Join our editorial board by applying here or become a columnist at the Spectator by clicking here. DEADLINE CHANGED.
Ahmadinejad Demystified
Ever since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accepted the invitation to speak on campus, students and observers have been searching everywhere for information regarding our latest lightning rod, so Spectator has provided you with a guide to this infamous world leader.
According to the Web site of the Iranian Presidency, Ahmadinejad was born in 1956 in the small Iranian village of Aradan. His rise to Iran’s highest elected office was unorthodox. Raised in a working class family in Tehran, the nation’s capital, Ahmadinejad scored high marks on Iran’s national college entrance examinations, earning him a place at the Science and Technology University in Tehran. He earned three degrees from that institution, a bachelor’s and master’s in civil engineering and a Ph.D. in transportation engineering and planning.
After earning his master’s and and prior to receiving his doctorate in 1993, Ahmadinejad served in a secret unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that he joined following the Islamic Revolution of 1979, according to www.globalsecurity.org, a source of global political analysis. During the Iran-Iraq War, he performed covert extraterritorial operations for the Iranian government.
Many, including some who were detained during the crisis, have also speculated that Ahmadinejad was involved in the 1979 seizure of 66 hostages from the U.S. embassy in Tehran following the Islamic Revolution.
After leaving the army and before running for the presidency, Ahmadinejad held several minor gubernatorial posts around Iran. He won national fame when, in 2003, he was elected mayor of the Tehran. A perpetual dark horse candidate, his reputation as a hard-liner—even by Iranian standards—preceded him.
In the 2003 mayoral elections, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard mobilized to support his candidacy. He won the office with a voter turnout rate of less than 10 percent.
As mayor of Tehran, Ahmadinejad’s most notable achievement was the conversion of all the cultural centers around the city into religious centers, a move that bolstered his right-wing base.
Many Iranian commentators were also surprised when he placed second to Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a political leader supported by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini in the presidential runoff election. Ahmadinejad gained significant support from regions outside Tehran, leading some to believe that the results had been tampered with by the Revolutionary Guard. But Ahmadinejad went on to win the runoff election, without the wealth and fame that some of the other candidates possessed.
Running on a platform of economic reform, Ahmadinejad’s campaign was decidedly unlike the Western-style campaigns of his opponents. Avoiding flashy videos and large posters, Ahmadinejad bolstered his austere image with only one half-hour TV spot, which portrayed his father’s humble home.
The runoff results were a landslide in his favor. Ahmadinejad garnered more than 17 million votes, in contrast to his opponent Rafsanjani’s 9 million. The election shocked the world, since few predicted that such a hard-line candidate would win without the support of Khomeini.
Khomeini did not interfere with the election results, and Ahmadinejad’s tenure at the helm of Iran was baptized by a media firestorm, as his denial of the Holocaust and involvement in Islamist organizations drew widespread attention.
Named as a member of President Bush’s “axis of evil,” he has started a budding nuclear program in Iran—which he claims is solely for civilian purposes—and has been accused of sheltering the top leaders of Lebanese Militant Islamic group Hezbollah. The group has most of its offices in Tehran, and its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, routinely appeared on television from Tehran after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
Last Saturday, before his trip to New York, Ahmadinejad issued a warning against an attack on his country while presiding over a military parade commemorating the end of the Iran-Iraq War.
“Those [countries] who assume that decaying methods such as psychological war, political propaganda and the so-called economic sanctions would work and prevent Iran’s fast drive toward progress are mistaken” Ahmadinejad said, referring to the U.S. trade embargo and other methods of breaking Iran’s hard-line resolve.
His remarks are a response to a statement from French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, who said last week that the world should “prepare for the worst” in dealing with Iran—namely, by preparing for an attack.
Much of the outcry and sanctions levvied against Iran stem from human rights abuses under the nation’s strict adherence to the Sharia, or traditional Islamic religious law. The Sharia mandates the stoning to death of women who commit adultery as well as the death penalty for homosexuality, punishments that have both been carried out during Ahmadinejad’s presidency.
Despite remaining in vogue on the world stage, Ahmadinejad has had serious troubles at home. Failures to deliver on promised economic reforms and the institution of gasoline rationing have caused him to fall out of favor with many of his original supporters. For those Iranians who had hoped for a quieter role on the world stage, his prominence in international affairs has touched a raw nerve.
Despite his falling star at home, Ahmadinejad’s polarizing influence is certain to take effect on campus this afternoon.
Lydia Wileden contributed reporting to this article.
Alex Peacocke can be reached at alex.peacocke@columbiaspectator.com.
View other corrected stories














The article mentions Ayatollah Khomeini, who died in 1989. The author probably meant to say that Ahmedinejad was not opposed following his election in 2005 by Ayatollah KHAMENEI.
As an academic (alas teaching far away from Alma Mater in the Midwest) I try to teach my students the importance of free speech and critical thought. As far as I recall my Columbia education (4 CU degrees!) contributed quite a lot to that philosophy....
I suspect most (all?) of you would benefit from a course from Prof. Richard W. Bulliet, who has also written an article for this issue of Columbia Spectator which allows us to view the Ahmedinejad lecture from a different perspective.
When I hear President Bush or Fox news or New York Times, they all sound like Zionist shills beating the war drums - so now I want to see and hear President Ahmadinejad so I can decide for myself, without the all the news spinners telling me how I must think. Thank you Columbia for the opportunity inspite of desperate opposition by others who don't believe in our freedom to hold an informed opinion.
What makes any of you think Ahmadenijad is going to have an honest dialogue??? You naive folks believe he will actually be open and honest???? If you people thnk he's going to tell the truth on any level, then you are more more ignorant then I thought humany possible. He will lie, he will skirt the questions and he will come off as charming. He's a hate-filled sociopath. Why don't you invite the Iranian families whose daughters have been stoned to death for 'indescretions' to have an open dialogue with them. Or the families of homosexuals who have been killed under this madmans rule. Yeah, you got yourself a real nice guy coming to speak. But you just take it all in, hook, line and sinker. Because after all, it's an open discussion.
Columbia students are snot nosed rich liberals without the balls to serve in this countries armed forces but with the shrillness to demand all of their constitutional rights sic.
Oh and fighting wars has been so constructive right?
Where have you been living smart-ass???
Have you not noticed the state of affairs lately
And just for the record you will be pleased to know Ahmedinejad shares your passion towards engaging in violent measures to get results!
He might be a radical president, but when he is in U.S. land, we have to insure him our ideals of free speech. We have to stand up for our constitution, no matter now many things are wrong with another's government. If we cannot live up to our ideals, we cannot expect others to listen to our advice (example, no nuclear weapons in Iran).
Looks like you need to take a course on politics and law while you're there at Columbia. "Freedom of speech" applies to the government, not private institutions. Read the Constitution. Believe me, it will be informative. THE GOVERNMENT can't abridge freedom of speech. Columbia University, by contrast, can choose to have whoever it wants to speak or not speak.
Freedom of speech is part of the civil rights movement in America you moron - it extends beyond to institutions - the founding fathers gave it the most importance in the country
Why don't you take a history lesson instead?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Columbia has no Constitutional "freedom of speech" obligations, despite the history of the Bill of Rights' enactment. It applies to government action. Invoking the Bill of Rights as though it dictates Columbia's obligations makes you sound ignorant.
"When someone denies history and is an enemy of the United States and is currently responsible for the deaths and dismemberment of college aged American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,..."
what makes him responsible??
they are soldiers, and as sad as it is, its a job hazard. When you enter a country as an occupying force (afghanistan) and an occupying force disguised as a liberating force (Iraq) then deaths are expected to happen. By the native population, not Iran. as much as the western media would like you to believe that Iran has its fingers in everything, that not usually true.
Your views of free speech are quite distorted. Do you have the free speech to yell out obscenities in class without consequences? Do you have the free speech to threaten a person? Why doesn't Columbia University have the KKK come visit next to discuss the validity of their views? Not all views are equal and there is no guaranteed right to speak at a university. Not all views should be heard or discussed. If some nut decides he once again believes the world is flat, should he be invited to speak at the University to defend his position? Views that are heard at an American institution of higher learning should be academically sound. When someone denies history and is an enemy of the United States and is currently responsible for the deaths and dismemberment of college aged American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, that person has no right to step foot in the United States, much less speak about his viewpoint as if it is legitimate at an American University. Inviting Ahmadenijad to speak is not about free speech; it's about giving credibility to a crackpot who happens to have power and wants to use it to annhiliate the Jewish people and Western culture. I guess Columbia University would have been happy to have Hitler as a guest speaker as well if he were still alive, so that a discussion about whether Jews are really humans or not could ensue? Women's groups at Columbia University should be livid about this invitation to Ahmadenijad. After all, his country still practices the stoning of women when they behave in an "immoral" way. Don't kid yourself, having Ahmadenijad speak is a very un-American thing to do. When you see Ahmadenijad's face, you need to think about all of the soldiers coming home without legs and arms because of bombs sent to Iraq and Afghanistan from that man you are accepting into your university with open arms.
Freedom of speech does not equal giving someone a platform from which to promote themselves. If the University had merely invited him to speak and have some questions and answers that would have been one thing. But to invite him as a guest of the World Leaders Forum diminishes its prestige.
It cannot be denied that he is a world leader by virtue of the fact that he is the President of Iran. As the CU President said, it will not be a platform, it will be a discussion that challenges his controversial views.
Ahmadenijad's views are not "controversial"; they are assinine and not worth the breath they take to respond to. By saying his views are controversial, you give credibility to them. Controversial view are ones that are up for debate. Whether or not the holocaust happened is not really something that should be debated among sensible, educated people. Whether or not Israel has a right to exist should not be debated among sensible, educated people. Some things in life are just facts. attempting to hold a discussion with a crazy person who has crazy viewpoints is a waste of time for people who claim to value education and who should base their discussions on facts.
Why is the question of whether or not Israel has the right to exist not sensible? After all, the state has violated every single international law ever written and has illegally dispossessed thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with the holocaust. I feel Israel has the right to exist, except not in freaking Palestine.... clearly they are a better target than Germany.
Umm, the orininal UN plan back in the late 1940s called for a Jewish state (Israel) and a Palestinian state to existe side-by-side. Had half a dozen neighboring Arab countries not INVADED on the day those two states were supposed to be born, there would have been a Palestinian state. If it weren't for decades of terrorism (much of it sponsored by the Iranian government), the Palestianians would've had their own country three times over by now.
As far as "international law" is concerned, consider this: there are literally DOZENS of Muslim countries in the UN. There's only one Jewish country--Israel. Whenever anything concerning Israel comes up in the UN, you can guess which way the votes are going to be cast.
Israel and Israelis don't have imperialist aspirations. They just want peace. Hardly any other country's mere existence has been repeatedly threatened--and repeatedly challenged violently--by its neighbors. Israelis just want to live in a place where school buses don't have to travel in a convoy of Army jeeps so they don't get blown up by terrorists.
Ok, either you're living on a different Planet, or your source of information is totally distorted.
Israel just wants peace?? Is jenocide part of it??? entire villages wiped out? mass graves?? ethnic cleansing?? Peace was never part of the plan, you can find quotes by Israeli prime ministers and supporters as far back as the announcement of Israel stating that.
Israel can go exsist in Germany, that's where the Holocaust took place, what does Palestine have to do with it??
Muslims have nothing against JEWS as a religion, they are "people of the book" as christians and muslims are. what ARABS & Muslims DO have a problem with is Israel. Because they dont want to have a neighbor that constanly causes a threat to them with use of illegal weapons and harrassment.
I have a Lebaneese friend who told me that for as long as she can remember, whenever she'd visit her grandmother in the south of lebanon, she'd hear Israeli fighter jets flying above them and breaking the sound barrier so that all the glass in the house would shatter. This happened on an almost regular basis. Peace loving, huh?
History goes further than the original "UN plan" - known as the 1947 partition plan. After the defeat of the Ottoman empire, the principle allied powers - the British and French agreed during the meetings held in Cairo that Abdullah would administer the territory of Transjordan which would be included in the proposed mandate and EXCLUDED from the Provisions of the jewish national home. The league of nations approved of this mandate. The proposal made by Lord Balfour confirmed this exemption.
However due to an influx of jewish immigrants to this area there began a call for a separate homeland for these immigrants.The neighboring Arab countries revolted as was there right - just as it is your right to revolt against human rights violations that exist around the world. What followed was a story of revolt that exists till date.
So getting back to the argument - Would you let someone you have given refuge to in your house, to become the owner of that house? i am assuming your answer to be in the negative.
You are right - state sponsored terrorism is unjust and violates International law - but who is the terrorist and who is the victim? Is the US not sponsoring and supporting Israeli occupation? Why is it that every time anyone raises this issue it ruffles a few feathers.
Maybe Israel does not have imperialistic aspirations - but they have definitly violated human rights on more than 20 counts and there is historical evidence to support those figures.
This was is not about the west versus Islam, its about rights. Palestinians dont want to live in the fear that there children will be bombed or there women will be raped either.
The overwhelming majority of Israelis would gladly support an immediate withdrawl from the West Bank if they could be guaranteed that there would be peace and that Israel's existence would be recognized. The occupation of the West Bank isn't good for anyone, Israel included, and most Israelis recognize this. Most Israelis were not sad to see Gaza turned over to the Palestinians a couple years ago. But what did Israel get in return? Frequent rocket attacks, kidnappings, and other trouble stirred up by Hamas. Israel needs some assurance that the West Bank won't be used as a launching pad for an invasion.
Sure, Israel violates some international laws, but keep in mind who they're dealing with--Hamas, Hezbollah, and a thousand other Jihadist outfits. These groups don't exactly have stellar records on human rights and international law, and neither do Syria, Iran, and the other governments that prop them up.
Even prior to the mid-twentieth century, there was a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine. True, most of it was not indigenous, but quite a bit of land in the region was bought by early Zionist settlers from Ottoman landowners who didn't seem to mind someone paying them for a patch of desert.
Besides, the Forum would not be interesting if there were only leaders from unknown nations that they news is not concerned about right now. It is important to bring leaders from countries that are currently in the news, that way, their opinions are presented to people for us to hear the other side. By intellectual debates CU then contributes to the discussion on Iran.
It is remarkable that Columbia would invite a fool of Ahmadinejad's magnitude to speak, but even more remarkable is the misplaced focus of discussion: the real issue that we should discuss is how and why President Bush allowed a fool like Iran's president to increase Iran's power and influence in the Middle East while, at the same time, diminishing the United States' power, prestige, and influence in the same important region. I do not understand why nobody seems to be discussing this issue, which is really more germane to our troubled times.
Post new comment