Which audience matters?
A bunch of readers have e-mailed or linked to Jeffrey Fleishman’s Los Angeles Times story from earlier this week about how Ahmadinejad’s U.S. trip has played well in the Middle East — he ostensibly has “folk hero” status. Certainly this is a potentially relevant audience — but if you think about it, for Ahmadinejad it’s ...
A bunch of readers have e-mailed or linked to Jeffrey Fleishman's Los Angeles Times story from earlier this week about how Ahmadinejad's U.S. trip has played well in the Middle East -- he ostensibly has "folk hero" status. Certainly this is a potentially relevant audience -- but if you think about it, for Ahmadinejad it's actually his least relevant audience. How has the trip played inside Iran? In the Washington Post, Robin Wright suggests not so well -- in part because it played so badly in the United States: The congressional rebuke a few hours before Ahmadinejad's Iran Air 747 departed reflected what American scholars and Iranians alike depicted as a missed opportunity by the Iranian president to ease mounting tensions between Iran and the West, particularly the United States.... "Iranians find the Western reaction insulting and a sign of belligerence, but Ahmadinejad has also not emerged as a statesman or a diplomat," said Vali Nasr of Tufts University. "The Iranian blogs and chat rooms are clearly taken aback not just by the comments [at Columbia] but by the headlines of tabloids. . . . He has tried to reach out to Americans, but to a large measure he has failed -- and the Iranian political elite know he has failed." It should be oted that Nasr's view is not held by everyone -- but I'm unconvinced that this was a domestic win for him. How about the Security Council? Blake Hounshell suggests, again, not so well: [N]otice what happened today at the U.N.: French President Sarkozy called for "combining firmness with dialogue," reiterating his position, "if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region ad the world." And Germany's Angela Merkel came out in support of a new round of sanctions "if [Iran's] behavior doesn't change." She added, "Israel's security isn't negotiable," and referred to Ahmadinejad's history of comments on Israel as "inhumane". These statements may well have been worked out on Friday, when the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Washington to discuss the sanctions issue. But it sure was easier for Germany to toughen its stance after yesterday's farce at Columbia. Ahmadinejad had a chance to come across as a moderate, undercutting the unity of the EU3. Instead, he came across as a buffoon not ready for prime time.Question to readers: does Ahmadinejad's popularity in the Middle East matter as much as his unpopularity at home, in the United States, and in the United Nations? UPDATE: More conflicting takes from the weekend newspapers.
A bunch of readers have e-mailed or linked to Jeffrey Fleishman’s Los Angeles Times story from earlier this week about how Ahmadinejad’s U.S. trip has played well in the Middle East — he ostensibly has “folk hero” status. Certainly this is a potentially relevant audience — but if you think about it, for Ahmadinejad it’s actually his least relevant audience. How has the trip played inside Iran? In the Washington Post, Robin Wright suggests not so well — in part because it played so badly in the United States:
The congressional rebuke a few hours before Ahmadinejad’s Iran Air 747 departed reflected what American scholars and Iranians alike depicted as a missed opportunity by the Iranian president to ease mounting tensions between Iran and the West, particularly the United States…. “Iranians find the Western reaction insulting and a sign of belligerence, but Ahmadinejad has also not emerged as a statesman or a diplomat,” said Vali Nasr of Tufts University. “The Iranian blogs and chat rooms are clearly taken aback not just by the comments [at Columbia] but by the headlines of tabloids. . . . He has tried to reach out to Americans, but to a large measure he has failed — and the Iranian political elite know he has failed.”
It should be oted that Nasr’s view is not held by everyone — but I’m unconvinced that this was a domestic win for him. How about the Security Council? Blake Hounshell suggests, again, not so well:
[N]otice what happened today at the U.N.: French President Sarkozy called for “combining firmness with dialogue,” reiterating his position, “if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region ad the world.” And Germany’s Angela Merkel came out in support of a new round of sanctions “if [Iran’s] behavior doesn’t change.” She added, “Israel’s security isn’t negotiable,” and referred to Ahmadinejad’s history of comments on Israel as “inhumane”. These statements may well have been worked out on Friday, when the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Washington to discuss the sanctions issue. But it sure was easier for Germany to toughen its stance after yesterday’s farce at Columbia. Ahmadinejad had a chance to come across as a moderate, undercutting the unity of the EU3. Instead, he came across as a buffoon not ready for prime time.
Question to readers: does Ahmadinejad’s popularity in the Middle East matter as much as his unpopularity at home, in the United States, and in the United Nations? UPDATE: More conflicting takes from the weekend newspapers.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
