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.
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
The History of The Iranian-American Relationship starts with the Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis for most Americans. However, that history for Iranian starts much earlier.
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état saw the overthrow of the democratic
Bribing Iranian officials, news media and others with British and American funds, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. of the CIA, organized the covert operation aiding retired Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi and Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri. The project to overthrow Iran's government was codenamed Operation Ajax.
The coup has been called "a critical event in post-war world history." It re-installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, replacing an elected government with a pro-Western dictatorship, and is thought to have contributed to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah and his replacement with the anti-Western Islamic Republic.
In America, it was originally considered a triumph of covert action but now is considered by many to have left "a haunting and terrible legacy." In 2000 U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.
Motivations given for the foreign coup planners include desire to control Iranian oil fields, contempt for democracy in non-European states, and concerns over Iran's coming under the control of Iran's traditional enemy Russia.
IRAN HAD DEMOCRACY AND WE TOOK IT AWAY.
The author of All the Shah's Men once argued that the seeds of 9/11 tragedy were sown in the 1953 coup in Iran. The only way for Iran to have gotten out of her foreign domination was through an Islamic revolution. The success of Iranian revolution gave hope to Osama Bin Ladin to try and free his country of foreign domination.
When the British asked President Truman to allow the CIA to help stage a coup in Iran a few years prior to 1953, his response was that you can never predict what bad things could happen when you over through a democratically elected government. Boy was he right?
And the Shah promoted "TORTURE"!
Also, many Iranians, even the ones who were kicked out after 1979, strongly believe the USA toppled the democracy because it was getting too strong and independent.
So much for bringing democracy to the Middle East. I seriously think that if the events of 1953 hadn't happened, much of the Middle East would already be westernized.
I think it might be even simpler: people like Brooks just don't believe there are people with different priorities from their own.
It's always refreshing to hear more informed comments than we get from the execrable Brooks. He's like Broder on Prozac. I almost said quaaludes. If the author is reading these comments:
Any thoughts on Robert Baer's accusations of Iranian involvement with various terror groups (including Sunni ones, not just Hezbollah and Hamas) at least as paymasters--such as PanAm 103, the 1983 marine barracks and embassy bombings, and possibly even al Qaeda? (No, I'm not a McCain supporter.
Excellent read and I thank you for the contribution to the public dialogue on this very important matter.
The absurdity of Mr. Brooks' statement is indicated to me by the fact that many American leaders and journalist are not aware of the mood of their own country so how can they detect the mood of another.
Diplomacy before war; a desire for peace versus a rush to the bomb or the gun; these approaches seem more in line with a nation claiming to be great. Alas, we seem locked in some sort of bloodthirsty bad B-movie where as Americans we have allowed the worst in us to be represented in office.
I find myself beyond weary from the burden of carrying that load.
Thank you for such an insightful commentary. What I can't understand is why our newspapers can't find writers who will provide this level of writing in op-eds? I have been a faithful newspaper reader for yrs., but it's getting harder & harder! Brooks, Friedman, etc., are war-mongers, apologists for our foreign policy messes of more than 60 yrs. in the Middle East & now seem to be encouraging more of same, in regard to Iran. No wonder people are finding alternative sources for news & commentary!
Who believes the MSM anymore? One of the criteria in the installation of all dictatorships in history has been control of the press.If it wasn't for the internet and reading foreign newspapers therein, we would be totally uninformed. In no small measure, it is that knowledge that has kept us going. These engineers of destruction are still very intent in destroying the internet for that reason.
The comments offered here are as equally thoughtful as the article, and I agree: GREAT READ! Thank you Mr. Majd, for your insightful post.
By the way, we have been reading Azar Nafisi's excellent book "Reading Lolita in Tehran", which provides some insight into life in Iran in a very objective and positive way. Ms. Nafizi does not agree with the current government as it is oppressive to women but she is fair and balanced in her opinions.
I recommend also the graphic novels by Marjane Satrapi, an Iranian expatriate now living in France. Her beautiful artwork couples with powerful stories of her growing up during the Islamic Revolution in Iran provide a window into Iranian life and thinking. The book is called Persepolis. It was also made into a film last year:
http://www
Thank you, saved me the trouble of posting that.
"Some insight into life in Iran in a very objective and positive way."
Positive light? Are you JOKING?
A professor who were thown out on her rear and has to teach Nabokov in secret to a few of her students who are mortally afraid for their lives is " positive" insight into Iranian life? Obviously, you have read the book.
I can't thank you enough for this...BOO
It shows just how far the US as a great power has lost its moorings regarding dealing with other countries during the Bush years of plunder (and, to be fair, other recent administrations as well).
With the best and brightest available to talk to and negotiate with the rest of the world, the Bush administration has chosen to instead act like a petulant child, demanding its way on every issue, and refusing to treat even with our supposed friends. Small wonder that we now are sadly on the wrong side of the issues on torture, global warming, nuclear deterence, cluster bombs, landmines, imprisonment of minors etc, etc, etc. The John Bolton school of diplomacy.
If this attitude affected only the US it would be bad enough, but other nations use our example as an excuse to renege on treaties and act unilaterally, leading to a Lord of the Flies world, which is not a good situation to be in for anyone, including the US.
Barack Obama's attitude to negotiations appears to be a whole lot more mature than that of Bush and the neocons (not saying much, I know), so hopefully by example he can start to restore a sense of community and shared outcomes between world governments. He surely cannot do any worse.
Great read... it's not hard to see that Iranians are an intelligent, self-reliant people with their own interests at heart... and they obviously know how to work the international scene... hopefully it won't be long before we have more peaceful and open relations with them...
What a great read. Thank you ...
Excellent article! Thank you very much for this insight. I read the Brooks piece first thing this morning and was appalled by his arrogance. "The Iranians don't understand themselves". What a remarkable stupid thing to say...
"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
I'm gobsmacked; that's gotta be the stupidest think any neocon has said since "the Iraq war will pay for itself."
What's even more absurd is that he can write something that ignorant and narcissistic without a shred of awareness that this makes him a laughingstock.
You're forgetting his bosses, the NeoConTimes, also pay Bill Kristol to spout nonsense, not to mention Friedman, Krugman and God knows who or what else.
RETRACTION (((on page A10)))... (one can't edit posts here after they're up)
I meant to say Krauthammer, not Krugman...
While I'm at it, SAFIRE.
Intelligent commentary about Iran? In America? Amazing!
Many if not the vast majority of Iranians who live in US hold the position that negotiations with the current regime will legitimize it and hence there will be no longer any hope of removing the theocracy from the power and we might as well forget about a secular Iran in our lifetime.
I know this seems like a reactionary position that is closer to Bush's point of view but this is very real for those who have lived under the current regime in Tehran and managed to somehow find their way out and settled in U.S. They also don't want Bush to bomb Iran. No one wants a loved one be collateral casualty in this affair.
The current leadership in Tehran holds on to a belief system that is fundamentally incompatible with the American way of thinking. For example, Ahmadinejad believes that the 13th Imam of the Shia religion (Mahdi) will be reappearing soon to fix the economic issues of the country. As far as I know, no one in this government believes in disincarnate beings having a hand in policy making in Washington.
I can just see Ahmadinejad accusing Obama after meeting with him being the anti-Mahdi (like anti-Christ) and demanding that he forfeit his middle name (Hussein) which is most sacred to Shias. Ridiculous? No so. The thoecrats in Iran consider it very serious business and think the American obsession with GNP growth just as foolish and fundamentally misguided.
"As far as I know, no one in this government believes in disincarnate beings having a hand in policy making in Washington
I think s/he was being sarcastic.
"Many if not the vast majority of Iranians who live in US hold the position that negotiations with the current regime will legitimize it"
Hmmm like the Cubans in Maimi we see how good that worked. What it has been 50 years and not a damn thing has changed except Castro is too old to run Cuba.
"The current leadership in Tehran holds on to a belief system that is fundamentally incompatible with the American way of thinking."
If you have been around the world, people in general are fundamentally incompatible with the American way of thinking. Arrogance and huberis just dont sell as well as it used too. Perhaps thats why America's reputation in the world is trash now.
"For example, Ahmadinejad believes that the 13th Imam of the Shia religion (Mahdi) will be reappearing soon to fix the economic issues of the country. "
Bush is a born again Christian. Christ got him off the BOOZE. If he was like his friend Hagee he thinks "The End of Times" is comming and we need to get all the Jews back to Israel so they can convert or be damned when Jesus comes back. I guess since there American and Christian you dont feel there thinking is foolish.
I get a sense you dont respect Iranians or Iran. America's leaders lack of respect for other human beings and that is the fundamental problem, not their inability to kiss America's arrogant behind.
I agree.
The Iranian diaspora like the Cuban diaspora will do anything to get rid of their respective regimes back home. If we continue to follow what Cuban-Americans and Iranian-Americans want, we'll be left in this same deadlock for decades to come.
U.S. is not a theocracy. Iran is.
People, including those who are in power, are perfectly within their rights to have religious beliefs. But to the extent that they impose their beliefs on others and enforce them through the government institutions, then that become an issue for the rest who don't go along.
In Iran, the religious institutions need to butt out of governing and stick to their mandate of dispensing religion. The problem is that not only the theocracy does not want to do that but wants everyone else to follow their model of government which is based on theological mandates. The Iranian theocratic apparatus is not just interested in governing within their own jurisdiction but want to export their form of governance through out the Muslim world and beyond. Hence their meddling in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
I am just describing the nature of what we are facing in Iran. It has nothing to do with respecting them. To the contrary, as Majd point out, you have to respect the way mullahs are conducting their foreign policy, drawing circles around the only superpower left and managing to come in front on practically every equation.
"Many if not the vast majority of Iranians who live in US hold the position that negotiations with the current regime will legitimize it and hence there will be no longer any hope of removing the theocracy from the power and we might as well forget about a secular Iran in our lifetime."
Last I looked, Iranian protestors --such as those in California at the Federal Building in Westwood in Los Angeles-- were in favor of replaciing the current regime with the son of the last Shah.
In my opinion, at least a bare majority would prefer the American lifestyle in America.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
