Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will be in New York next week for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, requested permission to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath at the former site of the World Trade Center. After initially balking at the request, NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said yesterday that officials were considering Ahmadinejad’s request.
That touched off considerable outrage. Everyone from the White House, to the Hillary Clinton campaign, to most of the Republican presidential field, all denounced the very possibility of Ahmadinejad visiting Ground Zero. As it turns out, officials will deny the Iranian president access, but for security, not political, reasons.
[Paul Browne, the chief spokesman for Commissioner Kelly] said the request was rejected because the Iranians wanted Mr. Ahmadinejad to visit the area of ground zero where construction is under way, but he said that any additional request that he appear near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attack would also be denied out of concerns about security. Although relatives of the victims were allowed to visit the site briefly on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, members of the public are not allowed into the area.
Assuming that this explanation is legitimate, and I have no reason not to, it resolves the matter in a fairly straightforward way. Logistics are logistics. Nevertheless, the politics of this are worth considering in more detail.
I appreciate the fact that blogging does not lend itself to mixed emotions, which I admit to feeling in a case like this. My first instinct was to reflexively oppose Ahmadinejad’s request. The man is a dangerous nut, and it’s hardly a stretch to assume that he wants to appear at Ground Zero to improve his own image on the international stage. Given the hostilities between his country and ours, there’s no reason for the U.S. to accommodate his public-relations campaign. If Ahmadinejad wants to appear more responsible as an international leader, there are several constructive steps he can take in his own country.
But the more I think about it, the more I second guess this reaction.
BooMan makes a compelling argument about how we are perceived on the global stage.
[H]ere this man comes, to make an ostensibly good-faith gesture and to pay respects to our dead. Maybe he wants to help himself understand the magnitude of the tragedy so he can better understand why his country is under such a threat.
Is it really a ‘good faith’ gesture? Maybe not. Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.
My friend Anonymous Liberal, after noting some extraordinarily over-heated reactions from far-right bloggers, added:
Look, I realize Ahmadinejad is not a good guy and has said some scary things, but let’s get a grip. It’s not as if Ahmadinejad or Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a Shiite Persian. Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab. They’re not allies. Never have been. They don’t even have similar goals or aims.
Moreover, don’t we want Muslim leaders to acknowledge the tragedy of 9/11? Doesn’t that help us? Whatever we think about Ahmadinejad, wouldn’t it be constructive to have a prominent Middle Eastern head of state, particularly one that is hostile to America, publicly acknowledge the horribleness of what happened on 9/11? We are, after all, supposedly engaged in a battle of ideas.
But this is all too complicated for today’s Republican Party. Apparently all that matters is that Ahmadinejad is an “Islamofascist” and therefore it is imperative that he not be allowed anywhere near Ground Zero.
If security and safety concerns make the visit impossible, all of this is a moot point. But as a matter of principle, it’s worth considering what the U.S. reaction should be if, say, there were no logistical concerns. After all, Ahmadinejad is a foe, but that hasn’t stopped the Bush administration from sitting down with the Iranians to discuss Iraq policy. Doesn’t that mean we have some kind of diplomatic relationship with Tehran?
This is obviously an emotional question that generates visceral responses, but the nuances and complexities of the situation deserve more than a knee jerk.