The Ahmadinejad Show: Less Horror Show And More Like Crossfire

It was a big “special,” aired on TV, radio,sparking hours of talk radio outrage and angry (of course) blog rants.

The event: the debut of the one shot made-for-TV special, The Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Show. But was it a horror show? Or more like “Crossfire?” Or containing the nuttiness of the guests on Jerry Springer?

The build up to the event — SURE to ensure maximum press and media coverage — was more like “The Fear Factor.” San Diego’s own Rep. Duncan Hunter even threatened to cut off funds to Columbia University if it dared let Iranian President Mahmoud (aka ‘Death To Israel’) Ahmadinejad speak — an idea that has as much chance of succeeding as Ahmadinejad attending a bris.

And Hunter’s (political) ploy is bound to fail for another reason: President Lee C. Bollinger’s opening remarks could not be interpreted as promoting The Man Who Thinks Israel Should Move To Europe. They were quite pointed: Bollinger used the Iranian President’s presence to confront him on major charges about him, his regime and its plans for the world. The full text is HERE.

To many Americans, The Ahmadinejad Show seemed more like an episode of “Jackass.” Or “Everyone Hates Ahmadinejad.” Or perhaps a new show: “America’s Most Unwanted.”

But was it all of that?

Was it a show produced for the American audience — or one produced for a foreign audience with the unwitting but most definite help from vote-scrounging Presidential candidates, seemingly always in a rage talk show hosts and Valium-needing bloggers?

Not that rage was not justified: Ahmadinejad’s regime is notorious for being anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-Semitic and those who believe his nuclear program is STRICTLY for peaceful purposes probably think a furry bunny will hide eggs in their house on Easter day.

But the issues at stake were serious ones. In a democracy, is it better to let free speech reveal what someone really is, rather than prevent the speech and turn him into a martyr for free speech? Would some Americans seriously be converted to his beliefs if he was allowed to speak?

Should someone whose regime has become (in)famous for executions (particularly the case of two young gay teens) be given a platform at a major university? Should a university that believes in listening to and vetting all views ban someone because young minds would be influenced? Or are young minds strong enough to see the reality if the person is allowed to speak?

Here’s a standard news take on the event where The New York Times tried to put it all into perspective:

He said that there were no homosexuals in Iran — not one — and that the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews should not be treated as fact, but theory, and therefore open to debate and more research.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, aired those and other bewildering thoughts in a two-hour verbal contest at Columbia University yesterday, providing some ammunition to people who said there was no point in inviting him to speak. Yet his appearance also offered evidence of why he is widely admired in the developing world for his defiance toward Western, especially American, power.

In repeated clashes with his hosts, Mr. Ahmadinejad accused the United States of supporting terrorist groups, and characterized as hypocritical American and European efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, adding, pointedly: “I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, politically, they’re backwards. Retarded.”

(“Retarded?” He must have been watching 21st century American political discourse a lot closer than many thought).

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank also viewed it as a big TV show (“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Unreality Show”) and noted the most obvious conclusion many not caught up in the rantfest over his visit will conclude:

“Our people are the freest people in the world,” said the man whose government executes dissidents, jails academics and stones people to death.

“The freest women in the world are women in Iran,” he continued, neglecting to mention that Iranian law treats a woman as half of a man.

“In our country,” judged the man who shuts down newspapers and imprisons journalists, “freedom is flowing at its highest level.”

And if you believe that, he has a peaceful civilian nuclear program he wants to sell you.

Much of officialdom spent yesterday condemning Columbia University for hosting the Iranian leader while he visits the United Nations this week. There were similar protests outside the National Press Building in Washington, where reporters gathered to question Ahmadinejad in a videoconference. “Don’t give him any press!” shouted one woman.

But that objection misses a crucial point: Without listening to Ahmadinejad, how can the world appreciate how truly nutty he is?

But was this show aimed at wowing the critics in America — or wowing the voters at home?

Time Magazine contends the Iranian President REALLY loves New York:

The Cheshire Cat smile worn by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his address at Columbia University on Monday was no surprise — the event was a resounding victory for the Iranian president. Of course, students and faculty in the hall jeered many of his comments, while protesters outside denounced him as the new Hitler. And Columbia University president Lee Bollinger — clearly stung by criticism of the institution for hosting Ahmadinejad — used his introduction to excoriate the Iranian leader as everything from a “cruel and petty dictator” to “astonishingly uneducated.”

But all of this was merely grist for Ahmadinejad. The furor it had created ensured that what might have passed as a relatively obscure address in a small Ivy League auditorium turned into a national media event, in which the Iranian president had the microphone, unmolested, for the best part of an hour.

(We will NOT make an inappropriate joke here about the image of other speakers at Columbia University being molested while speaking..)

Despite the harsh words of his host, Bollinger, Ahmadinejad stayed on message, appearing relaxed, reasonable, open, even charismatic. Whether or not American TV audiences are seduced is beside the point, because Ahmadinejad’s primary audience is not American. The provocations of his New York visit are an integral part of his domestic political strategy, which depends on his ability to hold America’s national attention with an unapologetically nationalist message about Iran’s nuclear rights, lecturing them about God and their aim to run the world.

It was pure political ju-jitsu, using the momentum of your adversaries to your own advantage. The protesters got him on TV, and he used the platform to grandstand for the folks back home.

Which is the more accurate perception?

On balance, you have to conclude: the Iranian President did get what he wanted.

He knew he’d never be a hero in America, but he came and if he didn’t conquer, he did get tons of ink, tons of air time, tons of mention by talking heads, and tons of angry-as-usual blog posts.

But in the end? The Republic survived.

Even though everyone knew his answers were a bunch of digested and bodily-eliminated nourishment, he didn’t give fiery quotations that could be used in sound-bites or quoted to Congress as part of what increasingly seems to be a campaign to prepare Americans for a possible U.S. military attack on Iran.

And we did learn one thing: Americans also learned there were no gays in Iran.

NOTE: Be sure to scroll down and read the many other excellent posts on Ahmadinejad’s visit written by other TMV writers.