Yesterday evening I attended a lecture at BU by Noam Chomsky, on American foreign policy. Talking about American imperialism, he said at the beginning, is like talking about "triangular triangles." His facts are always impeccably sourced; it's his interpretation that's controversial (and his facts insofar as they're usually unknown and conflict with conventional "wisdom"). He presents the facts in such a way as to make the interpretation seem self-evident; my own opinion of his perspective is mixed (more on that below).

Anyway, during the Q&A period, I tried to ask a few questions, but I was too late in line (it took me a while to figure out how to phrase my questions), and he tended to be overly verbose with his answers, so the event ended before I had my turn. I emailed my questions to him instead, and he responded very promptly and in detail. He asked me not to quote his response on my blog, however (I guess because he has to write many letters quickly and doesn't want an inadvertent mistake to tarnish his credibility); I will respect his wishes.

I would like to write about one of the issues I asked him about, though. He said in the lecture (the video of which I hope will be online soon) that the chance of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons was like that of Israel being hit by an asteroid. So my first question was asking him to explain why that is. Part of his answer referred to Juan Cole, the Middle East expert whose blog (probably the best source for context and truth about the region) I read frequently; specifically, Cole's translation (or correction of the common mis-translation) of Khomeini and Ahmedinejad's oft-quoted calls to "wipe Israel off the map." Cole wrote in 2006:

I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.

But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks. ...

Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

The translation of this quote is important, because the whole question of the threat of Iran's nuclear development, and sanctions or war to stop it, rests on the premise that the Iranian regime is irrational, aggressive, and seeking to destroy Israel. Cole's translation casts doubt on that premise.

An Islamic leader wishing that formerly Muslim-controlled lands cease to be controlled by Jews is not a radical concept. The Israeli religious right wishes that Muslims would not control the Temple Mount, or any part of Greater Israel for that matter, and I'm sure it would not be hard to find a quote of some rabbi making an analogous metaphorical statement to that effect. Muslim antagonism to Zionism is something Israel will have to accept and deal with; it is legitimacy by Muslim and Arab states that Israel needs for security, not theological acceptance by Islam of Jewish rule.

The notion that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons is also not radical. Iran has its national sovereignty and strategic interests, which the United States directly threatens. Particularly after Iraq, the development of nuclear weapons is extremely rational from Iran's point of view. (Hence the obvious wisdom of Joe Biden's proposal.) The Bush administration constantly threatens military action or regime change; the "Axis of Evil" concept in the 2002 State of the Union made the pursuit of regime change official policy. (Note also that Iran's alleged threats against Israel are also about regime change.) Is it crazy that Iranians / the Iranian government want to protect themselves with a nuclear deterrent? Israel does the same thing. If the mere protection of national defense justifies military action by the U.S., then Chomsky's whole theory of America as "the Godfather" of the world (in the Mafia sense) is absolutely true.

The concern that Chomsky did not adequately address, in my opinion, is whether Iran would consider giving nuclear weapons to Hezbollah or Hamas to use for nuclear blackmail (e.g., "withdraw all forces from the West Bank or the nuke somewhere in Tel Aviv goes off.") I think anyone would agree that this would be an unacceptable situation for Israel and the U.S. alike; any nuclear attack is unlikely because of Israel's nuclear deterrent, but Chomsky wants Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons (as far as I understand), so that would be nullified.

More broadly, my view of Chomsky's historical analysis is mixed for a few reasons. First, He seems to apply double standards to the U.S. or Israel versus other states; for example, America is an aggressive, imperialist power, despite also doing good in the world, but Iran is a peaceful, rational state despite also doing bad in the world. On what basis is the final verdict issued? Second, he paints broad brush strokes for some cases (for example, depicting a whole era of American foreign policy in terms of client states obeying or disobeying Washington's orders), but then offers more nuanced explanations when the simple narrative doesn't work; this makes me wonder why a more nuanced explanation shouldn't be applied to everything, making the world more complex (and morally ambiguous) than he makes it out to be. Third, he was asked (by an antagonistic questioner) which of America's enemies he's "rooting for"; he replied that he supports the wishes of the people of the world, and gave polling data to explain that most Americans oppose our government's policies, and the same for other nations. But that only works when the people want something good; it didn't work, for example, when most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq.
I read one of Chomsky's articles from the 60s (on the responsibility of intellectuals in society) and the same problems seemed to remain there. On the whole, though, his illumination of critical facts that the press ignores is vital; on the overall view of America as an unjustly aggressive imperial power, I completely agree; it's the details where I'm not so sure. I plan to read more of his writings this summer to gain a better understanding.

Update: Professor Chomsky explained to me in another email that he [as an American] focuses on the U.S. government, and expects dissidents of other countries to focus on theirs; he also referred me to his frequent condemnation of the Iranian regime, support for Iranian dissidents, and his discussion of the [real] threat of non-state nuclear proliferation in his book, Hegemony or Survival. I happen to have that book out now - I took it out for an unrelated research project - so I will read it as soon as I have time.