Will someone please debate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That’s a statement, not a question.
The Iranian president apparently loves the limelight and has offered to debate President Bush and has recently offered him a speaking engagement at an Iranian university, probably because he wants the chance to introduce Bush as he was introduced at Columbia University.
For obvious reasons having to do with basic elocution, President Bush is not the man for the job. So we should all support his decision not to stoop to Ahmadinejad’s level.
The Iranian president has a knack for making statements that defy logic. Denying the Holocaust and declaring there are no homosexuals — not one — in Iran. The zero homosexuals in Iran comment is the kind of statement that takes on a history of its own. Right now there is a documentary film student somewhere in the world boarding a plane with his digital video camera to prove Mahmoud wrong and launch his own career.
On July 24, 1959, then Vice President Richard Nixon got into a televised debate of sorts with former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the merits of Soviet and American kitchen appliances. It was seen as a pivotal moment in Nixon’s political career — clearly demonstrating his ability to go one on one with a feared international adversary.
Fast forward almost 50 years to present day American politics and the new Khrushchev — a slight man in a bad leisure suit named Ahmadinejad.
Politics Of Persuasion
At present there are about a dozen men and one woman running for president in this country. Republicans are having trouble sorting out the field and Democrats are having trouble with the perception that they are weak on defense and foreign policy.
Any of the front runners would almost certainly break out of the pack if they were to fly to Tehran to debate Ahmadinejad. It would be seen as a gutsy play, it would attract an international audience, he would be an easy opponent, and the candidate willing to take this chance would almost certainly return as an American hero having tweaked the nose of someone whose nose needs tweaking.
On the Democratic side it would have to be Hillary Clinton. The other Democrats might actually agree with Ahmadinejad on too many points. On the Republican side John McCain, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Mitt Romney would do well. Alan Keyes would be entertaining, but might not get out alive. A key to this strategy is returning in one piece.
The evidence suggests that Ahmadinejad does not mind making a fool of himself in front of an American audience, because the audience he is playing to sees his willingness to stand on the American stage as a sign of courage. The fact he is wrong on many subjects and lacks logic in other areas doesn’t really matter for his purposes.
So a debate between the Iranian president and one of our presidential candidates might be a win for him too, but our candidates would have more to gain. First, the candidate willing to take the chance will distinguish himself or herself from the field, will have a chance to make the case against the Iranian regime to a worldwide audience and will walk into the Oval Office with unmatched foreign policy credentials.
A New Standard
A year before the next presidential election, the campaign is dominated by debate-like events the candidates are happy to merely survive. To win is to avoid a YouTube moment. Leadership is not the winning standard. A candidate with break-away potential would take this chance and use Mahmoud the way he used us during his recent visit to the United Nations.
Â
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
