The New York Times editorial on Ahmadinejad’s speech:
After weighing the issue, President Obama decided not to send an American delegation to the conference. Perhaps it would have been better if his administration had been present to fight for an improved communiqué until the end. Ceding the podium to Mr. Ahmadinejad and his ilk is not the most effective strategy — for defending Israel or for promoting human rights.
That assumes that Ahmadinejad’s speech was a bug not a feature of the conference. It was, of course, a perfectly predictable, if outrageous, symptom of what ails the UN of today. What else would you expect?
Roger L. Simon observes that the Ahmadinejad speech actually shamed the organizers of the conference. (h/t Instapundit)
In short, they have been humiliated big time by the Iranian despot’s racist screed. Non-attendance by the Americans was one thing, but mass walkouts by the almost always complaisant Euros was highly threatening to the UN machine. And, make no mistake about it, here in the small city of Geneva especially, the UN is a machine, a money machine that brings in a significant proportion of the local GNP. No wonder the Swiss President, despite much criticism, was eager to shake the hand of the Iranian leader. Even though the Iranian people are in disastrous financial shape, Ahmadinejad was more than willing to blow off the money for forty rooms in this swank hotel, plus banquets for five hundred, plus who knows what else? Middle Eastern despots are cash cows for Geneva and the proximity of the UN to the local banks is no accident. They come to the Palais, say a few bad things about Israel and make a deposit.
And Barry Rubin thinks that Ahmadinejad may have lost more than Europe.
But as for regional reaction, Mr. Rubin thinks the Iranian leader may have overestimated the appeal of his remarks. “Egypt and most other Arab states will see right through this speech and recognize it as a ploy to claim leadership in the Arab world.â€
“With the exception of Syria, Sudan, Qatar and Yemen, Arab states oppose this guy.â€
The editors of the Washington Post wonder how President Obama can continue to reach out to Iran. (This marks an encouraging trend; following the one about the Arab summit.)
Iran watchers point out that Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent other messages recently. He said he would welcome direct talks with Washington, and over the weekend he dispatched a letter to Ms. Saberi’s prosecutor urging that she be allowed to defend herself. These are not necessarily contradictions. What Iran is doing is inviting Mr. Obama to humiliate his new administration by launching talks with the regime even while it is conspicuously expanding its nuclear program, campaigning to delegitimize and destroy Israel and imprisoning innocent Americans. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s unlikely concern for Ms. Saberi’s defense, along with other regime statements suggesting her sentence could be reduced, sound like an offer to make her a bargaining chip — to be exchanged, perhaps, for members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who are in U.S. custody in Iraq.
And Michael Rubin – commenting on Roxana Saberi and drawing a historical parallel – argues not just that the United States ought to be careful before engaging Iran, but must take a strong stand against the regime.
Once, the world bent over backward not to recognize Saddam Hussein for what he was; today, many foreign-policy and intellectual elites try to explain away Iranian actions.
Just as the Arab League rallied around Iraq and against the West between Bazoft’s execution and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait four months later, today the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other international bodies rally around Iran. International organizations are fickle,and seldom adhere to their founding principles.
It is not possible to erase the noxiousness of rogue states with rhetorical flourish. In 1990, it took the death of a 31-year-old journalist to wake up the West. Let’s hope we needn’t make the same sacrifice today.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
