Crazy Like a Fox

A lot of people probably think Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is certifiable.

That is, he's nuts.

I know I used to think that. I also used to think Hugo Chavez was a fruit. But then something happened. I watched, with equal parts horror and fascination, as Muammar Qaddafi gave what can only be called the weirdest speech of all time. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly, Qaddafi rambled on for over an hour about jet lag, the Jews killing Kennedy, the "Terror" Council, his own misgivings about being a member of the U.N., problems with the charter, the unfairness of the capital system, and oh yes, my personal favorite - that swine flu is a Cold War biological weapon that got out of control. He then asked the only logical follow-up question: "What's next? Fish flu?"

At one point the translator gave out, reportedly exclaiming in Arabic, "I can't take it any more!"

The speech was disturbing, not because the U.N. allowed it to happen, but because it reveals what true crazy looks like. After watching the good Colonel speak, I knew then that neither Ahmadinejad nor Chavez were actually crazy. And that's even more frightening. Because if they're not crazy, then that means all the 'crazy' things they've said over the years have some kind of purpose (rational or not) that fit into some overall strategic vision.

I don't pretend to know what that vision is, but I have a feeling it's not in the best interests of the rest of the world. In the U.S., we tend to laugh at these guys as clowns on the world stage. I think this is a mistake. When A-Jad got up to speak, the Canadians (the CANADIANS!) beat us and other Western delegations to the door in protest. In all, 11 delegations walked out.

But the rest stayed. That should be troubling, for Chavez and Ahmadinejad's message is not one of blood and fire and terror, or crazy ramblings about jetlag and conspiracy theories. Rather, they preach a message that resonates with other smaller countries - that the former superpowers, China, Japan, and the West at large have unfairly dominated the world, using the U.N. as a tool for oppression disguised as legitimate business.

Because that message rings true, these leaders (and others) can get the ears of these smaller nations, and plant seeds. Like I said earlier, I have no idea what the endgame is. Is it an overhaul of the U.N.? Is it a mass exodus? Is it a request for admission onto the Security Council (as Qaddafi proposed)? Or is it simply to make as much trouble as possible for the five permanent members so that they can pursue their own agendas in relative peace?

Who knows, but these are tyrants, and whenever tyranny is involved, the outcome can never be described as 'good.'