TEHRAN // While pro-government politicians, legislators and newspapers have praised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at this week's Durban II anti-racism conference as heroic, critics say the consequences of his tirade against Israel were humiliating to Iran and the speech a dire foreign policy mistake.
Mr Ahmadinejad delivered the fiery speech against Israel and its supporters at the conference in Geneva on Monday, where he reiterated his belief that Israel is a racist regime and that the Holocaust has been used as a pretext for aggression against Palestinians. His speech prompted a walkout by European Union representatives and protest from other members of the audience. Mohammad Reza Bahonar, Iran's deputy speaker, who has made his differences with Mr Ahmadinejad public, said the walkout was a trivial matter. "The president's speech was broadcast live for the whole world to see and the Islamic republic's position against racism and its utter manifestation, the Zionist regime, was expounded," Mr Bahonar was quoted as saying by the hardline Kayhan newspaper.
The conservative majority of the parliament also backed Mr Ahmadinejad's speech; 210 legislators issued a statement on Tuesday supporting the president and condemning what they called "the organised plan of the Zionist regime and its supporters" against the Iranian president. While others politicians, analysts and ordinary Iranians also agree that the walkout of the European representatives was an insult to Mr Ahmadinejad and the nation, many of them said this could have been avoided if Mr Ahmadinejad had altered his rhetoric.
"It was really frustrating to see all those people walk out on our president. He is the president of a nation after all. I wish he had seen what was coming up and chosen his speech differently," Mohammed Ramezanpour, 37, a taxi driver, said. "There was a lot to say, like Iranians' and Muslims' opposition to racism." The reformist Aftab Yazd newspaper demanded in an editorial that all those who had shared in the planning of Mr Ahmadinejad's participation in the conference should accept their responsibility and apologise to the nation.
Reformist candidates in the presidential race were also quick to criticise Mr Ahmadinejad for causing embarrassment to the nation and harm to national interests. "Ahmadinejad doesn't have to participate in every [international] meeting [to expose himself and] the Iranian nation to abuse," Mehdi Karrubi, a former parliament speaker and presidential candidate, was quoted by Etemad newspaper as saying during a campaign visit to Arak, about 290km south of Tehran.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former premier who is likely to be Mr Ahmadinejad's most serious rival in the June presidential elections, blamed the president's advisers for not preventing Mr Ahmadinejad from delivering such a controversial speech. "The repetition of such incidents threatens our dignity, the dignity of the Islamic republic and the Iranians living abroad," Mr Mousavi was reported by local media as saying to supporters in Gorgan in eastern Iran. "Such incidents shouldn't recur."
Other than causing embarrassment, some Iranian analysts believe Mr Ahmadinejad's speech and the international reactions to it could affect efforts to resolve contentious issues with the United States. "Creating a negative atmosphere for the much anticipated direct Iran-US talks is one the consequences of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech," said Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at Tehran University.
"The case of Roxana Saberi [the American-Iranian journalist sentenced to eight years in jail on charges of spying for the US] and then the Geneva incident were like pails of cold water thrown on Mr Obama's head only shortly after hopes had risen for the two countries to sit down, discuss and resolve their issues after 30 years. "Resolving these problems can benefit Iran, Afghanistan, the region and the US. In the long term it can even benefit Palestinians."
Prof Zibakalam said part of the problem comes from Mr Ahmadinejad giving priority to ideological interests when determining his foreign policy rather than national interests. "These two don't always correspond and in many cases, like the decision to attend the conference and deliver the anti-Israeli, anti-western speech, insistence on determining foreign policy on the basis of ideology is against national interests," he said.
Other analysts point to the problems, such as UN sanctions, that Mr Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has helped to bring about and believe the continuation of his anti-Israeli rhetoric could lead to even more trouble for Iran. "Mr Ahmadinejad's rhetoric causes Israelis in Israel to unite against Iran and gives reason to other countries of the world to back them," said Saeed Laylaz, a Tehran-based political analyst.
msinaiee@thenational.ae