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
I take your point Mr. Majd: I believe once Obama gets in it wont happen all at once and we will have to help him as much as we can, but I predict the world will see that its leaders of israel, U.S etc. were the ones that put profits over people , It isnt most of the people in those countries.
If the Bushies had credible evidence that the Iranians ever had a nuclear weapons program they would be FALLING ALL OVER EACH OTHER to reveal it and have it scrutinized.
All they have is a laptop of questionable origin and authenticity which they refuse to have inspected and evaluated.
The accusations against Iran are 100% propaganda.
And you are sure of this because WHY?
Thanks for Mr. Majd's rebuttal to Friedman's piece (of trash). I would like to add my two cents.
First, there is nothing legitimate that the US needs to negotiate with Iran for. Their development of nuclear power is, IMHO, purely an internal matter. If they say they are only developing nuclear resources for power generation, what right do we have to question that? Shouldn't innocent until proven guilty apply to nations as well? Of course, if it did, and it should, maybe we wouldn't be in two overt and illegal wars and who knows how many covert ones going on currently. Second, there isn't supposed to be any trade going on between our two countries, by order of Congress and executive orders, so what should be negotiated there? A case might be made for our infringement of their neighbors' sovereignty but since we shouldn't be in those places to begin with, that point is moot.
The reason we, in America, don't understand Iran's people, or for that matter any other nation's people, is because here there seems to be a stigma against intelligence and a willingness to understand. We can thank our hyperviolent culture for that. It seems that other people's haven't allowed themselves to be dumbed down as the population in America. Good for them. Hopefully that will one day cease to be an American export.
I'd class it as xenophobia. Americans have long thought the world revolved around the US, what the Catholic Church told those who dared to argue that earth revolved around the sun. Every American should be required to leave the country for at least two years and live elsewhere, then and only then can they gain an appreciation of the fact that other people also live on this planet.
Do a little more research and you will find that when the Pope tried to silence Galileo it was way out of character. Ever hear of The Jesuits? They have been teaching for hundreds of years!
The astounding arrogance and stupidity of American policy toward Iran continues with help from opinion writers, including Friedman, who wrongly assume that Iran is an "enemy" of the US when Iran seeks good relations with all of its neighbors and with the US.
The 17 surprise inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities by the IAEA reveal no diversion whatever of nuclear materials from the civilian nuclear power program. The US should be helping Russia to ensure that the civllian power program is well-monitored, and Iran has welcomed continuing surprise inspections by the IAEA.
In fact, the traditionally bad intentions of the US foreign policy has backfired in nearly every instance where the assumption has been that creating a puppet government with a personality of little qualification or merit is more desirable than encouraging and supporting. a truly democratic process. This fallacious thinking has been the cause of billions of deaths, countless trillions of dollars in the wealth of numerous nations, especially in Africa, South America, the Caribbean and some parts of Asia. Even the Chinese government shows symptoms of having been bought by the hidden money interests. Hopefully, a change in this warped world view is in process.
"US foreign policy has backfired" - You're rght KKojei - Most Americans don't know it but US oil companys were not in favor of the invasion. They can't do business where there is conflict or poor relations. Especially Muslim countries. That's why there have not been any contracts signed by the US biggies. That doesn't mean WE don't want to CONTROL the oil.
I look forward to better relations with Iran, once we no longer base our middle east policy on what the likud party wants.
Not sure I understand. Just a high school grad but when some leader says he wants to wipe another country off the face of the earth, we are just suppose to laugh?
For the umpteenth time, Ahmadinejad is NOT the leader of Iran. The Supreme Ayatollah is. That is why despite all the 'president's' rants, Iran actually has a thriving Jewish community, including high ranking government officials.
As for idle threats, go back and look at Mc Cain's talk of bombing Iran, wiping out N. Korea etc.
I have a Iranian-American doctor here in Chicago whose jewish. He still has a sister in Iran he's working on to get out. He told me she has to cover her head just like muslim women and has a marking on the cover to let everybody know she's a jew. Sounds too much like 1937 Germany for me.
I fail to see what Richard Armitage's threats to "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age" have to do with a discussion of Iran.
But perhaps you are referring to Mr Ahmenidinejad's declaration that one day "the Zionist regime will be erased from the pages of history"? (MEMRI's translation). This was a reference to the years earlier remarks of Ayatollah Khomeini, but unlike Mr Armitage's concrete and specifi threat to Pakistan or McCain's against Iran and North Korea, this was about the disappearance of the *Zionist regime* not Israel, and was compared withe the disappearance of Apartheid South Africa and the USSR.
One day, he opined, their would not be a state based on Zionist principles in the land of Palestine.
That's a political claim rather than a military one. Perhaps you do need more than high school graduation to discern that amidst the noise from the policy establishment, but I'd rather hope not.
There are more threats against Iran than any other country. From bloggers whose posts litter the cyberspace begging to turn Iran into a "parking lot", to people at work who talk about destroying Iran casually as though playing a video game, to politicians trying to outhawk each other. Israeli politicians regularly drop hints of their wish to nuke the country, military excercises meant to send a message, purchases of more and more agressive American weaponry, and objecting to Iran obtaining defensive measures. Every day American politicians line up in the Israeli lobby to show their unfaltering dedication to Israel by threatening Iran, a' la Hillary in her famous address that "we will be able to obliterate Iran". It is McCain who sings half seriously "bomb bomb bomb Iran", while neo-cons write "op-eds" on a daily basis asking to "bomb Iran into the stone age before it's too late." The fact that the Bush doctrine has not been exercised on Iran is not because of a lack of a wish on the part of the American foreign policy makers. It is only by the great mess they created elsewhere that they find themselves not in a position to create another mess.
So spare me this victim talk. As an Iranian living abroad every day I wake up to being subject to this constant barrage of threats against my nationality, my country and my family, none of whom are what the corporate American media makes us out to be.
Pax Americana will not work in this world just as it didn't during Roman times.
Educated people like myself and my family members do understand the difference between peoples. I do not see dark skin and automatically assume someone is "Arab." We have friends who are light skinned and from Lebanon. She even has red hair. We know several students and their parents who are Persian. One of my sons and my husband could easily be mistaken for Middle Easterners.
It is imperative that we, the educated, the tolerant, the strong, take on these imbecilic backward Americans and show them what they need to know. If they refuse, they must suffer the consequences of their ignorance. The rest of the civilized world will move forward and they, unfortunately, will remain behind.
I always got the feeling that Iran's, and particularly Ahmedinejad's, belligerence with the US was not long-standing policy, but rather just a stubborn voice loudly suggesting that the US (under the Bush administration) stop acting like a boss and a father to the world.
That's mostly true. There's also a bit of playing to his base involved. Railing against The U.S. (and Israel) is the Iranian equivalent of a republican mentioning islamofascism or abortion: political grandstanding for a certain type of voter.
I always got the feeling that Iran's, and particularly Ahmedinejad's belligerence with the US was not long-standing policy, but rather just a stubborn voice loudly suggesting that the US stop acting like a boss and a father to everyone.
Leverage Is Not the Issue
Just like his prideful crowing about how “The World is Flat,” Thomas Friedman is beaming like Little Jack Horner over his conclusion that the key to dealing with Iran is realizing that its people are only a bunch of carpet traders. Even more to the point, Friedman is quite self-centered in defining the reason behind the Iranian revolution. His dismissal in the October 29, 2008 New York Times of the religious underpinning of the theocratic regime—”Their whole rationale for being is that they are resisting a hegemonic American power that wants to keep everyone down.”—cer
It is not leverage that American negotiators need to progress our relations with the Persian mullahs. It is a willingness to accept the existence of another cultural outlook in an intelligent, highly educated, aesthetically, historically and resource rich nation.
I sense that you find Friedman's smug ignorance as irritating as I do.
The world DOESN'T WANT american FRAT-BRATS in charge!
AND NEITHER DO AMERICANS.
enough already of REPUBLICAN LIES AND CORRUPTION.
Their MANTRA since the 1970's is TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER.
They are wrong!
TRUTH DOES MATTER.
Let's get rid of republican liars and criminals.
NO MORE NANNY STATE FOR REPUBLICAN RICH! !
NO MORE SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH AND BAILOUTS! !
Yeah and lets get those poor to create more jobs.
Pull your head out. The poor create more jobs than the rich. That fairy tale was invented by the rich so that they won't have to pay so much tax. Small business is the heart and soul of America.
Don't know if you paid much attention, but the people in charge, whose friends received the greatest amount welfare in history, actually COST the American economy jobs. I know, facts really suck.
The majority of job creation comes from small businesses, who now pay significantly more in taxes than large corps (I pay between 35% and 40%, Microsoft pays 0%. Fact). 95% of small businesses will FINALLY get a tax break.
Brilliant article. Friedman is a silly man most of the time and I very seldomly agree with his viewpoints as he sees things through such a narrow International Relations model.
Majd is right to point out that Iran feels it holds all the cards. It pretty much does. and far from Iran being our biggest enemy, Iran is probably the most naturally suited to be a US ally in the middle east, if we would quit trying to lump them in with the Arabs they cant stand (and who are indeed mostly another sect) and the tribals to their east, who couldnt be anything further from the way Iranians view their long history of civilization and sophistication compared to all their neighbors. they just want to feel useful, respected (because they are weilding tremendous influence in the region) and the more we refuse to give them their due respect and include them as a stakeholder, the more petulant and uncooperative they get.
its really time we got rid of this idea that our enemies are all simplistic barbarian unsophisticated rubes. like American politics and culture and worldviews are the only advanced notions that exist. unless we can make room for multiple modernities, multiple realities equally as sophisticated and meaningful as ours, we are in a lot of trouble. we keep underestimating everyone at our own peril.
Hegel suggests that history begins with Persia. My advice to all who want to contemplate contemporary Iran intelligibly is to study the intricacies of the various intersecting empires--Persian, Russian, Ottoman, British, French--and proto-imperial regimes--p
In particular, any discussion of present politics and policies in Iran--especially with any reference to the U.S.--that fails to mention the depredations of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi or the CIA-plotted ouster of President Mohammed Mosadegh in 1953 that brought this particular mass murderer to power, is a discussion that will only have a rhetorical point. That point might be to support Israel or U.S. hegemony or an imperial access to oil or any number of other rationale. But it will have no analytical power or truth value. Nor will it make any sense except inasmuch as Americans want to declare war on humanity.
Our recent forefathers have brutalized and traumatized much of the world. Iran is the "poster child" of such brutalization and traumatization. Any conversation about policy and relationship has to begin with these points and then proceed to deeper historical understanding, or that discourse can only lead to the most insubstantial and hopeless of negotiations.
Well Posted...
I am an American who lived in Iran in the 70's.
I have always felt that, but for the CIA's removal of the democratic
Perhaps an apology is in order?
And, as I recall, it was Gerald Ford that agreed to make nuclear technology available for Iran's Bushehr reactors.
I met many fine people during my time there, and I believe that if you scratch the surface, you will find that Iranians are not as Islamic as you think. The most beloved holiday, Now Ruz, is Zoroastrian as are the treasured ruins at Persepolis. And take the time to read the epic poem "Shahnameh" about the history of Iran - it might change the way you view the country.
I hope you read the report that NIxon & Ford contributed HUGELY to Iranian revolution
Those fine people you met back then are either in exile or dead.
And how many of those who chose exile in the United States and have become citizens are still treated like they are less than human because they are "Iranian"?
oh really, HOW DO YOU KNOW? Did you see that in your crystal ball?
Who knows? Most Americans still bristle with anger at the 52 U.S. citizens that were held hostage for 444 days at the US Embassy. But I think the Shah, restored to power by the CIA, held Iran hostage for 26 years, all 36 million people. I know what it was like to live under his government with the never-ending paranoia created by his secret police.
For me, the questions that remain from America’s involvement there are the moral ones that no one ever seems to ask. If you define yourself as a “decent” country, is it acceptable for your government to override the progressive course of democracy in another nation and install a dictator for your own benefit? The documents have been declassified.
And what do we owe the citizens of Iran? Were the people living there worth so little as human beings that they deserved to be subjected to a government that was not really their own?
Every time I hear a speech attacking Iran, I recall these questions and my experiences there. I think about my friend and driver, Hamid, who was willing to be beaten, bloodied and dragged through the streets of Tehran to save me from kidnapping, something he was paid $80 a week to do. I think about my friend Noorah, whose house was ransacked during the revolution. Her father’s absence was attributed to the secret police. And I think my Armenian friend George, saying, “Pahlavi, Pahlavi, everything is Pahlavi.”
It's probably fair to say that no one understands Iran who hasn't read the Shahnameh.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
