Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Iran and the USA
Today's paper brings a discussion by Kristof of his current visit to Iran. He prefaces it by saying that he has never been in a country that is so pro-American, even pro-Bush. They believe everything good about the Americans because they have adapted the defense mechanism of assuming that truth is the opposite of everything they see on their television. This must be an exaggeration, yet I have heard similar things from others in the last few years. As one who spent over a year in Iran on three trips back in the pre-Khomeini days I can attest to the good feelings of my generation of Iranians. One must remember that for many years there were more foreign students studying in the United States from Iran than from any other country. (There were so many, in fact, that at some places such as Utah State an Iranian could go through four years and learn very little English.) In my own work I interviewed all the Ayatollahs then in Shiraz (a southern city). In one on one conversations they were quite friendly, even though they varied from Marxism to extreme orthodoxy to mysticism. In the last couple of years I have had occasion to see several Iranian movies. What is remarkable about them is that most have been propagandistic, some rather heavy-handedly so. But the propaganda has consisted largely of feminist ideas imported from the West. Today I read that the most popular current film in Iran is a comedy that makes fun of the religious mullahs.
It is past time that Americans, especially those in our establishment, come to realize the complexity of the Muslim world, and of countries such as Iran. We can oppose the most egregious anti-Western moves of the Iranian establishment, indeed such opposition is welcomed by many Iranians. But we should strive to develop more extensive relationships with Iranian people at every level. We should strive to take more seriously their culture, including its modern aspects, and become acquainted with its educational, social and economic needs.
Iran in the last few years has teetered on the brink of fundamental change. The majority appears to have turned against the theocratic system that has been imposed on the country. (Remember that when the shah was driven out, half his opponents thought they were fighting for a liberal, even radical Iran. The subsequent theocratic system was imposed through a revolution within the revolution.) Today's opposition includes many clerics, some of whose leaders were opposed to theocracy much as Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is today. The Iranian opposition, horrified by the violence of the previous revolutionary period and the bloody 1980s war with Iraq, has until now opted for nonviolence. But this will not always be so. If the theocracy does not back down and allow a free society, they will sooner or later be forced to increase once again state repression. The resulting explosion could be quick and easy or prolonged and vicious.
As these events threaten to unfold, the United States and its allies could choose to play the part of careful and concerned observers. Our primary effort should be to help a peaceful transition. If this is not to be, then if we were to consider playing a greater role in bringing about a crisis, or in meddling in it once it occurs, this consideration should involve consultation with the best experts on the country and its evolution, with our allies, and with a representative and diverse sample of Iranians within and without the United States. Recent experience in Iraq should be taken to heart. If the end result turns out to be bloody, we should at least have developed plans well ahead of time for helping to rebuild the country after its convulsion.
Today's paper brings a discussion by Kristof of his current visit to Iran. He prefaces it by saying that he has never been in a country that is so pro-American, even pro-Bush. They believe everything good about the Americans because they have adapted the defense mechanism of assuming that truth is the opposite of everything they see on their television. This must be an exaggeration, yet I have heard similar things from others in the last few years. As one who spent over a year in Iran on three trips back in the pre-Khomeini days I can attest to the good feelings of my generation of Iranians. One must remember that for many years there were more foreign students studying in the United States from Iran than from any other country. (There were so many, in fact, that at some places such as Utah State an Iranian could go through four years and learn very little English.) In my own work I interviewed all the Ayatollahs then in Shiraz (a southern city). In one on one conversations they were quite friendly, even though they varied from Marxism to extreme orthodoxy to mysticism. In the last couple of years I have had occasion to see several Iranian movies. What is remarkable about them is that most have been propagandistic, some rather heavy-handedly so. But the propaganda has consisted largely of feminist ideas imported from the West. Today I read that the most popular current film in Iran is a comedy that makes fun of the religious mullahs.
It is past time that Americans, especially those in our establishment, come to realize the complexity of the Muslim world, and of countries such as Iran. We can oppose the most egregious anti-Western moves of the Iranian establishment, indeed such opposition is welcomed by many Iranians. But we should strive to develop more extensive relationships with Iranian people at every level. We should strive to take more seriously their culture, including its modern aspects, and become acquainted with its educational, social and economic needs.
Iran in the last few years has teetered on the brink of fundamental change. The majority appears to have turned against the theocratic system that has been imposed on the country. (Remember that when the shah was driven out, half his opponents thought they were fighting for a liberal, even radical Iran. The subsequent theocratic system was imposed through a revolution within the revolution.) Today's opposition includes many clerics, some of whose leaders were opposed to theocracy much as Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is today. The Iranian opposition, horrified by the violence of the previous revolutionary period and the bloody 1980s war with Iraq, has until now opted for nonviolence. But this will not always be so. If the theocracy does not back down and allow a free society, they will sooner or later be forced to increase once again state repression. The resulting explosion could be quick and easy or prolonged and vicious.
As these events threaten to unfold, the United States and its allies could choose to play the part of careful and concerned observers. Our primary effort should be to help a peaceful transition. If this is not to be, then if we were to consider playing a greater role in bringing about a crisis, or in meddling in it once it occurs, this consideration should involve consultation with the best experts on the country and its evolution, with our allies, and with a representative and diverse sample of Iranians within and without the United States. Recent experience in Iraq should be taken to heart. If the end result turns out to be bloody, we should at least have developed plans well ahead of time for helping to rebuild the country after its convulsion.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
