Iran’s President Should Debate with Obama
Published in Mainichi
(Japan) on 14 June 2009
by (link to original)
The steep rise in the cost of living has no end in sight and the unemployment rate is said to be up from 13 percent to 20 percent. Under U.N. sanctions because of its nuclear development, their country continues in international isolation. Still, the Iranian people have reelected hard-liner Ahmadinejad as president.
With a voter turnout exceeding 80 percent, the voters have demonstrated their strong interest in this election. First of all, I would like to respect the choice of the Iranian people, while at the same time send a request to Ahmadinejad.
Iran has clout in Iraq and Afghanistan affairs. It opposes Israel, and it has been reported to be corroborating with North Korea over nuclear weapons and missile development. And finally, it is abundant in oil resources.
It is clear that Iran influences the international situation. That’s why I want President Ahmadinejad to first of all dedicate himself to international cooperation. Alluding to holocaust denial and the destruction of Israel will not help the international community or Iran itself. In the nuclear issue as well, his unyielding stance is a concern.
It has been thirty years since the Islamic Revolution led by Khomeini. In Iran, forces (like the revolutionary factions) that want the country to remain faithful to the ideology that labels America “The Great Satan” continue to compete with forces that have, little by little, freed themselves from the Khomeini alignment, and now want to improve relations with the West.
Ahmadinejad is of course the former, while the rival candidate, former Prime Minister Mousavi, can be classified as the latter. Campaigning for the expansion of women’s rights and a more liberalized society, Mousavi was expected to put up a good fight. In the initial voting at least, it was expected that there would be no clear majority, with the election to be decided in a run-off ballot.
However, Ahmadinejad has decisively won, sweeping up around two-thirds of the votes in his reelection. The results show that there is sympathy for the president, who condemns bribery and corruption. It also shows that there is widespread fear of the U.S. presence in two neighboring countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). However, I would like to continue to examine the Mousavi camp’s allegations of an unfair election.
In his speech in Cairo, President Obama said that he sought reconciliation with the Islamic world, while also showing his desire to have dialogue with Iran. He also pointed out his intention to distinguish between Iran and North Korea. Indeed, U.S.-Iran dialogue will be beneficial for not only finding a solution for the nuclear issue and stability in the Middle East, but also for reform in the rest of the world.
On the other hand, Ahmadinejad wished for a public debate with former President Bush, and there were reports of his desire for a public debate with the U.S. presidential candidates during the height of the U.S. elections - Obama and McCain.
So how about a U.S.-Iran public debate now? A debate by means of television is possible. Even if the discussion ends without agreement, in the long run it would help build trust. Perhaps it can help the U.S. and Iran can escape from the rut of antagonism.
With a voter turnout exceeding 80 percent, the voters have demonstrated their strong interest in this election. First of all, I would like to respect the choice of the Iranian people, while at the same time send a request to Ahmadinejad.
Iran has clout in Iraq and Afghanistan affairs. It opposes Israel, and it has been reported to be corroborating with North Korea over nuclear weapons and missile development. And finally, it is abundant in oil resources.
It is clear that Iran influences the international situation. That’s why I want President Ahmadinejad to first of all dedicate himself to international cooperation. Alluding to holocaust denial and the destruction of Israel will not help the international community or Iran itself. In the nuclear issue as well, his unyielding stance is a concern.
It has been thirty years since the Islamic Revolution led by Khomeini. In Iran, forces (like the revolutionary factions) that want the country to remain faithful to the ideology that labels America “The Great Satan” continue to compete with forces that have, little by little, freed themselves from the Khomeini alignment, and now want to improve relations with the West.
Ahmadinejad is of course the former, while the rival candidate, former Prime Minister Mousavi, can be classified as the latter. Campaigning for the expansion of women’s rights and a more liberalized society, Mousavi was expected to put up a good fight. In the initial voting at least, it was expected that there would be no clear majority, with the election to be decided in a run-off ballot.
However, Ahmadinejad has decisively won, sweeping up around two-thirds of the votes in his reelection. The results show that there is sympathy for the president, who condemns bribery and corruption. It also shows that there is widespread fear of the U.S. presence in two neighboring countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). However, I would like to continue to examine the Mousavi camp’s allegations of an unfair election.
In his speech in Cairo, President Obama said that he sought reconciliation with the Islamic world, while also showing his desire to have dialogue with Iran. He also pointed out his intention to distinguish between Iran and North Korea. Indeed, U.S.-Iran dialogue will be beneficial for not only finding a solution for the nuclear issue and stability in the Middle East, but also for reform in the rest of the world.
On the other hand, Ahmadinejad wished for a public debate with former President Bush, and there were reports of his desire for a public debate with the U.S. presidential candidates during the height of the U.S. elections - Obama and McCain.
So how about a U.S.-Iran public debate now? A debate by means of television is possible. Even if the discussion ends without agreement, in the long run it would help build trust. Perhaps it can help the U.S. and Iran can escape from the rut of antagonism.
Next article![]( "Violence in Iran Pushes Obama to Harden His Tone")
