So, the "President" of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appeared at Columbia University today, to protests, general contempt (well deserved) and questions he would not answer.
Was it a free speech issue? Should he have been shunned?
I don't think he should have been given a platform to espouse his nutjob idealogy. I'm no scholar of Iranian politics, but intuitively, you just have to LOOK at this guy - he's no diplomat, and he was 'elected' by an ultra conservative Islamic fringe. Iran was moving again toward a western style civilization, and then along came "Mahmoud", partly in response to the US presence in the Middle East and our support of Israel. Already, however, the moderates in Iran are moving away from him, seeing that the fringe positions he has taken don't fit in the modern world, as Iran wants itself to be seen as a 'modern' culture'. If the saber rattling could stop, I think the Iranians would take care of Mr. Ahmadinejad (usually I just say Ahmamamamamabla because I can never pronounce his name). This is not so different from the ole Ayatollah coming to power in the 1970's as a backlash to the western supported Shah. Except now, so much worse, with all the conflict in Iraq. That is not to say that the United States is to 'blame' for the shift to the Islamic right in Iran and elsewhere, but for every action there is a reaction, and, sorry, this is it.
But how reassuring that there are no homosexuals in Iran. None. None whatsoever.
No comments:
Post a Comment