Inflating a Little Man

A long time ago, when the Soviet Union was beginning to shatter, a Russian friend cracked a joke, and I doubled up laughing on a snowy street in Moscow. "I wish I could smile the way you Americans do," he said. I asked why he couldn't. He said he'd been trained by his parents never to show emotions in public. A stray smile could be misinterpreted, could mean the Gulag. I realized then that my reaction to his joke had been a political statement — a reflexive demonstration of my freedom. I thought about that when the laughter began at Columbia University on Sept. 24. I wondered how quickly it took Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to realize they were laughing at him, not with him, after his blithe assertion that there are no homosexuals in Iran. He gazed out into the audience, bemused. He could understand those who found him reprehensible; he courted their disapproval, thrived on it. But to be found ridiculous? How devastating. How delightfully Western.

Ahmadinejad's appearance was a small but telling moment in the rolling overhyped crisis that is George W. Bush's so-called war on terrorism. The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, glob­al import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program. He has no more power than his predecessor, the failed reformer Mohammed Khatami, who came to be regarded in the West and in Iran as a well-dressed cipher. Indeed, Ahmadinejad has failed in the one area where he actually does have some authority: reforming the sluggish oligopoly that is the Iranian domestic economy. There have been riots over the rising price of gasoline. His political future is shaky. And yet this strange little man who brings to mind Peter Sellers more readily than Adolf Hitler — Sellers playing one of his brilliantly befogged simpletons — occasioned a classic, free-range American outrage festival, in which everyone, even Hillary Clinton, happily granted him exactly the opprobrium he desired.

Of course, Ahmadinejad is no simpleton. He knows precisely how to exploit one of the few powers he does possess, the power to offend. He gains status in Iran and in the Islamic world by sticking his thumb in the giant's eye. His Holocaust denial is a flagrant ploy — the easiest way to get a rise out of the Jewish community and, inevitably, U.S. politicians. Clearly, he benefits from his falsely inflated prominence. But who else does?

Well, at the top of the list are our old friends the neoconservatives, the folks who provided the intellectual rationale for Bush's war in Iraq, many of whom are now itching for a war with Iran. Norman Podhoretz, the neocon paterfamilias, has written a trifle called World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism and loves to posit Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden—a far more dangerous character—as the heirs to Hitler and Stalin. "They follow the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism," he writes. This is incendiary foolishness. Terrorists have the ability to wreak terrible damage intermittently, but they don't represent an existential threat to the U.S. Ahmadinejad commands no legions—not even the Hizballah forces in Lebanon that attacked Israel in the summer of 2006—and if Podhoretz doesn't know that, he should. Taking Ahmadinejad literally, as the neoconservatives do, is being disingenuous with lethal intent. It gives license to a conga line of politicians—especially Republicans running for ­President—to strut their stuff by jumping on Ahmadinejad and Columbia University and liberals in general. Mitt Romney runs an ad in which he brags that he denied the milquetoast reformer Khatami a police escort to Harvard University in 2006. Now there's a man! The New York Daily News, owned by neoconservative Mort Zuckerman, runs the headline the evil has landed. The cable news networks hyperventilate. Even the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, feels the need to demolish Ahmadinejad — elegantly, I must say — before the speech. A giant toxic bubble overwhelms the public square.

And then, there he is — and laughter is freedom's only appropriate reaction. The bubble bursts. He denies not only the Holocaust but also homosexuality? Suddenly, it all becomes obvious: We are being played by extremists on both sides. To be sure, Iran does arm Hizballah, and it does have an active nuclear program that may or may not be proved to have hostile intent, and it is making trouble for the U.S. in Iraq, supplying weapons to our enemies. These are all problems to be addressed soberly and perhaps even, eventually, with multilateral force. But the neoconservative campaign to transform Ahmadinejad into Hitler or Stalin, to pretend that he has the ability to destroy the world, to make a hoo-ha over letting the little man speak, is a cynical attempt to plump for war. Ahmadinejad may be ridiculous, but Podhoretz—who recently spent 45 minutes with Bush arguing for more war—isn't very funny at all.