Showing posts with label Ahmadinejad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ahmadinejad. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Probably not a good sign: When Ahmadinejad starts spilling the beans on 9/11 it is safe to say that he fears that there is nothing left to lose
Ahmadinejad: US used September 11 as 'pretext' for invasions
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the United States on Tuesday of using the September 11, 2001 attacks as a "pretext" to launch invasions and cast doubt on the accepted version of the terror strikes.
"On the pretext of this incident a major military operation was launched and oppressed Afghanistan was attacked. Tens of thousands of people have been killed until now," he said in a speech broadcast on state television.
"Poor Iraq was attacked. According to official figures... one million people have been killed," he said in the speech marking Iran's day of nuclear technology.
He appeared to cast doubt on the official version of the attacks, saying the names of those killed had never been published and questioning how the planes had hit the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York.
"An event was created in the name of the attack against the twin towers. We were all sad. It was said that 3,000 people were killed," Ahmadinejad said.
"But the names of the 3,000 people were never published and nobody was able to respond to the main question, which is how is it possible that with the best radar systems and intelligence networks the planes could crash undetected into the towers."
This is the first time that Ahmadinejad has spoken publicly about his interpretation of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The government of Iran's then reformist president Mohammad Khatami was quick to condemn the airborne attacks on New York and Washington carried out by Al-Qaeda militants which killed nearly 3,000 people.
However hardline newspapers have on occasion described the attacks as a conspiracy that was devised by the White House to justify its attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran and the United States have had no diplomatic relations since the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in the wake of the 1979 Islamic revolution and remain at loggerheads over the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.
"Discrimination has been applied in the world and the lie has become the rule. Threat and pillage is something that has become acceptable," Ahmadinejad added.
The controversial president has previously provoked outrage by describing the Holocaust as a "myth" and raising doubts over the scale of the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II.
In his speech to Iranian dignitaries and some foreign diplomats, he also predicted the "demise" of the major powers which emerged victorious in World War II and have since dominated the international system.
He said Iran's nuclear achievements mark the "acceleration of the trend to the destruction of major powers and with God's help this will become reality. World powers are struggling to survive."
The UN Security Council, whose permanent veto-wielding members are the victorious Allied powers from World War II, has imposed three sets of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend sensitive nuclear work.
Ahmadinejad described the Iranian nuclear programme as the "most important political event in the contemporary era."
Original article posted here.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the United States on Tuesday of using the September 11, 2001 attacks as a "pretext" to launch invasions and cast doubt on the accepted version of the terror strikes.
"On the pretext of this incident a major military operation was launched and oppressed Afghanistan was attacked. Tens of thousands of people have been killed until now," he said in a speech broadcast on state television.
"Poor Iraq was attacked. According to official figures... one million people have been killed," he said in the speech marking Iran's day of nuclear technology.
He appeared to cast doubt on the official version of the attacks, saying the names of those killed had never been published and questioning how the planes had hit the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York.
"An event was created in the name of the attack against the twin towers. We were all sad. It was said that 3,000 people were killed," Ahmadinejad said.
"But the names of the 3,000 people were never published and nobody was able to respond to the main question, which is how is it possible that with the best radar systems and intelligence networks the planes could crash undetected into the towers."
This is the first time that Ahmadinejad has spoken publicly about his interpretation of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The government of Iran's then reformist president Mohammad Khatami was quick to condemn the airborne attacks on New York and Washington carried out by Al-Qaeda militants which killed nearly 3,000 people.
However hardline newspapers have on occasion described the attacks as a conspiracy that was devised by the White House to justify its attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran and the United States have had no diplomatic relations since the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in the wake of the 1979 Islamic revolution and remain at loggerheads over the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.
"Discrimination has been applied in the world and the lie has become the rule. Threat and pillage is something that has become acceptable," Ahmadinejad added.
The controversial president has previously provoked outrage by describing the Holocaust as a "myth" and raising doubts over the scale of the mass slaughter of Jews in World War II.
In his speech to Iranian dignitaries and some foreign diplomats, he also predicted the "demise" of the major powers which emerged victorious in World War II and have since dominated the international system.
He said Iran's nuclear achievements mark the "acceleration of the trend to the destruction of major powers and with God's help this will become reality. World powers are struggling to survive."
The UN Security Council, whose permanent veto-wielding members are the victorious Allied powers from World War II, has imposed three sets of sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend sensitive nuclear work.
Ahmadinejad described the Iranian nuclear programme as the "most important political event in the contemporary era."
Original article posted here.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
The Ultimate Irony
Ahmadinejad offers to be an observer at US presidential election
Robert Tait in Tehran
The Guardian
He denounces it as the "Great Satan" and frequently dismisses its power, but the overtures of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the US seem to grow ever more extravagant.
Having failed to win a response with an 18-page letter to President George Bush or to a request to visit the site of the September 11 2001 attack on New York, Ahmadinejad has offered himself as an observer in next year's presidential election.
Article continues
The proposal came in a speech to volunteers with the Basij, a pro-regime militia. He said he was prompted by a belief that Americans would vote against the current administration in a truly free poll.
However, the terms of Ahmadinejad's offer appeared to betray some confusion about the potential candidates.
"If the White House officials allow us to be present as an observer in their presidential election we will see whether people in their country are going to vote for them again or not," he said. The US constitution prevents Bush from seeking a third consecutive term, while no member of his administration is expected to be in the running in next November's poll.
Bush and international human rights groups voiced doubts about the legitimacy of Iran's 2005 presidential election, which brought Ahmadinejad to power. More than 1,000 potential candidates were disqualified by the guardian council, a powerful body of clerics and judges.
Some domestic critics pointed out yesterday that Ahmadinejad's idea clashed with his government's opposition to allowing independent observers at Iranian elections. The interior ministry, controlled by one of the president's most hard-line allies, has rejected pressure for party representatives to be allowed to oversee proceedings at polling stations for next March's parliamentary poll.
The election is expected to provide a major test of Ahmadinejad's popularity. Leading regime figures, including two former presidents, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, have warned against possible attempts to rig it through mass candidate disqualifications and other measures.
Original article posted here.
Robert Tait in Tehran
The Guardian
He denounces it as the "Great Satan" and frequently dismisses its power, but the overtures of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the US seem to grow ever more extravagant.
Having failed to win a response with an 18-page letter to President George Bush or to a request to visit the site of the September 11 2001 attack on New York, Ahmadinejad has offered himself as an observer in next year's presidential election.
Article continues
The proposal came in a speech to volunteers with the Basij, a pro-regime militia. He said he was prompted by a belief that Americans would vote against the current administration in a truly free poll.
However, the terms of Ahmadinejad's offer appeared to betray some confusion about the potential candidates.
"If the White House officials allow us to be present as an observer in their presidential election we will see whether people in their country are going to vote for them again or not," he said. The US constitution prevents Bush from seeking a third consecutive term, while no member of his administration is expected to be in the running in next November's poll.
Bush and international human rights groups voiced doubts about the legitimacy of Iran's 2005 presidential election, which brought Ahmadinejad to power. More than 1,000 potential candidates were disqualified by the guardian council, a powerful body of clerics and judges.
Some domestic critics pointed out yesterday that Ahmadinejad's idea clashed with his government's opposition to allowing independent observers at Iranian elections. The interior ministry, controlled by one of the president's most hard-line allies, has rejected pressure for party representatives to be allowed to oversee proceedings at polling stations for next March's parliamentary poll.
The election is expected to provide a major test of Ahmadinejad's popularity. Leading regime figures, including two former presidents, Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, have warned against possible attempts to rig it through mass candidate disqualifications and other measures.
Original article posted here.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Iranian academics note Columbia President Lee Bollinger's Hypocrisy and Double Standards
Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President
We, 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.
1- 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?
2- 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?
3- 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?
4- 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?
5- 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?
6- 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?
7- 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?
8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?
9- 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?
10- 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.
Original article posted here.
Columbia University President
We, 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.
1- 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?
2- 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?
3- 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?
4- 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?
5- 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?
6- 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?
7- 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?
8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?
9- 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?
10- 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.
Original article posted here.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Free speech? FUCK free speech!
Legislatures May Act on Columbia
Silver Warns of Impact on State Aid
BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus.
In an interview with The New York Sun, the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, said lawmakers, outraged over Columbia's insistence on allowing the Iranian president to speak at its World Leaders Forum, would consider reducing capital aid and other financial assistance to the school.
Lawmakers warned about other consequences for Columbia and its president, Lee Bollinger, who has resisted campus and public pressure to cancel Mr. Ahmadinejad's appearance today, arguing that Columbia's commitment to scholarship requires the school to directly confront offensive ideas.
"There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall," Mr. Silver said. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution."
Mr. Silver faulted Columbia for "attempting to legitimize this individual," saying, "We have an obligation because of the U.N. to allow him to come to this country. It doesn't mean we have to make him welcome. We don't have to give him a forum."
The speaker said he was infuriated by comments made on Saturday by the acting dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, John Coatsworth, who said in a television interview that it would have been proper for Columbia to extend a speaking invitation to Hitler in 1939. Mr. Coatsworth's school is sponsoring the event.
"What makes it more outrageous is the fact that some dean yesterday said he would have invited Adolf Hitler. It's totally outrageous. This is not a matter of academic freedom. This is a matter of legitimizing people, one who was the perpetrator of the Holocaust and one who denies its existence," Mr. Silver said.
"He's clearly responsible for the deaths of Americans both in Iraq and elsewhere. And he remains as much a threat to the world as anybody today. I don't understand what this dean and Columbia are thinking," Mr. Silver said.
Mr. Silver's criticism of Columbia was echoed by other elected officials, who argued that Columbia was lending its name and prestige to a leader of a terrorist-sponsoring dictatorship who denies the existence of the Holocaust, vows to eliminate Israel, preaches Islamic extremism, and aspires to build nuclear weapons.
"Bollinger made a big mistake, and there should be consequences for him for making that decision," the chairman of the New York City Council's Finance Committee, David Weprin, said in an interview. "We should look at everything involving Columbia, whether it be capital projects, city and state, or other related things that we do in the city for them," he said.
Mr. Weprin was one of several elected officials who joined Jewish leaders, Columbia students, and alumni yesterday at a demonstration at the Morningside Heights campus to protest Mr. Ahmadinejad's talk.
"It's not going to go away just because this episode ends. Columbia University has to know … that they will be penalized," an assemblyman of Brooklyn, Dov Hikind, who also attended the rally, said. The lawmaker said Mr. Ahmadinejad should be arrested when he sets foot on campus.
Speaking at the rally, a New York City Council member, James Gennaro, urged university donors to withhold their dollars from the institution, while Rep. Anthony Weiner, a potential mayoral candidate in 2009, said Columbia's reputation was taking a "brutal beating."
Mr. Silver's warning of sanctions against Columbia is a highly unusual departure for a state leader who has seldom, if ever, threatened to use the power of the state purse to punish a private university.
A spokesman for the Senate Republicans, John McArdle, said the majority conference is "going to review the whole situation and decide on how, or whether, to proceed."
Mayor Bloomberg, who visited the Flight 93 memorial site in Shanksville, Pa., yesterday told reporters he disagreed with Columbia's decision to host Mr. Ahmadinejad but promised the city would "provide the protection to make sure that when he gets there, he speaks safely without any threats and leaves."
Albany awards Columbia millions of dollars a year in student financial aid and also provides funding for smaller-scale capital projects. Last year, Albany awarded the school $10 million for nanotechnology center and $12 million for a cancer center in Washington Heights.
Columbia uses the state Dormitory Authority to borrow money at low interest rates. Mr. Silver could use his influence over the authority to weed out Columbia bonding projects before they are submitted for approval.
The school is also seeking approval from city lawmakers for its plan to expand into a 17-acre swath of land in West Harlem. Albany also has the power to use eminent domain to facilitate Columbia's expansion.
Mr. Bollinger has defended his university's invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad, saying that in order to fulfill Columbia's mission, he must respect the rights of faculty and deans to "create programming for academic purposes." On occasion, he said, "this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and even odious."
A year ago, Mr. Bollinger rescinded Columbia's invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak at the same annual forum, apparently overruling a former dean of SIPA, Lisa Anderson. Mr. Bollinger, at the time, said he couldn't be certain that the Iranian leader's presence at the school would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a university event such as our World Leaders Forum." An assistant to Ms. Anderson said the event was cancelled because of security and logistical concerns.
Inside the university, Mr. Bollinger yesterday faced criticism from several student leaders, some of whom supported the invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad but said they were angry that they were not consulted by the administration.
"I've heard a lot of feedback already from people saying they don't want to give money," Elizabeth Goldhirsch, who graduated from Columbia's school of journalism in 2002, said. "I will not make a donation if this stance is maintained."
Mr. Bollinger, who has served as president since 2002, also was confronting signs of increasing division in his administration.
The dean of Columbia Law School, David Schizer, in a statement called Mr. Ahmadinejad "a reprehensible and dangerous figure," and said it would be "deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views."
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is attending the U.N. General Assembly, arrived in New York late yesterday. He is scheduled to speak at Columbia for an hour, beginning at 1:30 p.m., and will issue his remarks in Farsi with simultaneous translation, a university spokesman said.
Columbia officials say the Iranian leader will be escorted onto campus through the gate at 114th Street, which leads directly to Lerner Hall. He is scheduled to depart immediately after the event. Campus security, which is coordinating with local and federal authorities, is planning for more than 10,000 protesters to congregate outside the university's gates.
Columbia distributed 600 tickets to the talk, where Mr. Ahmadinejad will field questions from Mr. Bollinger as well as faculty and students. The event is to be broadcast on televisions and lounges across campus.
Mr. Bollinger said in a statement that he would question the Iranian president on human rights issues, as well as his position that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust did not occur.
Original article hosted here.
Silver Warns of Impact on State Aid
 |
|
|
| Council Member David Weprin, left, Council Member James Gennaro, and Rabbi Zev Friedman speak to a group of demonstrators outside Columbia University yesterday in protest of Columbia's plans for President Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak on campus. |
BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
As the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, prepares to address Columbia University today amid a storm of student protest, state and city lawmakers say they are considering withholding public funds from the school to protest its decision to invite the leader to campus.
In an interview with The New York Sun, the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, said lawmakers, outraged over Columbia's insistence on allowing the Iranian president to speak at its World Leaders Forum, would consider reducing capital aid and other financial assistance to the school.
Lawmakers warned about other consequences for Columbia and its president, Lee Bollinger, who has resisted campus and public pressure to cancel Mr. Ahmadinejad's appearance today, arguing that Columbia's commitment to scholarship requires the school to directly confront offensive ideas.
"There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall," Mr. Silver said. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of … knowing that this is that kind of an institution."
Mr. Silver faulted Columbia for "attempting to legitimize this individual," saying, "We have an obligation because of the U.N. to allow him to come to this country. It doesn't mean we have to make him welcome. We don't have to give him a forum."
The speaker said he was infuriated by comments made on Saturday by the acting dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, John Coatsworth, who said in a television interview that it would have been proper for Columbia to extend a speaking invitation to Hitler in 1939. Mr. Coatsworth's school is sponsoring the event.
"What makes it more outrageous is the fact that some dean yesterday said he would have invited Adolf Hitler. It's totally outrageous. This is not a matter of academic freedom. This is a matter of legitimizing people, one who was the perpetrator of the Holocaust and one who denies its existence," Mr. Silver said.
"He's clearly responsible for the deaths of Americans both in Iraq and elsewhere. And he remains as much a threat to the world as anybody today. I don't understand what this dean and Columbia are thinking," Mr. Silver said.
Mr. Silver's criticism of Columbia was echoed by other elected officials, who argued that Columbia was lending its name and prestige to a leader of a terrorist-sponsoring dictatorship who denies the existence of the Holocaust, vows to eliminate Israel, preaches Islamic extremism, and aspires to build nuclear weapons.
"Bollinger made a big mistake, and there should be consequences for him for making that decision," the chairman of the New York City Council's Finance Committee, David Weprin, said in an interview. "We should look at everything involving Columbia, whether it be capital projects, city and state, or other related things that we do in the city for them," he said.
Mr. Weprin was one of several elected officials who joined Jewish leaders, Columbia students, and alumni yesterday at a demonstration at the Morningside Heights campus to protest Mr. Ahmadinejad's talk.
"It's not going to go away just because this episode ends. Columbia University has to know … that they will be penalized," an assemblyman of Brooklyn, Dov Hikind, who also attended the rally, said. The lawmaker said Mr. Ahmadinejad should be arrested when he sets foot on campus.
Speaking at the rally, a New York City Council member, James Gennaro, urged university donors to withhold their dollars from the institution, while Rep. Anthony Weiner, a potential mayoral candidate in 2009, said Columbia's reputation was taking a "brutal beating."
Mr. Silver's warning of sanctions against Columbia is a highly unusual departure for a state leader who has seldom, if ever, threatened to use the power of the state purse to punish a private university.
A spokesman for the Senate Republicans, John McArdle, said the majority conference is "going to review the whole situation and decide on how, or whether, to proceed."
Mayor Bloomberg, who visited the Flight 93 memorial site in Shanksville, Pa., yesterday told reporters he disagreed with Columbia's decision to host Mr. Ahmadinejad but promised the city would "provide the protection to make sure that when he gets there, he speaks safely without any threats and leaves."
Albany awards Columbia millions of dollars a year in student financial aid and also provides funding for smaller-scale capital projects. Last year, Albany awarded the school $10 million for nanotechnology center and $12 million for a cancer center in Washington Heights.
Columbia uses the state Dormitory Authority to borrow money at low interest rates. Mr. Silver could use his influence over the authority to weed out Columbia bonding projects before they are submitted for approval.
The school is also seeking approval from city lawmakers for its plan to expand into a 17-acre swath of land in West Harlem. Albany also has the power to use eminent domain to facilitate Columbia's expansion.
Mr. Bollinger has defended his university's invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad, saying that in order to fulfill Columbia's mission, he must respect the rights of faculty and deans to "create programming for academic purposes." On occasion, he said, "this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most, or even all of us will find offensive and even odious."
A year ago, Mr. Bollinger rescinded Columbia's invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad to speak at the same annual forum, apparently overruling a former dean of SIPA, Lisa Anderson. Mr. Bollinger, at the time, said he couldn't be certain that the Iranian leader's presence at the school would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a university event such as our World Leaders Forum." An assistant to Ms. Anderson said the event was cancelled because of security and logistical concerns.
Inside the university, Mr. Bollinger yesterday faced criticism from several student leaders, some of whom supported the invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad but said they were angry that they were not consulted by the administration.
"I've heard a lot of feedback already from people saying they don't want to give money," Elizabeth Goldhirsch, who graduated from Columbia's school of journalism in 2002, said. "I will not make a donation if this stance is maintained."
Mr. Bollinger, who has served as president since 2002, also was confronting signs of increasing division in his administration.
The dean of Columbia Law School, David Schizer, in a statement called Mr. Ahmadinejad "a reprehensible and dangerous figure," and said it would be "deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views."
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is attending the U.N. General Assembly, arrived in New York late yesterday. He is scheduled to speak at Columbia for an hour, beginning at 1:30 p.m., and will issue his remarks in Farsi with simultaneous translation, a university spokesman said.
Columbia officials say the Iranian leader will be escorted onto campus through the gate at 114th Street, which leads directly to Lerner Hall. He is scheduled to depart immediately after the event. Campus security, which is coordinating with local and federal authorities, is planning for more than 10,000 protesters to congregate outside the university's gates.
Columbia distributed 600 tickets to the talk, where Mr. Ahmadinejad will field questions from Mr. Bollinger as well as faculty and students. The event is to be broadcast on televisions and lounges across campus.
Mr. Bollinger said in a statement that he would question the Iranian president on human rights issues, as well as his position that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and that the Holocaust did not occur.
Original article hosted here.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Iran's Ahmadinejad perhaps on the ropes
The two 'kings' of Iran
By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - There is an old Arab saying that two kings - or heroes - cannot live in one room.
Well, there appear to be more than two "kings" in Iran. The obvious one - who ironically is seemingly least in control - is President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. The second is the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic.
Both "kings", however, are members of the same radical establishment, the "hawks" of Iranian politics. The other group of "kings" is headed by the so-called pragmatists, led by ex-president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who now heads the Expediency Council, and former reformist president Mohammad Khatami. Fate - and Ahmadinejad's policies - brought the two former presidents, who traditionally represent opposite ends of the political spectrum, into alliance. They are the "doves" of Iran.
Riding the wave of the hostage crisis
One of the signs that the Iranian president is not as powerful as the world believes he is can be found in the crisis over the 15 British sailors and marines taken hostage by Iran, and then freed by Ahmadinejad, in March-April.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) engineered their capture, under orders from the president, claiming that they had ventured into Iranian waters. Ahmadinejad needed the crisis for a variety of reasons. First, it would be great for local consumption and boost his image in the eyes of ordinary Iranians. Second, it would serve as a reality check for the West, showing Washington and London that he was a man who lived up to his word and should be taken seriously when he challenges the superpowers.
Third, Ahmadinejad may have wanted to strike a deal with the United States through Britain: we free the sailors, you lift the sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program. A formula along these lines, which included suspension of Iran's nuclear program, was even being discussed with Iranian leaders at the United Nations.
So the IRGC went ahead with the arrest of the British, having no clue how the rest of Iran - and the world - would react. One immediate indicator was that the Iranian press did not mention the crisis until it was leaked by the British, and even then tried to play down the event in the hope of minimizing the damage caused by the IRGC.
This clearly shows that not everybody agreed with the president - and certainly not everybody wanted to use the crisis to boost Ahmadinejad's image in the Iranian street. The Iranian newspaper Aftab e Yazd wrote: "If we wanted, as the president says, to pardon them while we had the authority to try them, why did we not release them before [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair's ultimatum or three days after it?"
This is where other power brokers came into play to overshadow the Iranian president. They included reformers such as Khatami and Rafsanjani, and hardliners who nevertheless see Ahmadinejad's bravado as childish adventurism.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme Council on National Security, said that the captives would not be tried and that the crisis would be resolved peacefully. An ally of Khamenei, Larijani was right, and the hostages were released.
Although Khamenei made no comment, it is believed that he was categorically opposed to the staged arrest and the decision may have been made without his knowledge. But an even more important decision - setting them free - needed his approval. It could not have been done without Khamenei and it is his constitutional right as Supreme Leader to issue pardons and to overrule any decision taken by the president.
Denis Ross, a veteran US diplomat in charge of Middle East affairs under the Bill Clinton administration, argued, "Khamenei ordered the sailors released but allowed Ahmadinejad to do it - giving him a platform to weave his own public story and to bestow medals upon the IRGC soldiers who seized the sailors."
He argued that the pragmatists in Iran, who opposed the hostage crisis from Day 1, are the officials that the US must engage to get Tehran to suspend its nuclear program. They are the ones, he believes, who can be talked to because they see more danger than benefit in the continuation of Ahmadinejad's defiant attitude toward the Western world. He said, "It may not be easy to stop or suspend the program, but if we could convince those who agreed to cut Iran's losses on the British sailors that Iran's interests can be served better by abandoning their nuclear efforts, it's not impossible."
But if Khamenei was so upset by the hostage crisis, why did he let Ahmadinejad get full honors and publicity for their release? The reason, simply, is that Iran's leaders do not like to show the world that they are in disagreement - even if they are.
They want the Islamic Republic to project unity, given its standoff with the international community and the United States. They may bicker among themselves, and even try to eliminate each other politically in internal politics, but they will seldom come out and publicly let the US gloat at their differences.
It is very un-Iranian (at least since the revolution of 1979) to flash internal disputes before the outside world. Within Iran, however, there is increasing talk about a complete divide between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.
Originally, the grand ayatollah supported Ahmadinejad in the presidential elections of 2005, explaining why and how he managed to defeat the veteran and well-established Rafsanjani (whom Khamenei then dreaded). The grand ayatollah could control a nobody like Ahmadinejad, while it was very difficult to control someone like Rafsanjani.
A change at the top?
That control today, two years later, has almost snapped, although Ahmadinejad has never - at least not in public - challenged Khamenei. Some in Iran are even starting to discuss replacements for the president, saying that early elections may be on the horizon and that Ahmadinejad may not even complete his term, which ends in 2009 (ironically the same year as President George W Bush's).
Ahmadinejad promised much in 2005 and has been unable to deliver. He promised a share of the country's oil with ordinary Iranians, more bread on their tables and more jobs. The Iranian economy is still under sanctions from the US, inflation is high, and so is unemployment. Disappointment, frustration, fear and animosity from power centers in Iran all combine to make the president's days look numbered. The threat of a US military strike on Iran aggravates the situation.
People being touted as possible presidential challengers and who are already campaigning include: Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign minister under Rafsanjani; Mahmud Nahavandian, a US-educated economist and national-security adviser; Mohammad Reza Aref, a vice president to Khatami who holds a degree from Stanford University in the US; and Mohammad Ali Najafi, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-educated mathematician who was minister of education under Rafsanjani. And Ahmadinejad is certain to go for another term.
The Rafsanjani-supported candidates can be expected to be vetoed by Khamenei, as he and the Guardian Council can veto any candidate and even propose alternatives. This happened with Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Velayati, though, is close to both Rafsanjani and Khamenei. At 62, the veteran statesman with a pediatrics degree from Johns Hopkins University served for 17 years as foreign minister.
In 1981, when Khamenei was president, he wanted to appoint Velayati as prime minister, but the decision was overruled by the Majlis (parliament). Velayati wanted to run in the presidential elections in 2005 (and had a good chance of winning) but backed out at the last minute when it became clear that Rafsanjani was running.
A week ago it was rumored that Khamenei wanted to appoint Velayati vice president, to replace the smart but colorless and neutral economist, Parviz Dawoodi. The story was even published in the Saudi daily Al-Hayat, showing that it was serious talk coming out of Tehran.
Had that happened, it would have meant challenging the powers of Ahmadinejad. Recently, Velayati was quoted as saying that suspending uranium enrichment was not a red line for the Islamic Republic, something that has been echoed by Rafsanjani. This is in sharp contrast to what Ahmadinejad has been saying for many months, that no matter what happened, Iran would not give up its right to uranium enrichment.
Several senior Iranian officials are even considering exit strategies from the corner in which Ahmadinejad has painted them over the country's nuclear program. These include solutions put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mohammad ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The first calls for complete suspension, which is what it will take to start negotiations between the US and Iran, while the latter calls for the suspension of activity but allows a face-saving operation of a handful of centrifuges.
It would be wrong to assume that the hardliners in Iran are few in number, given the increasing influence of Rafsanjani and other reformers. On the contrary, they are on the rise, thanks to the president.
In recent weeks, in what is probably an attempt to cover up for his failures in other matters, Ahmadinejad authorized a massive crackdown on students and young Iranians wearing "un-Islamic" clothes. Hundreds of women wearing short coats, tight shirts and tilted headscarves that showed some hair were hauled into police stations, resulting in a demonstration by more than 2,000 students from Shiraz University.
Immediately, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of the Iranian judiciary, warned the police that the arrests must stop because "they will backfire and have counterproductive effects". He added that the only result of such needless arrests would be "damage to society".
The pro-reform newspaper E'temad Melli carried an article by a female journalist addressed to Ahmadinejad saying: "Are our people's major problems of injustice and poverty ... being resolved?" She reminded him that during his election campaign in 2005 he had promised to fight poverty, create jobs and implement justice.
Another reform columnist, Masoud Behnoud, asked: "Has the government solved all problems, unemployment, inflation, soaring prices, corruption, housing shortage, etc to center its attention on women's dress?"
In reality there is a lot of tension in Iran and a great battle to balance power between the "doves" and "hawks". And Khamenei, while only 68, is known to be very ill, so his succession has to be taken into account. This heightens the importance of the struggle between Ahmadinejad on the one side, Khatami and Rafsanjani on another, and pro-Khamenei people such as Velayati and Larijani on the fringes.
The Ahmadinejad group is powerful, but certainly not as much as it was when it was backed wholeheartedly by the grand ayatollah in 2005. The Khatami reformist wing is weak, but popular in the West, explaining why it needs to be allied with a powerful Iranian heavyweight, who is both a leader in business and politics, such as Rafsanjani. The two men, along with former Majlis Speaker Mehdi Karroubi, who heads the reformist National Confidence Party, form a troika that Ahmadinejad is having a hard time penetrating - or even becoming a part of.
A figure allied to this troika to watch is Sadeq Kharrazi, former ambassador to France and ex-negotiator in Iran's nuclear portfolio. Kharrazi is a pragmatic man who once conducted secret talks with the Americans in Cyprus, during the Khatami years, arranged by Rafsanjani. The clout of this group, especially after Khatami's recent visit to the United States and Britain, is increasing.
But an event that took place last week signals trouble for the "doves" and suggests that Ahmadinejad might not be as isolated as some would have it. Iranian secret police arrested Mohammad Husayn Moussavian on May 1 on charges of espionage and passing on sensitive information to foreign countries. Moussavian had been ambassador to Moscow and Berlin and was a top official in the nuclear portfolio during the Khatami presidency and is a close friend of Rafsanjani. The Iran Press Service quoted a "well-informed source" as saying: "The arrest of Mr Moussavian is a direct attack on Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani. At the same time, no authority could dare to take this decision without the prior authorization of Mr Khamenei."
What does this mean? Does it mean that at certain intervals, when it comes to challenging Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei can work together? The arrest of Moussavian would indicate this. But the minute this common threat is eliminated - or silenced - then the two "kings" will start working to undermine each other.
For now, Ahmadinejad is the weaker as he cannot - and will not - come out to challenge the grand ayatollah openly. This could change overnight, though, should Khamenei die or become incapacitated. Then it will be open season in Iran, and the world might get to see some dirty laundry at last.
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
Original article posted here.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Iran Resolution: A joke of a vote
'Nyet' on Iran
Russia has turned a U.N. sanctions resolution on Tehran's nuclear program into a demonstration of Western weakness.
THE U.N. Security Council took up the Iranian nuclear program this year to pressure Tehran to suspend its work on enriching uranium. But in the past few months, something entirely different has happened. While Iranian enrichment has continued with impunity, the Security Council's deliberations have been hijacked by the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, which is using them to protect its economic interests and portray itself as a global power capable of countering the United States.
The Security Council ordered Iran last summer to stop enrichment work by Aug. 30 and threatened sanctions if it did not. Tehran defied the binding resolution, and its hard-line president boasted that the West would be unable to impose significant penalties. Russia has proved him right: As of yesterday, it was still holding up a vote on a Security Council resolution, even though it had already succeeded in stripping the measure of its teeth.
The Bush administration, which has been relying almost entirely on multilateral diplomacy to prevent a nuclear Iran, originally proposed a set of modest sanctions, including a travel ban on senior officials, a block on exports to Iran of nuclear and missile components, and a freeze on the foreign assets of companies involved in nuclear and missile production. The idea was to escalate to tougher measures if Iran did not respond.
Instead, the administration has spent nearly four months seeking Russian consent for the initial measure, yielding again and again to Moscow's intransigence. First, a large nuclear reactor being built for Iran by Russia was exempted from a proposed ban on nuclear imports, even though Tehran could someday use the facility to acquire plutonium for weapons. Next, European governments sponsoring the resolution were forced to drop the proposed travel ban — the only measure left that might have caused the mullahs some pain. Meanwhile, the administration agreed to support membership in the World Trade Organization for Russia, a concession Moscow made clear was necessary to obtain its vote.
Having surrendered on almost every point, European ambassadors announced that the Security Council would vote yesterday. But Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he still wasn't ready. Some reports said he was seeking to water down the proposed freeze on foreign assets of companies directly connected to the nuclear program. Or maybe he was just demonstrating — again — that Russia can and will hold the Security Council hostage.
The result of this cynical policy is that any U.N. resolution against Iran will be a pyrrhic victory for the United States. The message to Tehran is not that it faces isolation or economic ruin if it fails to respect the Security Council's order; it is that it need not fear sanctions. Hard-liners in Tehran who have been saying this all along, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be vindicated.
Russia will look like a world power; Mr. Putin will have more reason to strut. And the Bush administration, which has not dared even to complain in public about Russia's obstructionism, will look foolish. In fact, Mr. Bush has allowed a vital U.S. interest to be undermined by a government and a leader he should have ceased to coddle long ago.
Original article posted here.
Russia has turned a U.N. sanctions resolution on Tehran's nuclear program into a demonstration of Western weakness.
THE U.N. Security Council took up the Iranian nuclear program this year to pressure Tehran to suspend its work on enriching uranium. But in the past few months, something entirely different has happened. While Iranian enrichment has continued with impunity, the Security Council's deliberations have been hijacked by the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, which is using them to protect its economic interests and portray itself as a global power capable of countering the United States.
The Security Council ordered Iran last summer to stop enrichment work by Aug. 30 and threatened sanctions if it did not. Tehran defied the binding resolution, and its hard-line president boasted that the West would be unable to impose significant penalties. Russia has proved him right: As of yesterday, it was still holding up a vote on a Security Council resolution, even though it had already succeeded in stripping the measure of its teeth.
The Bush administration, which has been relying almost entirely on multilateral diplomacy to prevent a nuclear Iran, originally proposed a set of modest sanctions, including a travel ban on senior officials, a block on exports to Iran of nuclear and missile components, and a freeze on the foreign assets of companies involved in nuclear and missile production. The idea was to escalate to tougher measures if Iran did not respond.
Instead, the administration has spent nearly four months seeking Russian consent for the initial measure, yielding again and again to Moscow's intransigence. First, a large nuclear reactor being built for Iran by Russia was exempted from a proposed ban on nuclear imports, even though Tehran could someday use the facility to acquire plutonium for weapons. Next, European governments sponsoring the resolution were forced to drop the proposed travel ban — the only measure left that might have caused the mullahs some pain. Meanwhile, the administration agreed to support membership in the World Trade Organization for Russia, a concession Moscow made clear was necessary to obtain its vote.
Having surrendered on almost every point, European ambassadors announced that the Security Council would vote yesterday. But Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he still wasn't ready. Some reports said he was seeking to water down the proposed freeze on foreign assets of companies directly connected to the nuclear program. Or maybe he was just demonstrating — again — that Russia can and will hold the Security Council hostage.
The result of this cynical policy is that any U.N. resolution against Iran will be a pyrrhic victory for the United States. The message to Tehran is not that it faces isolation or economic ruin if it fails to respect the Security Council's order; it is that it need not fear sanctions. Hard-liners in Tehran who have been saying this all along, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be vindicated.
Russia will look like a world power; Mr. Putin will have more reason to strut. And the Bush administration, which has not dared even to complain in public about Russia's obstructionism, will look foolish. In fact, Mr. Bush has allowed a vital U.S. interest to be undermined by a government and a leader he should have ceased to coddle long ago.
Original article posted here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)