U.S.-Iran debate a good idea

One of the latest developments to emerge from Iran, as it faces its deadline to suspend… One of the latest developments to emerge from Iran, as it faces its deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issuing a challenge to President George W. Bush for a televised debate. The focus of the debate? Ahmadinejad wishes to discuss “world issues and the ways of solving the problems of the international community.”

This challenge is not the first time the Iranian president has tried to reach Bush for a forum on discussing their differences in ideas for global policy — he sent a lengthy letter to Bush earlier in the year discussing his values and international relations, which Bush brushed off with no reply. Thus, it’s no surprise that White House aides have already dismissed the debate challenge as “a diversion.” Another White House aide pointed out the hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad’s insistence for a debate “uncensored, especially for the American audience” when the Iranian administration is infamous for squelching public debate and criticism of governmental policy within its own country.

I believe that George W. Bush is passing up a unique opportunity in his flat dismissal of this challenge. Yes, it sounds a bit loony and completely unprecedented — two world leaders on the brink of war publicly hashing out their differences for all the world to see.

It would also mark a turning point in history. For the first time, the public would be granted an audience to leaders actually doing what they always call for and rarely do — discussing their differences and not attacking one another with military might. Isn’t this form of uncensored debate, the very cradle stone of democracy, what Bush wants to see flourish in Iran? Wouldn’t this be just the example of cooperation and meeting in the middle that he wants to set for the global community? No, Bush cannot invest time in debating every crackpot who wishes to discuss differences (I think Bush was right in not starting a floodgate of demands for face-to-face meetings by making an exception for Cindy Sheehan).

But this is different. This is a man the global community seems to believe would be ready to launch nuclear missiles in a heartbeat. Can it hurt that much to actually engage him in conversation and see how the differences in ideas between Bush and Ahmadinejad match up? Bush has shown he could hold his own in debates with John Kerry and Al Gore, men arguably much more intelligent than he and more rational than Ahmadinejad, so it’s not as though Bush would necessarily bungle the debate. As for the policy of not talking to governments whose policies violate human rights, Bush had no qualms about welcoming the president of China with open arms to the White House — a nation with hardly a spotless human rights record.

This is Bush’s chance to put his money where his mouth is. Can you imagine the swell of patriotic fervor in the public after watching Bush defend the principles of liberty and democracy in contrast to Iran’s draconian laws? This is his chance to match his soaring rhetoric and take a risk that would become an iconic moment in global politics. Think of Richard Nixon restoring diplomatic ties with China with his visit in 1972. Similary, maybe it would be hard for Ahmadinejad to maintain his hatred of Western values if he finally got what he seems to sincerely desire — an audience with Bush and a chance to explain his philosophical differences. Perhaps if Kennedy and Castro had done something similar, the 20th century would have progressed remarkably different.

This challenge may sound like a surreal attempt to publicly humiliate Bush. It could also be a chance for Iran to prove that Bush has no interest in cooperation, giving it a free conscience to begin a war using devastating weapons. In any event, history may well judge this as a golden opportunity that the administration refused in the name of its own selfish pride.

Debate Daron at djc14@pitt.edu.