Posted on 01/21/2006 1:03:14 PM PST by FARS
CAMPUS FOLLIES [Cliff May]
I was on a BBC World Service radio show debating Iran policy. To give credit where it is due, the moderator was very fair.
My opponent was Dr. Hooshang AmirAhmadi from Rutgers University and the American-Iranian Council.
His argument: The U.S. should open full diplomatic relations with the regime in Tehran.
Nixon went to China. Look how well that turned out!
We restored relations with Vietnam. We now relate so well!
If only America would reach out to the mullahs, sit down and talk with them, we’d find there have been misunderstandings, there is room for compromise, and surely we can get along.
As Cornerites know (thanks to Martin Kramer, Stanley Kurtz and others), this is the kind of silliness now being taught to young people at too many universities.
For the record, I pointed out that Iran is ruled by the most radical regime in the Middle East; one that has sponsored terrorism for years.
I noted out, too, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel “off the map,” and promised a “world without America,” adding that such a goal is “attainable, and surely can be achieved.”
I added that Hassan Abbassi, “intelligence” advisor to Ahmadinejad, has said: “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization. We must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles.”
Professor AmirAhmadi replied angrily that such remarks are merely propaganda intended for regional consumption. He seemed to suggest it was not quite cricket of me to repeat such statements on the air.
I responded that when someone says he means to kill, it’s wise to take him seriously.
The Mullahs did not want Bush to win.
While preaching open communication with the Mullahs in the radio event with Cliff May, the ACI does not want to allow open communication by others.
They threw money and high powered lawyers, suing a tiny Iranian Student blog - www.daneshjoo.com - which posted criticisms of their pro-Mullah lobbying activities for millions of dollars in an effort to suppress it.
They failed, but have the ability to throw their clout around to prevent open criticism of their pro-Mullah activity.
As Cliff May's post describes, because they are so off the wall, they even deny that Iranian President AhmadiNejad says things he has stated publicly, claiming it's propaganda and hoping that the audio and video tapes of the statements and events - in Persian Farsi - would not be easily available to the public.
Being in denial as a tactic might appear reasonable if any talks with Iran had provided any results other than a probability of a nuclear test in March. A nuke they "don't have" nor intend to have!
You need a link. Here
http://www.linkselection.be/det.asp?what=Campus-Follies&go=3326081&lang=en
Interesting.
I am trying to decide now whether Iran is bluffing - the Mouse That Roared, with its mad mullahs trying to be taken seriously - or already has a nuke and is asking forgiveness rather than permission.
Personally, I think it's the latter. They've probably obtained a cheapo device from some failed Soviet state and are feeling empowered - also, remember that part of the Muslim approach has always been chest-pounding, spear-waving, and loud grunting.
However, they also accompany it with nutcase ruthlessness, which was what enabled Mad Mo to spread his hallucinations throughout the Middle East (that and the power vacuum left by the collapse of Rome and the division of the Church because of the Arian heresy).
So we shouldn't think this grunting and spear-waving might not take out part of a city in Israel or Europe...IMHO, it's a show, but the kind of show a crazed killer might put on before he slits somebody's throat.
Thanks.
"If only America would reach out to the mullahs, sit down and talk with them, we’d find there have been misunderstandings, there is room for compromise, and surely we can get along"
Your full of shi*; we've read your book you stinkin' bast**d
Greetings Kublia Khan,
Please confirm your anger is directed at the professor and indicate which book.
Some of his students have alleged that he plagiarizes their writings and presents them as his own.
Let’s sidestep Cliff’s impression of Amirahmadi’s emotional state. This is a hot issue and people are bound to get angry. Accuracy and relevance of assertions are what matter and Professor Amirahmadi’s assertion is relevant but not particularly accurate. The Iranian Regime’s propaganda has global, not regional reach. IRIB1 and 2 are on satellite just to name a few state run Iranian media outlets. Hate propaganda in the ME is feeding terror across the world not just the region and such propaganda should come to an end. Cliff suggests Amirahmadi tries to use the localized nature and lack of official legitimacy as a counterpoint when the assertion only strengthens Cliff’s argument. Amirahmadi is trying hard to bring the United States and Iran closer together both politically and economically and is willing to forecast a bogus future to do it. This interview is no exception. Now this may or may not be a function of his plagiarizing his student’s works… I’d imagine his students are less motivated to distort analysis than he is. Let’s take a closer look at how wrong the Professor forecasts of U.S. Iran relations has been:
SOURCE:www.amirahmadi.com -- The Iranian Parliamentary Elections and US-Iran Relations, EXCERPT – March 2004
The good news is that the environment of US-Iran relations is slowly but surely changing in a positive direction. Iran helped the United States fight al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein. Tehran has also generously contributed to the Iraqi and Afghan reconstruction funds. Iran has signed the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and is cooperating with it, though many problems remain to be resolved. Iran now officially accepts a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
HUMINT: Virtually every assertion Amirahmadi has made in the above paragraph has turned out to be a serious point of contention, not reasons for optimism. FIRSTLY… Politicians and pundits in early 04 surmised Iran was being unhelpful in Iraq. These days, Muqtada al-Sadr says openly that he will side with Iran and use his militia if the West reacts firmly to Iran’s nuclear noncompliance. SECONDLY… Sadr’s overt Iran-Iraqi Militia alliance is ultimately the result of international pressure on Tehran for consciously deciding not to comply with additional IAEA protocols Amirahmadi sees as reasons for optimism back in March 2004. LAST BUT NOT LEAST… And of course, Mahmood Ahmadinejad’s statement regarding the eradication of Israel and Israelis overshadows any official policy to support the Middle East Peace Initiative.
This glimpse of Amirahmadi’s views lead me to believe that wherever the Professor finds reasons for optimism, the rest of us should expect each situation to devolve into international crisis.
Totally agree with your take on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.