|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
[Back to index of December 2007 articles] Panel Talks of Turbulent US/Iran Relations By
Lucy Chumbley
What is the history of the rocky relationship between the United States and Iran? What are the grievances, sore spots and sticking points? And how can the breach be healed? An Oct. 29 discussion, "The U.S. and Iran—A Difficult History," organized by Washington National Cathedral's Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation and moderated by Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrist (R-MD) drew a larger-than-anticipated crowd of 550 people interested in finding some answers. Panelists Bruce Laingen, former Iran hostage and State Department official, Stephen Kinzer, former New York Times bureau chief and author of All the Shah's Men, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States and Abbas Amanat, Iran scholar, professor of history at Yale University and author of In Search of Modern Iran: Authority, Nationhood and Culture each shared their views on the current crisis. When planning for the panel began 10 months ago, "we did not know, nor could we have predicted that the relationship between our two countries could have taken such a divisive turn," said the Rev. Canon John Peterson, director of the Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation. "How can we move beyond these past grievances and current threats of aggression to a place where healing and reconciliation can occur?" "I don't think I'm exaggerating this by pointing out that this is a very critical, dangerous moment in the history of these two countries," Amanat said. "Sometimes rhetoric can take a different turn and turn to a very dangerous course of events." Amanat described the 1953 CIA-backed coup, which ousted democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and re-installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power, as "some kind of a turning point" in U.S./Iran relations. This event, he said, "has been turned into a symbolic moment in the lives of the Iranians – has become exploited and manipulated by the Iranian leadership." After this intervention, through the 1970s, the U.S. "almost completely turned a blind eye on the behavior of the Iranian regime," he said. In Iran "any voice of protest or criticism at that time [was] silenced, and the U.S. basically accepted that." From 1953 onward, Iranians have viewed the U.S. as "as force that tends to act aggressively, arrogantly and intends to shift Iranian politics," he said. "Had we not overthrown that government in 1953, we might have had a thriving democracy in the heart of the Middle East all these many years," Kinzer said. "Today, there is an alternative to the confrontation our government is proposing." In order to succeed, the two countries must negotiate, Kinzer said, and negotiations must be entered into with the understanding that "they will involve compromise on both sides." This should not be too difficult, however, because "the U.S. and Iran have some interests in common," he said. These include preserving the free flow of oil from the Middle East, keeping Sunni regimes like the Taliban in check and a shared sympathy for democracy (Iran has a constitution). "Not only are Iran and the U.S. not fated to be enemies forever, we actually have the basis for a very productive relationship together," Kinzer said. Laingen, the former hostage, noted that "the U.S. today is the second largest Persian-speaking country in the world." But describing Iran as part of "the axis of evil" is "giving Iran little credit for its history, its people, its culture," he said. "We can all agree that that wall of mistrust is damn high," he said. "It's going to be difficult to overcome. Nothing is possible without mutual trust and there is no mutual trust. That must change. It must start by action at the top; by leadership on one or both sides." He conceded that positive progress might require a "regime change" in both countries, adding that presidential elections are coming up in the U.S. in 2008 and Iran in 2009. Iran must "stop goading the West," and the U.S. and West must "offer Iran a place at the table," he said, calling on policy-makers in both countries to "get off the dime." "The asset that is the hearts and minds of the Iranian people should not be forgotten in this debate," said Parsi. "Iranians tend to hold very favorable views of the U.S. There's probably not a single Iranian that does not have a relative in the U.S." It is in the best interest of the U.S. to preserve those favorable views, he said, but "the first bullet, the first bomb, the first boot on the ground, they will lose it." "Many would argue it is simply un-American to opt for war without giving negotiation a fair chance," he said. "Rather than making war inevitable, I think it would be wise for us to make peace possible." "It's not around the corner," Gilchrist conceded, "but there are a number of us in the House and on Capitol Hill that are interested in pursuing dialogue. I think it's time for old men to talk before sending young men to die." Contributing to the difficulty of pursuing diplomatic options, he said, is a basic lack of knowledge about Iran. "The last time people had geography, they were in the seventh grade," he said. "The last time people had geo-political history, they were 15." "One thing I've learned in my travels to Iran is the Iranians know a heck of a lot more about us than we know about them," said Bishop John Bryson Chane, closing the discussion by recommending that people make it their business to learn more about "Iran's people, its culture and its rich history." "Talk to as many elected officials as you can," Gilchrist urged the audience. "And let this be a new dawn."
[Back to index of December 2007 articles]
|
|
||||||||||||||
