Sherwin Salar
Us-Iran relations have recently been plagued with numerous reports of dangerously hawkish rhetoric which are serving as catalysts in the advancement of the current spiral conflict. This month, Iran celebrated the successful launch of a rocket into space; however, the rocket, named Kavoshgar, is merely preparation for the launch of a permanent satellite in the near future. Now that this rocket has successfully transmitted data back to earth after reaching orbit, many reports now say that Iran should be placed among the top 11 nations that enjoy such advanced space technology. Still, Iran's triumph was not greeted with tribute and honor by the United States and some of its allies. Iran was actually heavily rebuked; Washington reacted by saying Tehran's rocket test was "unfortunate," and that it was another step in Iran's weapons development program although these are allegations that Tehran has strongly denied. Such instances of harsh rhetoric have resulted in a spiral of negative language back and forth between the two capitals. Most recently, in what can be considered a counter-rhetorical stab, Head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Mohammad Ali Jafari claimed that "In the near future, we will witness the destruction of Israel, the aggressor, this cancerous microbe Israel, at the able hands of the soldiers of the community of Hezbollah." Although these comments were not made directly in response to any particular comment made by a United States official, the tort is still legitimized by similarly offensive remarks made by both Israeli and American officials on other issues. This sort of language from both sides is only serving to give efficacy to the suggested policies of extremists in Iran and warmongers in the United States. It has been proven time and time again that domestic extremism breeds more extremism abroad, and it appears like the United States and Iran are fueling each others' fires.
Often overlooked are the many olive branches that have been extended between both sides. These have been made possible through the efforts of the AIC and other pro-engagement organizations, along with individuals who are dedicated to the normalization of relations between US and Iran. Any one of these branches could have potentially served as a crucial element in attaining what now seems like a lofty dream--reconciliation. However, the mere existence of acts of peace and reconciliation is not enough; both sides have failed miserably in capitalizing on olive branches. In March of year 2000, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, at an AIC sponsored event, apologized for the 1953 CIA Coup in Iran, and admitted that it was a mistake for the US to meddle in the internal affairs of Iran in the way that they did. In a recent AIC interview, former political prisoner Ali Shakeri claimed that "that was a great time for Iran to make amends." Another potentially great opportunity for reconciliation existed when the United States proposed to have open discussion talks with Iran if they met under certain preconditions. The truth is that the proposal contained harsh language and unrealistic conditions that the American Government knew would never be approved by Iran. Javad Zarif, former Iranian Ambassador to the UN, said in one of the AIC's recent conferences that "you will find that the entire statement is a 13 page statement, with the exception of three lines in which it says that the United States is prepared to talk to the government of Iran under certain conditions; the rest is an attack on the Iranian government, [Condoleeza Rice] never even uses the word government in the entire document. The only word she uses is regime. So the absence of mutual respect is so apparent, even in these even gestures which were considered by some people as a break through." Numerous critical opportunities like these are being forgone daily in US-Iran relations, ranging from the NIE report to the AIC organized "Grand Bargain."
Just as extremism proves to breed more extremism, it is important to note that centrism, respect, and rationally will generate more of the same as well. With the likelihood of remaining in a non-peace non-war posture being less and less realistic, it is now more important than ever to continue extending olive branches towards reconciliation. This, however, may not be enough as the most important aspect of moving towards reconciliation is having both sides gather enough courage to break the cycle of extremism and capitalize on one of those olive branches.
*edited by Rachit P. Maniar
Post a comment