Start with respect (U.S. foreign policy toward Iran)

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Now let's see how Iranians are responding to Washington's carrot and stick approach, and to the overall subverted form of diplomacy that they have been subjected to by the United States in the last few years. By all indications, the voices coming out of the Iranian regime indicate that they are not intimidated by the threat of the stick, and that they take offense at being threatened. Numerous Iranian officials have said that while they enjoy the offer of carrots and the attention they are getting, and that they are tempted, they do not appreciate the stick part of the carrot and stick treatment. They keep saying that they are putting their foot down on their legitimate right to master the nuclear technology, while willing to be subjected to the most stringent of IAEA inspections. The voices keep mentioning that the United States should stop threatening them with open or veiled military actions, and instead sit down to talk to Iranians as equals. The Iranian regime, and Iranians in general, feel that they deserve to be treated with respect, and be recognized as a regional superpower, as they think they are. Iran is the old Persia with a great sense of dignity and pride in its past. Iranians, be it in the regime or outside of it, feel that it is about time for them to get back some of the glory of the past. Their dignity and pride aside, Iranians can be extremely stubborn, and if cornered, can take their stubbornness and their Shiite characteristics to heroic proportions. The U.S. will not get its way by bullying Iran. Wielding its stick in the air is not frightening Iranians.

But how do American foreign policy makers justify subjecting Iran to subverted forms of diplomacy? Well, what they do is demonize Iran as an evil power and a rogue nation by accusing it of supporting terrorism and by contending that Iran is not living up to our standards of freedom and democracy. Hence, they declare Iran as undeserving of respect, fair treatment, and trust. In addition to the rhetoric of our righteousness and their evilness, and everything else that follows from it, they keep making the dubious claim that nuclear Iran could be a "serious threat" to the national security of the United States. (This is the case of the lion calling the rabbit a serious threat to his safety.) But if we go beyond Washington's mongering of its ideology of freedom (now being euphemistically called "ideological struggle"), which only serves to confuse and complicate international politics, the real question that needs to be answered is the following. Why does the United States refuse to engage Iran in a positive, constructive, and respectful manner?

The main answer to this question is that Washington has serious issues with acknowledging Iran as a regional superpower or recognizing its interests in the region as legitimate. Washington's current mindset on Iran sees it as a rival to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Washington's future plans for the Middle-East do not include the presence of an influential and independent Iran in the region, especially in the Persian Gulf area. But why is this so? Why cannot Washington accept a powerful and independent Iran in the region? The answer to these questions involves a bit of history and psychology. Since the CIA-led coup d'etat of 1953 that destroyed Iran's fledgling democracy and installed the Shah as a puppet and lackey of the United States in the region, Washington has been stuck with the mentality that Iran belongs to the U.S. and that Iran should act as an agent of American interests in the region. This mentality finds it unfortunate that we lost Iran in 1979, and is adamant that we should get it back.

Washington sees Iran like a prodigal son who has gone astray, whom we need to bring back in line. The pipe dream in Washington is that things can go back to the way they were in the good old days if we succeed in pulling out another regime change in Iran. Washington just cannot let go of its possessiveness over Iran, yet it cannot change the current regime, for it is much stronger than Dr. Mossadegh's government that it toppled in 1953. Iran, on the other hand, has come a long way, and feels as if it were a power in its own right, and demands recognition and respect for what it is. The situation can be likened to a father who cannot let go of his authority over a rapidly-maturing teenage son who in turn wants to establish his presence as a man. The only solution to the problem here is that the father must change his mindset and accept, and treat, the son as a man in his own right.

Unless its hidden goal is to drag Iran into a protracted war, Washington's subverted diplomacy toward Iran has been proven to be an utter failure. This in part is indicated by the stiffening of the Iranian position on the current nuclear standoff with the West. Iran just recently announced that it has activated a second cascade of centrifuges. The failure of the U.S. is also signaled by the heating up of the war of rhetoric and ideology mongering between Iran and the U.S. (and between Iran and Israel). It seems that President Ahmadinejad has accepted President Bush's challenge and is upping the ante in his fiery speeches. If you check with people in the Middle-East, you will see that President Ahmadinejad has clearly beaten the U.S. in its own game of "ideological struggle". He has won the struggle because he has successfully tapped into the deep-seated belief of the people in the region that hypocrisy and hostility toward Muslims lie at the root of U.S. foreign policy and its military adventures in the Middle-East.

[Rasputin]

The U.S. must accept that it has made grave mistakes in the Middle-East, and has failed miserably. It also needs to accept that it is time to implement a genuine form of diplomacy and a respectful attitude toward Iranians, and toward the people of the Middle-East. America can really mess things up if it decides to make good on its military threats and bomb Iranian nuclear and military installations. Iranian dignity and stubbornness will not allow them to take American military aggression lying down. If the Iraq invasion was a bad decision, this one would be a disastrous one. If you think Sunnis are stubborn and tough fighters, you need to talk to Israelis about their experience with Shiites in Lebanon. Fighting to the bitter end, and at all costs, against oppression and injustice is one of the main characteristics of Shiite Islam. Unless the United States is ready to face a completely destabilized Middle-East and live with the consequences, Washington needs to show honesty and respect in its dealing with the people in the Middle-East. It can start this by approaching Iran with fairness, honesty, and respect on the current nuclear standoff. Iran would fall in line, and would agree to a strict regime of IAEA inspections if its power and rights are recognized.