Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
In mid-April, after more than a year of posturing, Iran again met with representatives of the United States, Russia, China, France, and Britain (the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members) and Germany. The objective, at least from the non-Iranian side, was to deal with the Tehran regime’s nuclear ambitions. However, little was accomplished beyond the parties agreeing to meet again in late May. And not much will be accomplished then unless both sides cool the rhetoric and broaden the discussion.
The problem with rhetoric is that, in conflict situations, it becomes progressively overheated on each exchange, and the chances of constructive talks that might avert a dangerous conflict dwindle proportionately.
That’s not to say it will be easy for the United States and Iran to end their long diplomatic estrangement and start talking, if not as friends then at least as grownups with a range of shared interests.
In 1979, I was one of more than 50 Americans taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy and held in Tehran for 444 days. It was an event that still casts a deep shadow.
In the United States, it evokes images of crowds of bearded men shouting “Death to America” and burning the American flag. In Iran, every year on Nov 4 – the anniversary of the start of the crisis – there are parades and speeches celebrating the event as though it is something to be proud of.
Both sides need to put the event behind them, but that will be possible only if Iran admits it made a shameful mistake. If that happens, perhaps the two sides can really begin to talk – and not just about nukes, as scary as the prospect of an Iran with a nuclear-weapons capability might seem.
In my assessment, the depiction of Iran as some imminent military, political, and cultural threat to its region is vastly overblown.
The Islamic Republic is a threat, but mostly to itself and its own people. It has pursued self-defeating policies, exercised brutal repression, and applied staggeringly inept diplomacy.
Iran has great difficulty simply because of its unique identity. It is not Arab. It is not Turkish. It is not Sunni. So where does it fit in?
It had some success beating the drum for the Palestinian cause, but a lot of that success has gone by the boards because Iran has identified itself strategically with Bashar al-Assad’s repressive Syrian regime. That unpopular move makes Iran’s pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab propaganda something of a joke.
As for Iran building a nuclear arsenal, you have to ask what it would accomplish. The regime seems to grasp that the biggest threat to its survival, and survival is its priority, is not foreign military intervention but a soft overthrow from within – driven by internal dissidents, perhaps fomented by outside powers. In that case, a nuclear weapon wouldn’t be much help.
On the other hand, the Iranians remember their war with Iraq when Saddam Hussein used poison gas against them and the international community sat on its hands. With this history in mind, perhaps the decision to develop nuclear weapons – if that’s what they’re doing – in order to deter future attacks is rational.
I take U.S. President Barack Obama at his word that he wants to change what, for over 30 years, has been a very unproductive relationship. However, making such a change has proved much more difficult than people thought.
I would counsel two things: forbearance and patience. An estrangement that has gone on this long, and holds this much bad blood, resentment, and mistrust, is not going to be changed by one meeting, or two meetings, or one speech, or two speeches.
But I do know this: The more that the White House speaks of a new beginning, and of mutual respect, the more difficult it is for the Iranians to continue their traditional anti-American rhetoric. It simply doesn’t work anymore.
© (C) The Mark Materials. All rights reserved
9 Comments
Login to comment
nath
Crisis? What crisis?
The only crisis is the one that the Western powers are trying to manufacture.
VicMOsaka
NeverSubmitMay. 04, 2012 - 07:57AM JST Crisis? What crisis? The only crisis is the one that the Western powers are trying to manufacture.
Man, that is exactly what I was going to say. You beat me to it.
gaijinfo
Maybe if the U.S. would apologize for the CIA overthrowing the government and installing the Shaw in the fifties, and for the current currency psyops being carried out, Iran wouldn't be so anti-U.S. Free trade is the answer.
Frank Vaughn
The author has impressive credentials on paper but his writing sounds like a serious case of "Stockholm Syndrome"
Both sides need to put the event behind them, but that will be possible only if Iran admits it made a shameful mistake. Not likely to happen, to this day there are people who claim the Holocaust In WWII never happened, and almost 100 years after the fact there is another country the refuses to acknowledge the genocide they perpetrated on their neighboring country.
As for Iran having nukes . . . I would say who cares? But Iran has publicly stated that Israel does not have the right to exist. I hope Iran understands the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Doctrine, if the choose to attach Israel the U.S. is obligated to attack in kind (although Israel will probably beat them to it). So Iran having Nukes? Hard call!
Johannes Weber
No one should interpret up the words of "Ahmadinedschad" as general official Iranian policy. He is just a madman, who can't be reelected for a third term. Since he doesn't have proper economic results, he needs a foreign enemy to put the blame for his failed economic policies. An evil US or Israel comes in handy for occluding a record of failures. In that sense, if nothing extremely bad happens in the next few years, the situation should become better. The majority of Iranians probably don't give a penny on whether Israel exists or not.
Since even a lot of senior Israeli security experts say that there is no real proof yet that Iran actually tries to obtain nuclear weapons, the crisis (which mostly exists in the heads) is something of a virtual crisis, which could become real, if the hawks on either side have their way. There is no way any nation can deny another nation the right to develop nuclear power plants, if they cooperate with the IAEA as the international watchdog. Nuclear arms are a different affair though. But there is not proof (yet), that Iran's ambitions for nuclear arms are more real than the WMD in Iraq used as a justification for the last war in Iraq.
The article is quite good since it avoids inflammatory calls to arms which are all too common nowadays and which serve no purpose but make things worse. Having nukes pointed at your country is not the end of it all.
Tuntematon Sotilas
Iran is not a threat at this point, but it could be in the future. I haven't seen any proof of the economic sanctions having effect. If Iran would just stop their nuclear program the whole issue would be settled, or remove Ahmadinejad from his current position or issue an apology for his remarks but that's not going to happen.
lostrune2
If Iran would just say that they no longer believe in the destruction of Israel, then a lot of the anti-nuke sentiment would dissipate (save maybe from other Middle East nations like rival Saudi Arabia).
How hard is it for Iran to do just that?
It's not like the Arab populations still look at Iran as a white knight against Israel anymore. Many Arabs look at their own selves now and their own situations. They don't look for Iran playing white knight no more.
So Iran should stop playing white knight in a vain hope to endear themselves to their Arab neighbors or to the general Muslim world. That's becoming irrelevant more and more nowadays. Heck, some Arab peoples already hate them. The white knight role is passe; it's old and tired; they should just bury it and move on.
Just say ya no longer seek the destruction of Israel. How hard do ya think is that? That's Iran's problem - they can't let go.
Mad money
If the US would acknowledge Palestine, then the entire middle east crisis would defuse. The bill went up to the UN and the majority of countries agreed to recognized Palestine. The only country who blocked their statehood was the US
lostrune2
No, it wouldn't. Not unless Israel goes along with it too.
But that's besides the point anyways. Palestine is just Iran's strawman. Do you really think Iran would stop just because the Palestine issue is resolved? No, because Iran wants to play white knight. They'll just find some other issue to play white knight to. And because of that, people still wouldn't trust Iran with nukes. Iran has to give up the white knight mentality.