You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
US may deny visa for Iran leader's UN address
2005-08-06
The Bush administration is considering taking the unprecedented step of preventing a visting head of state from addressing the United Nations in New York by denying a visa to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran's new elected conservative president. Officials said a decision rested on investigations into whether Mr Ahmadi-Nejad was involved in the 1979 US embassy hostage crisis and the killing of an Iranian-Kurdish dissident leader in Vienna in 1989. Iran denies his involvement in either event.

A top Iranian official confirmed Thursday that Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who took office on Wednesday, planned to address the UN Millennium Summit and its annual General Assembly next month. Ahmadi-Nejad’s visa application was submitted on Thursday, the Iranian official said. The trip would be “mutually beneficial to the US and Iran”, the official added.

A White House official said that visa applications were confidential under US law and therefore he could not comment on the outcome. Asked if the president’s alleged involvement in the 444-day-long embassy hostage crisis, if proven, would be sufficient reason to deny him a visa, the US official replied: “That is something we are looking at.” A US official who asked to remain anonymous said agencies were examining whether there was sufficient evidence to deny a visa and how this would be justified under international law.

Stephane Dujarric, UN spokesman, said: “The host country agreement calls on the US not to impose any impediment to the travel to the UN of any representative of a member state on official business.” Yasser Arafat, Palestine Liberation Organisation chairman, was denied entry in 1988. He addressed the UN in Geneva. Mohammad Khatami, Iran's previous president, spoke at the UN several times, most notably just weeks after the September 2001 attacks, which he condemned. Former US diplomats allege they recognise Mr Ahmadi-Nejad as one of their captors, but the Central Intelligence Agency has found no confirmation of this.
Posted by:Captain America

#20  Mayhaps he gets taken hostage?
Posted by: Choter Flith6810   2005-08-06 23:28  

#19  "Iran's new elected conservative president."

Aren't there rules about when reporters can reference someone as "elected" when the "election" was largely staged? Am I missing something that the "reporters" at FT know about the Iranian "election" that included only candidates that were pre-approved by the mullahs?

"Conservative President"

Somehow, we are lacking precision in terminology here. GWB is generally considered a "conservative president" but GWB and this Mahmoud are like day and night with Mahmoud being on the "dark side."
Posted by: GRock   2005-08-06 22:59  

#18  prosecute
Posted by: Jan   2005-08-06 22:48  

#17  the last few comments stole my thunder. Yeah Chas.
Yes after he gets here proscecute him.
Posted by: Jan   2005-08-06 22:46  

#16  A diplomatic passport?

Like the ones the diplomats had when they were taken hostage?
Posted by: Phil Fraering   2005-08-06 17:19  

#15  unfortunately, if he comes in on a diplomatic passport, he can't (legally) be touched regrdless of his sins; nice idea though
Posted by: Flaviger Glugum5488   2005-08-06 16:52  

#14  Damn Charles, I like that idea.

Either that or arrange for some of our 'students' to hold him hostage....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-08-06 15:24  

#13  I wonder if letting him in is just a ploy too arrest him? If he was among the terrorists who took the embassy in 1979, then he's guilty of invading a sovereign nation. We just might be able to prosecute him...
Posted by: Charles   2005-08-06 14:20  

#12  Next time, try saying something of substance?
Posted by: Pappy   2005-08-06 14:18  

#11  The US is going to let him in..."W" is on his touchy feely side lately! I'm wondering if even Iran, is still a leg of the Axis Of Evil any more?!
Posted by: smn   2005-08-06 13:33  

#10  Can we route him through King County as a condition of entry? I hear there's a lonely horse there that's in need of .... ummm ... "attention".
Posted by: AzCat   2005-08-06 11:28  

#9  Leave it to Bolton to come up with a diplomatic copmpromise. No visa but the MM can come to the UN as long as he is under U. S. military custody at all times.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-08-06 11:08  

#8  Lightning Bolton strikes?
Posted by: Captain America   2005-08-06 11:06  

#7  Sigh.
Posted by: .com   2005-08-06 10:43  

#6  I think you are right. The administration always caves to pressure like this.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-08-06 10:41  

#5  I like the way your plan sounds .com
Sadly, it won't progress past step 2. and he'll be let in.

Posted by: JerseyMike   2005-08-06 07:27  

#4  First, the State Dept is part of the Executive Branch and, thus, works for the President - so if the "White House" determines this asshat is persona non grata then that is that.

Second, I see a wonderful opportunity here. Postively Rovian, in fact.

1) Deny the visa.

2) Let the bruhaha develop, egg it on with some followup guaranteed to tweak Tranzi noses, and soon there will be a rolling and rising cry that the US can't deny the visa.

3) Make it crystal clear that, while the UN is in the US, we certainly can and do. End of story.

4) This will lead the brainless dupes to begin screaming about "International Law", blah³. The UN must be moved to a site where "International Law" applies. The UN must be moved out of the US! Officially - the US should only assert US sovereignty.

5) Tease it along, feed the fire, let the mousies roar...

6) Then simply agree with them, yes this would be for the best. Fill the ensuing silence with a 48 hour eviction notice.

Q.E.D.

Melike.
Posted by: .com   2005-08-06 05:10  

#3  Yeah, and while they are denying the visa, blow up the UN building at the same time.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler   2005-08-06 04:21  

#2  Can the White House intervene or is it up to State?
Posted by: Jake-the-Peg   2005-08-06 04:03  

#1  The trip would be “mutually beneficial to the US and Iran”, the official added.

That's awfully mild for them.

but the Central Intelligence Agency has found no confirmation of this.

The Agency couldn't find its ass with both hands.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2005-08-06 02:45  

00:00