home > by publication type > news briefings > Ahmadinejad Spars With CFR Members
Email
| Author: | Bernard Gwertzman |
|---|
September 20, 2006
Council on Foreign Relations
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sparred with a high-level group from the Council on Foreign Relations for ninety minutes Wednesday on virtually every contentious issue between the United States and Iran.
There were no obvious changes in the responses given by Ahmadinejad, who has been granting interviews to major news organizations over the past week ahead of his trip to the opening session of the UN General Assembly. But the Iranian leader engaged in a protracted punch and counterpunch with the panel.
“I’m not sure we learned anything new,” said Richard N. Haass, the CFR president, in comments afterwards. But he said it was possible the Iranian president might have learned something of American attitudes from the session. The meeting, which sparked controversy among members of the Council and some Jewish groups, featured more than two dozen Council members and some ten Iranian officials under tight security at the Intercontinental Hotel on East Forty-eighth Street in New York.
Differing views were apparent from the first question of the evening, when Peter G. Peterson, CFR's chairman, questioned Ahmadinejad’s frequent assertion that the Holocaust was a “myth” and that more research had to be done to ascertain the truth on whether the six million Jews who perished in World War II were victims of Nazi genocide. Peterson noted that he and David Rockefeller, who was also a participant in the meeting, had visited Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in Poland, and he said that the majority of American Jews and non-Jews alike were “horrified” by Ahmadinejad's assertion that the Holocaust was a “myth.” The Iranian said he doubted Americans all held such a view.
He repeated what he has said in previous interviews—namely that some sixty million people died in World War II, and so why the special attention paid to the question of Jews? He said the question deserved more study. He then went on to say the real question is why the Palestinians had to “pay for that” by being forced to give up their lands, and go into exile. He likened the Palestinians who have been killed to “genocide.”
Martin S. Indyk, who has served twice as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, and a tour as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, noted he had endeavored during the Clinton administration to work out a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but that Iranian-supported terrorists “did everything possible” to prevent it. The Iranian president again repeated what he has said before, namely that all Palestinians should “decide” their future.
On the question of Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian president broke no new ground. He was questioned by Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser, as to why Iran insisted on going ahead with its uranium enrichment program. Others asked why Iran did not accept the offer made by President Bush for Iran to have peaceful uses of nuclear energy so long as it stopped the enrichment program.
Ahmadinejad repeated that Iran had the right to develop a peaceful nuclear program, and that it had no intention of building nuclear weapons. He noted that only the United States and “a few” European countries felt differently. He said he had just come from the nonaligned nations conference in Havana where Iran got complete support for its nuclear program.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said "Iranian journalists are imprisoned and newspapers are closed” and that "elections are not free." He added: “You speak of the rights of Palestinians but Iran provided rockets to Hezbollah that killed Palestinians in Israel. Would you be willing to change your policies at home?” This led Ahmadinejad to claim that his country was freer than the United States.
“Please don’t allow yourself to be involved in the domestic politics of other countries or there is much more we can all say. If you think you can affect our people with your statements you are wrong. We had free elections—I spoke with people and they chose me. This is a unique, pure democracy, which is impossible in your country. Which country is freer and more democratic? I am ready for an independent discussion on this. Let people decide for themselves. By creating a wind now you are creating a bigger storm,” Ahmadinejad said.
When asked by Fareed Zakaria, a columnist and editor for Newsweek, whether there was a way to restoring the good relations that once existed between the two countries, the Iranian president blamed the United States for the break in relations following the Iranian revolution in 1979. He did not mention the seizure of American embassy hostages for 444 days. “Those who cut off relations and destroyed them have to fix it,” he said.
As the meeting drew to a close, the Iranian leader observed, “In the beginning of the session you said you are independent, and I accepted that. But everything you said seems to come from the government perspective.” Haass responded that there had been no advance coordination among the Council participants and that “the aim was to expose you to views of a broad range of Americans. It would be wrong for you to leave this meeting thinking that you heard unrepresentative views.”
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.