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 hope Obama will be elected, and from everything I have read, the rest of the world would also prefer that. Whether or not he will put a stop to US-state supported terrorism is something else. Personally, I consider state supported terrorism as executed by the US and Israel to be the most cowardly and evil policy on earth. It is the insane US policy of premption and the its lack of respect for human rights and international law that are the main problem in the world today.
Nobody in a Republican suit has EVER understood ANYTHING about Iran. And damned few Democrats do either.
Friedman is TRYING to find a way to rapprochement with Iran. That's good. His path and analysis are rather weird. That's bad. Still, if I were an Iranian leader I would DEFINITELY do something to soften US/Iran relations for a President Obama. Just his name ALONE gives them leeway--it's not European. But the man, too, shows himself to be sane. Remember there was a thaw at the end of the Clinton era, and a REALLY BIG opportunity after 9/11 with the invasion of Afghanistan, where Iran offered their assistance.
If Obama were to say something like: Look, I' m not about to change policy, but I would like to tone down the rhetoric on both sides and actually engage in discussions with the Iranian leadership" that would go SO much further to just making a start. "Let's talk" is a heluva lot better than "If you don't do as we say we'll blow you to Kingdom Come."
You couldn't say it better.
REPUBLICAN FORD & NIXON RUINED my beautiful country Iran. AMERICA ruined us and ruined Middle East with it. Just read the new reports. NO ONE wanted Khomeini, an Indian Bastard to come and Islamacize our beautiful civilized country. NO ONE BUT the OIL VAMPIRE REPUBLICAN AMERICANS. I lived in Iran all throughout those ' MADE IN USA' bombings. I was a child. I have PTSD because of it. MY father was killed by Khomeini. My Grandfather was killed by Khomeini. ALL FOR YOU OIL HUNGRY PIGS TO KICK OUT SHAH WHO WAS GOING TO INCREASE THE OIL PROCES & CHANGE THE IMPOSED CONTRACTS.
And you dare complain about 911??? How CAN YOU?
' what goes around...COMES AROUND'
Your Republican NIXON & FORD arranged for the revolution & brought the diaster of mullahs to my safe & secular country Iran...your republican REAGAN ( with help of McCain), stablished the the Mullahs via CONTRA, ....SHAME ON YOU for RUINING MIDDLE EAST & complaining too!!
I wish I could disagree with you but my heart and brain tell me that you are right. In the United States we were fed the same crap about how bad you guys are. I believe that people are people no matter where they live. All the people want to do is live their lives in peace and harmony.
Um. No offense, but where were you when Khomeni took power? Why didn't you stop him?
I wouldn't get my hopes up with Barack Obama as a president if I was a third world country or country which wishes of better relations with US. Didn't you hear what Ms Albright said yesterday on Rachel Maddow show? She said "We have to restore the american dominance in the world". Message was clear. My heart sank again. It will be same old, same old. Some country will be appointed a villain and bombed into oblivion. Nothing democratic about that. I really wits Mr. Obama would change his advisors and get somebody who does not have a blood on their hands. Or we will have half the world in ruins. Live yourself and let others live.
Perhaps the message here is that the Iranians are hoping for someone who might actually listen. The United States history with dealing with them hasn't been exempliary.
Put in another, more global prospective, is the fact that when we ignore, or pretend to ignore, another country because we don't like them, it often strengthens their resolve. In our own hemisphere, Cuba is the prime example. It has been a festering sore to America for half a century. America would have possibly been more victorious in dealing with Cuba if we hadn't closed ourselves off from them. Levis, Coca-Cola, and Chevys are far greater inducements to many in the world (dated, but the concept holds) than the fear of giving up other benefits. Yes, materialism wins out in most of the world. Castro would have lost hold against a more affluent (not rich, that's how he got there in the first place) Cuban citizenry.
As a nation we cannot bargain away our dignity, but we can recognize that bargaining with others, meeting them somewhere in the middle, and agreeing to some form of coexistence is the only practical way to live. If we had not chosen coexistence for the forty years of the cold war, most of us would have either not been born or died in the ideologically based nuclear war than would have ensued.
I think Obama's real strength is his ability to see all people in this country and the world on the same page in this changing moment of history (in terms of responsibility, of course), not dividing with artificial enemy line, "our side" and "their side" like Codoleezza Rice has been doing.
For Thomas Freedman? I don't know who he is other than hard-to-erase memory about him back in 2002, rather passionately supporting the idea of invading Iraq.
Very good advise.
Beyond energy independence, the crux of the matter is peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. That's really a diplomatic front that cannot be ignored. Getting over our oil jones and defusing Israel as the scapegoat for problems in the middle east are the game changers. We are not in a position economically to push gunboat diplomacy. The one good thing with Iran, however, is they have no fondness for Al Qaeda, and therein is the foot in the door.
I've been watching the fiasco of U.S. foreign policy toward Iran for 20 years. Clinton 'lifted' the embargo,
but was unable to implement trade due GOP obstructionism in the senate and congress.
Hopefully, Obama will completely destroy the GOP's long held, hypocritical, foreign policy cabal against Iran and Cuba.
Oh, come off it. You're just trying to drive up the price. 50 rials for that carpet, and not a dinar more, even if you swear that it really flies.
Jeez Arianna, please move this off the front page and hope McCain doesn't pick up the Iranian quotes. I can see it now.....
Thanks for this excellent Post. The most dangerous thing about America right now, and for the near term, is Americans' total, abysmal ignorance about Iran. Just as with Iraq, the neocons have tried to parlay the vacuum between Americans' ear when "Iran" is mentioned into a nonstop attempt to demonize Iran in order to prepare Americans for the hoped for bombing war on Iran which the neocons' handlers want America to wage for them. The most imperative task there is now, in the field of foreign policy, is for intelligent Iranian-Americans, and other sophisticated people who understand Iran and are not warped by neoncon prejudices, to do all they can to educate educated Americans about the realities of Iran. Obama, fortunately, is surrounded by very smart people who truly get Iran. But he needs an intensive educational campaign from concerned others to help him fight what will be a nonstop neocon drumbeat to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and to help him get some public support, independent of the neocons, for intelligent, fruitful diplomatic engagement with Iran. Robert Baird's excellent book on what Iran truly is and wants--The Devil We Know, based on decades of the profoundest experience of Iran as a top CIA agent--is the book we should all be recommending to every thinking person we know. Iran is the Iraq of the NEXT decade. Mistakes in dealing with Iran, however, would be infinitely more disastrous than even the idiotic neocon fiasco in Iraq.
So the President of Iran swears to destroy Israel and the West, while cursing capitalism, the source of our wealth, and discourages democracy lest the people speak their discontent. But if we become socialists, we will be safe.
Just want to make sure I understand this before I vote. Thanks for your help.
ooooooooooo socialists!
and BOO!
Happy Halloween, aHamilton.
Sorry to wake you from your long slumber, Mr Hamilton - but here are some facts.
Just use Teh Google.
Look at the political structure of Iran. President Ahmadinejad has NO POWER to DECLARE WAR, only the Supreme Ayatollah can.
The Iranians know that Israel has at least 150 nukes, and no-one is game to see Iran wiped off the map, because the Ayatollahs are not end-of-the-world rapture-eschatology nutbags.
Oh, and btw, Burr wasn't such a bad shot after all, was he? Nothing like a little pre-emptive force against an enemy that doesn't want to fight to build your reputation amongst right-thinking men, I'd say. I'd have thought you got that part.
Or course they want Obama in the White House. Look at how much more this terrorist state will get away with.
That's good news that Iranians will welcome Obama as Prez, but it's not exactly the meme I'd want to spread right now.
There's no reason to further inflame the masses of zero-sum right wing Joe SixPacks out there who are a few notches short of possessing the intellectual caliber for entry into the John Birch Society at this point in time.
To them, hearing the words "Iranians" and "happy" in the same clause constitutes conclusive proof of the presence of unmitigated evil.
we know the Islamic leaders want Obama
and we know the people of Obama, Japan want him too.
Ha! Must google that one.
The U.S. has to start understanding Iran and the Arab world and not keep lumping everyone together. I can't imagine under an Obama Presidency that we'll hear the same "dumb" comments that we heard time and time again out of the Bush Administration -- especially out of Bush's own piehole.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
