...Ambassador Javad Zarif faced almost 1,200 students via teleconference from New York as he took their questions, though he urged them to inquire about Iran's nuclear program. During his opening statements, about 100 student protesters in red shirts reading "We turn our backs on terror" faced the back wall for one minute.

"I'd like to greet all of you, whichever way you are facing or whatever T-shirt you are wearing," Zarif said.

When a protester asked about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments about wiping Israel off the map, Zarif said Iran "will not use force against any other member of the U.N."

While Zarif said in his opening words that he expected inquiries about Iran's nuclear policy, only a few audience members questioned the issue.

"[Iran] wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," Zarif said. "We do not see that our security is helped by nuclear weapons."

Also offering comments were International Students Consortium President Bilal Bilici, Provost David Campbell and international relations professor Charles Dunbar, who rebutted Zarif's nuclear policy comments, saying, "Iran simply has not been credible on the nuclear question."

Bilici, who planned the event last fall, said he hoped discussion with Zarif would "emphasize the importance of dialogue" between nations...

The short story is that the BU students (both Jewish and not) put up an extremely valiant effort, guided primarily by the Hillel rabbi and the David Project (someone from the JCRC was around as well). The room was packed well beyond capacity (including an ad hoc extension) and well-sprinkled with red shirts throughout (the color chosen for protest). The students got in the question line quickly and asked some excellent, tough questions (e.g. the first question: referring to the Holocaust cartoon contest in Iran, a student asked "Which cartoon did you find to be the funniest?") They also had excellent protest signs and informative question leaflets prepared, although many were shy about getting too much attention.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we were all sorely (and surprisingly!) outnumbered by supporters of the very eloquent Iranian ambassador. Every one of the Ambassadors responses and statements was greeted with a hearty applause by audience. Some of the questions to the ambassador were clearly designed to make the current regime look good or to put down the Bush administration. More awkwardly, however, the moderator decided to attack the BU Hillel rabbi publicly in his opening remarks (over an unspecified e-mail) - my best bet was that it was an attempt to demonstrate "neutrality" to the audience.

The essence of the Ambassador Zarif's well-designed point was a clear attempt to avert a US attack on Iran. He spoke at length about the failure of the US intervention in Iraq and suggested quite clearly his belief that the US cannot afford a similar quagmire in Iran. He insisted that Iran does not intend to attack any country, and deftly parried questions of Iran seeking Israel's destruction or Ahmedinijad's Holocaust denial by changing the discussion to Israel's "human rights abuses" against the Palestinians. Finally, he insisted on the need for more dialog and understanding as a means of avoiding further conflict in the region.

Just to add a few words to Ari's account. I found this type of event rather depressing - it is a completely hopeless effort to fight a professional demagogue, esp. when the later has the last word and his answers do not need to be subjected to scrutiny for validity (like when he claimed that Iran has the largest Jewish community in ME, or when he equated the Israeli threat to attack the nuclear facilities with the talk about Israel being wiped off) and he cannot be pressed on the raised issues when he masterfully dodges them.

And of course it was not anything like a panel (like it was supposed to be) - it was clearly a podium for the Iranian spokesman. And what was supposed to be the US side of the panel decided to unanimously invoke the Baker recommendations as Gospel and to attack their own government, even if occasionally sighting a point of disagreement with the Iranian regime. The most depressing was the eagerness with which this demagoguery seemed to have been eaten up.

I could just imagine thing shifted back 70 years and a similarly masterful demagogue getting a similarly warm reception...

The supporters, as far as I could tell, did not come as a group and were not easily identifiable. They manifested in warm applauses and nice set-up questions to the ambassador. An interesting minor episode was when an Iranian student(?) came up and briefly noted that he feels more comfortable asking such questions here (than at home), and then proceeded to ask two absolutely toothless questions that reminded me some of the veiled discussions in USSR in the liberal periods. Most of the people would not even notice that there indeed may have been something there that made him uncomfortable to ask such questions at home. And this of course says more about his home than his questions and answers do.

[Also,] I do not think that anyone thinks or says that everyone in Iran "hates Jews and wants to nuke Israel", and this is completely irrelevant in a country like that what everyone wants. It is however obvious that the antisemitic rhetoric is enthusiastically supported. One can also recall that this is no more than a quarter of a century thing - Iran did not participate in any of the past wars against Israel. Also, just as in the case of Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, the people will be made to think and feel what the leaders find convenient at the moment. And these analogies do not have to be taken too literally to be seen that they are obviously true...

Apropos my Germany analogy, here is a pretty randomly selected speech of Hitler in April, 1939 (this is inspired in particular by one claim of the ambassador - that Iran wants peace and is in fact the only country that has pledge not to attack any other countries):

Some excerpts:

"I decided three weeks ago to name the coming party rally the 'Party Convention of Peace. For Germany has no intention of attacking other people. What we, however, do not want to renounce is the building up of our economic relations. We have a right thereto and I do not accept any condition from a European or a non-European statesman."

" We are not thinking about making war on other peoples. However, our precondition is that they leave us in peace."

"This people's State wants to live in peace and friendship with any other State but it will never again let itself be forced down by another State."

"We have given Central Europe a great piece of good fortune, namely, peace - peace that will be protected by German might."

Other quotations in this and other speeches are aplenty...