“Never touch your idols,” famously stated Flaubert in his novel Madame Bovary, “for the gilding will stick to your fingers.” A few days ago, an article written by Roya Hakakian in The Atlantic claimed that meeting your enemies is an even more unclean act. The headline boldly declared that Ebrahim Raisi, the president of Iran, “Has Blood on His Hands”. It was revealed that Raisi had been invited to address the Council on Foreign Relations, prompting Hakakian to denounce the invitation as a “political baptism” for a man she regarded as depraved. While previous Iranian presidents had denied the Holocaust, Raisi’s actions went beyond denial as he was implicated in mass killings of dissidents in the 1980s. Hakakian argued that there is a distinction between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies evil, and Raisi, who has committed it.
Contrary to Hakakian’s perspective, I believe that invitations to odious geopolitical figures are even more crucial. Like Hakakian, I am a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I attended the Raisi event along with a select few. Due to the event being off the record, I cannot disclose the specifics of what was said. As a reporter committed to sharing knowledge with the public, this restriction challenges my instinct to divulge information freely. However, I am confident in saying that those in attendance at such gatherings gain more insight and report more effectively than if they had chosen to abstain. Even when words are off the record, hearing them uttered by figures like Raisi leaves an indelible mark on our understanding and subsequently benefits our readers. The more repressive, homicidal, and authoritarian the speaker, the greater the value in listening to their words. It is unlikely that anyone viewed the event as a “baptism” or any sort of celebration. In fact, the attendees I spoke with expressed skepticism and revulsion, devoid of any misguided admiration.
In my early days as a reporter for The Cambodia Daily, my editor sent me to cover a speech by Prime Minister Hun Sen. It was not because Hun Sen was announcing something groundbreaking (I was not yet trusted with such assignments), but because “you never know what he’s going to say.” The unpredictability alone made it imperative to report on the event. Yet, Hun Sen was merely the leader of a minor country, whereas Raisi holds power in a near-nuclear nation with its own assassination program and genocidal ambitions.
Raisi recently delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly that received significant media coverage. Many of his claims were easily debunked. During his speech, the Israeli ambassador Gilad Erdan interrupted by holding up a sign that read “IRANIAN WOMEN DESERVE FREEDOM NOW.” Although Erdan’s protest was ignored by Raisi and he was eventually forced to leave by UN staff, such theatrics and persistent questioning can yield interesting results in a small-group setting. Raisi, despite being part of a sham election system and shielded by Iran’s oppressive regime, is occasionally exposed to public engagements. These rare instances provide an opportunity to witness how Iran’s leaders respond to pressure or provocation. Dialogue with coldhearted criminals, whether in public or private, can shed light on their true nature. The renowned Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci spent over a week seeking an audience with Raisi’s former boss, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Fallaci’s irreverence and Khomeini’s sometimes amusing but robust responses offer valuable insight into Khomeini’s personality. These engagements allow us to challenge the preconceived notions we hold about these leaders and understand who they really are.
Raisi’s speech at the UN was rife with crackpot geopolitical claims, including the assertion that the United States had created the Islamic State. Additionally, he described Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force who was killed by an American missile, as a “martyr in the path of the freedom of the nations of the region”. This definition of “freedom” aligns with Raisi’s support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has been accused of atrocities. Raisi’s speech also hinted at seeking justice for Soleimani’s killing by former President Donald Trump and his administration. Although Raisi suggested a fair court process, it seemed like a mere formality as he claimed Trump and others had already admitted guilt. It was clear to me, with Raisi’s background as a judge, that this line could be interpreted as a death sentence passed in absentia against former U.S. officials. The carefully chosen words and the bored reactions of the delegates present reveal much about Raisi’s character and the regime he leads. Therefore, it is crucial to meet these figures in person to demand clarity and expose their true intentions.
Some may argue that these revelations are common knowledge to anyone familiar with Iran’s history over the past few decades. For the Iranian dissident activists who voiced their opposition to Raisi near the UN, the deaths of thousands in their country have already uncovered the truth. However, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been attempting to soften its public image, relying on insinuations and implications rather than explicit statements. Uncovering and deciphering these hidden messages requires continuous engagement with the individuals behind them. And for that, there is no substitute for being in their presence and engaging in conversation.
The activists appear to agree…
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
