Tweet
A Cry for Calm Amid Iran Belligerence
Newsweek senior editor Michael Hirsh was online Monday, July 2 at 11 a.m. ET to encourage the U.S. to listen and work with overtures from Iran to negotiate on its nuclear program, which some Iranian officials say could be stopped short of a bomb.
Tehran, Iran: Thank you very much for this opportunity.
In your recent article, in terms effectiveness of sanctions, you argued that "Stores are well-stocked, the streets are thronged with shoppers, and flower stores and luxury goods abound, indicating that people in this oil-rich economy still have plenty of disposable income..."
Do you think that this is a reliable method to sense what is really going on with people? Here, the distribution of money is not uniform and is highly variable, so the rate of disruption in people's economical power is not uniform and highly variable! If we agree that the amount of luxury goods is caused by wealthy buyers, then yes, you are right. But there is not a linear relationship between these events. Here in this county, money-making is far from value-making. You can see a shop near the street that costs tens on thousand of dollars per square meter. If we compare this issue to Tokyo, we are wrong.
Let me tell you a funny story. As a student studying for a master degree, to buy a pair of shoes, I should have a plan for saving money with time span of about 1 year. Yes, I need to study, and for this reason I can not have a full-time job. So, it is not fair to say things on behalf of other people. But at least you know my situation!
Yes. You can see for example luxury staff in one shop but this is not a reliable indicator.
Michael Hirsh: You are right. The points I made were purely impressionistic. However, I have seen a lot of down-and-out economies around the world, and Iran's is not yet one of them. The data tends to back me up: the economy grew at 4.8 percent last year, and inflation -- while bad -- is still only about 20 percent.
_______________________
New York: According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the Israeli lobby has a disproportionate influence on US foreign policy with respect to the Mideast. To what extent is the policy with respect to Iran shaped by the pro-Israeli lobby?
Michael Hirsh: I don't agree with many things in the Mearsheimer/Walt article -- principally the idea that the "Israel Lobby" is responsible for us going to war in Iraq; it's not -- but there are kernels of truth in what they argue. And when it comes to the administration's policy toward Iran, there is, in my view, a little too much of a tendency to identify Israel's very justifiable existential fears of Iran with Iran's place in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. need not have the same existential fear, and has no choice but to find some accommodation with Tehran.
_______________________
Caracas, Venezuela: Isn't it far more important to listen to Iran's message to its own people rather than the message they give to the West? Iran's message to its own population still expresses its determination to obtain nuclear weapons and wipe out Israel. Should this be tolerated?
Michael Hirsh: No, it should not. But the Iranian regime has not vowed to obtain nuclear weapons, only to "develop its capacity." I still believe that with the right combination of pressure and negotiation, Tehran can be persuaded to stop short of building and testing a weapon. As to Israel, yes, the official policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not to recognize it -- but as I say in my piece Ahmadinejad pushed the rhetoric too far into Holocaust-denying and suggestions that Iran would help destroy Israel. A number of more moderate officials in the regime are annoyed with him over this, though it clearly made him more popular with his base.
_______________________
Lisbon, Portugal: It is clear that Iran will do anything to obtain a nuclear weapon. They know that, and once they have the bomb they'll be untouchable, like N. Korea.
Michael Hirsh: See my previous answer.
_______________________
Lyons, France: After what the Iranians did to the British sailors, how can any reasonable person trust them?
Michael Hirsh: An interesting question, which begs another one: who is "them"? The British hostage seizure was a glimpse into the chaotic, almost feudal nature of Iranian politics, with many different power centers competing for influence. The sailors were seized by the irregular navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, but the crisis was resolved when cooler heads in other power centers (like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and ultimately in the Supreme Leader's office) prevailed.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.: For anyone who has been listening to Iran's message in the past 27 years, one would know that the government of Iran can't be trusted. Do you honestly feel differently?
Michael Hirsh: "Trust but verify," as Ronald Reagan said. In the end if you're not going to destroy an enemy -- you must negotiate with it.
_______________________
Milan, Italy: Has Iran shown any sign of curtailing its terrorist activity and dropping its support for terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas?
Michael Hirsh: No, but I believe they're showing a willingness to negotiate a reduction of such activity if the U.S. finds a regional accommodation with them.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: How can we get the administration -- and sufficient members of Congress -- to understand that "dialogue is not a reward"? It is the beginning of a real solution. It's about courage and true leadership.
Michael Hirsh: Hear, hear.
_______________________
Munich, Germany: While al-Qaeda has eclipsed anything that Hezbollah ever has done, Hezbollah still has a negative past and Iran seems to be inextricably connected to Hezbollah.
What evidence is there that Hezbollah, with Iran's financing, is still active in terrorists activities outside of Iran and Lebanon? What was the background and motive in the bombing in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people? Was this considered to be the work of Hezbollah or Iran's Revolutionary Guards?
Michael Hirsh: Hezbollah, I think, is best likened to the Irish Republican Army, with both a political wing heavily involved in Lebanese politics and a militant or, if you will, terrorist wing. And I think the solution to Hezbollah will be similar: intense, sustained pressure and negotiation to force them to lay down their arms, which as in the case of the IRA probably will take many years.
_______________________
Tehran, Iran: Dear Michael Hirsh: How do you see U.S. policies against Iran? Do you think that the U.S. has a double-standards approach against it, because on the one hand it opposes Iran nuclear program and on the other has closed its eyes to Israeli nuclear warheads, which are a great threat for the Middle East?
Do you think that developing a peaceful nuclear program is Iran's right? Do you think that diplomacy is the best option for Iran's nuclear program?
Thank you very very much. I am waiting for your response.
Michael Hirsh: It is certainly Iran's right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But developing a covert nuclear arms program that violates the IAEA inspection regime -- which Iran did for years -- is not its right.
I think diplomacy is the only option, as I suggested in my piece.
_______________________
Boston: Reading your report about your meeting with the Iranian Rezai, and the other reported contacts the Iranians have tried -- like the fax to the Swiss -- reminded me of Thirteen Days in October and the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Kennedy administration tried to pause various direct and indirect communications from the Soviets (would General Lemay represent today's neocons?).
I was just curious -- who is the highest-ranking Bush appointee or career official who understands Farsi and Iranian culture who would be in the room with Bush and other foreign policy decision makers? On the flip side, who has responsibility for Iran on Cheney's staff, and what has he/she had to say about the current regime? Lastly, whose policy-making process regarding the bilateral U.S.-Iran relationship is more opaque, the Iranians' or the Bush administration's (asked only half-facetiously)?
Michael Hirsh: That's the sad thing -- there is no Farsi-speaking senior official, as Rice herself admitted in remarks in June. Because diplomatic relations were cut off in 1979, we're missing a whole generation of Iran experts in the State Department -- and the government in general -- which helps to explain the gulf of misunderstanding between the two countries.
Tehran, Iran: Thank you very much for this opportunity.
In your recent article, in terms effectiveness of sanctions, you argued that "Stores are well-stocked, the streets are thronged with shoppers, and flower stores and luxury goods abound, indicating that people in this oil-rich economy still have plenty of disposable income..."
Do you think that this is a reliable method to sense what is really going on with people? Here, the distribution of money is not uniform and is highly variable, so the rate of disruption in people's economical power is not uniform and highly variable! If we agree that the amount of luxury goods is caused by wealthy buyers, then yes, you are right. But there is not a linear relationship between these events. Here in this county, money-making is far from value-making. You can see a shop near the street that costs tens on thousand of dollars per square meter. If we compare this issue to Tokyo, we are wrong.
Let me tell you a funny story. As a student studying for a master degree, to buy a pair of shoes, I should have a plan for saving money with time span of about 1 year. Yes, I need to study, and for this reason I can not have a full-time job. So, it is not fair to say things on behalf of other people. But at least you know my situation!
Yes. You can see for example luxury staff in one shop but this is not a reliable indicator.
Michael Hirsh: You are right. The points I made were purely impressionistic. However, I have seen a lot of down-and-out economies around the world, and Iran's is not yet one of them. The data tends to back me up: the economy grew at 4.8 percent last year, and inflation -- while bad -- is still only about 20 percent.
_______________________
New York: According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the Israeli lobby has a disproportionate influence on US foreign policy with respect to the Mideast. To what extent is the policy with respect to Iran shaped by the pro-Israeli lobby?
Michael Hirsh: I don't agree with many things in the Mearsheimer/Walt article -- principally the idea that the "Israel Lobby" is responsible for us going to war in Iraq; it's not -- but there are kernels of truth in what they argue. And when it comes to the administration's policy toward Iran, there is, in my view, a little too much of a tendency to identify Israel's very justifiable existential fears of Iran with Iran's place in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. need not have the same existential fear, and has no choice but to find some accommodation with Tehran.
_______________________
Caracas, Venezuela: Isn't it far more important to listen to Iran's message to its own people rather than the message they give to the West? Iran's message to its own population still expresses its determination to obtain nuclear weapons and wipe out Israel. Should this be tolerated?
Michael Hirsh: No, it should not. But the Iranian regime has not vowed to obtain nuclear weapons, only to "develop its capacity." I still believe that with the right combination of pressure and negotiation, Tehran can be persuaded to stop short of building and testing a weapon. As to Israel, yes, the official policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not to recognize it -- but as I say in my piece Ahmadinejad pushed the rhetoric too far into Holocaust-denying and suggestions that Iran would help destroy Israel. A number of more moderate officials in the regime are annoyed with him over this, though it clearly made him more popular with his base.
_______________________
Lisbon, Portugal: It is clear that Iran will do anything to obtain a nuclear weapon. They know that, and once they have the bomb they'll be untouchable, like N. Korea.
Michael Hirsh: See my previous answer.
_______________________
Lyons, France: After what the Iranians did to the British sailors, how can any reasonable person trust them?
Michael Hirsh: An interesting question, which begs another one: who is "them"? The British hostage seizure was a glimpse into the chaotic, almost feudal nature of Iranian politics, with many different power centers competing for influence. The sailors were seized by the irregular navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, but the crisis was resolved when cooler heads in other power centers (like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and ultimately in the Supreme Leader's office) prevailed.
_______________________
Wheaton, Md.: For anyone who has been listening to Iran's message in the past 27 years, one would know that the government of Iran can't be trusted. Do you honestly feel differently?
Michael Hirsh: "Trust but verify," as Ronald Reagan said. In the end if you're not going to destroy an enemy -- you must negotiate with it.
_______________________
Milan, Italy: Has Iran shown any sign of curtailing its terrorist activity and dropping its support for terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas?
Michael Hirsh: No, but I believe they're showing a willingness to negotiate a reduction of such activity if the U.S. finds a regional accommodation with them.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: How can we get the administration -- and sufficient members of Congress -- to understand that "dialogue is not a reward"? It is the beginning of a real solution. It's about courage and true leadership.
Michael Hirsh: Hear, hear.
_______________________
Munich, Germany: While al-Qaeda has eclipsed anything that Hezbollah ever has done, Hezbollah still has a negative past and Iran seems to be inextricably connected to Hezbollah.
What evidence is there that Hezbollah, with Iran's financing, is still active in terrorists activities outside of Iran and Lebanon? What was the background and motive in the bombing in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people? Was this considered to be the work of Hezbollah or Iran's Revolutionary Guards?
Michael Hirsh: Hezbollah, I think, is best likened to the Irish Republican Army, with both a political wing heavily involved in Lebanese politics and a militant or, if you will, terrorist wing. And I think the solution to Hezbollah will be similar: intense, sustained pressure and negotiation to force them to lay down their arms, which as in the case of the IRA probably will take many years.
_______________________
Tehran, Iran: Dear Michael Hirsh: How do you see U.S. policies against Iran? Do you think that the U.S. has a double-standards approach against it, because on the one hand it opposes Iran nuclear program and on the other has closed its eyes to Israeli nuclear warheads, which are a great threat for the Middle East?
Do you think that developing a peaceful nuclear program is Iran's right? Do you think that diplomacy is the best option for Iran's nuclear program?
Thank you very very much. I am waiting for your response.
Michael Hirsh: It is certainly Iran's right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But developing a covert nuclear arms program that violates the IAEA inspection regime -- which Iran did for years -- is not its right.
I think diplomacy is the only option, as I suggested in my piece.
_______________________
Boston: Reading your report about your meeting with the Iranian Rezai, and the other reported contacts the Iranians have tried -- like the fax to the Swiss -- reminded me of Thirteen Days in October and the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Kennedy administration tried to pause various direct and indirect communications from the Soviets (would General Lemay represent today's neocons?).
I was just curious -- who is the highest-ranking Bush appointee or career official who understands Farsi and Iranian culture who would be in the room with Bush and other foreign policy decision makers? On the flip side, who has responsibility for Iran on Cheney's staff, and what has he/she had to say about the current regime? Lastly, whose policy-making process regarding the bilateral U.S.-Iran relationship is more opaque, the Iranians' or the Bush administration's (asked only half-facetiously)?
Michael Hirsh: That's the sad thing -- there is no Farsi-speaking senior official, as Rice herself admitted in remarks in June. Because diplomatic relations were cut off in 1979, we're missing a whole generation of Iran experts in the State Department -- and the government in general -- which helps to explain the gulf of misunderstanding between the two countries.
Comment