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

[MagisterLudi]

Let's think about this astounding statement for a moment:" The Supreme Leader does not grant audiences to non-Muslims." Apprently he's afraid of being polluted by the smell of the infidel.
What a height of religious intolerance. No wonder Iran is a fourth rate marginalized power, if Iranian people put up with this kind of leadership.

[Durango]

Try and get a meeting with our Glorious Leader George Bush. See how isolated that fool is before you go insulting people you clearly know nothing about.

[Justaminute]

Being willing to start a conversation with Iran instead of threatening them will go far with the Iranian people if not the gov. of Iran.
Iran was willing to help with Afghanistan because the Taliban was also an enemy to Iran. Also I do not think there is an overwhelming love for Iraq either, war will do that to people. When we start withdrawing no single person; Iranian, Iraqi, or westerner knows what will happen. But Iran already has a million refugees from Afghanistan. Can they also handle a firestorm in Iraq? I think Iran will not admit this but I am not sure they are in any hurry for America to leave either. I believe the "Great Satan" making stupid mistakes in Iraq serves the Iranian government a great deal.
The American government spreads democracy not through war but through our principles. Did we forget? Remember when we used to be a "shining light on a distant hill" for people oppressed. People used to admire us for what we stood for,not the size of our military. Do we believe in ourselves? "Shock and Awe", I hope to never hear those words again.

[mystic]

The US is learning a bitter lesson: It's arrogance has been its undoing. The former brash loud-mouthed American tourist image, throwing his money around as if that's all he needed to do, has been replaced by the image of the crematoria at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It will take decades if at all to rectify that image. But our arrogance above all has torn us asunder. The world is horrified at what Bush and his henchmen regime hath wrought. And we the people have enabled it to happen. Many, in their rabid ferocity to keep Israel safe, have destroyed themselves in the process.

[unitron]

This is the country that pretty much invented the game of chess.

I don't see them being outwitted by the likes of W's administration anytime soon.

[JonSmiley]

Good point!

[EvgenyLibek]

Bzzt -- the vast majority of scholars believe that Chess was invented in India.
The holdouts say China.

Not Iran.

[mutron]

They did not "pretty much" invent the game of chess. You are mistaken. That game came from India around the 6th Century. Prior to that there was a game in China that existed in the 2nd Century BC that was very influential. Consider that the most powerful piece on the chess board is the Queen. A country and a culture like Persia and Islam that regards women as second class citizens would not put such power into a female figure.

Regardless, the Persian people have been kicked around and beaten down for centuries by other cultures, other governments, their own governments. 75% of the population are under the age of 30 that is swimming in oil they have only one oil refinery and that is why they have gas rationing.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

What JonSmiley says, and furthermore, Islam did not exist at that time mutron.

[unitron]

I don't remember hearing anything about China and India being big on matriarchy, either. When was the last time an Indian widower was placed upon his dead wife's funeral pyre to burn to death?

Perhaps the queen wasn't always a queen but more like the king's right hand man.

The term "checkmate" comes from the Persian for "the King is dead", and not from the english words "check" and "mate".

[Michmod]

Thank you Mr. Majd, for a very insightful and informative commentary.

[ojorae]

fundamentalist ,regardless of their ilk, are essentially nazis, and should be exposed as such.

[kellygrrrl]

the fundies here in America have done as much damage as anywhere else in the world

[antenna123]

Absurd

[amicus1991]

Iran has had a highly effective foreign policy? Really? Do you consider 30 years of isolation from civilized society and its well deserved international reputation as the world's leading state sponsor of terror a success story?
Iran would be a powerhouse in the Middle East and beyond if it had an open society with pragmatic, liberal leaders. Instead, it is led by fascist imperialists, one of whom, by your own admission, refuses to even meet with a non-muslim leader. I don't suppose you would be writing flatteringly about any Western leader who refused to meet with non-Christian counterparts, would you?
Reasonable minds can differ about the wisdom and utility of the President of the United States meeting with the President or "Supreme Leader" of Iran, but no right thinking person can find a moral equivalency between the two countries as your so strongly article implies.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Yes but if the events of 1953 had never happened, Iran would already be a strong, westernized, democratic society, as it was on its way to becoming. See LeftLeanWing's post below. And read the book All The Shah's Men.

[JonSmiley]

I agree, 1953 was critical. Iran's never been opposed to Westernization, anyone that's been there will tell you even today its a pretty modern country. But we've made relations with Iran and Iranian independence mutually exclusive. And for the past 28 years Iran has been paying the price for independence.

[dshwa]

Iran's isolated? Really? On what planet? They've held off meaningfull sanctions for the last 5 years with their management of their relationship with Russia, and to a lesser extent China. We arrogantly believe they're isolated because we don't talk to them, and believe the world revolves around us. But that doesn't make it so. As for Iran's being a regional power if they had been an open liberal society, that's just speculation, and ignores two important facts. First, their shot at being an open liberal society was prevented by the CIA backed coup in '53. Second, the reason things are going so well in Iraq right now has far less to do with our actions than it does with the actions of the Iranians in negotiating between al Sadr and the Iraqi government. So if the Iranians have more influence in the operation of Iraq's government then we do despite the occupation by our army, doesn't that make them a regional power?

For good measure, just because you don't like Iran's supreme leader's policies, opinions, or guest list, that doesn't automatically make him a bad leader, or a bad politician. Prior to the 20th century, how many non-christians got audiances with the pope? Did that mean the popes weren't effective leaders or lacked influence? Or that they lakced a moral equivalence to the United States?

[dshwa]

Plus, if you're going to dis him, at least use the right terminology. Fascism is the melding of corporate and government power, which is not what Iran is about. As for imperialistic, the Iranians haven't started a war with anyone in 40 years. Yes, they fund Palestinian resistance groups, but if you call that imperialistic, you have to also call the U.S. imperialistic since we've been doing that sort of thing globally since the 1950's. Fundamentalist, yes, fascist imperialist, not so much.

[JonSmiley]

At the expense of independence Iran has endured 28 years of the worst sanctions of any country. If France or Japan were forced through the same set of sanctions they would have collapsed by now.

So yes, I'd say in light of all of that Iranian foreign policy has been very impressive.

[andrewbown]

I try to read as many replies to articles so I can get a small snapshot of the thinking going on out here in the computer news world. Every now and then I will find a responce or article that has these words "civilized society". I have never seen or heard these words given in an un-biased way.

[JoeDoorman]

It’s all about Israel with these guys.
They know America was/is asleep at the wheel, especially after the shock of 9/11 and with Bush in charge. It doesn’t matter what side of the fence they sit on Rep/Dem, Con/Lib. They all push the war, enable it, defend it. Go into Iraq… great, no more scuds… lots of oil/money. Next stop Iran! Syria, Lebanon they can handle them, but they need America to get rid of stronger countries. Remember, these guys aren’t sweating it… they’re halfway there… the hard job has been done – getting America involved and making Israel’s enemies our own. Arabs are terrorists… all of them… you got it! You get from all angles - media, government… forget about the real terrorist Bin Laden. We will keep him alive and well to keep hate/fear ripe for more killing… stealing. They play us like a fiddle… act like their debating each other… but always moving forward. Kill more Arabs, take more land, resources… it’s good business. Problem is - Americans really believe we’re bringing democracy to the Middle East. It drives the Zionist nuts… but they tolerate it, because we are doing their dirty work, as they do theirs. Until Americans can criticize/examine all of the Middle East countries equally, we will never have peace, here or there. But with our politicians, jumping through hoops like dogs at a circus, for the pro-Israel press/media… it won’t be happening anytime soon.

[EvgenyLibek]

Delusional.

1.Arms trafficing is good business, "killing Arabs" (FYI Iranians are Persians, not Arabs) pays nothing. By removing Iraq, we have undercut our weapon sales (our chief export) in the region, and drove up (wildly) the price of oil.

Nor would future weapon sales -- Iraq may host Don Rumsfeld yet again -- repay a $3 trillion war.

You can fantasize that Bush's advisors were galactically poor judges of a "good business" decision, or you can look for alternative reasons for the war (no, I do not mean WMDs).

2.There are 1.2 billion muslims. Killing a million of them, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is surely not going to make Israel safer -- far from it.

This was never about Israel's security -- and certainly never "all about" Israel.

3.This was never about democracy -- look at the democratic elections held by the Palestine people -- see how many of their elected officials are now imprisoned by Israel.


Nuclear weapons do not make a super-power -- they merely deter a super-power.
He who controls the flow of oil, controls the globe.
America is merely trading its super-currency, before China and India wake up.
Iran is wide awake, but they lack one key deterant.

[watererbob]

I agree - the Israeli are not that threatened by Iran. It's the Sunni Monarchies of the Persian gulf that feel threatened by the idea of a Shi'a Theocratic Democracy!

[sloLes]

Always consider the source! Brooks is part of the same gang that told us how pleased the Iraqis would be to see America invade. And these same people all forgot how many thousands of Iraqis died when they revolted against Saddam after Bush the first promised them protection. So, why should they know any more about Iran?

Isn't it interesting that elections in Iran are more competitive and more diversified than elections here in America? And the votes probably also are counted more honestly!

It's about time that people stop demonizing Iran and stop threatening them. The last time they had an elected government, we toppled it in 1953 and replaced it with the Shah's totalitarian regime. Was it mere coincidence that Bush started talking about overthrowing the Iranian government again in 2003? I wonder which state is really the sponsor of terrorism?

Iran certainly has its faults! But considering that they are surrounded on all sides by a hostile Amnerican military, they've been remarkably rational. I wish that I could say the same for my own government! But as we all know, my country is conducting foreign policy by wishful thinking and pure fantasy. And it's not getting us any useful results.

[Balloonman]

Yes it is, foreign policy getting us useful results sloLes. Not us, we the people short sheeted, but the excuse for constant 21st Century Wars is advanced. We pledge allegiance to our red, white, and blue and for which one-percenters it waves. Our NATION indivisible from CORPORATE/MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL/CONGRESS and now zealot RELIGION's narrow and divisive interests. After all, which of these powers want to UNITE anybody but be pure ONEWAY ONLY or else. And produce and consume and pass the ammunition.

Idea is manifest plans set long ago to accelerate good strike position and dominate the MIDDLE EAST much as is possible. (Much of the WORLD if you count our military bases in the 4 corners. Who needs bases here at home?) Secure oil and trade routes for our aggrandizement, our EMPIRE, our one-percenters. Oh my.

GWBUSH network of thugs have been soooo successful! BUSH himself did everything he could short of personally pulling the trigger. Showing our own countrymen we don't fuck around. We jail, habeas corpus pft! We preempt and kill for what we want. We feed our men and women to be killed in return. We play rollerball for MONEY profitline interests if it means the murder of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. We righteous. Our foreign policy is our military and it WORKS. Look what influence we 'own'. We the BEACON for the rest of the World we shine on. The thugs excape scot free bigtime winners.

[cylindar]

Obama is Americas best chance for treating the Iranians respectfully.

[amicus1991]

Does their Holocaust-denying leader deserve our respect?

[JonSmiley]

Surely Iran does.

What their current presidents position on the Holocaust or Greenhouse gases might be is irrelevant.

[ilikbshbtntgeo]

Are you suggesting we should hate Iran and Iranians because their president is an idiot and says stupid things?

[xxnounxx]

Does your armenian holocaust denying leaders deserve our respect?? let alone your slavery history,that went all the way to the not so far 1960's.
how about your terrorist the ku-klux-klan
is timothy macvey muslim??
such double standard hypocrisy.how about your leaders full support for the ethnic cleansing of the palestinians..and soon to become the new palestinian holocaust..
OH I FORGOT YOUR MEDIA IS NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW FULL COVERAGE OF THE MASSACRES AND ATROCITIES TAKING PLACE IN IRAQ BY YOUR PEOPLE..i do remember i had to email british papers to my american friends,to show the truth.

[TaosJohn]

Brilliant and cogent. I personally very much appreciate this sane analysis, in contrast to which the jabbering of Bush administration flunkies comes across as completely insane. Thank you.

The mind reels at what intelligence and decency could accomplish in this world...

[HeevenSteven]

Don't pay any attention to Brooks; he's a sophist windbag. I cannot for the life of me understand how that guy has a job.

[CAskeptic]

This comment is right on. A complete lack of original thought and knee-jerk support of all t hings Bush. The NYT has made a big mistake with him and Kristol.

[kellygrrrl]

and yet it's still not as bad as WSJ hiring Rove

[antenna123]

I am so fed up with these transparent zionists like Brooks writing endlessly about Iran.

They don't have an ounce of credibility, and at this point their attempts at obfuscation and intellectual fraud just anger me.

[JonSmiley]

Amen to that!

[Binx101]

This is not only Zionism - it is Corporatism. Brooks cares deeply for the Brooks Brand, so naturally he wants his brand to be successful with his customer base. While his commentary may be steeped in his prejudices, as it is with all of us, he has one additional objective and that is, brand relevance. If he were to start writing about facts, with real research and depth ... he would be viewed as weak and among his customer base, a pariah.

He's selling - not in any way reporting. While commentary - as Majd's - is complete with facts, color and texture - Brook's work is templated, ultimately conforming to a pre-determined message. Read anything he writes on the subject and you will see the pattern like a pair of argyle socks.

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

[antenna123]

Never thought of it that way. I guess you can't blame him for giving his audience what they want. They are the reason he gets paid.

Interesting.

[TRYKER]

a new framing must be established if we hope to make our country, our allies and the whole world safer without resorting to military force."

We aren't making anyplace safer when we are the major arms dealer in this world. We sell arms to 100% of the nations on the planet. Our pentagon fronts deals in the billions every year.
Bombs R US! Aren't we special?
Wow, I guess a new framing is needed.

[Princeton]

Negotiation is an art. Bush and Rice only know how to deal with governments that are already subservient to the U.S. They don't have a clue as how to resolve international issues. Any time they run into a road block, the first think they think of is bombing. Any 4-year old could come up with that too.

Hope we are not going to be dealing with $1000-a-barrel oil as result of any folish U.S. attack against Iran.

[mystic]

May I respectfully add one phrase to "the first they think of is bombing" is "from the air at a safe distance", like big bullies who don't have the intellect to reason or negotiate their way except with unilateral-at-a-distance brute force. The nerds have already won the battle at the high school level; When America is isolated as an irrelevant pariah on the world stage, which is already becoming evident, it will learn, perhaps too late, it can obtain more with international respect.