There and Back Again
Introduction: This post is a follow-up to a follow-up. Two of the websites I’ve sited here are extensive; I say that not to discourage you from seeking them out but to know that I’m not even attempting to summarize them. I’m just commenting on some points that struck me. I suggest you to hit the sites to get the full stories.
Several weeks ago in my post, “I’ll Show You Mine if You Show Me Yours,” I discussed a visit between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more than 40 American religious leaders. Last month, many of those leaders traveled to Iran by invitation of Pres. Ahmadinejad to visit with Muslim and Christian leaders, government officials, and other Iranians. One of the participants summarized the trip and explained the group’s recommendations for both the U. S. and Iran:
• “immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks;
• cease using language that defines the other using “enemy” images; and
• promote more people-to-people exchanges including religious leaders, members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.”
Apparently the meetings were not just polite conversations. Talk was substantive. For example, at one point, Pres. Ahmadinejad again brought up the issue of the Holocaust, asking why it has been used to hurt the Palestinians. He suggested, “Why can’t this be studied?” The reply: “It has been studied… [these are] dark days in the world. There must be peace and security and justice for both Israel and Palestine.”
I was hopeful after watching this interview. No treaties were signed, no agreements were made, but at least people with opposing views were talking. It’s a start. The war in Iraq is not going well, and heading into another military venture would be a nightmare. As my daughter says, “War just brings more war.” There’s evidence for this statement from the Pentagon. There’s not a civil war going on in Iraq; there are some elements of civil war, but the conflict is more complex than that. So, perhaps it’s worse than a civil war.
I also recommend checking out a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh mentioned in the interview. Hersh takes a hard look at both the U. S. and Iran, and it’s not encouraging:
• the U.S. purportedly currently is conducting covert operations in Iran to map targets;
• some I. A. E. A. inspectors question the sanity of the Iranian leadership;
• many in the I. A. E. A believe that Iran does indeed intend to pursue nuclear weapons; and
• there is a belief that if the U. S. attempts to use military force to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it will “make development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride.”
The most compelling part of this article for me was a comment from a European diplomat, who, when discussing sanctions vs. war, said, “If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.” That sums it up for me.
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
April 1st, 2007 01:11
While I can find almost nothing good to say about Ahmadinejad, I can appreciate the desire of Iranian leaders generally to see to their national security.
It’s important when assessing other countries to try and see the world through their eyes: what do they want, what do they fear, what to they feel they need?
In Iran’s case, they have a conquered, shattered nation embroiled in civil war and occupied by a powerful army right on their doorstep. Also on their border lies a nation, Lebanon, that was invaded and badly damaged less than a year ago by a longtime foe, Israel. A thousand miles east, another country in the region, Afghanistan, is the scene of warfare between occupying western forces and indigenous and foreign insurgents.
To top all this off, Iran looks acoss the way at Israel, which has already successfully attacked it once and which has nuclear weapons and the strongest military capability in the region.
How can it come as a surprise that the Iranians might want nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes?
Don’t get me wrong. I would much prefer Iran never develop or acquire nuclear weapons. But at least I can appreciate why they think it’s necessary.
I can also appreciate why they think they have the right to develop nuclear technology. There’s nothing in international law that reserves for the U.S. or any other country the right to decide which countries can and cannot develop nuclear technology.
So far, belligerence from Washington has done exactly nothing to make the situation regarding the Iranians better, at least not that I can see.
Going to Iran and listening to what they have to say is a start. Giving credence to their national security concerns only makes sense.
My great hope is that the next U.S. administration will stop making threats and start making sense, regarding Iran and everything else.
April 1st, 2007 18:02
Hi S.W.-
I completely agree…it’s not enough to know that another country has values/wants/needs/opinions that are different than ours. We need to know why. Only then, I think, can we decide best how to deal with problems. If a chlld is misbehaving (and I’m not calling the Iranians childish- I just think this is a clear example), it helps to know the cause. I may handle the situation differently if she is misbehaving due to exhaustion rather than selfishness, for example.
Susan
April 3rd, 2007 09:45
Yes, let us understand them.
Perhaps we can learn why they send their countrymen to kill others and blow themselves up in Iraq.
Maybe we can figure out why their leader continually says he is going to push Israel into the sea.
There’s a chance that we’ll learn how these very reasonable people got to the place where they are taking British hostages (shhhh! don’t call them hostages!)
It’s a possibility that a little dialog will help their leader, who has been hating America since Jimmy Carter was in office, resolve his issues and make friends.
I’m sure that now that we know this country has been lying to the U.N. about their nuclear program, it won’t happen again. For instance, I’m sure they’re not lying about developing nuclear weapons. Or anything else.
Yes, all we need is a little talk and this will all blow over. We’ll look back a few years from now and have a good laugh about it with the Iranians. “Remember that time when you said that you’d kill every last Isreali? Boy, those were the days…”
Dan
April 3rd, 2007 20:48
Hi Daniel-
Yes, I’d agree than Ahmadinejad is unreasonable and his sanity is questionable…but he’s only one person. I’m not willing to judge the entire population by his actions. Discussion is just one tool to use toward peace.
I think, historically, the Iranians have some cause to distrust the U. S. and Britian. It’s not like we were just sitting around, minding our business, and they suddenly smacked us upside the head…
Susan
April 4th, 2007 16:47
Dan wrote:
Uh, Dan, what you say applies perfectly to Saudi Arabia, from whence came many (most?) of the 9-11 attackers of our country and whose society, to this day, pumps money, arms, fighters and suicide bombers into Iraq, to kill our troops.
Same goes for our erstwhile good buddies, the Pakistanis, whose country probably shelters Osama bin Laden and definitely is a sanctuary for al Qaeda and Taliban forces who continue to carry out cross-border attacks against our troops and NATO allies in Afghanistan.
Yet paradoxically, President Bush and Vice President Cheney count the Saudi kingdom among our strongest allies in the region. Ditto for Pakistan and Musharraf. Bush has even been seen holding hands with Saudi Arabia’s king.
Kind of funny how this “can’t we just be friends?” approach applies to some and not to others, don’t you think?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we actually have more solid reasons to be openly hostile to these alleged friends and allies than is the case with Iran.
Well, don’t look now, but these completely evil warmongers and hostage takers just let the British sailors go — without a missile being fired or a country being invaded.
Dan, your argument employs a very old but not very helpful tactic: sarcastically take what the other guy said to a ridiculous extreme in an effort to discredit it.
I’m not suggesting we try to pretend the Iranians are our new best friends. I am suggesting we have at least the possibility of gain with little to lose by trying to understand where they’re coming from, and why, by talking to them.
Final note. If you’re going to worry about another country that poses a mortal threat, one we’d be hard put to beat in an all-out war if it were to ever come to that, you’d better start worrying about China. Even a nuclear-armed Iran looks like a popgun next to a nuclear cannon when you use China for perspective.
April 9th, 2007 17:35
So, the lesson here is as long as they give people back, it’s okay to take hostages. I suppose that *is* the history with Iran. Sometimes (a la 1979), it takes almost a year to get them back, but heck - no missiles fired!
Other than that, I’m actually in agreement with you.
Ignore Iran. Know Saudi Arabia and Pakistan aren’t really friends. And focus most of our efforts on China.
Dan