Demonizing the Court Jester

This constant Hitlerization of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aside is borne out of a need for enemies to have a face. The mullahs who actually control Iran do so behind a wall of secrecy, and Ahmadinejad is their clownish front man, the equivalent of a shiny object designed to distract people. So aside from the free speech concerns, the focus on him missing the point entirely. Kudos to The New York Times for picking up on this.

Since his inauguration two years ago, Mr. Ahmadinejad has grabbed headlines around the world, and in Iran, for outrageous statements that often have no more likelihood of being put into practice than his plan for women to attend soccer games. He has generated controversy in New York in recent days by asking to visit ground zero — a request that was denied — and his scheduled appearance at Columbia University has drawn protests.

But it is because of his provocative remarks, like denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, that the United States and Europe have never known quite how to handle him. In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts.

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.”

He serves a purpose for both the neocons and the mullahs. Actually, the same purpose; as a stand-in to mask reality. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is failing at home but is propped up by those who want to attack Iran. They need him as much as he needs them.

And I should reiterate Rick Perlstein's excellent essay, looking at the differences between Nikita Khruschev's visit in 1959 and Ahmadinejad's this week, and pronouncing us a nation of bed-wetters.