BICOM

Key Points

• Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva aimed to present Iran as a revolutionary regime championing the interests of non-western countries and the world’s poor. It is intended to put western states on the defensive, while building Iran’s appeal beyond the Muslim world. It represents the world view of a particular, rising radical, elite within the Iranian system.

 

• Ahmadinejad’s worldview locates Israel and ‘global Zionism’ as nefarious forces in alliance with the West, using political, economic and media power and the ‘pretext’ of Jewish suffering to promote racism. Depicting ‘global Zionism’ as a central, unseen mover of world affairs reflects familiar themes of anti-Semitism.

 

• The outlook presented by Ahmadinejad in Geneva is reflected in the policy behaviour of Iran, not only in the Middle East but further afield, including its subversion of other Middle Eastern governments, and its attempts to build alliances with other anti-western regimes in Latin America and Africa.

 

Introduction

 

On April 20, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech to the UN anti-racism conference in Geneva. The speech led to representatives of a number of countries walking out in protest after he claimed that Israel was established by the West on the ‘pretext of Jewish suffering.’ [i] A text version of the speech which had been circulated in English a day prior to the speech had given advance warning of its inflammatory nature, including Ahmadinejad’s referral to the evidence for the Holocaust as ‘ambiguous and dubious’.[ii] The Iranian President’s promotion of Holocaust denial has been a consistent and notable feature of his term in office. 

 

Following the storm surrounding the speech and the subsequent walkout, Ahmadinejad returned to Iran to a mixed but largely positive reception. While official news outlets showered the president with praise, his political opponents were critical, pointing to the walkout as a national humiliation. The text of the speech, and the subsequent debate in Iran, provides evidence for understanding the strategy Ahmadinejad is attempting to implement on the world stage. Ahmadinejad’s approach is not a new one. It is deeply rooted in a particular stream within the Shia Islamist ideology which is the belief system of the Iranian regime. Ahmadinejad’s approach brings together a sincerely held ideological view, with an attempt to build Iran’s regional and global reach by presenting it as the representative of the ‘oppressed’ peoples of the world.

 

Since the Geneva speech, Ahmadinejad has given an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC, in which he finally responded to the interviewer’s repeated questioning by affirming that if the Palestinians chose to support a two state solution, “that’s fine with us”.[iii] This statement is somewhat ironic given that Iran is lavishly supporting movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad whose raison d’être is making sure that the Palestinians do not choose support for a two sate solution to the conflict. On close examination, the statement in fact reiterates the long standing Iranian demand for a referendum of Palestinians, in which Palestinians alone should be asked to decide the fate of both themselves and of Israelis. This idea has been raised by Iran in the past and is rejected by the international community. As such, this latest statement should not be taken as a reversal of the strategy discussed here.     

 

Understanding Ahmadinejad’s speech

 

Ahmadinejad’s speech focuses on two processes of ‘injustice’ which he identifies as the key examples of racism in human affairs.[iv] The creation of Israel is the second element.  But the first part of the speech focuses on a portrayal of ‘Europe’ and ‘America’ as the prime agents of racism and oppression. Ahmadinejad begins his depiction with a focus on the European slave trade and the ‘looting’ of natural resources by the European powers. He then goes on to accuse the western powers of attempting to impose ‘oppressive laws and arrangements’ on the world, such as the UN Security Council. Having identified the West as apparently the sole purveyors of racism and slavery in history, he asks by what right the West claims veto power in the Security Council.

 

The speech then moves on to talk at length about Israel. Ahmadinejad blames the West for the establishment of the country; naming ‘Zionism’ as the key force of racism in the world and calling Israel ‘the most aggressive, racist country’. Ahmadinejad then goes on to accuse the West of responsibility for the current global economic crisis, before identifying the fundamental cause of western racism as the absence of religious belief. Supporters of ‘global Zionism’ are accused of attempting to lessen the crimes of Israel through their ‘economic power and political influence and wide media means.’ Ahmadinejad concludes by claiming that ‘western capitalism like communism has reached the end of its path.’

 

It goes without saying that the characterization of the West as solely responsible for bigotry and slavery is absurd. Slavery still persists in many parts of the world, including the Muslim world – notably in Sudan and Mauritania[v] – and the demand for its abolition began in the West. Similarly, bigotry and ethnic and racial discrimination are hardly the exclusive property of the West. In addition, the attempt to depict ‘global Zionism’ as a central, unseen mover of world affairs is immediately recognisable to those familiar with the traits of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, which the Iranian leader has chosen to echo. Similarly, implicit in Holocaust denial is the notion that the deceitful Jews invented tales of their suffering in order to manipulate the world and advance their goals.

 

But apart from highlighting and rejecting the hatred and incitement within the Iranian President’s speech, it is important to understand its purpose. It is an example of the attempt by Ahmadinejad to present his country as the authentic representative of the non-western world, seeking redress for inequalities on a global scale. Such an attempt might appear pretentious given that Iran is only a medium sized regional power. But this attempt at global outreach forms a significant part of current Iranian strategy in international affairs.  

 

The idea of linking the Islamic revolution in Iran to a more general ‘third worldist’ vision has deep roots in the ideology of the Iranian revolution. Specifically, the ideas of the pre-revolutionary Iranian Shia thinker Ali Shariati encapsulated the attempt to merge the revolutionary and messianic element inherent in Shia Islam with a universal, ill-defined third-worldist revolutionary outlook. Shariati, who studied in France in the 1960s, died in 1977, two years prior to the Iranian revolution. But his ideas were a major influence on the generation who carried out the revolution. Current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was for a period close to him. 

 

Shariati sought to re-imagine Shia Islam as a kind of social radicalism. So he tried to depict the battle of Karbala, for example – a key moment in Shia Islam’s early defeat by the Sunnis – as deriving from a social revolution undertaken by the founders of the Shia. 

Shariati’s attempt to merge Shia Islam with a populist radicalism has been criticized as ahistorical and lacking intellectual coherence, and he was condemned by the official religious establishment in Iran.[vi] But his ideas made a major contribution to the language of the Iranian revolution. As evidenced by his speech at Geneva, Ahmadinejad is attempting to apply a similar fusion of ideas in order to make plausible the idea of Iranian leadership of the ‘developing world’.

 

The speech as part of a larger Iranian strategy

 

Ahmadinejad represents a faction within the Iranian elite known as the ‘principalists’, whose intention is to revive what they see as the original fervour of the revolution of 1979, in which they participated. [vii] Presenting Iran as a revolutionary power, operating across state borders, sponsoring subversion throughout the region and beyond it, is an important part of this strategy. This approach means that the Shia Islamist regime in Iran is attempting to build alliances with non-Shia elements within the region, and with non-Muslim elements beyond it.   

 

As Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis has noted, “All this owes far more to the examples of Robespierre and Stalin than to those of Muhammad and Ali. These methods are deeply un-Islamic; they are, however, thoroughly revolutionary.”[viii] The pursuit of this strategy is not limited to rhetorical speeches; it is being energetically pursued.

 

The recent discovery of a Hezbollah cell in Egypt, apparently preparing to launch a terror campaign against Egyptian targets, is an example of Iran functioning as a subversive force in the region. Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia force created and financed by Iran. Its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, called during the recent Gaza operation for the Egyptian people to rise up and topple the Egyptian regime. Full details of the cell and its activities are only beginning to surface, but it now appears that Iran, through its Lebanese proxy, has been developing elements of a strategy to subvert Egypt from within. The sponsoring of this cell is only the most dramatic example of a broader regional policy to support radical Islamist trends and groups in Bahrain, the Palestinian territories, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Afghanistan. Iran’s nuclear ambitions are part and parcel of this drive for regional hegemony.

 

Further afield, Iran is attempting to build links with other self-proclaimed opponents of the West, in an effort to work around US and European attempts to isolate it. Tehran is showing a particular interest in Latin America, where Ahmadinejad has visited three times since his election in 2005. Ahmadinejad has also hosted President Chávez of Venezuela, President Ortega of Nicaragua, President Morales of Bolivia and President Correa of Ecuador and is expecting the visit of Brazil’s President Lula da Silva this year.[ix] The support of Venezuela and Bolivia for Hezbollah in the 2006 war with Israel was one of the fruits of Iran’s outreach effort. 

 

The current Iranian regime is also interested in building support and links with Africa.  The Geneva anti-racism conference is an event of marked importance to African states, and the speech may have been geared in particular to drawing closer to states on the African continent. Should a further round of sanctions against Iran appear imminent, Tehran hopes the friendships cultivated with states beyond the Middle East will prove significant given the significance of the rotating seats at the UN Security Council.   

 

Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva indicates the themes upon which Iran bases its overtures to these parts of the world: shared resentment of the West, a vague sense that the global economic system is deliberately impoverishing the developing world, and as an important feature of the argument, the conjuring up of a phantom ‘global Zionism’ which is the archetypal representative of the racist system. 

 

On his return to Iran, Ahmadinejad received widespread support for the stance he took. However it is important to note that his political opponents used the Geneva speech to stress their opposition to Ahmadinejad’s focusing on Israel and the Holocaust.  Presidential Candidate Mir-Hossein Moussavi said that the Holocaust was not ‘Iran’s business.’  The response of Moussavi shows the extent to which Ahmadinejad’s pitch to the rest of the world represents one stream within the Iranian elite, rather than its totality.[x]

 

Conclusion

 

Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva was an exposition of the world view of a particular, rising radical elite within the Iranian system. This outlook has deep roots in the thinking which underlay the Iranian revolution. It wishes to present Iran as a revolutionary regime, supposedly championing the interests of non-western countries and the world’s poor.  This claim rests on a view of history and world affairs which sees Europe and the USA as malevolent forces. This view locates Israel and ‘global Zionism’ as nefarious agents in alliance with the West, using political, economic and media power to promote their interests. The outlook presented in Geneva, whilst not necessarily commanding universal support in Iran or within the regime’s elite, is reflected in the policy behaviour of the regime, not only in the Middle East but further afield.

 

---

[i] David Williams; ‘Dozens of diplomats storm out of UN race conference as Iran’s President condemns Israel’s ‘cruel regime’ on Holocaust Remembrance Day,’ Daily Mail; April 21, 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk

[ii] This phrase did not appear in the final English translation of the speech delivered by Ahmadinejad, though it did appear in the French translation.

[iii] ‘This Week’ Transcript: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=7421719&page=1 

[iv] Ahmadinejad Speech: Full Text; BBC News; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8010747.stm

[v] “Islam’s black slaves,” Suzy Hansen, Salon, 5/4/01; http://archive.salon.com

[vi] See Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival, (New York: Norton, 2006, 2007): pp. 126-130 for a discussion of Ali Shariati’s influence on the thinking behind the Islamic revolution of 1979.

[vii] See Yossi Melman and Meir Javedanfar; The nuclear sphinx of Tehran, (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2007: pp. 22-24 for details on Ahmadinejad’s association with principalist political groupings. 

[viii] Waller Newell; ‘Why is Ahmadinejad smiling?’  Weekly Standard, 16/10/06 http://www.weeklystandard.com

[ix] Ely Karmon; ‘Iran and its proxy Hezbollah: strategic penetration in Latin America’; 8/4/2009; http://ciempre.com

[x] ‘Moussavi: Holocaust ‘not Iran’s business,’  Presstv, 25/4/2009; http://www.presstv.ir