Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is in the United States of America. Yesterday he appeared at a debate in Columbia University, and today he’ll talk before the General Assembly of the United Nations. He also submitted a request, which was denied, to lay a wreath in the 9/11 Ground Zero.
I won’t enter into who likes him and who hates him, or who agrees with his views and who doesn’t. But you don’t need a Ph.D. to know that the US government isn’t particularly fond of him, or that Americans generally don’t want him to wander by the streets of New York City. What’s more, Ahmadinejad knows it. I’m sure he’s smart enough to know.
So, knowing all that, why has he decided to extend his stay to non-UN activities?
Let’s look at some possible explanations:
1. Gain support among Americans - Why, you ask? Well, public opinion could play a role in the decision to go to war. I admit that as I say this, public opinion has had little effect, if any at all, to exit Iraq. But the decision to start this war was solidly backed by public opinion (and therefore politicians). Unfortunately for Mr. Ahmadinejad, the presentation at Columbia might be just too insignificant to impact Americans in a positive way.
2. Reach out to the US Government - Could it be that Mr. Ahmadinejad wants to talk? Nah.
3. Play to the bleachers - It’s pretty typical of anyone, particularly a world figure in the midst of power, to seek plain ol’ publicity. These stunts, like them or not, are good publicity. He just wants to get exposure. He wants to get air time.
Why, then, did Mr. Ahmadinejad want to go outside of the U.N.?
Believe it or not, I think that a combination of #1 and #3 are the most plausible explanations. Publicity, #3, is obviously predictable. In terms of #1, American support, it wouldn’t be the first time that anti-US figures create a positive impact on the Americans whom they come in direct contact with.
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have previously been received by supportive Americans, particularly in poor communities in New York. Chavez in particular was widely applauded for his offer of cheap heating oil to various counties.
Of course, there lies a huge difference. Castro and Chávez both brought messages of social improvement and popular power. That is always an effective crowd-pleaser, even with anti-US speech. People seem to focus more on the “populism”.
Of course, there lies a huge difference: Mr. Ahmadinejad brings messages of anti-semitism and other kinds of issues, mostly in a purely antagonistic manner. In other words, he seems to delight in just being the contrarian for its own sake. He offers no “populist” or “solidarity” message to poor Americans. No cheap oil, no free heat.
My two cents, and an ironic twist
The Columbia debate might have worked in favor of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Granted, as I said, it was an insignificant forum for American opinion to move to his side. And he repeated his already famous outrageous remarks.
Honestly, though, the President of Columbia University paved the way for the Iranian President to seem “presidential”. Immediately after the presentation, Mr. Ahmadinejad started talking about how in Iran academicians don’t pre-establish an opinion in the students’ brains. Truth or not, he made the presenter look somewhat foolish, in my humble opinion.
So, what does this have to do with the art of leading?
I don’t intend to discuss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s qualities (or absence thereof) as a leader, or even if he is a leader at all. Nevertheless, he is the President of an independent republic which happens to be arguably the #1 enemy of the world’s, and perhaps history’s, most powerful country, the USA. He holds a position of power. And through the analysis of the behavior and news of people like him, we can learn about what leaders should - or should NOT - be.
Categories : Politics // 1 Comment »
