Commentary on speech by the President of Iran to the UN General Assembly (Part #1)

On 25th September 2007, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, addressed the 62nd UN General Assembly in New York at a time when there was every expectation that Iran would be subject to an imminent tactical nuclear strike. Live coverage of his whole speech was provided on CNN. It followed a controversial, and widely publicized, question and answer session at Columbia University (Ahmadinejad speaks; outrage and controversy follow, CNN, 24 September 2007; Jesse Walker, Who's Afraid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? After all the trembling, the Iranian president got a bruising instead of a boost, Reason Magazine, 25 September 2007).

[NB The fact that the main title of the latter commentary was identical with that of earlier drafts of this commentary (on a different meeting) is purely coincidental, although it is obviously the similarity of the situations that evoked the choice, but with quite different intents. The title of this commentary was then distinguished by prefixing it with "Just", as a consequence of the manner in which a major search engine appeared suddenly to manipulate its relative rankings of the two commentaries -- possibly as a consequence of pressure regarding the contents of what follows. It is necessarily unclear to what pressures search engines are responsive -- especially on political issues which may affect their revenue stream]

Despite the content of his UN address, and speculation regarding such an attack, there was almost no media coverage immediately thereafter -- creating an impression of deliberate cover-up. Various websites subsequently carried versions of the full text (Global Security.org; Washington Post). At the time of writing there appears to be little commentary on the serious issues he raised -- other than to question his integrity and sanity (Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walks among us, Daily News, 24 September 2007)

Given the current dramatic state of an increasingly faith-based world, it is appropriate to compare the born again George Bush -- who would order the strike -- with the equally religious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whose defence is argued below (Amil Imani, Who is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? American Thinker, 3 October 2007). Both attest to a privileged communication with the divine. It is indeed that which concerns some American observers (Iran leader's U.N. finale reveals apocalyptic view; Iran prepares people for 'messiah miracles': Government broadcasts series on imminent appearance of apocalyptic Islamic 'Mahdi'; Iran leader's messianic end-times mission), just as others are concerned by undeclared faith-based agendas on the part of the country in possession of most nuclear weaponry. As noted, from an earlier interview with an Iranian editorialist, cited in the Christian Science Monitor:

"Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad is the same here -- both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology. (Scott Peterson, Waiting for Rapture in Iran, 21 December 2005)

In what follows the official Iranian version of Ahmadinejad's speech is reproduced with a series of comments interspersed in italics (note also the official UN version, not initially available). The format of the text has been slightly modified to improve readability (notably by occasional use of bullet points; spelling and grammar are as in the original). The purpose of the exercise, in supplying the commentary, is to highlight issues raised by the leader of a country that may be shortly, and uniquely, subject to nuclear attack -- irrespective of how such an attack may be finally justified. As the commentary shows, this does not imply agreement with the points made in the address.

The following pointers to the well-structured contents of the address have been added for convenience.

[Parts: Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased and grateful to the Almighty to have the opportunity once again to attend this important universal forum.

Comment: Whilst any such preface might be cause for reservations in the primarily secular mode of discourse within the international community, it is striking to compare it with the fairly similar appeals made by the faith-based leadership of the Coalition of the Willing and most notably by American politicians. Indeed, just as in Islamic cultures, those in America consider it increasingly appropriate to make such references when interacting with their supporters. However it is relevant to note that the language used to that end in Islamic cultures has far more poetic resonances than the simple binary form that is common in the West. It is also characteristic that the American version is primarily of the form "God Bless America" in contrast with the more generic Islamic phrasing.

What is striking under the circumstances, with the immediate threat of a nuclear strike, is the formal recognition in a UN arena of a universal transcendental context -- presumably in some measure common to faith-based cultures, whether potential attacker or probable victim thereof.

Given that the clashing Abrahamic cultures hold so profoundly to their respective understandings of this transcendental reality, how is it that immeasurably greater resources are devoted by each to the design and use of weaponry in defence of their particular understanding -- in comparison with the paucity of resources devoted to clarifying the mystery of why the mysterious nature of that reality should be so variously understood, notably by others?

How different is the nature and origin of the misunderstanding that has violently separated over centuries: Sunni from Shiite, Catholic from Protestant, Orthodox from non-Orthodox Jews -- as compared to that separating Islam from Christianity, and either from Judaism, also over centuries? References to an omniscient Almighty must surely hold these violence-engendering differences, in the Name of God, to arise from limitations of human misunderstanding, especially amongst the Abrahamic religions -- the "People of the Book" -- living as they do in expectation of an integrative fulfillment of divine prophecy.

It is appropriate to compare the unique invocation of the prophesied Imam Al-Mahdi, in a formal international arena, with analogous expectations associated with prophecies in the other Abrahamic religions, the Messiah of Judaism and the Messiah of Christianity. It would be a grave mistake to fail to recognize the determining influence of such expectations on governmental policies, notably on the leadership of the Coalition of the Willing in invading Iraq. It is however curious that believers in such prophecies should find no other basis for dialogue than the use of weapons, and especially nuclear weapons.

In the present tumultuous world and predominance of loud outcries, threats and tensions, and in the time:

• when the big powers are unable to solve the present problems, (an unquestionable fact)
• when mistrust in regional and international arenas is on the rise, (an unquestionable fact)
• when psychological security of societies is being targeted by an onslaught of political and propaganda designs, (an assertion which many would consider reasonable, however "propaganda" is to be understood)
• and disappointment prevails over efficacy of policies and actions of the international organizations in establishing of durable peace and security, (an unquestionable fact, despite efforts to focus the media on "positive" achievements and vigorously to deny the accumulation over many years of evidence to the contrary)
• and the protection of human rights is being weakened, (an unquestionable fact)

I plan to touch upon and explain the roots and ways out of these predicaments and some of the principal challenges facing our world.

Comment: Such a preamble surely sets a context which justifies attention to what follows, if only in that respect is due to a culture that may well be deliberately destroyed beyond recovery by nuclear attack -- recently described in the case of a neighbouring country as a threat of being "bombed back to the Stone Age".

Can the significant absence of representatives of the USA and Israel during the speech, as highlighted by the media, be considered other than evidence that the case had been prejudged? Do advocates for the prosecution -- demanding immediate execution -- leave the courtroom when those for the defence make their final case? Or is it that directly publicizing the plea worldwide to "we the peoples", through media such as CNN, makes physical presence at the UN "court" unnecessary? What behaviour in such a final court of appeal is to be considered a mark of uncivilization and backsliding to barbarism? Does this reflect the very same logic whereby a civilized democracy indulges in secret tribunals uncluttered by substantiated appeals from the defendants?

I will also speak to you about:

• the need for amending the present situation,
• prospects for brighter and more hopeful future,
• and about the reappearance of the sublime and beauty, kindness and dignity, justice and blossoming of all divine human talents and dominance of love of God and realization of the promise of God as stated by of all divine prophets and righteous men.

Comment: Again this points to the possibility of the kind of future to which most would aspire.

I will then put to your judgment the nuclear issue of Iran as a reality and testing ground for measurement of honesty, efficacy, steadfastness and victories. In the closing part of my address, I will offer my proposals.

Comment: This issue, with the immediate threat of nuclear attack, provides a degree of immediate urgency greater than most other issues currently the subject of debate and procrastination within the international community. The unforeseen consequences and possible multiplier effects of such an attack are dimensions of which historians are well aware -- World War I, as triggered by a simple targeted assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, is a classic example. More technically these have been recognized under various names (from the "butterfly effect" to the "Black Swan" effect)

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

As you are all aware we are presently facing important, numerous and diverse challenges that I will refer to some of them.

[Parts: Next | Last | All ] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx ]