Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

5th November 2007
A visit to Columbia University and the chaotic aftermath
After being allowed to address the Columbia University, Iranian president Mohamed Ahmadnijan showed a rare character and a high level of social hardness. He blasted the American society and saying there was no gays in Iran. The eccentric leader of the republic of Iran is seen as a controversial and as an inspiration in the extremist movement. His position and virtues that aim at drawing out need to wipe Israel out of the map and to destabilise the West through all aspects of concerted violence and extremist principles, obviously resonate as great and are indicative of what the extremism followers should look up at in a leader. He has funded terrorist organizations and helped the insurgency in Iraqi with a purpose of frustrating the West and the effort of the international community to stabilise Iraqi.

Insults to the UN and the US
The Iranian leader dismissed the United Nations and ridiculed its authenticity and legitimacy. What he implied was the inability of policy within the structures of the UN and projected the US as the sole decision maker at the body. This view is myopic and absurd. He launched a scathing attack on the US at Columbia University.
Controversial character and intentions
His visit to Columbia University on 17th September 2007 has further transformed the leader to a major threat to the West’s relationship with the Middle East and other Muslim countries. Mohamed received a hostile reception at the University. His visit within a literally approach was designated to be a symbolic truce with the West’s culture and system but due to a rigid perspective on him and the commonplace attitude and general perception, Ahmednijad’s aims and objectives were not understood.
He realised within his faculties, the hatred and fear the American nation regarded him with. Subsequently he saw how ready the West was to ‘at any chance to get rid of him. Diplomacy came to a dead end with the senate at Columbia coming under criticism for allowing him to address the University gathering. Ahemdnijan was branded a ‘holocaust denier and a perpetrator of terrorism. The Columbia University president termed him as an intellectual mind set and an un-educated leader. This is the hatred Ahmednijad saw and felt in the United States Columbia University. His behaviour and character as seen in context before this was not focussed on neither intonation nor abhorrent ethos towards America but symbolic and reaching out moves which in the same context were not seen nor recognized by the American society.
What sparks this controversial and hate towards the Iranian leader is the fanatical and anti West fanaticism in him, also his strategic positioning of Iran as a pillar of Islamic extremism, consistent attacks on American foreign policy and blasting of diplomatic efforts to end the nuclear standoff which has invoked sanctions on Iran. In reciprocation to this animosity Ahmednijan sought to commence his fall back position through diplomacy. He replied in a principled perspective.
He confronted within the same schematic approach the Americans had done. He questioned the integrity of the Columbia University president Mr Bollinger and subsequently claimed the rights of Iran to own nuclear weapons just as the West owned. According to Anthony F and Robin W., (2007)  ‘Ahmadinejad, who in the past has argued that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” repeated his assertions that the Holocaust should be researched “from different perspectives” and said Palestinians should not be “paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with.” The Iranian leader also blasted U.S. sanctions against his country, insisted on Iran’s right to nuclear development and declared his willingness to “dialogue” with U.S. leaders’. His behaviour by then was characterized with apt criticism of the West hypocrisy and desire to see that they managed the greater global policies. He repeated that the holocaust needed to e researched. The aftermath was an onslaught on his sanity and audacity as a leader.
 Diplomacy and amnesty
Ahmednijad might have opted to appease Americans through diplomacy. There are many issues within the history of the West problem with Iran. Both view each other as a threat to the others interest only that the West is autonomous, militarily stronger and more strategic economically and politically. Iran is only a minnow with more strategic position within religious lines and political-religious positions.
This aspect has spared it the possible military strike by Americans. Although the United States has been more cautious with Iran, the debut of France in the anti Iran sentiment and the promise of military action as an eventuality add panache to the West desire to stop Iran’s strategic position growth. Ahmednijad wants to prove he is the key to the Middle East problem since he represents the radical ness and the extremist policies the Islamic community.
The Iranian leader acted in speed to show his stand and diplomatic aspects as a leader. He advised his government to release a Californian businessman Ali Shekri who had been jailed in Iran. He morally was seeking retribution and sought to justify desire to establish peace and cohesiveness. But due to the abrasiveness and blindness of the American lawmakers and leaders, the Iranian leader saw no relenting. Subsequently his general issued a statement that insinuated that Iran was more militarily steady and ready. There was also the launch of two air force aircrafts which symbolised the industrialised and military power of Iran. This was an act of provoking the international community especially the United States.
His character complexity and moral perspectives
However his character is seen as more re-proactive and meant to seek the elasticity of the Americans hate and military options against Iran. The Iranian leader was ready to visit the ground –zero. This would have been a symbolic and a significant gesture. He was to lay a wreath and probably make a speech. However the tensions after the Columbia University incident would render the entire visit for him dangerous.
There were emotions and protests were all over. University students and civilians were on the streets chanting anti him. This was enough reason to refuse him the chance to go to the Ground-zero. But contextually, what was the motive of his intentions? Why would such an anti American leader wish to make a symbolic visit to a place where people from his religion and community killed thousands of innocent lives? This makes the Iranian leader controversial. In the event of a visit, no wonder Ahmednijads comments and sentiments would be more controversial than his remarks about the Jewish holocaust. He mght have justified jihad and the death of these people. He might have projected the Palestinian deaths within this situation as what the Americans paid with the September 11.
Further within this issue, Ahmednijan could not be a target of American extremists, obviously they don’t exist, and hence, he was not amused that, it was only a matter of distaste and the hate American legislators felt for him. It might be obvious he knew he could never get a chance to visit ground zero but confirming it through seeking the permission to is outward and provocative. This as seen within an academic perspective is a character that is seeking to find leeway’s and fissures in the American society and government so as to achieve personal goals. These goals are two-way-traffic. The Iranian leader might be seeking to make peace and embrace American foreign policy and become part of the international community, or is acting with impunity as an agent of the large extremist world to learn and find weakness in the American system.
Worry and pessimism in Iranian leader
Though exuding confidence, the Iranian leader projected fear and desperacy to avert a war crisis. His intentions in the United States depict this character. The leaders is troubled and more in a quagmire than in good stead. Most probably he is worried by the French Foreign minister Bernard Kouchner remarks that France should prepare for war if Iran makes nuclear weapons, a sentiment shared by the United States. Ahmednijan might have weighed his options And saw he could not counter such brute force militarily. He knows the strength of Maericans through the Iraqi conflict but knows nothing of the French.
Through visiting such a prestigious government funded Columbia University. David J (2007) argues that the Iranian president has been in a cage, he wants out but what he does every time he leaps up is to hang on in even when his foot is outside. He escalates in his justification of his country having nuclear power; Ahmednijan asserts in his Columbia interviews that “Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. […] What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?
So we’re quite clear on what we need. If [the US has] created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity. […] I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, or testing them, making them, politically they are backward, retarded.”
This seems a strategy to appease the American public on the Iranian nuclear intentions so as to pre-empt the French threat and be left with the US animosity and military intervention plans. Ahmednijad shows fear and strategic shift of his policy on nuclear weapons. This way the public debate transforms from the context of his violating the proliferation faculties and embracing religious backed extremes.
Going to Columbia is an insignia of his acknowledgement of American education and federal system.He is trying to be identified with the community and seeks to tone down his strong desire to be vocal against these institutions and instead be seen as a moderator of policies. He wants to prove his actions and statements are basically intended to mend and project positive perspectives in the interest of the Iran and the Middle East.
His character raises the storms at home where his popularity is waning drastically. He is seen as an Islamic leader rather than a president of a republic. He is not dwelling on domestic issues but constantly criticizing the West and the Israeli’s. His actions do not represent the majority of his supporters and political cronies as more pressure mounts on Iran making military strikes inevitable. Though his approach to popularity is myopic, he is a symbol of Islamic rise against Western imperialism. Noor, M., (2006)
Sources
Noor Mohamed 2006 : Ahmednijads falling popularity in the domestic front. Daily Nation Kenya