Well, seldom do things spin out of control of their own momentum. During the Danish cartoon controversy, it was months before things heated up, and only after several Danish imams went on a speaking tour facilitated by Arab ambassadors in Copenhagen (keep an eye out for the Winter 2007 MEQ for Danes writings about the behind-the-scenes story). Of course, the media and some academics play into this by regurgitating such Wahabi nonsense as all depictions of the Prophet or, for that matter, human figures are forbidden. (Check out any art museums’ collection of Islamic manuscripts and you’ll see plenty of depictions of the Prophet).

Sure, some Islamists are going to try to force a retraction. It’s a win-win strategy. If the Pope backs down, it is a victory for rhetoric over reality. Of course, if the Vatican stands its ground, Islamists will use it to play the populist crowd to the detriment of their moderate co-religionists.

Part of the problem is with the nature of interfaith dialogue. The dialogue is often one-way: You tell us your spin, and we accept it. By sidestepping hot button issues such as the concept of jihad, not only are the real issues cast aside, but self-reflection is also avoided.

In a broader sense, we saw this with Khatami’s so-called dialogue of civilizations: It was all good to posture, but when it came to dialogue during the Khatami years, the US granted Iranian passport holders around 22,000 visas per year, and the Iranian government reciprocated with around 800.

The reason why Track II negotiations and cultural and academic exchanges often fall flat is that only those who parrot and amplify Iranian or Saudi rhetoric get visas. For academics, the stakes are high: If you don’t self-censor, you don’t gain access, and if you don’t gain access to archives, for example, you can’t do the ‘research’ necessary for tenure.