Iran: A Parallel Universe

For Educational Use Only

Tehran Skyline

Iran is frequently portrayed as a backward and fanatically fundamentalist tyrannical outpost. As a result of constant repetition, most of us believe that we have a fairly accurate image of Iran. But, do we really?

Frequently updated
Commentary, links, etc.
always worth rereading.

Who would have guessed that:

• Women constitute well over half of university students in Iran? (BBC)

• Iran's scientific growth is ranked as the fastest of any country? (NewScientist)

• Iran's 25,000 Jews, the largest community in the Middle East outside Israel, face no restriction on their religious practice? (Haaretz)

• 9 out of 10 Iranians say that men and women should have equal legal rights? (Gallup)

• Iranians held spontaneous candlelight vigils in sympathy with Americans after 9/11? (NY Times)

• Iran spends 110 times less than the U.S. on its military, and has not invaded another country for over 250 years? (Newsweek)

• Analysis of multiple polls finds little evidence Iranian public sees government as illegitimate? (WorldPublicOpinion)

Iranians' pro-American Stance

Middle East is dotted with anti-American populations led by unstable but friendly governments. The exception is Iran, with a pro-American population governed by a stable regime openly critical of American self-defeating policies in the region. Although, on cooperating with U.S. efforts against al-Qaida, there was little daylight between Iranians and their government.

As per a 2010 IPI/Charney Research poll on Iran over two thirds consider "the best way to solve the country’s problems is to form closer connections with the developed Western countries."
 

According to surveys taken in Iran in early 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:

“While Iranians, like many other Muslim populations, have negative opinions of the U.S. government and U.S. foreign policy, they have a mildly positive image of the American people, and believe "common ground" can be found between the two societies. Most Iranians desire closer ties with the U.S., including more trade, investment and tourism.”

The jaundiced opinion of U.S. policies, however, is not an affliction exclusive to 'Muslim populations'. For example, as Cathy Young, the contributing editor of the Reason magazine, puts it: “A staggering 43 percent of Russians agreed in a poll last year that “one of the goals of the foreign policy of the United States is the total destruction of Russia.”” Also, according to Pew Global Attitude Project, significant numbers of  British, German, French and Spanish populations have switched from holding a favorable opinion of the U.S. in 1999/2000 to unfavorable in 2005.

Encouragingly, a plurality of Americans support engagement with Iran.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs' September 2008 polling data showed 65% of Americans on both sides of the aisle endorse talking to leaders of Iran. In an April 2009  poll by NY Times and CBS News, 59% of those who gave a yes/no response said yes to the deliberately yes-depressing question:

“Do you think the United States should or should not establish diplomatic relations with Iran while Iran has a nuclear program?” (Robert Naiman)

Again, in 2010, the Chicago Council reports “62 percent [of 2,500 Americans polled] favor U.S. leaders meeting and talking with Iran’s leaders.”

And, last but not least, the 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair telephone Poll of 906 Americans in September of 2010 showed the vast majority abhors conflict even in the direst hypothetical situations. Unlike the practice of other such opinion surveys, Vanity Fair did not offer a condemnation of Iran in the guise of a question. Rather, the pollster asked about legitimate circumstances under international law for “war” and offered a choice of two Casus belli, one treaty abrogation, and one casus foederis.

If not war, then ... peace? Based on these poll results, do authorities in both Iran and US have a mandate/duty to respect the wishes of the majority of their respective populations to desists lumbering along a path of conflict while pointing an accusative finger at the other?

The New York Times: The Best of Enemies? By Thomas L. Friedman, Jun 12, 2002

Quick quiz: Which Muslim Middle East country held spontaneous candlelight vigils in sympathy with Americans after Sept. 11? Kuwait? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Iran? Yes. You got it! You win a free trip to Iran. And if you come you'll discover not only a Muslim country where many people were sincerely sympathetic to America after Sept. 11, but a country where so many people on the street are now talking about -- and hoping for -- a reopening of relations with America that the ruling hard-liners had to take the unprecedented step two weeks ago of making it illegal for anyone to speak about it in public.

The Axis of Evil Vacation?

The media travel pages encourage the well-heeled among us to go and enjoy Iranian hospitality in stark contrast to the news and op-ed sections of the same media. An important European newspaper, without a hint of irony, recommends Iran as a destination for a ski vacation. And the New York Times Travel section reports on $3000 luxury cruises to Bandar Abbas, and regards Esfahan as a great place for an American tourist to lose his way.

“Iran is one of the friendliest places I have been to.”

(Francis McAuley, the international director of Debenhams, one of the leading British department store chains.)

“I would love to know what was really going on there, after reading about all the Iranian bad people, you know, and all the politics ... And I really discovered a completely different country than I imagined, than I was reading about in the media -- The joy inside the houses! They're very much like Italians. They love life, they enjoy life, they're full of culture. They have a great sense of themselves. And, you know, that area is the cradle of civilization?”

(Juliette Binoche on her new
Tuscan-seductress role
in "Certified Copy")
 

The Times of London: Iran and Chile take on the Alps

Skiers are suffering from Three Valleys fatigue and now want new cultural experiences along with the snow. ..... The resorts of the Alborz mountains in Iran have a reputation for “powder snow and off-piste skiing”, said Magic Carpet Travel.

Cooler Magazine: Eva Walkner Skiing Iran

I would not recommend Iran JUST for skiing but I can recommend it for anyone who is ready for a great experience. You need to be open and willing to form your own opinion about Iran and the people there. Not everything is bad in Iran; it’s a very interesting country with wonderful people. A trip to Iran is an amazing adventure. So I can definitely recommend it to anybody!

Women In Iran

Many authors, some in bestselling books,  have depicted Iranian women as conquered, underfoot and pathetic. But, the 3000 year civilization's ubiquitous matriarchs, from Navy Admiral Artemisia to Queen Esther, from Bibi Khanoom Astarabadi, to Shirin Ebadi are as likely to be exceptions as it is likely to find a solitary peak without a surrounding mountain range.  In a culture where every child learns to delight grownups by quoting "Paradise is beneath mothers' feet", it is the women of Iran who have played as important a role as any in mobilizing for national defense, and social change on a path of progress.

“If you have read Reading Lolita in Tehran, you might be amazed at the bleakness of the picture that you have seen and crave a balancing perspective.  But you don't have to have read Nafisi's book to appreciate this one.  Jasmine and Stars is an independent book.  Its main purpose is to search for a meaningful way to approach an unfamiliar culture, a way in which the humanity and depth of that culture is felt and enjoyed rather than masked from view.  At the same time, it critiques the lopsided and exaggerated presentation of the eastern cultures in current western writings, a trend that I call the New Orientalist narrative.  Reading Lolita in Tehran is only one example of this kind of writing.  However, since I do criticize that book rather sharply, I devote a full chapter to it so I can explain to readers the specifics of my criticism”   (Fatemeh Keshavarz)

 

Massumeh Ebtekar, Vice President 1997 - 2005

While inexcusable discriminatory laws continue to be on the books, the fact that female university graduates outnumber men in every professional field, points to a social dynamic which will build upon the current gains by women in Iran. Women today are lawyers, university professors, authors, film directors, members of parliament and cabinet ministers. Indeed, Iran has had female Vice Presidents since 1997.

Fatemeh Javadi,  Vice President 2005 - present

Even though, rare is a creature who would not wish God speed for his daughters, women's rights are fought for, and taken. Rights are not bestowed.

According to  WPO's 2008 polling data:

“Large majorities of Iranians (89% according to Gallup) endorse the principle that women should have equal rights with men and that over the course of their own lifetimes, women have gained greater rights. A large majority says that the government should act to prevent discrimination against women. A modest majority also supports the United Nations working to further women’s rights.” (Page 24)

Ms. Seddigh loves speed. She also loves a challenge. Last fall, she petitioned the national auto racing federation in this male-dominated society for permission to compete against men. When it was granted, she became not only the first woman in Iran to race cars against the opposite sex, but also the first woman since the Islamic Revolution here to compete against men in any sport.

What's more, she beat them.

“Ms. Seddigh is a lively, energetic symbol of a whole generation of young Iranians who are increasingly testing social boundaries. Seventy percent of Iranians are under 35, and they have gently pushed for, and received, freedoms unimaginable even a few years ago. For women in Tehran, at least, head scarves are often brightly colored and worn loosely over the hair. The obligatory women's overcoats are now often tight and short.

BBC: High hopes of Iran's women rowers

Every Friday, on their day of rest, Iranians of all ages clamber up the Alborz mountains in their thousands. It is a tough climb but women are up there in equal numbers with the men.

Iran has a very different ethos [to other Muslim Middle Eastern nations], a dynamic attitude to sport and perhaps to life. Iranians love getting out there and proving the rest of the world wrong.

So, sporting world, watch out. The Iranians are coming.

Homa Hosseini
Iranian rower
was her nation's flag bearer
for  2008 Olympic team

Najmeh Abtin
Iranian Archer

Sara Khoshjamal Fekri
the first Iranian female
taekwondo Olympic qualifier

Sebouh Sarkissian, Armenian archbishop in Tehran for the past eight years, spoke to Reuters at his office next to the Armenian cathedral in the Iranian capital about the situation for his community in the Islamic Republic.

“We have the feeling that the government is taking care of our religious heritage, historical churches and sacred sites … This of course makes us happy.”

Dahl asks: “Does your community experience discrimination in Iran?”

The Archbishop answers: “Not as such … I think it is an innovation from the West, that people are coming and always asking: is there discrimination in this country? I can tell you that I’ve felt discrimination even in the United states, even in Europe.”

Dahl asks:  "Do you see a future for the Armenian community in Iran?"

The Archbishop answers: “Yes, definitely, our existence is rooted in this soil, in this country … I don’t think we are in danger. If we are in danger it means the whole society is in danger."

Dissent & Accountability

A nation's journey is marked by episodes which simultaneously manifest disgrace and grace.

None of the prominent government critics cited below are in jail.

Despite the harassment meted out by petty officials, Iranians are not servile, cowed, and afraid to loudly voice their opinions. There is a profound conversation raging within Iran which regards all aspects of theocracy, government, and culture as fair game for harsh criticism. Notwithstanding "a clear majority" does support the system of government (see below).

“The Iranian authorities acknowledged Saturday for the first time that at least three protesters had been beaten to death in prison after the disputed presidential election in June, as a military court announced that 12 prison officials had been charged with murder and other crimes.”

(NY Times, By Robert F. Worth  December 19, 2009)

Iran's System of Government

A “Tyrannical Outpost” with some bright spots, or a form of participatory system of government with notable shortcomings?

Francis Fukuyama: Iran, Islam and the Rule of Law

“Iran is not quite a tyranny”

“A real tyranny would never permit elections in the first place—North Korea never does—nor would it allow demonstrations contesting the election results to spiral out of control. Yet Iran is no liberal democracy...”

“The Iranian Constitution is a curious hybrid of authoritarian, theocratic and democratic elements. Articles One and Two do vest sovereignty in God, but Article Six mandates popular elections for the presidency and the Majlis, or parliament. Articles 19-42 are a bill of rights, guaranteeing, among other things, freedom of expression, public gatherings and marches, women’s equality, protection of ethnic minorities, due process and private property, as well as some “second generation” social rights like social security and health care.”

“[T]he references in the Iranian Constitution to God and religion as the sources of law are much less problematic. They could, under the right circumstances, be the basis for Iran’s eventual evolution into a moderate, law-governed country.”

“The rule of law was originally rooted in religion in all societies where it came to prevail, including the West. The great economist Friedrich Hayek noted that law should be prior to legislation. That is, the law should reflect a broad social consensus on the rules of justice. In Europe, it was the church that originally defined the law and acted as its custodian. European monarchs respected the rule of law because it was written by an authority higher and more legitimate than themselves.”

 

According to surveys taken in Iran in early 2008 by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:

“Most Iranians support a number of democratic principles, including the long-run goals of "ensuring free elections" (82% important, including 55% very important) and "ensuring a free press" (78% important, including 50% very important). Iranians express much greater support for a government in which "the Supreme Leader, along with all leaders, can be chosen and replaced by a free and direct vote of the people" (86% support, including 71% strongly support) than for a government in which "the Supreme Leader rules according to religious principles and cannot be chosen or replaced by a direct vote of the people" (38% support, including 19% strongly support).

Nevertheless, on separate questions a clear majority of Iranians express satisfaction with the "process by which the authorities are elected in this country" (62%, including 18% very satisfied and 44% somewhat satisfied) and approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president" (66%). These approval ratings lie roughly midway between Iranian support for the "ideal" of a free and direct popular vote for political leaders (86% support - see paragraph above) and support for a religious autocracy (38%). While many observers characterize the present Iranian political system as a religious autocracy, evidently many Iranians do not see it that way.”

These results are further confirmed by a 2010 IPI/Charney Research poll on Iran which shows 54% "say things in Iran are headed in the right direction", and 82% rate the work of the national government as excellent, good, or fair.

 

A Race To The Bottom

“The persistence with which mainstream media misdiagnoses Iran is rooted in the shallow assessment that Iran's long monarchical history, Islam, and republicanism are all mutually exclusive. Ever since 1979, the Islamic revolution has been given a poor prognosis. The uniquely Persian experiment of Iran's system of government which has combined the ancient concept of farr (fair), and Islam's emphasis on justice/charity, and the consequent vast welfare state is alone in the region in giving voice to and being accountable to the underclass majority. Western commentators continue to imagine the system is unviable except through brutal repression. However, the Islamic Republic has survived 30 years marked by invasion, sanctions, constant threats and vilification. Though, throwing the plague at Iran has not been tried yet,  President Obama was not altogether naive to base his original Iran policy on the Islamic Republic's resilience, rather than it's fragility.”

Background

Recent Observations

An article in the Harvard International review explores some of the historical facts of Iran/Israel and Iranians/Jews relationships.

Whilst tensions between Israel and Iran have intensified over the latter’s nuclear program, we know and are told nothing about the historical relationship between these two nations. On the question of Iranian attitudes towards the Jewish people the same is true. Instead, we fixate on comments made by an individual, the current President of Iran, who is merely one actor in the highly complex domestic politics of Iran and who coincidentally has neither control over foreign (and nuclear) policy nor the armed forces under the Iranian Constitution. Surely, history matters and there is great value in exploring these questions.

Curiously, it was not long ago that Iran and Israel were strategic allies in the Middle East. At its inception, Israel, as a virtual island-state in a sea of ill-wishers, looked to Iran as an important ally. This alliance is part of the historical record. In fact, the two countries enjoyed close ties up to 1979 when the Islamic Republic of Iran was instituted. Paradoxically, it was during the same period — pre-Revolution— that Iran first acquired nuclear technology with the blessing and consent of the United States without any controversy. Henry Kissinger himself, under President Gerald Ford, approved of the deal. Interestingly, at a time when Iran was being offered to buy US-made reprocessing facilities capable of delivering a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle', Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were serving as White House Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense respectively.

On Iranian attitudes towards Jewish people, an objective assessment of the historical record speaks for itself. Iranians over millennia and with few exceptions have been friends and allies of the Jewish people. As the Book of Ezra informs us, it was none other than an Iranian emperor - Cyrus the Great - who championed the struggle of the Jewish people, freed them, and facilitated their return to the Promised Land. Countless examples of Iranian contributions to Jewish history or amicable partnerships are imprinted in the annals of time: i.e. the Second Temple’s construction was financed by the Iranian treasury, the Babylonian Talmud was finally written under Iranian rule, and Jews fought victoriously as brothers-in-arms with Persian-Parthian soldiers against invading Romans. More importantly, in more recent history, during World War II, the Iranian government of a predominantly Shia’ Muslim country saved the lives of the 150,000 Iranian-Jews by convincing Nazi ‘race experts’ that they were fully assimilated and Iranian diplomats throughout Europe readily issued visas to European-Jews, facilitating their escape from the Nazi killing machine. Iran today houses the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East after Israel. The Iranian Jewish community benefits from constitutional protection and is allocated a seat in Parliament. There is little interference with Jewish religious practice, yet the legal system does discriminate against religious minorities -- this is an ‘institutional’ issue to be differentiated from the discourse of the Iranian people. The average Iranian, irrespective of religion, is also a victim of the limitations of Iran’s legal system.

“Still a mystery hovers over Iran’s Jews. It’s important to decide what’s more significant: the annihilationist anti-Israel ranting, the Holocaust denial and other Iranian provocations — or the fact of a Jewish community living, working and worshipping in relative tranquility.

Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric.”

(Roger Cohen)

“The Jewish community of Iran has been present in their society for nearly 3000 years. They object to the attitude by non Iranian western Jews that we want to save them, or educate them, or in any way interfere with their cultural and religious  life. Before we make assumptions about what they need or who they are, it would be well to acknowledge that they are the oldest ongoing community of Jews in the world continuously associated with one place. They are not Jews of exile. They are deeply rooted in the land of Cyrus. They can visit the graves of Esther and Mordecai, Daniel and Habbakuk. They possess a Torah that is over 1200 years old. The Jews of Esfahan have their own language! The Jews of Iran are deeply proud of their own heritage, even though they, like other Iranians, may struggle with the limitations imposed by the Islamic Republic on freedom of expression.”

(Rabbi Gottlieb)

“We spent considerable time with the Jewish community - and among the many surprising impressions we received was their obvious sense of comfort and safety living as Jews under an Islamic regime.

American Jews are invariably astounded when I tell them that I myself wore a kippah publicly throughout Iran without a moment’s nervousness. (Once we were approached and asked by an Iranian man if we were Jewish - he turned out to be a Jew himself and he promptly invited us to his shul for Shabbat). I’m not being facetious when I say that in retrospect, I realize I actually felt safer as a Jew walking the streets Tehran than I often do in Israel.”

(Rabbi Brant Rosen)

Has Ahmadinejad, intelligentsia's persona non grata,  ever proposed physically hurting Israelis?

The mainstream media can play a significant role in perpetuating a false story.

CBS' version portrayed Ahmadinejad as confirming, and justifying the outrageous remark by trimming his three paragraph long answer to just one sentence fragment.

In C-SPAN's uncut version, Ahmadinejad is suggesting "wipe off the map" is Wallace's phrase, not his. He explains that he has in mind a democratic referendum as the solution to the unrepresentative nature of the Israeli government.

Nuclear Issue, Real or Exaggerated?

“A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region. And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends. There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.”  (Hassan Rohani)

Similarly, it is unimaginable that a proud nation would welcome a pariah status by testing a weapon after 118 member country Non-aligned movement (NAM), China, Brazil and Turkey have all gone out on a limb defending Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear energy programme.

Iran must be well aware that nuclear weapons did not forestall the Soviet collapse from internal discord. In the absence of economic progress, the USSR's arsenal did not accord it meaningful prestige in world fora. Indeed, at the zenith of  Soviet nuclear stockpile (~45,000 warheads), other than Gdańsk's Solidarity movement,  only the British, and the American 'workers of the world united' to crown Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan in landslide elections. Plainly, U.S.A's  extravagant  nuclear arsenal  has not enabled it to control the price of oil, nor has it hurried Syria, or Lebanon into signing peace treaties. There does not appear to be any benefits to be stacked against the prohibitive costs of nuclear weapons development, let alone the deployment costs of a credible nuclear arsenal. It is not just in the Iranian context that “the bombs are substantially valueless, a very considerable waste of money and effort, and "absolute" primarily in their irrelevance”. John Mueller contends nuclear weapons are not and have never been of any utility to anyone.

Iranian leaders' strident disavowal of nuclear weapons squares with Iran's nearly 300 year unbroken record of non-aggression. As per Daniel Larison:

“... why would Iranian authorities repeatedly insist in public not only that they are not pursuing such weapons, but also state that they are absolutely prohibited from doing so according to the religion on which the regime claims to base so much of its legitimacy? If most Iranians accept these statements, and the government then develops and tests a nuclear weapon, would they not be directly attacking the foundations of the legitimacy and credibility of their entire system?”

Absent any rational justification for Iran wanting/needing nuclear weapons,  most commentary on Iran's nuclear energy programme is peppered with allegations of evil intent, duplicitous conduct, irrational religious zealotry, or the "prestige" an infantile Iran attaches to manufacturing the very weapons Ahmadinejad publicly labels "disgusting and shameful". Though presented as facts to an uninformed public, the allegations are no more than suspicions -- prejudice masquerading as prudence.  Aprioristic conjectures about Iran prey upon uninquisitive minds with the persuasive whisper of a jack hammer. Through repetition, some of the evidentially-challenged charges against Iran have become memes though they defied commonsense to begin with, and remain unproven after years of scrutiny.

At best, the alleged Iranian desire for the bomb has been construed as an  insurance policy in case of regime change. With premiums far in excess of the contingent loss,  and an effective date perpetually 2 to 5 years into the future, the supposition is absurd and unlikely. Squirreling money in Abu Dhabi bank accounts beats all other insurance schemes for ease, reliability, discreteness, and it earns interest.

To advocate that Iran 'should' develop nuclear deterrence requires leaping over the security doughnut hole -- a non-nuclear state enjoys a significant degree of immunity from a 'first strike', because the specter of a mushroom cloud over a non-nuclear state would gut NPT, and lead to global proliferation and negate whatever security justification was used to attack a non-nuclear state. If Iran squanders that immunity,  she cannot recoup it by building only one, two, or a dozen bombs, when faced with adversaries' thousands. The high threshold for a minimal deterrence therefore, makes staying non-nuclear the only rational course for Iran, unless she fanaticizes going from zero to hundreds in an (undetected) instant. Iran's geography and nationalistic cohesion is sufficient deterrence against a conventional attack.

Hoping that less alarming predictions would appear more plausible, some have taken to advancing the screw-loose theory:  -- "that Iran was in pursuit of the Japan model; it wanted to be a screwdriver-turn away from weaponizing its program." One is left wondering how fast Iran (or Japan) envisage turning that 'screwdriver' in an existential emergency knowing that American, Russian, and Chinese ICBMs  can attack targets anywhere in the world in less than 30 minutes.

The much touted danger of Iran sharing nuclear technology and/or actual weapons with a terrorist group does not pass even a cursory test of objectivity. "Would any regime just hand weapons-grade uranium over to extremists over whom it had no control?" There can always be the first time in recorded history that a state actor gives the means for its own extinction to a foreign 'group'. But, are we to accept as a given that the millennially-minded  3000+ year surviving civilization not only aspires to national suicide, but wishes the timing of its guaranteed obliteration to be at the whim of a foreign terrorist group? Is there no likelier candidate other than Iran for setting a new record in staggering shortsightedness?

A fallback position to the terrorism-WMD nexus is that Iran's allegedly "terrorist" proxies will feel shielded and become emboldened whether or not Iran actually gives them the weapons. Larry Berfner points out the argument is ahistorical:

“[This argument is] vastly underestimating the intelligence, knowledge of history and survival instincts of Hizbullah, Hamas and other radical Islamist groups. The US, USSR and China fought each other’s proxies all over the world for decades without being deterred by the other side’s nuclear weapons. Fear of Soviet nukes didn’t stop JFK from trying to knock over Castro in Cuba, just as fear of US nukes didn’t stop Soviet-backed Castro from fighting back. Likewise, the threat of Soviet nuclear power didn’t stop the US from arming the anti-Soviet mujahedeen in Afghanistan, just as fear of US nukes didn’t stop the Soviets from fighting them. THE LIST goes on and on. Nuclear weapons have never been a defensive umbrella for aggression by anyone. It’s fair to assume Hizbullah and Hamas understand this.”

Though The Nuclear Dominoes Rarely Fall, the fear of a regional arms race is proffered often by Western pundits, but ironically, they are usurping Iran's own fantods. Regional proliferation would transform hostile Arab governments from an over-the-horizon security concern, into Iran's proximate security nightmare. Free-for-all proliferation would squander Iran's geographic/population advantage,  vitiate Iran's conventional defensive capacity, and render even the tiniest of its neighbors a military equal. No wonder that Iran has been pushing for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.

Lastly, la meme des memes: despondent fear mongers' coup de grâce  is to question the Iranian government's rationality.  Seemingly, even  progressives promulgate the insanity argument when they promote a featherweight rebuttal to a heavyweight Bruce Riedel. Suffice to say,  according to this theory, the Iranian rationality deficit is hidden unless and until Iran allegedly develops a few nuclear weapons. Only then, armed with nukes, when acting irrationally will be tantamount to signing her own extinction warrant, will Iran reveal her insanity. Merely being reduced to rubble by superior conventional might is insufficient catalyst for Iran to betray her suicidal core. The end result must be radioactive rubble. Presumably, that is why no one has worried very much about Iran bringing mass martyrdom upon herself by marshaling her current non-nuclear military assets.

All absurd myths come with an expiration date -- reason demands that after years of scrutiny  accusations are either proven or discarded.

Reality check: Iran is not a nuclear threat

Forget the neoconservative hype. The facts show Iran is not and has not been a nuclear threat to either the United States or Israel.

“The bottom line is that Iran is still within its unalienable rights to peaceful nuclear technology under the NPT and the Safeguards Agreement – a point even Tehran’s fiercest critics (grudgingly) acknowledge. The only issues it is defying are the illegitimate sanctions and demands of the US and UN, which themselves defy logic and sense.” (Scott Horton)

Rationality + Unwinnable = Unlikely to Play

Politics of Reporting on IAEA Reports

It is always interesting to read the actual text of reports issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding Iran not only because of what they reveal about Iran's program, but also because of the interestingly partial way various news organizations and governments end up interpreting or representing the report to audiences they are sure will not read the reports themselves.

Date of Report

15 November 2004

2 September 2005

 53. As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for ... the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

27 February 2006

 

The Washington Post reported on U.N. inspectors' protest at U.S. Congress inflammatory exaggerations about Iran’s nuclear program.

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter that the report contained some "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated statements." The letter, signed by a senior director at the agency, was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee, which issued the report. A copy was hand-delivered to Gregory L. Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA in Vienna.

September 14, 2006

22 February 2007

23 May 2007

30 August 2007

15 November 2007

 

Washington Times reports the architect of the 2007 NIE stands by Iran nuke report:

Thomas Fingar, who stepped down Dec. 1 from the post of deputy director of national intelligence and as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said he also believed that Iran has not diverted low-enriched uranium produced at a facility at Natanz, 160 miles south of Tehran, to weapons use.

"I still stand by the judgments in that estimate," Mr. Fingar told a small group of reporters, referring to the November 2007 report. "We've had other teams look at this. Everyone who has, has affirmed the judgments we made."

December 10, 2008

For analysis see here.

For analysis see here ( by Peter Jenkins, a former member of the British diplomatic service who served as the United Kingdom’s Permanent Representative to the IAEA from 2001 to 2006)

Fueling Iraqi Insurgency, Real or Exaggerated?

Persia & Mesopotamia have had deeply entangled relations since 600 B.C.E. The significant bilateral religious tourism, commerce, intermarriages, and, 'meddling' which have been routine for millennia can be misconstrued easily as a vicious conspiracy to rain on the daydreaming triumphalists'  parade through the field of fallen 'dominos' -- the Middle East.

The 2003  invasion of Iraq under false pretenses has cost the U.S. dearly. Surely an honest accounting of the whole enterprise, its neoconservative intellectual underpinning, the misguided strategic aims, the serial tactical errors,  the re-election of  President Bush in 2004,  etc. leaves few national institutions unscathed. The levee of checks-and-balances was washed away by a tsunami of thumping prejudice. The independence of the co-equal branches of government, and a 2-party political system  were no match against a pounding xeno-hatred which over the decades debauched political philosophy, policy formulation, and even the American capacity for rudimentary planning. The resulting fiasco is a disaster of undeterminable dimensions. We may have lost the means to safeguard our national interests around the world consensually and cost-effectively for a very long time.

One way to avoid the pain of self examination is to concoct Iranian malign influence, believe one's own concoction, and then blame Iran, obsessively.

From day one Iran's main bet would have been to see Iraq evolve a Shi'a-dominated government that consequently would be stable and friendly.  If causing mayhem ever crossed the Iranian mind, surely it was as plan Z -- at best an hedge. Arming thugs over whose activities Iran could not hope to exercise any operational control does not constitute a strategy. While oblivious to long-term dangers, the U.S. chose to arm the Mujahedin who later morphed into Taliban and al-Qaeda, Iran cannot afford such unimaginative gung-ho 'policies' in its immediate neighborhood.

Iranian Strategy in Iraq, the report issued by West Point's Combating Terrorism Center  in October 2008 states:

How likely is it that Iran would sacrifice its main bet on the alter of an hedge?

Iranian Strategy in Iraq report does allege Iranian malign influence, arming/training militias, and the like. However the allegations are based on evidence that the report itself admits is subject to considerable doubt.

“We recognize the inherent problems in using some of the sources cited in this report. For example, we cannot independently confirm the accuracy of information contained in the Iraqi intelligence documents. Indeed, we have serious concerns that Iraqi intelligence agents relied on information from the anti-Iranian terrorist group, the Mujahidin-e Khalq Organization. Data provided by the MKO is sometimes accurate but often considered not credible because of the MKO’s endemic interest in portraying Iran in as negative a light possible. Likewise, unclassified information from Coalition Forces’ significant activities reports can lack important context. Finally, information obtained from interrogations of detained militants must be interpreted with extreme caution. Detainees may be misinformed or lying, interrogators may misunderstand or poorly transcribe information, and the context of a detainee’s story may be missing. ... Some reports erroneously attribute munitions similar to those produced in Iran as Iranian, while other Iranian munitions found in Iraq were likely purchased on the open market.”

Faced with competing truths, commonsense is the only recourse.

The notion that Iran would support operations aimed at killing 170 Americans, and do so with a supply of traceable weapons strains credulity.  We are asked to believe that Iran, as a matter of policy, would provide a casus belli to its antagonist, indeed oblige the only superpower to avenge its fallen soldiers and make a permanent enemy of its neighbor, Iraq. Apparently, given the current climate, such unlikely scenarios do not elicit a demand for proof. Nor, are the accusers taken to task to show a plausible do-or-die  imperative for Iran to risk the sever  consequences of  wounding the U.S. and to boot, jeopardize its diplomatic accomplishments in Iraq. What possible military objective would be served by adding a relatively puny irritant (0.4% of American casualties) atop the mountain of Iraqi chaos and carnage? Surely there are less convoluted ways to set one's own house on fire.

There are any number of states in the Middle East, and the Caucuses who myopically regard Iran/U.S. rapprochement as an untenable loss in a zero-sum game.  The abundant motive/opportunity of many to plant (paltry) evidence, hardly makes allegations against Iran a "slamdunk".

Saudi Arabia, Libya,  Yemen, Algeria, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Turkey,  France, & Egypt

100%

Iran

0%

Islam, Iran & Phobia

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." (Oscar Wilde)

Iran is often portrayed as a combination of pathogens -- the Orient and Islam -- in order to induce in the public's mind an allergic shock of revulsion and incomprehension.

References to the invidious writings of Herodotus about the orient in general, and 'Persians' in particular endure to buttress modern promulgators of us-and-them frame of thought.

“[Persian] lands were fertile, their cities opulent. They themselves were wealthy — far wealthier than the impoverished Greeks — and they could be immensely refined. They were also fierce and savage, formidable opponents on the battlefield.

Yet for all this they were, above all else, slavish and servile. They lived in awe of their rulers, whom they looked upon not as mere men like themselves, but as gods.” (Worlds at War)

One can only imagine the depths of envy that Herodotus had plumbed when he was calling disciplined & orderly Iranians 'slavish and servile'. Nonetheless, his 2500 year-old Persian-aspersions are treated as astute then and  relevant to today's world. Alexander's conduct after Iran's conquest refutes Herodotus' diatribes. For those who value actions above words,  the Macedonians' total assimilation into Persian life, and their wholesale adoption of Persian style governance speaks for itself.

Athens'  remarkable innovation of democracy could be the singular objective point of distinguishing the orient from the occident -- except that it demonstrably is not. For several centuries the city of Susa (or Shushan), Iran had an elected council, a popular assembly, etc. Susa is among many other examples of  adoption of democracy to the East (India, Bactria) a millennia before democracy sprouted to the west of Athens.  (Democracy Isn't 'Western')

A look at Iranians' contemporary history of democratic yearnings and achievements shows they did not arrive at the game any later than most European nations.

Categorizing peoples is the vogue. Whether inspired by Samuel Huntington's scholarly warnings of the looming  clash of civilizations, or Mohammad Khatami's sentimentalist dialogue among civilizations, or beguiled by the caustic ramblings of neo-conservatives, the us-and-them brigades' exertions at stereotyping humanity have husbanded a seedling of  pseudo-logic into a giant tree. In the dark shadow of this grotesque tree, and on a bed of unreason are we to preserve our respective identities, or should we grow mushrooms? Fortunately, It is not a tree. It is an overgrown weed with roots no deeper than superficial differences among various peoples' lore, customs and traditions. In reality, all these differences amount to an ethereal veil over the axiom:  treat others as you would like to be treated. This universal code of social existence is self-evident to all except the dead (suicide bombers) and the deaf (who cannot hear the cries of the weak, and who fantasize power to be eternal, and put off compassion until it is undifferentiated from capitulation).

---------------

Similarly, Islam is under assault. The third of the Abrahamic religions, like Judaism, and Christianity before it, was born to the same Semitic peoples who spoke dialects of the same language, in culturally indistinguishable neighborhoods with the same zip code,  but it is being cast as something from another planet. To justify past cruelty and as part of (contingency) plans for future cruelty the ground is being prepared  by falsely maligning others' beliefs as sub-human, apocalyptic, violent, and suicidal. This is knuckle-biting irony as it comes from the same people who accuse Muslims of teaching and preaching hate.

The two faces of Amis

“Martin Amis writes that 11 September 2001 was "a day of de-Enlightenment," the beginning of a global "moral crash", one that is still thudding and smashing all around us. But his battalions of critics believe this is an unwitting description of the author himself, a portrait of the artist as an ageing man. As the twin towers burned and fell, they believe Amis became radically de-Enlightened, and embarked on a "moral crash" where he mooted the collective punishment of all Muslims.”

There are more productive debates than the rabble-rousing of the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Martin Amis. The harsh punishments that are prescribed in the Old Testament and the Koran are an unapologetic tilt towards the rights of victims of prejudice, lust or greed. These scriptures were not advocating sardonic sadism.

Professor Jenkins of Penn State University asks Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

“"... the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says. Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says.

"Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."”

Who Wrote the Koran?

Naturally, the polemic between Soroush-the-scholar and Khamenei-the-executive does not grab headlines. And, the vacuum is filled by sensationalists feeding a demonization frenzy. Deliberate portrayal of Muslims as zombies is exemplified by statements such as: "Shiite Islam gives a special place to its clerics and demands blind obedience to their rulings on religious law" which Juan Cole (not to be confused with Juan Williams) wrote for U.S. Institute of Peace, The Iran Primer. No one reading such crock would suspect that, in fact:

Inane truisms such as 'lay people cannot reinterpret religious law' and 'clerics enjoy a special place', are at the core of ALL organized religions and therefore, cannot be cited as  distinguishing features of ANY, sans a proclivity to demonize.

It is perfectly permissible to follow any one of the many ayatollahs (marj’a taghlid). 'Taghlid' means emulation NOT blind obedience. If an ayatollah starts talking nonsense, his flock can look elsewhere for guidance. The biggest nonsense of all would be to demand of your flock 'blind obedience' in contravention of Koran's numerous references to 'reason' as the basis of faith. There are quite a variety of opinions among the ayatollahs. For a devout shi’i there is no restriction on whether he/she chooses as his/her marj’a taghlid either Sistani (an agnostic on separation of mosque and state), or Jannati (advocate of jurisprudents' guardianship), or Monatzeri (while alive, a strong opponent of Iran's system of government). To be a Shi'a, is to be Goldilocks -- if you don't like it too hot, nor too cold, there is always 'just right'. 

Shari’a law forbids questioning anyone’s depth of faith, and/or how sincerely a devotee emulates a source of emulation. In short, emulation is an academic concept. It is unenforceable.

Rampant shill-journalism has a cost. The price for fanning the flames of phobia is the misallocation of finite resources to fight shadows, all the while diminishing American credibility in the eyes of the world.

Allegedly, there is a benefit to the hyper-heightened sense of fear. It makes us hyper-vigilant and keeps us safe. It is perhaps reassuring to know that paranoia is an ageless and universal fodder for comic relief. The Funny, but Fictional, Mullah Nasreddin: In the dead of night, if you don't hear footsteps, it proves there's a thief in the house with very quiet shoes.

“[In Iran] a magazine called Tavana was banned after publishing a caricature of President Mohammad Khatami, who is himself a reformer. But it showed him without his clerical turban and robe. That, the court said, amounted to defamation.”

Norman Podhoretz, whom the 43rd President of the United States has consulted on the topic of Iran, has written:

Iran's President is like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism.

World War IV, The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, Published on the 6th anniversary of September 11th.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, has had us holding our breath for several years, warning that Iran will end the world on, or after August 22, 2006:

This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (cf Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

 The Wall Street Journal, Does Iran have something in store?, August 8, 2006

"Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter."

(Oscar Wilde)

Los Angeles Times: Muslim true/false

What you think you know about them is likely wrong -- and that's dangerous.

Many charge that Islam encourages violence more than other faiths, but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians. Polls show that 6% of the American public thinks attacks in which civilians are targets are "completely justified." [In  Iran, it's 2%].

[9 out of 10 Iranians] say that men and women should have equal legal rights.

Moreover, it's politics, not piety, that drives the small minority -- just 7% -- of  Muslims to anti-Americanism ... Gallup found no statistical difference in self-reported religiosity between those who sympathized with the [9/11] attackers and those who did not. When respondents in select countries [excluding largely pro-American Iran which would have skewed the results] were asked in an open-ended question to explain their views of 9/11, those who condemned it cited humanitarian as well as religious reasons. ... On the other hand, not a single respondent who condoned the attacks used the Koran as justification. Instead, they relied on political rationalizations, calling the U.S. an imperialist power or accusing it of wanting to control the world.

Forbes  reports long-term Iran-Swiss gas contracts signed in March 2008:

The duration of EGL's natural gas procurement contract ... is 25 years.  The contract will also secure long-term supply for Italy and Switzerland, as well as help diversify gas supplies to Europe.

The agreement was signed between executives of the two companies in the presence of Swiss foreign minister Micheline Calmy-Rey in Tehran today.

The Scientist (Magazine of Life Sciences): Iran investing in stem cells

An article in this week's The Scientist points out that Iran has been active in stem cell research. Iranian scientists have successfully reprogrammed embryonic stem cells to differentiate into other types of cells potentially useful in therapy.

The article states that Iran's emergence in this field relates to the fact that there is less of a religious objection to working with embryos since "ensoulment" is viewed as taking place at 120 days. Of course the Iranians are hampered both by international restrictions which has led them to get much of their equipment on the black market as well as difficulty meeting scientists from other countries.

(An unlikely stem cell leader…)

Newsweek: The Star Students Of The Islamic Republic

In 2003, administrators at Stanford University's Electrical Engineering Department were startled when a group of foreign students aced the notoriously difficult Ph.D. entrance exam, getting some of the highest scores ever. That the whiz kids weren't American wasn't odd; students from Asia and elsewhere excel in U.S. programs. The surprising thing, say Stanford administrators, is that the majority came from one country and one school: Sharif University of Science and Technology in Iran.

Bruce A. Wooley, a former chair of the Electrical Engineering Department at Stanford, has said that Sharif now has one of the best undergraduate electrical-engineering programs in the world. That's no small praise given its competition: MIT, Caltech and Stanford in the United States, Tsinghua in China and Cambridge in Britain.

Iran is "accused" of backing Hezbollah of Lebanon, and Hamas of the Palestinian territories. However, Iran justifiably could be accused of insufficient support, since it officially regards these groups as legitimate "resistance movements". After all,  Iran has obligations as per Article 154 of her constitution:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has as its ideal human felicity throughout human society, and considers the attainment of independence, freedom, and rule of justice and truth to be the right of all people of the world. Accordingly, while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the just struggles of the mustad'afun (oppressed) against the mustakbirun (oppressors) in every corner of the globe.”

According to surveys conducted in Iran by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New American Foundation in May 2009:

“More than 64 percent support the government of Iran providing military and financial assistance to Palestinian opposition groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. 52 percent of Iranians would, however, favor recognizing the State of Israel as part of a deal with the United States.

60 percent of Iranians also support the government of Iran providing military and financial assistance to Iraqi Shiite militias (33 percent oppose), while 62 percent back such assistance to Hezbollah in Lebanon (31 percent oppose). Again, however, as part of a deal with the United States, 54 percent of Iranians would endorse the Iranian government ending support for Iraqi militias.”

Iran's claimed "support for the oppressed"  is one of the anchors of a policy which is clearly prioritized according to 'strategic depth' valuations. Iran's pragmatic approach to geopolitical realities is the other anchor which explains Iran's lack of support to such entities as Chechen separatists.

The reflexive abhorrence that most Americans have towards Hamas and Hezbollah may have as much to do with these groups' ghastly fighting tactics, as it is a symptom of being uninformed about America's policies in the Mid East, and its unbearable consequences.

“... one of the fundamental problems for a country with an interventionist foreign policy is that it frequently does things that others don't like and sometimes resist. If U.S. citizens do not know what their own government is doing, however, they won't understand exactly where that hostility is coming from. Instead of recognizing it as a reaction to their own policies, they will tend to assume that foreign opposition is irrational, a reflection of deep ideological antipathies, or based on some sort of weird hostility to our "values." Believing ourselves to be blameless, and motivated only by noble aims, we will misread the sources of anti-Americanism and overlook opportunities to reduce it by adjusting our own behavior.” (On that viral video from Baghdad)

The Daily Telegraph: Iranian boy is treated for brain tumor at Israeli hospital

An Iranian teenager suffering from a serious brain tumor has been brought to an Israeli hospital for treatment, in a rare case which goes against the grain of regional politics.

 

The following three papers are a must-read for serious students of U.S./Iran relations.

New York Times: Change Iran at the Top

... let us give this theocracy credit. It has brought high levels of education to a broad swathe of Iranians, including the women it has repressed. In a Middle East of static authoritarianism, it has dabbled at times in liberalization and representative governance. It has never quite been able to extinguish from its conscience Khomeini’s rallying of the masses against the shah with calls for freedom.

The result, three decades on from the revolution, is precisely this untenable mix of a leadership invoking transplantation from heaven as it faces, with force of arms and the fanaticism of militias, a youthful society far more sophisticated than the death-to-the-West slogans still unfurled.

Nowhere else today in the Middle East does anything resembling the people power of Iran’s Green movement exist. This is at once a tribute to the revolution and the death knell of an ossified post-revolutionary order.

Smithsonian Magazine: Inside Iran's Fury

Scholars trace the nation's antagonism to its history of domination by foreign powers.

Iran's assertiveness on the global stage—especially its defiant pursuit of what it sees as its sovereign right to a nuclear program—is in part the product of traumatic events that have shaped its national consciousness over the course of generations. In fact, all of 20th-century Iranian history can be seen as leading to this confrontation. That history has been dominated by a single burning passion: to destroy the power that foreigners have long held over Iran.

Many countries in the Middle East are modern inventions, carved out of the Ottoman Empire by victorious European powers following the end of World War I. That is not the case with Iran, one of the world's oldest and proudest nations. Half a millennium before the birth of Christ, the great conquerors Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes built the Persian Empire into a far-reaching power. When Europe was descending into the Dark Age, Persian poets were creating works of timeless beauty, and Persian scientists were studying mathematics, medicine and astronomy. Over the centuries, the nation that would become Iran thrived as it assimilated influences from Egypt, Greece and India.

The New American Foundation: Time for a U.S.-Iranian 'Grand Bargain'

The rationale for a new U.S. policy toward Iran seems almost self-evidently obvious: to engage the Islamic Republic, on the basis of its interests, in order to reach a broad-based strategic understanding with Tehran. The goal would be to redirect Iran's exercise of its influence to support U.S. interests and policies, rather than work against them.
 

In the rhetoric of too many American commentators, the Islamic Republic is portrayed as an immature, ideologically driven regime that does not conceptualize its foreign policy in terms of national interests. Indeed, apocalyptic scenarios that have been advanced about a millennially inclined Iranian leadership using nuclear weapons against Israeli targets, with no regard for the consequences, effectively posit that the Islamic Republic aspires to become history's first "suicide nation."

But even less extreme views of the Islamic Republic make the U.S. policy debate about Iran eerily reminiscent of debates over how to discipline badly behaved children. On one side, a hard-line "spare the rod and spoil the child" school argues that this immature polity must be coerced into more appropriate behavior. On the other side, a pro-engagement "build a problem-child's self-esteem" camp argues that it is more productive to cajole Iran into better behavior through various material inducements.

[Another] deficit in the current U.S. policy debate over Iran is its disregard of a historical record showing that since the death of Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 the Islamic Republic has been increasingly capable of defining its national security and foreign policy in terms of national interests. While it may not be easy for some Americans to acknowledge, most of those interests are perfectly legitimate -- to be free from the threat of attack or interference in Iran's internal affairs and to have the political order of the Islamic Republic accepted by the world's most militarily powerful state as Iran's legitimate government.

Moreover, the Islamic Republic has for many years shown itself capable of acting in instrumentally rational ways to defend and advance its interests. As Americans, we may not like some (or many) of the strategic and tactical choices that the Iranian leadership has made in pursuing these national security and foreign policy interests -- e.g., its extensive links to a multiplicity of political factions and associated armed militias in Iraq, its support for groups like Hizballah and Hamas that the U.S. government designates as terrorist organizations, or its pursuit of nuclear fuel cycle capabilities that would give Tehran at least a nuclear weapons "option." These choices work against U.S. interests -- and, on some issues, antagonize American sensibilities. They are not, however, "irrational," particularly in the face of what many Iranian elites believe is continuing hostility from their neighbors as well the United States to the Iranian revolution and the political order it generated.

In closing,   thank you for your time.  

 

George Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

“The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”