Ahmadinejad is not helping Iran

True to his long-established legacy, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran recently accused Washington of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks in the United States, to buttress Israel. It was vintage Ahmadinejad, which prompted a walkout of the US as well as most European Union delegations, from the chamber of the UN General Assembly. Rich in rhetorical acumen but poor in Iranian shrewdness, the speech left many observers speechless, with a few clueless as to his real intentions.

Not surprisingly, US diplomats dismissed the poorly thought-out comments as being "abhorrent and delusional", with President Barack Obama labelling them as "offensive" and "hateful". In an interview with the BBC, broadcast with Persian subtitles, Obama concluded that the Iranian president's declarations were "inexcusable".

At a time when Iran was under strict international sanctions, with fresh measures under preparation, what was Ahmadinejad thinking?

Iranian leaders probably believed that the best defence was a good offence, though repeating old conspiracy theories pertaining to 9/11 were not especially clever. The old canard that "the US government orchestrated the attack in order to save the Zionist regime in the Middle East" sounded intriguing, but was utterly removed from reality.

Ahmadinejad asked the UN to set up a fact-finding mission to determine, once and for all, whether Washington had at least supported the attacks. He wished to shed light on how passports of the hijackers were found in the rubble of the Twin Towers and why there was no trace of the suicide attackers. Like other conspiracy-oriented mythologists, he wondered why 7 World Trade Centre collapsed late in the afternoon of that fatidic September day in 2001.

What was audacious, even if in poor taste, was Ahmadinejad's comparison between the almost 3,000 killed on 9/11 with the hundreds of thousands who perished and continue to die in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere throughout the Muslim World. Still, whether the Iranian president believed his own rhetoric that the US orchestrated a deadly attack on the homeland or whether agent provocateurs, with or without government knowledge, were behind the unspeakable acts, is impossible to determine.

In the event, the man who shouldered and continues to assume the full burden of the attacks, brushed these conspiracy theories aside a while back. Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz knew the truth and did not quibble. Rather, he embarked on reform policies to address intrinsic problems that led 15 of his subjects to embark on the killing sprees, which permanently changed existing relationships between the US and most Muslims.

Regrettably, Ahmadinejad's 9/11 comments illustrated the truth gap in Iranwhich remained wide open. Nevertheless, these remarks must be understood for what they are: an effort to change the subject. As pressures on Iran's nuclear programme increase, the need for a diplomatic solution was never greater, precisely to avoid a military confrontation. In fact, it was up to Tehran to persuade western societies of its peaceful intentions even if Iran's nuclearisation was a fait accompli.

At this point, what is truly at stake is whether Iran will join the nuclear club at standard cost, or whether it will be made to pay a heavy admissions price.

Responsibility

Indeed, the international community may have few choices but to accept Iran's nuclearisation path, though the costs it will impose hover around the Tehran government distancing itself from defending terrorism. In other words, if Iran wishes to join the nuclear club, the second thing it must do is to avoid advancing loony theories. Possessing weapons of mass destruction necessitates a level of sanity, even if the proposition is oxymoronic, because their putative use must presumably be to avoid an attack in the first place. That is why Russia, a presumed ally, opposed Iran's efforts to stockpile ammunition and rockets.

Ahmadinejad may want to watch his Russian ally's actions carefully. Unabashedly, Moscow recently denied entry to Iranian scientists working on the nuclear programme, and expressed its dismay at the Iranian president's open declarations of war in the region if the international community were to impose fresh sanctions. Lest Tehran mistake Russian criticisms for being anti-American, Moscow remains a western power, part of western civilisation and culture, and incapable of turning its back on itself.

It behooves Iranian leaders, especially Ahmadinejad, to take the high road. Provocative language and military manoeuvres tend to backfire in international affairs and abrasiveness leads to war, whereas diplomacy leans towards results. If, as the Iranian president declared at the UN, Tehran remained "ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice" and was predisposed to hold a "free debate with American statesmen", it may be useful to cease infantile degradations of the 9/11 dead. More important, for Muslim criticisms of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, or any number of atrocities committed by Americans to carry any weight, it is imperative that 9/11 be accepted for what it was too.

Credibility is not a smorgasbord where anyone can pick and choose, and it seems elementary, but worth repeating, that engaging in such exercises does not bring honour.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.