OBERLIN, Ohio, 23 October 2006 — The latest standoff between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program highlights how estranged the two countries have become in recent decades. From an American point of view, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iranian state could dramatically change the balance of power in the Middle East and lead to a decline in its influence in the region. On the other hand, for most Iranians the pursuit of nuclear technology for both civilian and military applications represents a national right directly linked to the country’s growing economic needs as well as the desire to protect itself in an increasingly hostile international climate.
The current standoff leaves very little room for diplomatic maneuvering, as both governments seem equally adamant not to compromise. The stakes are high as a conflict with Iran could potentially have serious implications not just for global oil prices but also for the stability of the wider Middle East region. In this respect, understanding the complexities and internal dynamics of Iranian society is essential to formulating any effective US policy in the Middle East.
It is worth remembering that less than three decades ago, Iran was the United States’ leading ally in the Middle East and was viewed as a force for stability and economic modernization in the region. All that dramatically changed in 1979, when the populist Islamic revolution overthrew the government of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The US government’s longstanding support of the Shah in spite of his appalling human rights record and anti-democratic style of government had led to widespread resentment of US policies by many Iranians.
After the Iranian revolution of 1979, the United States imposed three decades of economic and political isolation on Iran. The unwillingness of successive American governments to engage with the Iranian regime has come at a substantial price, which includes the election of the hard-line candidate, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as president.
Ahmadinejad’s rise to power on an explicitly populist and nationalist campaign coincided with renewed US pressures for Iran to curb its nuclear program and open it up to international inspections.
Moreover, over time the US military presence in the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq has led many in the Iranian establishment to suspect the United States of pursuing a policy of military encirclement, and mounting international pressure against Iran’s nuclear program has helped bolster Ahmadinejad’s political support at home. The president has used every opportunity to portray himself as an Iranian and Muslim nationalist fending off American aggression, a stance that has won him popular support not just among Iranians but also in the wider Muslim world.
Iran’s growing regional strength was most vividly demonstrated this summer when its long time proxy, the Lebanese militia and political party Hezbollah, managed to secure a major political victory in the face of a sustained Israeli military campaign aimed at wiping out the group. Israel’s military offensive resulted in scores of Lebanese civilian deaths and immense damage to the country’s infrastructure, but Hezbollah itself has remained intact. The Iranian regime also has close ties to the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq — many of whose members were in exile in Iran during the worst days of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule — as well as the recently elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories. For many analysts, Iran’s most potent weapon of mass destruction is its ability to use terror to undermine the region’s stability and increase tensions between Israel and its neighbors. Yet modern Iran is a society of many fascinating contradictions. It is the first country in the region to have an Islamic revolution but is also the country with the oldest homegrown struggle for a constitutionally based government, with roots that extend back to 1911.
To be sure, the present Iranian regime continues to violate human rights, such as freedom of expression and association. Independent newspapers are routinely closed down, and political dissidents are frequently jailed for voicing criticisms of the government. US policy toward Iran must precariously balance the need for creating incentives for the Iranian regime to enter into a serious dialogue over its nuclear program while at the same time not appearing to be appeasing the Iranian regime.
Fostering relations between American and Iranian civil society through renewed educational and cultural exchanges is one important step in the right direction. In the long run, US interests are best served by those Iranians who are genuinely struggling for political reform in their own country and for better relations with the West.
Taking a confrontational position against Iran with the implicit threat of possible military action will only further exacerbate already inflamed Muslim sentiment against the United States and embolden the hard-line elements with the Iranian polity. The time for Americans and Iranians to talk is now.
— Rehan Rafay Jamil is a senior at Oberlin College where he is majoring in history and politics. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
