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
1 Comments
Dear Readers,
the motivation of each government for the harsh rhetoric is what has to be questioned and exposed. Just as in the build up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration was not interested in a peaceful solution nor the truth because they wanted an excuse to conquor Iraq. Three directors of UNSCOM resigned in a row not because Saddam wouldn't cooperate with the UN but because the USA wouldn't. The WMD hoax was used as a pretext for invading Iraq and the Senate did not have the temerity to even investigate whether there were any WMD or not in the aftermath.
In the case of Iran, ever since the Shah was kicked out and therefore the Americans along with him, the US government has been dying to get back in. Like the WMD hoax, the nuclear program hoax is raised over and over again using the same fear tactics which silenced public opposition to invading Iraq. 9/11 and terrorism have been used by this administration to silence dissent and invade our civil liberties. To date there is no definitive proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons program nor is there any definitive proof that Iran has been supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents and yet even ostensibly liberal candidates like Obama Barrack take it as gospel truth and make loud and large sound bytes about getting tougher on Iran because they think that will appeal to hawk voters. In Obama's case he is coming down loudly on the side of Israel and emphasizing he is Christian not Moslem to prove that his name and origin do not bias him. It is pathetic.
The big problem is that the US government and military industrial complex are not content to allow any nation with massive oil deposits to determine its own national sovereignity or determine its own relationships with other nations. The neo-con American Century AEI bunch think that anything which gives the US the upper hand is patriotism and securing America's energy future is more important than self determination and democracy for any other nation and that unfortunately is the reality of it. Equally pathetic is how the Shahzadeh rides on the coat tails of the AEI like their spokesman and wistfully dreams about how he would accept being the king of Iran if Iranians ever wanted him back...is he really that thick that he thinks the revolution was fought not to be rid of monarchy and American puppets or is he so confident that the Americans will one day put him back in like they did his father twice, once after Reza Shah was exhiled and once after Mossadegh?
On Ahmadinejad and the hardliners part, they too need a bogeyman,also to consolidate and remain in power. As long as a common enemy can be created, the people must unify behind their leader. If attack or the illusion thereof is imminent, they must put aside their differences and unite.( And frankly after the massive bombardment of nextdoor neighbors, Baghdad by the USA to instill "Fear and Awe" and of Afghanistan, is it unreasonable to be afraid of the USA? )
Bush uses the same fear tactics; if you criticize his policies, you are endangering our troops or you are unpatriotic.
As far as Ahmadinejad's anti Israeli rhetoric and a lot of rhetoric that is purportedly his, if any country is a neighbor of Israel, which unlike Iran is not a member of the NPT and unlike Iran has at least 120 nuclear warheads and unlike Iran has pre-emptively attacked Lebanon, Syria and Palestine repeatedely, then it is not hard to imagine why you would fear and distrust Israel. Iran would lose in a war against Israel and Ahmadinejad knows this but again, he is not interested in the truth but only in maintaining an atmosphere of fear by which he can continue his rule.
So what can we do as ordinary peace loving citizens of America and Iran to stop a war? We can publicly expose the motives of these leaders over and over until it becomes clear to everyone and their positions and policies become unsupportable and ridiculous.
The biggest danger I see is a public indifference. 99% of Americans are more concerned with the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the fuel pump than the plight of the average Iranian or Arab or the degree of democracy or personal freedom they may or may not have. The American public is not innocent, it tacitly approves of the policies of this administration or there would be massive protests against the on going war in Iraq which was opportunistic at best and has killed a purported 665,000 to 1 million Iraqis according to whose statistcis you believe. Instead liberal candidates ape the conservatives with their hawkish stances for fear of losing voters and the liberals in both houses of Congress vote to continue funding the war and increasing the strength of the sanctions against Iran. Therefore not one of us who is benefitting in any way from this system should feel smug about being on the right political side...there is no virtue or morality when it comes to politics I am afraid. Sanctions by the way never topple governments but only make the populace suffer which certainly does not empower them to change their government but rather weakens their resolve. Has everyone already forgotten how many tens of thousands of Iraqi children died during the period of sanctions from lack of availability of antibiotics and what did the sanctioning of Iraq accomplish politically?
respectfully,
Brian H. Appleton