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

[shystar]

An insightful analysis of the Iranian political system and it's culture.
I did read David Brooks article and thought how high handed,arrogant, and a reflection of not understanding the Persian Region's history. One only has to look back at the failed British and Russian adventures in the Region to get a sense of the strong culture of these people. An ancient culture that is fierce in protecting it's civilisation.

The Bush administration failed this history lesson by first waging war in Iraq and beating a similar drum as it deals with Iran.

It is not Ahmadinejad that holds the ultimate political power but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who actually sets the political agenda and by extension forigen policy. Any ressumption of talks with Iran must be through the Ayatollah and his trusted and the notion of making demands, preconditions, has to be tempered with skillful deplomacy to find a middle ground for fruitful results.

Any nation that a nation does not have the right to protect it's citizens is a foolish concept it is how the U. S. conceptualize this will be critical to any future meetings between Iran and U.S.

[MetryJen]

Sir, not all people are as ignorant as Mr. Brooks and Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. We are aware that Iran is a sovereign nation, with needs and unique people, and a rich Persian history. What we are also aware of is that in Iran, like the US, the ruling party doesn't reflect the will of ALL of the people. That is why we get so frustrated when we see articles (and people) wholesale bashing Iran, or threatening to obliterate them. It is time for a more complex diplomacy, one that reflects that reality. I thank you for the enlightening article.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Maybe that complexity is too much for the MSM and their current administration.

Once the bombing starts, the situation will be simple enough even for Bush and Brooks.

[Dr. Sam]

Hooman Hajd's piece on "The Persian Question" (Huffington Post, May 30, 2008) is one of the most sensible, the most knowledgable and enlightening analysis about Iran I have seen or read in many years! Bravo! The West is yet to come to a higher understanding about how power is used and dispensed in a theocratic Muslim state and culture. Iran seems to be among the most sophisticated; but even Saudi Arabia is no easier to understand--hence the Bush administration has been baffled, out-played and taken by surprise from time to time. In a Muslim culture generally, power and influence emanates from the Supreme religious leader as an examplary center--from his court the essence of the people's culture, wisdom and civilization flows to the people and the the world. It is the commoner who deals with the common task of daily administration; but the real power lies somewhere else, as we have seen clearly in the case of Iran. Whoever becomes the next US President will have to understand and deal with this reality in order to make any progress and chart a new, more progressive course in international deplomacy.

[BubbaC33]

The day after the US figures out how to be free of a need for oil Iran will cease to be of any importance.

[joanndarc]

C'mon, US have lived by propaganda since H. Truman, the dear leader. The people who don't realize it are idiots, the ones who deny do it to justify war their collective war crimes.
The world is not unipolar anymore, no matter US admits it or otherwise,so Iran is quite safe, but i'd adwise for Iran to build A-bomb, just to keep US neocons and Israeli lobby at bay.

[THEhillbilly]

"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. "

"Beloved war"? That was silly. (Euphemistcially speaking.) "His" beloved war? That was asinine. (Euphemistically speaking.) You almost had me convinced that you were having an objectivity moment until you emitted the quoted sentence, which in the context says that you expect Iran to involve itself in the stupid "war" in Iraq and that you're certain of an Iranian victory--but only if McCain is elected president.

[beaupritchard]

I'm torn as to what Obama first move internationally should be ... but I know meeting with Petraeus ain't it. I'd thought it might be a big a meeting with germany france italy britain leaders to declare and end to cowboy diplomacy and a willingness to listen ... after all while the claim is that the whole world thought husseine had wmds very few sent troops to Iraq.

Then maybe a high level meet with the 8 arab nations to declare an end to one sided negotiations in the middleast ...

Then maybe lean over the fence and tell mexico it either stops its citizens from illegally crossing our borders or we'll add a few more states to our country south of texas. Miight not be a bad place to post up the troops were bringing from the middleeast.

Ditto on the state thing for Cuba.

Overall I would signal that we are going to start caring a lot more about the citizen of this country than the citizens in some other country (like Iraq)

[Kache]

I got a lot better idea. Let's give Texas back to Mexico. We pumped all the oil out of it years ago, it's full of Mexican anyhow, and the only two presidents from Texas got us into unwinnable wars. We're done with it, we've used it, give it back.

[Princeton]

I agree with your point that here in the U.S. we are way too preoccupied with other countries while our educational system is in shambles and the college is already out of reach for most Americans. At the current rate of our governments priorities with all-things foreign, in a decade or so we'll end up like the post WWII Brittan where they relied on a former colony of theirs to help them feed their people.

[StillAmused]

Why would anyone pay attention to ANYTHING written by Brooks, an uninformed war crimes enabler whose last performance entailed cheerleading the invasion of Iraq?

Unlike most other professionals, journalists appear free to get it profoundly, criminally wrong, then slip back in through a side door and simply pick up where they left off... and their employers and readers don't shun them.

[usaempire]

iran wants euros for oil so did saddam so does chavez.,boo hiss.oil is not expensive ,the dollar and sterling are worthless.if the usa does not invade iran now how will it ever pay its mercenaries?

[EvgenyLibek]

"we don't understand the Iranians because the Iranians don't understand themselves."
-David Brooks.

Astonishing statement, indeed -- we do not understand them, yet we know, for sure, that they do not understand themselves. Could David Brooks explain (introduce?) Iranians to the Iranian people?

Our press has a long history of misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) Iran.
One need only study the 1978 Revolution to see this clearly -- the press could do nothing but paint them as "religious goofballs" who acted against their own best interest.

Yet, the vast (read: overwhelming) majority of Iranian people clearly understood the reasons.

Brooks -- and the rest of the "journalists" who like to take credit for independantly thinking up American Foreign Policy talking points -- is preparing for the inevitable reality: we likely will not be dealing with Ahmadinejad.

Our MSM has invested considerable time painting him to be crazy -- the same way we did to Libya's Khadafi, despite the fact that he'd come across quite sane after numerous interviews -- and should Iran's supreme leader send another vessel, Washington might need to have MSM paint the entire Iranian Government to be the greatest assembly of religious nutjobs ever assembled.

Perhaps even the entire population of Iran (Islam?) will need to be portrayed as rabid, fanatical loons, who are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel.

This is the Washington playbook -- as predictable as an FBI agent in a Die Hard movie.

Somebody tell David Brooks: Americans understand American foreign policy, all too well.

[researcher]

they have oil

oil will be the currency of the 21st century

we want that oil without that oil we become a second rate country

as a super power we can achieve our obtaining that oil

enough lies and deception the american people will fall right in line

they did for vietnam and for iraq and will for iran

as mc cain stated not me but mc cain it is bomb bomb iran time

god bless america truly a christian nation

[TonJ]

Good article: understanding Iran is the starting point for any success!

[BubbaC33]

My idea is for this nation to stop the war in Iraq as soon as possible and spend the money on gaining energy independence. If the US eliminates the need for foreign oil Iran will be of no importance. And that is the best solution to this problem.

[onceler]

um, this half makes sense, but somewhere in there you fall off the beam and start equivocating stuff that is totally unrelated. you have to understand the background of Obama's comments, which are not some sentiment that Iran is just waiting with baited breath to talk to us, but that in doing something like negotiating over regional influence in post-war Iraq, simply not doing so is not in fact preferable to doing so. and if Iran is so skillfull at this, so much the better, I do actually trust the Iranians in how to handle relations with Iraq more than American diplomats who still to this day know nothing of the culture and history of the area. if they try to reach beyond and take over Iraq, there would be a massive, larger conflict with nearly every other state in the region, one which they could never win in a thousand years. but by all rights both countries should certainly benefit, especially economically, from their new alliances. I hope they thrive in relative peace together as neighbors.

Iran has reasons to negotiate and so do we. I don't see Obama as saying we're great and they're dumb and just waiting for us to fix their problems, he's saying that George Bush's approach is dumb, and so is John McCain's. how is Obama's position equivalent to stating that they as a people do not understand their own political system? you haven't made much of a case to this effect.

[rudyinbama]

I love people who find nice things to say about a government that stones women to death, arrests, tortures and kills members of the political opposition, shuts down newspapers and imprisons journalists, persecute religious minorities, and whose clerics head courts that have handed down thousands of death sentences for political speech and private sexual acts.
Tell us more, Mr. Majd, about what a horribly arrogant person David Brooks for not understandling and respecting this delightful government.

[GnitenGoodLk]

To be fair, Saudi Arabia does worse, and we're lovin' the King. Play with his swords and everything. Trump is building all sorts of lovely Palm developments in Dubai.

I dare say China has some interesting things going on at times as well. Hasn't stopped us from booking ad time for the Olympics.

There's a serious child-sex slavery industry going on in the Thailand area. Still a big vacation spot for our rich and famous (until the tsunami that is) and I've seen more than a few imports from Thailand at my local stores as well.

And I believe our coverage of the Iraq war effectively ended when a hotel full of international journalists, including our own, was hit by US mortars (oops, didn't know you guys were there..sorry) Ever since it's been drips & drabs. And the death of a BBC news chief in Africa was listed as a mysterious "suicide, due to her growing dissatisfaction with her career at the BBC" True story.

Covert is no less evil than overt.

[rudyinbama]

I don't disagree with your first four paragraphs - it's the tone of Majd's post speaking of the Supreme Leader's "tact and finesse" as if this were not a government that stayed in power by oppressing its own people. (And, yes, ditto the Saudis, China...)
As to your last sentence, in the sense that murder is murder, yes.
But that is not enough for me to view all forms of government as equal - not when in another country, the very discussion we're having here would be enough to land us in prison.

[MajorKong]

That would have been a slow morning for the Shah and his secret police.

We really don't care that much how this (or any other) government treats their people. We just care whether or not they do what we want. If they do, we look the other way. If they don't, then their human rights abuses become a convenient propaganda tool.

[wadenelson1]

You got THAT right.

[noam4prez]

Hey Rudy, you're right. We should overthrow their government again and reinstall a Shah, because then when he "arrests, tortures and kills members of the political opposition, shuts down newspapers and imprisons journalists", etc, like the last Shah we installed, then the Iranian people would learn what makes America great.

[BubbaC33]

The Shah was a criminal, but that does not justify the actions taken by the current government. The sins of one do not eliminate the sins of the other.

[EngineerBill]

One thing that the Iranians could do, though I am not holding my breath, is apologize to the 50 U.S. diplomats and their families for holding them hostage for 444 days. That would go a long way to improving relations with the U.S.

[JonSmiley]

Or we could apologize to them for shooting down an Iranian commercial airplane that killed 290 civilians. Or we could apologize for overthrowing their democracy.

These aren't trivial matters. You may not remember these things but you better believe that it's etched in the collective memory of all Iranians.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

That's so true. I'm seeing that there really are some people here who perhaps lean to the right but still have their heart in the right place.

Unfortunately for everyone though, their main source of information is tv and newspapers, and they rarely, if ever, talk about the "root causes" of anything.

Seriously, the book "All the Shah's Men" is an eye-popper. Truth is stranger than fiction, or treating the consumers of news products as children.

[AndreaDoria]

Maybe we should crawl on our bellies and kiss the feet of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and promise to be good little dhimmis.

[xxnounxx]

maybe the united states of america should apologise to the iranians,for giving saddam hussein mustard gas,and nerve gas to use on hundreds of thousands of innocent iranian civilians and kurdish from,halabja,and financing the iraq-iran war..I LOVE THE PICTURE OF DONALD WAR MONGER RUMSFLED'S picture huging saddam hussein,maybe america needs to apologise to the kuwaitis,for giving saddam the go ahead to invade kuwait,once that was done,america denied it..I HATE IT WHEN OUR INTELIGENCE IS BEING INSULTED.

[MajorKong]

True. And maybe we could apologize for helping Saddam Hussein kill close to a million Iranians.

[Durango]

When did the VietNamese apologize for killing 58,000 of our citizens?

Did I miss that?