Sleepy in Washington
Occasionally, even an Op-Ed columnist of great repute gets something so wrong that his views literally beg for a rebuttal. Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times today about Iran, and about (President) Obama's potential to negotiate with our adversary from a position of strength, or with "leverage", as he puts it. From where Mr. Friedman sits, in Bethesda, Maryland, Iran is looking "very Soviet" to him, a view that most Iranians sitting in Tehran, Iran, might disagree with. (Some of those Iranians, mistakenly I might add, are seeing Washington as somewhat Soviet these days.) The reason Friedman sees Iran this way is because of the precipitous drop in the price of oil, and he concludes that because of the bad economy, Iran will be under great pressure to negotiate with the United States on all matters of mutual interest; nuclear, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
While Friedman is correct in pointing out that Iran's economy is suffering, it is mostly because of President Ahmadinejad and his administration's mismanagement, which most Iranians understand. But as far as oil is concerned, consider this: in 2007, Mr. Ahmadinejad's government produced a budget for 2008 which was initially rejected by Parliament because it was partly based on higher revenues from oil than Parliament felt comfortable with, and Ahmadinejad was forced to revise the oil basis to less than $40 a barrel. Not $150. That's the number Iran was working with when oil hit $150 a barrel, so yes, the surpluses in revenue have indeed softened the blow of oil at $60 a barrel. But it should be remembered that under President Khatami, Iran's economy was considerably stronger, and Iran continued its nuclear program, its government subsidies, and its foreign policy strategies with oil at less than $20 a barrel, managing even to balance its budget. Assuming that one Iranian administration's economic mismanagement will force the Islamic regime to reconsider all of its long-term goals would be a fatal mistake, even more of a mistake than believing Iranian motivation and impulses stem from a "carpet bazaar" mentality.
Apart from the fact that it is an offensively colonialist and even racist generalization (and it matters not that the view is expressed to Friedman by an Iranian-American sitting at a think tank in Washington), it is far from the truth, and if anyone in an incoming U.S. administration is inclined to believe it, they will be in for a rude surprise if and when the U.S. and Iran eventually sit down to negotiate. Carpets may be Iran's best-known export after oil, and there is a section of the Tehran bazaar devoted to carpet sellers, but carpet salesman are viewed by Iranians much as we view car salesmen, or used-car salesman, hardly a view we would want the Iranians to consider representative of our politicians. (On second thoughts....) Anyone who has spent any time at all with the Iranian leadership; with politicians, diplomats, and the political class of mullahs, knows that they do not engage in "bazaar" tactics--far from it, in fact, for Iran has consistently shown over the past thirty years that some things, for example its national pride and its "rights" as they are keen to point out, are not now and will never be for sale. Not under any circumstances; not brutal war (Iran-Iraq in the eighties), not punishing sanctions, and not military threat by a superpower. Iran has managed to survive reasonably well under U.S. sanctions and pressure, and sometimes international isolation, for almost thirty years, and no future President of the United States should be under the illusion that he merely needs to walk into the Persian carpet store, "feign disinterest", and walk out with priceless concessions at a bargain basement price.
The U.S. may have more leverage with Iran under a President Obama, partly because he is not President Bush, but Senator Obama does not present "another challenge" for Iran's mullahs, as Friedman claims. I was in Iran in the late summer and into September, and every single Iranian politician (and mullah) that I spoke to was rather looking forward to an Obama presidency (and Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Parliament and a close advisor to the Supreme Leader publicly said so earlier this month). Iranian leaders do not consider "their rationale for being" resistance to a hegemonic American power; they will be extremely happy if America simply ceases to behave like a hegemonic power. Senator Obama indeed has an opportunity to end the "cold war" with Iran, but he will not end it if he believes he has more leverage than the Iranians do (umm.....Iraq? Afghanistan?), if he believes the drop in the price of oil will make the Iranians more likely to give in to American demands, or if he believes he knows the Iranians because he once shopped in a bazaar.
Thomas Friedman also rather gleefully tells us he "knows why" President Ahmadinejad is exhausted--again, it's because he's sleepless over the drop in oil prices. No, Mr. Friedman, that may be a worry for the President, but it is not his main concern. I spent some time the last few days with Mr. Ahmadinejad's Vice President, Esfandiar Mashaie, who was in New York on United Nations business. Mr. Mashaei, whose daughter happens to be married to the president's son and who is one of his closest aides, laughed off the reports of Ahmadinejad's "illness" and exhaustion. True, the president sleeps very little, but not because he can't fall asleep. And if Mr. Mashaei's attitude in my presence was any indication, the Iranian leadership is very far from believing that the U.S. might have some extra leverage in the coming months. Quite the opposite--Iranians believe they're holding all the cards now. Mashaie was almost gloating over the "end of empire", the "end of the American emperor", mainly because of the economic meltdown in the West but also because he and other Iranian leaders know full well that without Iran, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will end happily for the U.S.
As for the little quip at the end of Mr. Friedman's column, about Arabs saying they admire Iran but polls show they wouldn't want to necessarily live there, what exactly is that revelation supposed to indicate? Why would Arabs want to live in Iran, a Persian country, with a different language (Farsi) and customs, and with a people who are in a different sect of Islam (Shia, as opposed to the majority Sunni Arab)? Why wouldn't Arabs prefer to live somewhere in the Arab world?
I've always felt that most Americans simply do not understand Iranians or understand their motivations, and this lack of understanding extends to the very highest levels of our government. I wrote my book "The Ayatollah Begs to Differ" in the hope that anyone who's interested to know more about Iran and Iranians, beyond the "carpet-bazaar" stereotype, might discover something they didn't know. Iran is perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge that a new American president will face. I'm hopeful that he will not make the same assumptions about Iranians, erroneous assumptions that even "experts" make, that have so far led us nowhere. But Friedman is right about an opportunity for ending our cold war with Iran, and Mr. Obama, should he become president, would be wise to try to understand Iranians, beyond conventional wisdom and what the "experts" in Washington say.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Below is a reprint from a comment from another blog regarding Mr. Majd.
"There appears to be a rising trend among the sons (and sometime daughters) of the former regime's political figures (if this is what they called themselves) to sing and dance, in varying degrees, to tunes of the Islamic regime - in simple terms becoming the regime's unlikely apologists. Examples are abundant. On this site alone, among the trend setters were such shining champions as Guive Mirfenderski, Setareh Sabety and recently Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich...The latest entrant in this thriving market is the subject of this page, Hooman Majd. These so-called experts have many common features. They have enjoyed a privilege and pampered upbringing and later were dispatched to private and expensive European and American schools and universities. Their parents, in spite of their high positions in the Shahs regime, have harbored a deep grudge against their former paymaster usually on the grounds of being let down (in going up the promotional ladder) in favor of a more privileged competitor - but hey, the Shah's was not a meritocracy so why the grudge?
But what is amazing is that the grudge is genetically passed down to the next generation!! Due to their fluency in the language of their foreign audiences (but not in their own mother tongue), they are passed off as experts in the field of Iranian politics...read the rest
http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/we-have-lot-common
When I read Tom Friedman's op-ed, I thought he is really tripping over his ego else he thinks very poorly of his readers. I am grateful that Hooman Majd has written this superb rebuttal that only someone with his indepth knowledge and superior penmanship could deliver. I sincerely hope that Tom Friedman reads Mr. Majd's masterpiece and spends his sleepless nights educating himself before taking to his keyboard again.
Dear Hooman: I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions?
What would bring the mullahs to the negotiating table, if anything??
Thank you for posting this! I read Thomas Friedman's editorial yesterday and it struck me as something we might say to ourselves to comfort ourselves in our own crisis. We really do need to see more views from the other side, as it reminds us that a new president must be aware of the nuances of the situation and cannot simply treat Iran as an ideological problem. For what it's worth, I had been fearing this with McCain since May, when the NYT Magazine posted that excellent article on McCain and his outlook on foreign policy. But really, I would have expected better from Mr. Friedman!
(For those who missed the article, back when McCain hadn't quite seemed to have gone over the deep right end yet, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18mccain-t.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=mccain%20magazine%20april&st=cse&oref=slogin )
This is yet another reason why we need the really smart guy in the White House
"The Iranian nation never recognized Israel and will never ever recognize it," he said at a news conference. "But we feel pity for those who have been deceived or smuggled into Israel to be oppressed citizens in Israel." Ahmadinejad. President of Iran? Hopefully no for long.
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ahead of the US elections and anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, said on Wednesday that hatred of Washington was deep-seated.This conflict goes far beyond having differences over a few political issues," Khamenei told students in a speech, quoted by state television... Khamenei praised the "great move of students... to take over the centre of espionage." ( eh, this fanatic is referring to hostage taking of American diplomats).
Supreme Leader o Iran? Hopefully no for long.
Mr. Friedman's column about Arabs saying they admire Iran but polls show they wouldn't want to necessarily live there, Why would Arabs want to live in Iran, a Persian country, with a different language (Farsi) and customs, and with a people who are in a different sect of Islam....
Just the fact that you purposefully distort Friedman's quote says everything one needs to know about this blog.
Friedman actual quote:
"When you ask young Arabs which leaders in the region they most admire, ... they will usually answer the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. “When you ask them where in the Middle East would you most like to live,” he added, “the answer is usually socially open places like Dubai or Beirut. The Islamic Republic of Iran is never in the top 10." .... neither is West Bank or Gaza.
not sure what you mean. Hooman got it right. WHY would they ever put Iran in that list to begin with when audience are Arabs???
Tom is a hawkish ne0-c0n.
He already knows what he wants before he evaluates the facts of a situation. He then proceeds to use his writing skills to make a reasonable sounding case for what he believed in all along.
He tries to hide his intense dislike for entire groups of people, but it shows through if you read with a critical mind.
Dear Hooman: You pretty much sound like an official spokesperson for the Islamic Republic.
You were and advisor to criminal Khatami and murderous Ahmadinejad??? I find it very intriguing that you can freely travel to Iran without fear of being arrested while the rest of us here in the US either will not travel to Iran out of principle or fear that our butt will end up in Evin since the IRI monitors the opposition activities closely here in the US via their fake Islamic Centers or front Iranian-American lobby groups for the IRI.
At any rate,
Why don't you tell us exactly what the Islamic Republic expects from Obama or McCain or the US for that matter? A grand bargain?? Buying more time before going nuclear? What would make the IRI to come to the negotiation table. Supreme Leader of ignorance, Khamenie, today announced that the Iranians hatred of United States runs deep", signaling of no thawing out between the two nations. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49S5B220081029
Mr. Kalhor, a top advisor to Mr. Ahamdinejad also reiterated that "US Forces must Leave Middle East before any Talks
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8707231473
What is it that Americans don't understand about IRI?? Or let me put it more clearly, what is that the IRI understands about American foreign policy, if you know what I mean?
Are you suggesting that the IRI fully understands the underpinnings of US foreign policies?
You talk a good talk, sort of a cross between Dick Cheney and Ollie North, leading with bluster, continuing with innuendo, and finishing with plenty of specious rhetorical questions that assume enough premises to make even 'W' look like a mega-genius by comparison. The man's point is that the USA has represented itself for much of the post-Hiroshima age as 'above the law,' if you catch my drift. Oh, yeah, that nuclear fireball didn't have anything to do with Iranian aggression, did it?
The problem with IRI is that it was the only response that America's ruling class would allow to emerge from Persia. If we, as citizens, actively create space for Barack Obama to act like a human being instead of the naked emperor who has been pounding drone killers into every corner of the planet, the possibility actually exists that Iranians will find ways to make transformations to match what we have going on.
And in case you're so far out in galaxy Oblivia that you're not aware, close to half of the citizens--as opposed to the thugs and pundits and whores who are the face of the Israeli nation--of Israel also recognize that only through negotiation can their State survive. The same goes for the rest of us.
Your name callings and insults are not constructive and do not add anything to the debate, that is if you're genuinely interested in learning anything new. You're not arguing in good faith. Your self-serving agenda is glaring.
"they will be extremely happy if America simply ceases to behave like a hegemonic power."
The Iranians are not alone in this. It is probably the greatest single issue for the rest of the world. The Bush Doctrine as far as I can see is a return to the Manifest Destiny principles that were present starting in the mid-1800's: that America had a manifest destiny to spread American-style freedom to other nations.
This is probably the biggest single issue for America as well. I am among those patriotic Americans that yearn to see this country live up to its hype, and its hope, and our common better nature.
Manifest Destiny was tied to leadership by example.
Bush Doctrine lacks the exemplary leadership.
If you do not take this glaring difference into account,
it is impossible to make the comparison.
That's why Manifest Destiny went down stomachs better than
the current pablum...we were able to back up our arrogance.
Majd bases his arguments on the assumption that the current Irani regime is worthy of any respect from modern & free countries. It will take some time, but like other governments based on oppressive religous zealotry, they will eventually find themselves on history's scrap heap.
Umm, listened to Pat Robertson and his buddies lately? And Sarah Palin's supporters?
Yep. And I'm trying to find any reference to someone getting beaten because they were violating some Islamic dress code...
Thank you for the article. I find that a number of Americans Are not Intellectually curious about other cultures. For some reason we (Americans) seem to think that the "other" is a frightening person, when in reality the "other" does not exist. People are People, Different religions and cultures are nothing to be afraid of but to be embraced. Iran is a beautiful country that I have yet to visit, but the people that i meet that are from Iran seem to be just like me. They are worried about their 401k, Their family, homes, etc... The fact that people need to "demonize" others to make themselves feel better will always confuse me I have traveled Europe, Mexico, Costa Rica, The US. Everyone seems to be similar. In the end if people fear Islam or Iran perhaps they should learn about both, and maybe they wont be so afraid.
I would imagine that Iranian politicians (if you can call them that in a theocracy) would be overjoyed for an Obama presidency. His naivete and lack of foreign policy experience is glaring. A country that once held many of our citizens hostage for over a year would surely embrace an American leader who would meet with them without pre-condidtions. (Lexis-Nexis Hillary Clinton's and Joe Biden's take on Obama's stance). He's out of his league folks. Great speech giver but not much substance or experience to back it up.
You know what, intellect is the essential prerequisite to being a president and a good one. Obama has it, McCain does not. What goes along with intellect is capacity for complex understanding of complex problems and the judgment to make decisions with a maximum of effectivenss and a minimum of unexpected outcomes. That is why Obama is qualified, while McCain, and before him Bush, is not. If McCain had any capacity for good decision-making he would never, never have selected Sarah Palin as a running mate.
Does a person like yourself ever happen to think about the Iranian Hostage Crisis in the context of what America is responsible for having committed at Abu Ghraib? Not to Guantanamo, and the number of people we held there for years before releasing them and admitting that they were innocent in the eyes of our military and intelligence community?
Aside from the people abused at Abu Ghraib who were merely petty criminals already serving time there at the time of the invasion, we imprisoned and abused thousands of innocent civilians rounded up from their own homes in blind round-ups of entire neighborhoods. And keep in mind that the worst abuses were not even in those pictures, and were rarely even reported inside US media.
Add that to Guantanamo, consider the involvement and direction from our military and civilian leadership, consider that they were acts carried out or made possible by our elected government acting on our behalf. Now tell me how it stacks up against our citizens- 52 of them for the longest duration- who were largely diplomats or soldiers, being seized by a revolutionary government for 444 days, held in horrible conditions, subject to mistreatment, abuse, and even mock executions.
All things that happened to innocent civilians at Abu Ghraib, by the way, and god knows what exactly has happened, in total, to innocent people subject to special renditions and confinement at Guantanamo.
How little conscience can one possibly have to take the moral high ground without pause?
You make a grave mistake if you dont think Iran is our enemy. They are smuggling money and weapons over to Iraq and fight a proxy war with us. I voted for Obama, and do hope that he does not share the same view as Mister Sleepyhead.
Where is the proof that the Government is supporting these actions? Perhaps if we weren't there to begin with this would not be an issue.
If the mainstream media doesn't demand evidence, the government can make any allegations that suit their ajenda.
Mr. Majd,
You give the Iranian government far too much credit:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/independent/2008/10/tehranologist-t.html
I am with Freidman on this one. If the government of Iran survives this unprecedented volatility in the price of oil, then it does indeed have it together as you imply here. But somehow I doubt that the home-grown variety of government ministers who fake Western Phds to achieve status and credibility have any clue as to how to deal with the slings and arrows of the misery Wall Street has unleashed upon them and for that matter, on the rest of the global economy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
