just arrived today and plan to base here for at least the next six months.  There is so much going on here at the moment that I feel very fortunate to have a front row seat.  I am extremely eager to hear about new and interesting story ideas here in the country so I invite you all to submit some suggestions.  

In the meantime, I wrote the story below in Dubai last week regarding calls for an oil embargo against supporters of Israel over the Gaza crisis.  As of today, about 1,000 Palestinians have been killed as the result of Israel’s attack on Gaza, most of them civilians.  Please consider ways in which you can help the poor people of Gaza rebuild after this destructive conflict with Israel.

by VIVIAN SALAMA

MIDDLE EAST TIMES

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Cozy economic ties with the West and cool heads have led the Arab Gulf’s leading oil exporters to ignore calls by Iran for an oil embargo against supporters of Israel over the Jewish state’s military offensive in Gaza. 

Mirfaysal Bagherzadeh, brigadier-general of Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary Guard, has urged Muslim countries to cut oil exports to Israel’s allies as punishment for their inaction against the its “unequal war” on the Palestinian territory.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, responded this week saying that the use of oil as a weapon in the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a solution.

“The oil producers who need their income … are not going to do that,” he said at a news conference in Riyadh. “The use of oil, especially at this time, is an idea that is at least past its worth.”

The comments from Tehran echoed sentiments by members of Bahrain’s lower house of parliament earlier in the week that “all retaliation options” should be considered by Arab governments against the Israeli aggression.

While the tiny Gulf kingdom is not a major oil exporter, it is home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

“Bahraini and Kuwaiti parliaments are quite renowned for nationalistic and even Islamist voices that do not necessarily reflect the position of their particular governments,” said Neil Partrick, assistant professor of international studies at the American University of Sharjah.

The renewed Israeli attacks in Gaza have claimed nearly 1,000 lives since they started on Dec. 27.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a delegation of European Union foreign ministers have been meeting with Arab heads-of-state in an attempt to broker a cease-fire and bring both parties back to the negotiating table.

Israel’s government has been accused of heavy-handed tactics resulting in huge destruction of infrastructure and high civilian casualties.

Protesters have come out in large numbers in cities across the region demanding that their governments take action to stop Israel and make it take responsibility for the heavy losses.

A statement released this week by the Saudi cabinet accused “the policy of war, violence, murder and torture practiced by Israel against the Gaza Strip and throughout Palestine” as demonstrative of the “extremist political parties in Israel and abroad aiming at [the] restructuring of the region of the Middle East according to their terms.”

The Saudi government also criticized American nepotism toward Israel. Speaking at this week’s U.S.-Gulf Forum, the Saudi deputy foreign minister said that the United States has “adopted policies full of flaws against the Gulf nations and the Middle East while it has been extending all-out support to Israel.”

For countries in the Gulf, their oil wealth has historically proven to be a mighty weapon in times of turmoil. Flash back to the now infamous oil embargo by Arab producers during the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and the armies of Egypt and Syria. The boycott sent shock waves around the world – the market price for oil soaring almost immediately from $3 a barrel to $12.

Arab oil producers would subsequently take a hit, however, as consumption dropped by 5 percent over the following two years. The crisis served as a wake-up call for countries in the West to seek alternative sources of energy and ultimately, reduce dependency on oil imports.

Today, Saudi Arabia is the only major Middle East oil supplier to the United States. The United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iran sell mostly to Asia, while Kuwait divides its exports among countries in Asia and Europe, while sending only a small amount to the United States.

“So the phrase ‘we need to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil’ is actually a misnomer,” said Raja Kiwan, an energy analyst with PFC Energy, a Bahrain-based consultancy. “Most of [Iran's] oil is sold to Asia, so the comments by the Revolutionary Guard should be seen as political rhetoric.”

Like other oil producers in the region, Iran depends on oil revenue for as much as 90 percent of its foreign income – and is currently suffering as the result of plummeting oil prices. An export ban is therefore believed by analysts to be in no one’s interest – most of all, the oil producers.

“The GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] has no appetite for an oil embargo because the embargo of the 1970’s was quite damaging economically for the Gulf countries,” noted Partrick.

Martin Lovegrove, vice chairman of oil and gas for Standard Chartered Bank in London said that oil producers must consider the implications an oil embargo could have on their domestic economies.

“Some, if not the majority, of these countries would certainly have to tighten their belts should they have an embargo, and not just for the short-term,” he said.

“An embargo could increase prices again at a time of true economic sensitivity in the world financial, business and personal economic markets [and] this could delay any real term recovery in prices.”

I received some troubling news today about a friend of mine – journalist and blogger Hossein Derakhshan.  Hossein was arrested in Tehran, allegedly on charges of spying for the Israeli government.  Last week he was detained in Tehran, and Jahan News, an Iranian Pres Agency, put out news that he had ‘confessed’ to spying for Israel. No one has heard from his since, and his blog has not been updated for weeks.

Hossein had a very highly publicized trip to Israel a few years back which he not only blogged about (with video) and which was also highly covered in the Israeli media.  He’s been studying in Canada and then London for several years now and was returning home to live with his family. I spoke to him a few weeks ago and he was really thrilled to be returning home.

I wrote an article about Hossein a few years ago — that is how we met and have since become friends.  Here is my article, which illustrates his last run in with the Iranian authorities:

Arab and Iranian Bloggers: Emerging Threat to Official Line

 I suspect he is in a lot of trouble.  Charges like this are no joke in Iran, as the article below indicates.

Iran Executes Man in Spy Case, and Blogger’s Arrest Is Reported

from the IHT today.  Interesting – i was just discussing this with a friend today!  Who’s to say that small and overly pretentious countries with strong ties to the United States are not at risk of getting onto the bad side of defiant neighbors given the evolving world order?

Associated Press

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates: Abu Dhabi and Dubai have been rivals for decades, one building world-class museums as fast as the other has been throwing up skyscrapers.

But the healthy competition that’s helped transform them into two of the Middle East’s most vibrant and bustling cities has soured as they grow increasingly divided over their relations with two other rivals — Iran and the United States.

At first, the differences were cultural. Dubai’s sprawling beaches, American-style theme parks and over-the-top shopping malls clash with the more prim sophistication of Abu Dhabi, which is building a symphony orchestra and branches of the Guggenheim and Louvre museums.

But now Dubai’s soaring commercial growth, liberal Western outlook — and massive trade with Iran — are becoming a liability for U.S.-friendly Abu Dhabi.

With half the population and glitz of Dubai, Abu Dhabi is the richest emirate and capital of the seven that make up the United Arab Emirates. As the world’s fourth largest exporter of oil, Abu Dhabi is also the main provider for the rest of the semi-independent states, including Dubai.

That gives Abu Dhabi the political capital to assert its authority and rein in Dubai’s at times murky commercial dealings with Iran.

The UAE and other Sunni-ruled Arab states are suspicious of Shiite Iran, just a boat ride across the Gulf from Dubai. They share the West’s concern over Iran’s nuclear program and fear Tehran’s growing ability to empower Shiites across the region, especially in Iraq.

Iran and the UAE have diplomatic ties and both benefit from their booming commerce. Thousands of Iranian business are based in Dubai, which also hosts the Arab world’s largest Iranian expat community.

With U.S. sanctions against Iran already in place and Washington threatening new penalties for Tehran’s failure to curb uranium enrichment, Dubai is finding it more difficult to defend its lucrative commercial dealingswith Iran’s ruling elite.

The UAE has been a loyal ally in America’s war on terror. The U.S. has been allowed to operate in an airbase in the outskirts of Abu Dhabi and its warships regularly dock in Dubai’s ports.

But Iranian investment in Dubai — about US$14 billion each year — buoys a robust development plan largely financed with foreign cash. The trade is also huge boost to Tehran’s confidence that it can survive Western-imposed sanctions.

“Iran is not suffering from sanctions if it can still bring things through Dubai,” said Jean-François Seznec, a Gulf specialist at Georgetown University.

Last year, the Bush administration asked Abu Dhabi to crack down on companies suspected of smuggling equipment to Iran to build explosive devices killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House also expressed concerns about shipments to Iranian front companies operating in Dubai.

Within days, the UAE president announced a law that allows authorities to “ban or restrict imports, exports or passthrough shipments for reasons of health, safety, environmental concerns, national security or foreign affairs.”

Authorities announced the closure of some companies, but it isn’t clear how thoroughly the law has been enforced. Analysts say Dubai has largely ignored America’s pressure to curb trade with Iran.

By continuing with business as usual, “Dubai has been jeopardizing Abu Dhabi’s relationship with Washington,” said Christopher Davidson, a UAE specialist and a lecturer at the U.K.’s Durham University.

Plus, Dubai’s permissive ways to accommodate Western residents and tourists — by circumventing alcohol restrictions and other rules in the conservative Muslim country — have made the city-state a “liability for the federation, with its behavior,” Davidson said.

So Abu Dhabi has stepped up its pressure, starting with delicate issues Dubai has trouble defending — nudity and excessive booze. Last month, Dubai obliged when Abu Dhabi questioned its neighbor’s Islamic credentials.

Police detained almost 80 people over in a crackdown on public drinking, topless sunbathing and nudity on public beaches. Undercover policemen also rounded up 17 foreign men authorities accused of being gay.

Dubai’s acting police chief vowed to detain all those suspected of acts “deemed offensive, immoral or disrespectful.”

But limiting Iranian business in Dubai is a tougher task, with few rewards for Abu Dhabi, analysts say.

“Neither of them wants to be too close to the U.S. nor too distant from Iran,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, political science professor at Emirates University.

The balancing act associated with trying to accommodate the U.S. and Iran has enabled Dubai and Abu Dhabi to “play good cop, bad cop,” Seznec said.

But he said it was also possible Abu Dhabi doesn’t truly want Dubai to stop being “the main transport hub for Iran.”

The UAE capital looks after the interests of other Gulf states, who fear a U.S. recession and high inflation because their currencies are pegged to the dollar, Seznec said.

“And a bankrupt Iran is simply not in the Gulf’s interest,” he said.

Hi folks, a credible source in Tehran tells me that the estimated results of yesterday’s parliamentary elections are as follows: Conservatives/Fundamentalists 60%; Independents 25%; Reformists (Khatami and friends) 15%.   No big surprises, of course.  You heard it here first! 

a rather provocative blog that I wrote for PostGlobal - Washington Post.  I understand that diplomacy is often easier said than done, but in the case of Iran, I think we need to move beyond the days of the Islamic Revolution and weigh the benefits of reaching out to Iran.  All I’m saying is if we stop alienating people and start talking to them, maybe – JUST MAYBE – we won’t need to toy with notions such as “World War III.”  Check out Newsweek’s Cover Story this week – Where Jihad Lives Now.

by Vivian Salama

PostGlobal (washington post)

If I were a school teacher, and little George Bush made a comment in class about World War III with Iran – particularly given the current political climate – I would tell him to put his head down on his desk and take a time out.

IS HE SERIOUS? Pakistan, our so-called partner in the “War on Terrorism” is a breeding ground for radicalism and President Bush is making outrageous references to an Iranian instigated World War III?

This is just another catch phrase we can add to the pot of simmering war slogans and provocative accusations, along with “War on Terror” and “Axis of Evil.” It carves in stone the do’s and don’ts of diplomacy and leaves no leeway for reconciliation.

President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad will only capitalize on this type of rhetoric. To use an old Vietnam War slogan, Ahmedinejad is winning the “hearts and minds” of those across the Muslim world with his anti-West, anti-Israel speech – something that many of the Sunni regimes have failed to do given their pro-West stances and, in the cases of Egypt and Jordan, treaties with Israel. Sticks and stones from the West WILL break bones, but they will not solve a thing.

How about some diplomacy for a change?

I am no fan of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, but can we really compare him to Adolph Hitler who was behind the death of at least six million people? Every administration needs its token “bad guy.” This administration has had a few. Despite his faults, Ahmedinejad does not measure up to the dreadful legacy of Hitler. The Iranian president is just a figurehead, not a major decision maker in Iran.

It is poor form (not to mention poor diplomacy) to toss around threats of war. As Americans are coming to learn, war is ugly. It should always be a last resort, not a basis of intimidation. Has President Bush considered the consequences of such a comment? While I am no combat expert, I do have an understanding of Iran’s geography. A war in Iran’s dry midlands and rugged exterior would make Iraq look like a picnic.

Should America participate in this hypothetical war, how would it fund such a war project? Does America have the resources or man power to attack yet another country? Is bombing people into submission the political order of the day?

I can’t imagine why any leader would rattle an already war-fatigued America with this kind of rhetoric. I can only assume that the chances of seeing another war during the current US administration are slim given that there is just about a year left on the clock. My question is why is the Bush Administration diverting attention to countries like Iran while turning a blind eye to allied regimes that may only be fueling the fires of fundamentalism?

an article from PostGlobal (washingtonpost.com) from the great Gary Sick.  The Pakistan issue is the irony of ironies.  It is a breeding ground for terrorists and yet it is a major partner in the American-led “War on Terrorism.”  When do we stay “enough” and stop supporting despotic regimes that may only be contributing to the problem?

By Gary Sick

Last Sunday’s New York Times analysis, “In Pakistan Quandary, U.S. Reviews Stance,” fits so closely with a number of conversations that I have had over the past few weeks that it inspires a kind of déjà vu. It takes me back to the time when the Iranian revolution was brewing, when I was the desk officer for Iran on the National Security Council.

The ultimate reason for the U.S. policy failure at the time of the Iranian revolution was the fact that the U.S. had placed enormous trust and responsibility on the person of the shah of Iran. He — and not the country or people of Iran — was seen as the lynchpin of U.S. strategy in the Persian Gulf. Everything relied on him. There was no Plan B.

As a consequence, the U.S. strategy, endlessly mulled over, was that we had no choice except to support the shah; and this was fortified by the belief (or wishful thinking) that the shah would pull himself together and deal with the growing crisis before it was too late. By the time it became inescapably obvious that that was not going to happen, the situation was too far gone for anything to stop it.

This is a gross simplification, of course. (For more nuanced detail, see my 1985 account of the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, “All Fall Down.”) But in retrospect, this was the essence of the problem. We had placed all of our eggs in the shah’s basket; we had no visible alternative. So policy always tended to settle on More of the Same, fear of Rocking the Boat in a way that would undercut the shah, combined with much Wringing of Hands and Wishful Thinking.

Those policies were so unsuccessful that they gave rise to endless conspiracy theories among the Iranian elite (many of whom fled the country in hopes that someone else would defend their interests) that the Carter administration was in fact determined to replace the shah with Khomeini. Absurd as that appeared to those of us on the inside, it was an all too human attempt to square what they regarded as an omnipotent United States with a policy of neglect and error.

All of this comes to mind as I watch the situation in Pakistan. I am no expert on that country, but I see the U.S. locked in much the same kind of policy vise that bedeviled the U.S. in Iran. We have bet the farm on one man – in this case Pervez Musharraf — and we have no fall back position, no alternative strategy in the event that does not work.

Pakistan is far more dangerous than Iran was. If it should be taken over by Sunni radicals of a radical Islamist Talibanesque persuasion, the dangers are not that hard to imagine, even for a non-specialist. Pakistan is a nuclear state. I suppose that a radical Sunni takeover would be seen as an imminent threat by nuclear India; I know it would be seen that way in Iran, and Iran might well be persuaded to abandon its present slow-motion nuclear development, drop out of the NPT if necessary, and go for a bomb in the shortest time possible. That would set off other ripples of proliferation and possibly military reaction.

Pakistan is already a training center for international terrorism. That would only increase. Certainly a radical Islamist Pakistan would give Al-Qaeda and the Taliban an enormous boost in their operations in Afghanistan and beyond. Pakistan would constitute the kind of imminent terrorist/nuclear threat that we falsely ascribed to Saddam Hussein.

One of the obstacles to confronting the Iranian revolution at an early stage — regardless of whether or not that would have had any significant effect — was that no one had any good ideas to offer about what might be done. I certainly have no magic plan to offer about Pakistan.

Still, I think that avoiding the issue or sweeping it under the rug in hopes that it will get better on its own, is worse even than admitting that we have no solution to a problem that is confronted honestly.

The worst does not always happen, but in this region we do not have to look very far to find cases where it has. The parallels worry me.
Gary Sick is a Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University and Executive Director of the Gulf/2000 Project.

An e-petition is circulating among Columbia Students calling for the university’s President Lee Bollinger to explain and apologize for his blistering introductory remarks to a forum featuring Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the petition (see full text below), students insist Bollinger “disgraced the spirit of academic exchange and diplomacy that our institution promotes.” 

They also explain that the comments limited their ability to benefit from such a rare opportunity, adding “it is particularly distressing that [Bollinger's] inflammatory words were delivered at a time when dialogue with Iran is of the utmost importance in an effort to forestall war.”

The students are right.  As a fellow Columbian, I was shocked at the nature of the introduction.  I believe that while politics is a driving force in our society, it should be left outside the doors of such a forum which claims to promote open academic discourse.

For more, click here to read my article on the Washingtonpost.com news forum PostGlobal – “Columbia Students and Iranian Academics Respond to Bolinger.”

See below to read the entire petition written by Columbia students:

*********

October 1, 2007

Dear President Bollinger:

We, the undersigned students of the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, express our deep concern over the nature of your recent introductory remarks addressing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As members of the school that hosted this event, we believe that you disgraced the spirit of academic exchange and diplomacy that our institution promotes. The World Leaders Forum, created to enable the Columbia community to “examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives,” is an important platform for students to engage with divergent and pressing worldviews. Your remarks limited our ability to fully benefit from this opportunity. It is particularly distressing that your inflammatory words were delivered at a time when dialogue with Iran is of the utmost importance in an effort to forestall war.

In the past Columbia has welcomed many world leaders of all political stripes while maintaining proper decorum. But by introducing Columbia’s invited guest, the president of a sovereign nation, with disparaging and invidious language, you have done a disservice to our academic community.

As you stressed in countless announcements preceding the event, Columbia is a university committed to free speech and academic freedom. President Bollinger, when you speak in the name of Columbia University at an event sponsored by our school, we expect you to speak on all of our behalf. It is our concern that your disrespectful language was delivered primarily to appease certain individuals and groups at the expense of vigorous intellectual discourse.

We feel our values were grossly misrepresented and that SIPA’s reputation as a training ground for public servants has been tarnished. As future diplomats we will undoubtedly be tasked with repairing damage that remarks like yours cause.

We the undersigned represent people of many countries, creeds and political views. Despite our differences, we all agree that you must explain and make amends for your unfortunate actions. We call on you to hold a forum to explain these actions to our SIPA community and account for your statements.

We look forward to working with you to bring a dignified resolution to this issue.

Sincerely,

NEW YORK – It’s not everyday that one has the opportunity to hold a lively Question-and-Answer session with one of the world’s most notorious leaders.  For John Coatsworth, Dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, coming face to face with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was a rare opportunity to put this controversial leader on the hot seat with regard to a number of issues ranging from his views on the Holocaust, to Iran’s nuclear armament and more.             

Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia this week sparked an international debate over whether a man who has referred to the Holocaust as “a myth” and has called for the “elimination” of Israel should be granted an invitation to such a prestigious university.  Columbia went ahead with the program, but to many, the concerns of Ahmedinejad’s critics were satisfied during the blistering introductory remarks delivered by the university’s President Lee Bollinger.             

In this exclusive interview, Coatsworth discusses with Vivian Salama his debate with Ahmedinejad, as well as the controversy surrounding his visit, and Bollinger’s equally controversial speech.   

Vivian Salama: What was your overall impression of President Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia? 

John Coatsworth:  There was indeed a debate that seemed to involve principally a relatively small number of people that were unhappy that Columbia had invited President Ahmedinejad.  Even if that number is small in relation to the population, it was a group that was extremely unhappy with what we had done.  The group itself included some people who were related to the Armed Forces.  I got several emails from people who were either in the Armed Forces in Iraq, related to people in Iraq. A much larger number of emails were from people who were concerned about Ahmedinejad’s views on Israel and the Holocaust.  Then there were a number of emails from people who had strong feelings based on some patriotic sentiments.

 Q: What’s your overall assessment of the exchange you had with President Ahmedinejad during the Q&A portion of the program? 

Coatsworth:  I was asking questions on behalf of students.  I wasn’t able to cover all the questions.  I felt President Ahmedinejad to be like many politicians who preferred to answer questions that you don’t ask rather than the ones you do.  I was quite prepared for that and not at all surprised when he responded with an answer that was either inappropriate or off the point.  When he did, it just prompted me to ask the question again.

 Q: What would you liked to have asked him that was not asked or addressed in the forum? 

Coatsworth:  If the forum had been limited to just us, I probably would have asked more about Iranian relations and conditions under which [Ahmedinejad] would be willing to cooperate with United States in achieving peace and stability in the region. I think we could have gotten into a discussion that would have gone on longer but one in which we would have had a more clearer idea of how the Iranians want this whole thing to evolve – so that was a disappointment if you will. 

Q: Many people have criticized Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger for the rather tough remarks he made during his introductory speech.  What’s your take on it? 

Coatsworth: There are three things I can say to this. 

First, we did prepare the Iranians for the fact that [Bollinger] would be sharply challenging the policies of Ahmedinejad at the very outset of the talk

Second, I think the President of the university felt an obligation to distinguish between the invitation we had extended to the speaker on the one hand and endorsing his views on the other. Columbia’s institution does not endorse the views that he sighted in his presentation.  That was an important point for the President to make

Third, I think President Bollinger’s introduction was directed not so much to the people in the auditorium, but to those who had raised objections to the talk itself.  Those were the people he was addressing with those remarks.

Q: Do you think that was fair? 

Coatsworth:  The issue that was raised in most of the comments we received following the event and in the newspapers and emails was the question of courtesy.  I think the comments had been divided between those who believed he was confronting President Ahmedinejad and those who felt his remarks were discourteous – undermining the civility of the event. 

It was meant to be a forum for exchange of ideas.

There were certainly concerns of both sides.  [Bollinger] was fulfilling an institutional function and his approach was appropriate given the circumstances.  It is not my place to second guess him

Q: Do you think the event was a success – especially given the hype before and after the forum? 

Coatsworth: I think it was an educational success in many ways.  It certainly provoked discussions on campus about free speech and how important it was.  It also raised awareness with regard to the nature of US-Iranian relations and what kind of regime Iran is and how we should deal with it in the future

It certainly was an interesting experience for students who feel there is a need to engage those kinds of ideas – especially for those who may go on to hold government or policy making positions in the future.

The letter below is a brilliant rebuttal from the Iranian academic community in response to the blistering introductory remarks by Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger to a talk given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Monday afternoon.  Below this, I posted my remarks following the forum with regard to Bollinger and the controversy surrounding the invitation to Columbia’s World Leaders’ Forum. 

For anyone who is interested, you can also refer to the following links to read my coverage of the event:

Newsweek: President Ahmedinejad Goes to Columbia

Washington Post/PostGlobal: Ahmedinejad Provokes Important Discussions

[exerpts from Bollinger's introduction]

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

TEHRAN – Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger’s insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.The following is the full text of the letter.

* * * *

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University PresidentWe, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in
Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks
prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent speech at Columbia
University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by
the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all
of the country’s political parties and groups participated. To assess the
quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the
poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a
population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization
and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by
extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers
can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were
the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims
result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and
further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and
those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a
scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of
our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere
of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the
truth.

Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad
from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV
networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while
refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the
principle of freedom of speech?

Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran’s national
government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah’s
dictatorship?

Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the
1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical
weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own
people?

Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of
Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it
oppose Iran ’s proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a
general referendum?

Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even
with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between
the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you
justify the Bush administration’s efforts to disrupt investigations concerning
the September 11 attacks?

Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO)
despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the
responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why
does the US refuse to allow Iran ’s current government to act against the MKO’s
main base in Iraq?

Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did
international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the
invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the
weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely
undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons
in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of
Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than
Israel?

Why is the US displeased with Iran’s agreement with the IAEA and why does it
openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the
nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other
scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your
colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including
intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of
Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the
Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their
guests.

I usually post my articles on this site but this time, I’d like to discuss here is what is NOT addressed in either my Newsweek article or my Washington Post op-ed.  As a graduate student at Columbia University, my emotions were running high on Monday just like those of my fellow students.  Personally, I was extremely excited to have Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad speak on campus – not because I agree with his views, because in most cases, I don’t – but because I was proud to be a part of such a rare forum where ideas – good and bad – chould be exchanged in an intellectual environment, free from the political clutter that often prevents us from getting a well-rounded scope on international affairs.  I love a good debate and I cannot remember the last time anyone sparked the kind of multilateral discussion that resulted from Ahmedinejad’s visit to New York this week.

My issue, however, is not with Ahmedinejad because in reality, he holds very little power in Iran and so his rhetoric is more so a case of “sticks and stones” and less so a real threat.  My gripe – and I know many of my fellow Columbians share this view – is with President Lee Bollinger’s introduction to Ahmedinejad.  Much of what he said was legitimate, I’ll give him that.  But if the plan was to verbally assault him, then why invite him at all?  I knew Bollinger would raise several points in his speech with regard to Ahmedinejad’s comments regarding the Holocaust and wiping Israel off the map, but his introduction was more a listed indictment than an introduction.  Many students gasped in horror when Bollinger stormed off the stage without so much as acknowledging Ahmedinejad, his guest. 

I am not defending Ahmedinejad in any way because the man certainly has his faults.  What I am saying is, Columbia took a stand against those who try to suppress academic discourse.  By inviting the Iranian leader, the university put politics aside for a moment giving students the opportunity to formulate their own impressions based on Ahmedinejad’s words and NOT by information which has been filtered through the government, intelligence or the media.  Instead, politics reigned in an ugly form.  I think the introductory remarks insulted the intelligence of students by assuming they are unable to approach Ahmedinejad’s speech objectively and formulate their own opinions.

Click here to see some photos from Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia.