The Persian Question

As Iran once again becomes the centerpiece of the foreign policy debate between the two likely candidates for president, analysts and commentators continue to weigh in on the glaring difference between the positions of Senators Obama and McCain on how to tackle the Persian question. David Brooks, writing in the New York Times on Friday, suggests that "we don't understand the Iranians because the Iranians don't understand themselves." An astonishing statement coming from an extremely bright journalist, and one that betrays the fundamental problem Americans, indeed Westerners, have with trying to figure out how to manage relations with a resurgent Iranian power. The arrogance of that statement, the conceit, is that because our sophisticated Western minds cannot quite comprehend the infernal Eastern minds of the Persians, then surely they cannot either. That if their political system and their foreign policy leaves us befuddled, then they, as unsophisticated Orientals, cannot possibly be rational in either thought or in the management of their political system. I'm afraid I have news for Mr. Brooks and for all who would agree with him: the Iranians do indeed understand their system, understand their foreign policy, understand what their regime stands and should stand for, and are quite happy, no thrilled, that you are confused, befuddled, and quite frankly, lost in how to deal with them.

There is a reason why (and you can ask the British and the Russians) Iran was not colonized by the great powers, even as it was a weak and supplicant nation in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries: Iranian diplomacy. Iran has always played its more powerful adversaries against one another, has deftly maneuvered on the international stage, and has always had the same goal, under the Shahs or the mullahs, of at a minimum maintaining its independence and identity in the face of threats from abroad. Today, the ruling class in Iran has perhaps a wider foreign policy goal of spreading its influence and power well past its borders, a goal that is in keeping with the ancient Persian belief in the superiority of its culture as compared to its neighbors'. Iran's political system may appear complicated and may appear to be at odds with the notions of liberal democracy, what we hold dear, but in fact, at least on the foreign policy front, is almost frighteningly effective. Foreign policy is set and controlled by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, just as it was by the first and only other Supreme Leader of Islamic Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. That foreign policy is managed by whoever is the president, but also by a small cadre of trusted advisors the Supreme Leader surrounds himself with.

The British government announced last year, when its sailors were being held in Tehran, that it was surprised and relieved that it found the avenue to securing their release through Ali Larijani, then Iran's nuclear negotiator, now speaker of Parliament, but always one of the Supreme Leader's closest and most trusted lieutenants. However, no Iranian was surprised that Mr. Larijani could end the crisis with such ease. Analysts expressed surprise two years ago when during a sensitive time in the nuclear negotiations, the Supreme Leader dispatched not the foreign minister but Ali Akbar Velayati, a former foreign minister and another close advisor, to Moscow to meet with President Putin (and presumably deliver a message on Iran's intentions). Again, no Iranian was surprised. When former president Khatami visited the US in 2006 as a private citizen (much to President Ahmadinejad's chagrin), the conversations and meetings I was privy to indicated that his trip too, although ostensibly unofficial, was not only endorsed by the Supreme Leader but had as one of its goals a certain kind of Persian diplomacy (and was, in my mind, successful in countering, amongst the non-governmental American foreign policy community, the notion that Iran under Ahmadinejad was now an unapproachable and potentially deadly adversary). And again, Iranians were not surprised, although Americans may have missed the point entirely.

Yes, the Iranians are know full well what they're doing, and if it confuses the West and even puts it off balance, then perhaps that is intentional and part of the reason for Iran's success in diplomacy, a success that Mr. Brooks et al are often quick to acknowledge. Of course there are many within the Iranian ruling class and the government who would prefer a less opaque political system, one that would allow power to be more concentrated in one of the branches of government (the one they're in, naturally), just as some in any US administration might prefer that the president enjoy greater powers, or some in Congress who might prefer to have a greater role in influencing or even controlling the executive branch. But the Supreme Leader balances the various factions within the Iranian regime with great tact and finesse, and although the system may appear dysfunctional at times, it is in fact an extremely well-oiled machine that has managed to secure Iran's international interests now for almost thirty years. And the debate going on right now between Senators McCain and Obama (and even Hillary Clinton) actually misses the point in terms of how to deal with Iran. Senator Obama's position, one that he has finessed recently but one that still anticipates negotiations with the Iranians without preconditions, is, to the Iranians, just as arrogant as Mr. Brooks' suggestion that the Iranians don't understand themselves. Although the Supreme Leader, earlier this year, made the unprecedented and little noticed statement that Iran had never suggested that the break in relations with the US would be permanent, the idea that Iran is waiting for a president of the US to come and talk to them displays in their minds the same Western attitude they have fought against for the last twenty-nine years. It is not, the Iranians believe, for the Americans to decide when, where, and with whom they will talk to; it is at the very least a mutual decision, and one the Supreme Leader will ultimately decide for Iran (and will need to explain to the millions of supporters of the regime not just in Iran, but throughout the Muslim world, who believe that Iran is the last influential and significant power that stands up against the hegemony of the West).

The Supreme Leader himself will not be someone the US will talk to, as tempting as it may be for Senator Obama to believe, now that he has revised his position vis a vis Ahmadinejad, that that may be possible. The Supreme Leader does not travel outside of Iran and does not grant audiences to non-Muslims except in rare instances, nor would he, to borrow Hillary Clinton's terminology, confer legitimacy on the US president by granting him a meeting until he was sure Iran's interests would be protected. (Yes, the Iranians can think exactly the same way we do, and gee, doesn't it sound arrogant?) Whoever the next US president is will have to begin the process of talking to Iran, if he or she decides to do so, by first exploring avenues to the Supreme Leader, whether through Larijani, Velayati, Mottaki (Iran's foreign minister), Khazaee (Iran's ambassador to the UN who reports to the foreign ministry as well as the Supreme Leader and who conveniently has an office on Third Avenue in Manhattan), or even someone like Khatami and his trusted lieutenant Sadegh Kharrazi, who despite their diminished roles in Iranian politics, still have the ear of the Supreme Leader. He or she will have to wait and see whom the Supreme Leader will be subtly backing in the presidential elections of 2009, and whether it is Ahmadinejad who is re-elected or whether there is a new administration. And he or she will discover eventually whether the Supreme Leader wants that administration to be the one that breaks the thaw with the US and re-establish relations or whether he prefers a quieter and more subtle détente, an understanding if you will, of what the roles of the U.S. and Iran are to be in the region and how their interests can be aligned.

Mr. Brooks is pessimistic about the idea of talking to Iran, and Senator McCain has all but ruled it out, but I'm rather hopeful. I believe that Senator Obama's position, one of negotiating without preconditions, is a sound one. The Iranians may infuriate, they may obfuscate, and they may make it difficult for an American administration to sense any real progress with what appear to be intransigent positions. But the Iranians do want relations with the U.S., albeit more on their terms, and they will, as long as they are respected, negotiate in earnest. They are not, as some would have us believe, ideological foes, nor are they self-defeating.

To make Senator Obama's offer of some time ago to sit with Ahmadinejad the burning issue of the campaign is a red herring, and Senator McCain knows it, as does David Brooks. The Persian question should be (and really always has been) whether we deal with Iran or whether we try and change Iran, not who comes to tea at the White House. There is no middle ground, as the eight years of the Bush administration have showed, and the notion of changing Iran, i.e. changing its regime, is now a fanciful one. Senator Obama need not apologize for preferring to engage, rather than attack, Iran, and he and his foreign policy team will, if they take office, figure out quite quickly who it is they need to be talking to. Senator McCain might too, if he becomes president, and if he comes to understand that his beloved war in Iraq will not end the way he hopes unless he does.

Comments

[avicenna]

I wonder if Mr. Brooks would be affronted with the notion that Iranians not only know themselves fairly well - but they likely know Americans better then they know themselves. I get the feeling they have watched the delusions of grandeur and entitlement and may be able to predict America's next move. They are feeling the wetness from the pool collecting from the dripping saliva produced from eyeing Iran's banked oil reserves - the largest now in the world. Iran should be considering its hand at the moment; - they are in a very powerful position in regards to establishing a stability force in the Middle East - starting with Iraq. Iran should be making friends with Europe - where there is currently a lot of antipathy towards American foreign policy, and they should demonstrate that they have significant influence in establishing peace in both Iraq and Afghanistan - where the US has miserably failed. This would take away any faux excuse for "obliterating" Iran while at the same time extending its sphere of influence. If Iran wanted - they could make a legit run at being a major world power. The people there are both highly educated and innovative - and they are just as self-adoring as the US.

[Pepin]

The ongoing debate about whether our President should negotiate with our declared adversaries reminds me that the United States" CIA overthrew Iran"s democratically elected government in 1954, in collusion with Britain's government, because of Iran"s President"s insistence on controlling his country"s natural resource (oil) and obtaining the prevailing price.
Our government"s officials then installed and maintained the despotic Shah in power until the Iranians finally forced him and us out in 1979.
During the 80s, our government retaliated by supporting and financing Saddam Hussein"s long and ruinous war of aggression.
Under the current war criminal cabal we still have in office, we have employed saboteurs to raise havoc in Iranian society.
These are well documented easily accessed historical facts, not opinions.
We have been and remain the aggressor. With this record, I, for one, have no problem understanding why we have reportedly been referred to as "the Great Satan". I believe that we Americans would also be hostile if another country's government did this to us
I also believe that the most effective means to end the ongoing hostilities, begin healing these longstanding profound wounds, and co-exist in harmony would be if President Obama and our Congress make sincere apologies to the people of Iran for what our government"s leaders have inflicted on them during the past 55 years.

[schmuckwithearlaps]

This post does not give me much hope for the future of US-Iran relations. If both sides consider talking to each other a bad idea, then the alternative is force, and at the moment, for the time being, the US has the nuclear muscle. Reading this article makes me fear even more than ever that the US will use that force before Iran has its nuclear weapons on the launch pad. The Iranians don't think we have the balls to do it, and Bush is itching for an excus to go out with a bang. This is not the October surprise we need this year, and I do not see anyone doing anything but blowing hot air to stop Bush from doing what he feels destined to do. I realize that it is liberal dogma that Iran has no intentions of developing nuclear weapons, but whether or not they really intend to build those weapons and point them at us and our allies is almost irrelevant to this discussion.

[Princeton]

This is a sort of short-sighted thinking that's got the U.S. pin down in Iraq. The next not-so-smart move would be to totally send the U.S. economy into a tail spin by attacking Iran and shocking the already-volatile oil market. In other words: let me commit suicide because someone may in the future be thinking about harming me.

[apoyo]

And David Brooks loves to come across as so intelligent, what a fake.

[freshnotbitter]

Brooks' reference to the 79 revolution in Iran gives us a clue to what it is he finds so puzzling about Iranians.

Actually it is the 53 revolution, when USA made the Shah an autocrat, that the Iranians are concerned about.

Iranians simply don't want American style democracy because they tried it in 1953 and they lost everything.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[Princeton]

Two corrections: 1953 was not a revolution. it was a coup d'état. Iranians did not have an American style democracy but a parliamentary one.

[wadenelson1]

Excellent piece. Thanks for penning and sharing it with us.

[Mogamboguru]

Everybody who talks disparagingly about Iran and the iranian People just doesn't know what he is talking about.

Iran has one of the strongest, indigenous economies in the Middle East, regarding the diversity and, ingeniuity of their products.

Just tell me, which other middle-eastern country would have their own aircraft industry, their own car-manufacturers (Iran is manufacturing MODERN cars by the MILLIONS, annually!), which other middle-eastern country would have LESS illiterate people than Iran, while haveing MORE engineers and other scientists finishing their studies every year?

You are right: NONE! Saudi-Arabia and others have but ONE matter to sell: Oil, oil, and oil again. But in Iran, BESIDES OIL AND GAS, there's a whole industrial economy only waiting to cooperate with the world.

I have personal friends, colleagues and business-partners from Iran and I am talking to them on a daily basis. Very people could be more intelligent, upright, well educated and well behaving, than Iranians.

In fact, the road to Tehran is paved with Gold for everyone, who wouldn't follow a foolish, stubborn ideology of coerced democratization - aka: The Neocon-Bush-doctrine - but would show a reasonable, reliable sense of fairness and will of cooperation in dealing with Iran.

Iran and Iranian people are TOTALLY different from what FOX NEWS and others want to make you believe. Why don't you just open your eyes and take a look at them yourself? I assure you, you'd be amazed of what you could see then.

[Mogamboguru]

"Very FEW people..." - Typo.

[MagisterLudi]

For those for have exposure to Iranian expats.

In case of Central American ( US) and Muslim immigration (Europe), the immigrats are the poorest of the poor: the "great unwashed." The educated stay home.

In case of Iranian immigration: the educated elites and the moneyed classes escaped Iranian Islamic revolution and the "great unwashed" that remained.

Big difference.

Similar sit. during Bolshevik revolution in Russia ( 1917).

Iran-- a country with great people and a terrible government.

It takes but a middle-school education to grok this.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I have Iranian friends, and I agree completely. Just lovely people.... and their food is great too!

[tyrdofwaitin]

Thank you, Hooman. Required readng for Brooks & Co. and for the rest of us. Your observations certainly ring true re: our relationships with Iraq over the past 6 years or so. Even now, after the pain of thousands of Americans lives, tens of thousands of Americans maimed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and casualities and trillions of our hard -earned dollars ----- we still don't get the Iraqi people and culture.

The fact that we don't get a lot about 'the other' has been borne out during the Democratic primary: Barack doesn't look like us, sound like us, has funny names and...well...we just don't know enough about him. Forgive me, if you don't know enough about Barack Obama by now, after practically a year-and-a-half of campaigning, you've been living under a rock. (Although a case can be made that thanks to the media, the public may know more about Rev. Wright than they do Sen. Obama).

The bottom line: Even intelligent people, like Brooks, live with their tribalism, prejudices and plain outright fears about 'the other'. But it is more nefarious; recreating 'the other' is good for businees. That includes the businees of munitions, patriotism, power and the occupation of soverign nations.
We need an 'evil axis' to stay in the business of......well.....to stay in business -as -usual. I believe Sen. Obama sees alternatives to business as usual.

[fedupwithpolitics]

Well said. Just a comment on a minor point: What would it take to convince people that Brooks is not an "extremely bright journalist"? How about getting the Iraq war wrong? Or maybe not understanding Israel's destructive policies in the Middle East? Then there are the obvious flaws in his Iran arguments. My point is--these guys are not "extremely" bright; they're not even half bright. Kristol, Brooks, all the neocons, and even the Clintons are clever at the power game, but they're not bright enough to know that they're creating the world's problems, rather than solving them.

[RedDogBear]

I was going to say the same thing. David Brooks "extremely bright"? Give me a break. Go back and look at his cheerleading for the Iraq war. And don't tell me "everyone was fooled" I wasn't fooled nor were most of the people I know. The lies were so transparent to anyone who bothered to look and to listen to people like Scott Ritter.

[tyrdofwaitin]

Thank you both for your expansion: I do believe Brooks is intelligent as in well-read, but I don't think he has much in the way of emotional intelligence, e.g., being able to stand inside someone's else's shoes. If he could he would not, as you point out, be significant part of the problem. Book learnin' never ensures humanity or humility.

[rudiy]

Many responses are like reading Aljazeera and other Arab and Muslim news. Iran is a perfect country with love for all and only geniuses in control and has contributed so much to the world several thousand years ago. The US is ignorant. All the faults of the world are caused by the US and Israel. All Muslims loved each other and before the 1948 they never fought with each other or anyone else. If Israel and the US would just go away things in the Muslim world would be perfect. Sunnis and Shias would love each other and all the dhimmi in Muslim countries and non-Muslims in other countries would be loved!

[YankeeCanuck]

I can;t find those posts. Where does anyone say that?

[MiraMcB]

Nobody has said that, from what I've read here, thus far. There is no question that there are social, economic and political issues in Iran and, for that matter, throughout the region, just as there are in Europe, North America, etc. However, the point of the article is, that issues between Iran (and the rest of the region) and the West won't be resolved or resolved easily because of this gulf... no, CHASM, of ignorance and misunderstanding. The West hasn't "gotten it" - maybe never will "get it" and it's not a question of understanding the mentality of some wild-eyed extremist. It's "getting" what goes on in the mind of the average guy in the Arab (or in this case, Persian) street. BTW, you might be better served to balance your news diet with something other than the daily gruel served up by MSNBC and Fox News.

http://www.aljazeera.com/ and http://english.aljazeera.net/English or http://english.aljazeera.net/English/

[argeec]

The list of crimes committed by the West in the middle east is long and terrible.
In just the 20th century, the west colonized, deposed legitimate governments, ethnically cleansed and economically subjegated the middle east.
Any rational middleeasterner would resent the west.

[dadw5boys]

Makes one question who the real terrorist.

Look in the mirror Americans.

[BubbaC33]

The last time Iran actually mattered was the invasion of Greece which was stopped by the Spartans. Since then Iran has been fairly insignificant, except for the oil. Without oil Iran is of no importance on the world stage.

[freshnotbitter]

Actually you have to pass through Iran to get out of the Straits of Hormuz so even if they had no oil they would be in a strategic position geographically. The oil from Kuwait (4 million barrels a day), the Emirates plus most of Saui production (10 million + barrels a day) passes through the Straits of Hormuz.

[watererbob]

Uh! the Athenians might differ with you on that "stopped by the Spartans" bit. Don't rely so much on the movies for your understanding of History. Alexander the Great truely overthrew the Persian Empire, then was seduced by it. So the History of Greece & later the Roman Empire were greatly influenced by Persia!

[noam4prez]

If Brooks had ever read the classic "Orientalism" by Edward Said, he would have realized that his words were sadly and glaringly typical of the arrogance and ignorance of western elites toward middle-eastern, and, really, any culture other than our own.

[YankeeCanuck]

Sadly, this attitude is the heart of the present regime's foreign relations policies.
Said was a great thinker who was engaged with the world and with the notion of reconciliation. He and Daniel Barenboim were vilified when they brought Israeli and Palestinian youths together to form an orchestra.
Both were treated to threats and accusations but there is a group of young musicians who came together and gained understanding.
And, despite the naysayers, understanding is the first step toward reconciliation.
Why sit in the dark?

[MagisterLudi]

Orientalism" is political opinion based attack by a nostalgic Palestinian deeply vested in Ant- Western propaganda. This was NOT a work of objective historical research. One just has to look at the references cited by Dr. Said.

And even he was considered way too liberal by b Hamas. Dr. Said chose to stay nice and cosy in U.S., safely away from West Bank and Gaza.
I say smart choice. Semi- liberal Palestinians don't live long in West Bank or Gaza.

[Durango]

The long term goal of American policy should be to encourage the liberal/democratic forces at work in Iran. The forces that have been decimated by the aggression showd by the USA towards Iran. That aggression forces Iranians to support their government, even when they disagree with that government.

There is nothing like outside threats to spur patriotism. In any country.

The USA cannot directly help the liberalization movement. It can only support it by leaving Iran alone. In a time of peace and prosperity the religious conservatives will find it increasingly difficult to maintain power in a youthful population that doesn't remember the Iraq/Iran War let alone the Hostage Crisis.

It is clear the religious conservatives are using the innate patriotism of the Iranians to further their hold on power. Without that external threat we can hope that Iran will revert back to the Democratic Revolution that was increasing it's influence on Iran before 9/11.

And the best way for the USA to influence that movement is to LEAVE IRAN ALONE.

[mehdi]

Hooman:

Although I enjoyed most of your article and did appreciate the fact that you are standing up for us Iranians but I must say that David Brooks comments weren"t too off base.

You may claim that you know for sure who is governing Iran, but I know many lay Iranians both inside and outside of Iran who after 29 years are still not sure.

Now some of them subscribe to the usual conspiracy theories that suggest that the real ruling power behind the current regime is in fact the British or even the Americans.

While some like me feel that the ruling faction consists of various shrewd and smart technocrats supported and maybe even selected by the capitalist faction of the country which once was referred to as the "bazaris". They are using the power of religion through figures and institutions like the Supreme Leader and Guardian Council to push their policies in a very non-transparent and opaque manner.

Now this is just my theory as I sure don"t have any inside information in how this regime operates. However to assume or suggest that a regime after facing so many adversities (8 yr war, ongoing regime change policies by US) is still in existence after 29 years only or mainly with the guidance and decision making of just individuals who have specialized in theocracy is a bit of a far stretch for me " unless it is factually proven otherwise.

[Kache]

"I know many lay Iranians both inside and outside of Iran who after 29 years are still not sure. "

Well now, isn't that special?

Ask 10 Americans who's running America and you'll get answers like - Cheney, the Illuminati, the Military/Industrial Complex, A Neo-Con cabal known as Project for a New American Century, damned environmentalists, faggots, jews, etc. Nobody actually believes that Bush is RUNNING things.

Your point was......

[chinaskee]

After reading this article I am more convinced than ever that the day will someday come when we will be forced to bomb,bomb,bomb Iran.

[pubear]

If your intent is keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you're a day late and a buck short. Why did Israel bomb facilities in Syria in september and Iraq in the eighties but not Iran now when they know where the materials are being constructed. It would be very unwise to force their hand to use them.

[Mogamboguru]

Just go ahead, war nerd - and then face THIS:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

U Sank My Carrier!
.

It all comes out of the "Millenium Challenge '02" war games we staged in the Persian Gulf this summer. The big scandal was that the Opposing Force Commander, Gen. Paul van Ripen, quit mid-game because the games were rigged for the US forces to win. The scenario was a US invasion of an unnamed Persian Gulf country (either Iraq or Iran). The US was testing a new hi-tech joint force doctrine, so naturally van Riper used every lo-tech trick he could think of to mess things up....

But that was just playing around. They wouldn't have minded that. Might've even congratulated van Ripen, bought him a drink for his smarts, at the post-games party.

The truth is that van Ripen did something so important that I still can't believe the mainstream press hasn't made anything of it. With nothing more than a few "small boats and aircraft," van Ripen managed to sink most of the US fleet in the Persian Gulf.

What this means is as simple and plain as a skull: every US Navy battle group, every one of those big fancy aircraft carriers we love, won't last one single day in combat against a serious enemy.

"In the next war, there will only be subs and targets!" Motto of US-submarine crews.

[MiraMcB]

"All your bases are be mine..."

[MiraMcB]

It's just that kind of wooly-headed thinking that got us into the current debacle in Iraq.