One Smart Cookie...

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night?

.

It was something to see.

It was the first time I’ve seen Mike Wallace at a loss for words.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. oftentimes referred to as a lunatic by the western media, gave his first

Interview to the media in perhaps six months or more.



He was charming in his fanatical way and he changed my opinion.

Originally, I thought he was some ignorant sheep farmer; someone who did

Not have a global outlook or an understanding of what was going on outside his country.

I was wrong on both counts.



Admittedly, his perspective is not my perspective, but make no mistake about it,

Anybody who can shut Mike Wallace up make him look at a loss for words requires a second look.

What I discovered was that this is a man who is woefully underrated.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, in short, no dummy.



He doesn’t get his words piped in over a digital system.

He doesn’t sound like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

And he very clever and very slippery to boot. Plus, on top of that he has a PhD.



What’s more, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said a lot of relevant things even though I don’t agree with most of his arguments. What he does say happens to resonate with Islamic elements for the most part even though he is suspected of being anti Arab with serious ambitions in the Middle East...



What he did question was why Bush was always talking in war-like rhetoric; why doesn’t he engage in questioning in the pursuit of peace. Wallace did pin him on Israel saying that if you are really for peace, why are you talking about destroying Israel. He then engaged in an answer that was something like twenty minutes forcing Mike to suggest to him that he needed to keep his answers short? And wondered why he couldn’t do that?



President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suggested that it was a complicated question.

There is no doubt in my mind that if he had it within his power, he would eliminate not only Israel but the US as well.

The problem here is the American attitude which says if you’re not on my team, I’m not going to negotiate with you which, to this author, seems backwards since that is precisely where diplomacy is required . It is hard to change somebody's mind, if you are unwilling to start the process going. In effect, then, our policy has little to do with diplomacy and everything to do with brute force. But what we don't realize is that we are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. We cannot exert diplomacy with Iran because they do not agree with us; yet because they do not agree with us is precisely why we need diplomacy.


The bigger point that we seem to fail to see is that Iran is a complex state that depends on free elections. Historically, they have liberal antecedents and even back in the days of old Persia, they allowed the existance of other countries, varying points of view and tolerance. What we seem to have forgotten in the mix is that we need to talk to the opposition and to the Ayotollahs and other clerics in Iran and the educated people who are seeking positive change, not war. Without representation, without dialogue, we are dependent on the hard work of others. However, with our bellicose attitude and our willingness to talk brute force with everyone, we have lost a good deal of the leverage that we may have at one time exerted in the world.



It is in this climate that we must take on the head of a country of 75 million people rich with oil money and intent upon getting nuclear energy. It has become a very dangerous world and we continue to underestimate the opposition believing that we can get our way through tactics deemed corrosive to the rest of the world. In the end, it is we who is predictable facing a complex opponent who would love to see us wiggle on the line for as long as he can and we are more vulnerable than we imagine.