Posted on 06/07/2005 9:51:14 PM PDT by nickcarraway
WASHINGTON -- To: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Re: Iran
Dear Condi, I hope you remember me. We were interns together at the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the summer of 1977. Our subsequent careers were similar in one way: we both became professors specializing on Moscow's foreign policy. You, of course, have gone on to do a few more things than I have. But I've recently done something that you haven't: visit Iran.
I was invited to Iran to give lectures in Tehran and the holy city of Qom on Russian-Iranian relations and on revolution. But what the people I met really wanted to talk about was Iranian-American relations. The views that they expressed on this subject were quite interesting and I'd like to share them with you.
You might be surprised, but many Iranians I met expressed great admiration for President Bush and key aspects of his foreign policy. They greatly appreciated the president's description of Islam as a religion of peace in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. They admire how America ousted the Taliban, whom Iranian clerics regard as uneducated fanatics who know nothing about Islam. They also appreciate how America got rid of the brutal Saddam Hussein and held elections in Iraq, which have given the majority Shia population there the chance to rule after being suppressed by the Ottomans, the British and Saddam.
More than anything else they expressed an overwhelming desire for improved Iranian-American relations. They see Iran and America as having a common enemy: rising Sunni Islamic fanaticism. (Not all Sunnis, they say, are Islamic fanatics. But most if not all Islamic fanatics are Sunnis).
Furthermore, they expressed great frustration that Washington doesn't seem to recognize this. And those who said this, Condi, were not ordinary people. They were all either Iranian government officials or scholars linked to the Iranian government in one capacity or another.
Now as you well know, there are sharp differences between the US and Iran over important issues. These include Iranian opposition to the US-backed Arab-Israeli peace process and to US concerns over the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iranian position on the Arab-Israeli conflict is understood very differently in Tehran than in Washington. The United States and Israel are rightly concerned about Iran's vocal opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace process, for this implies that Tehran doesn't want compromise but seeks Israel's destruction instead. The Iranians, though, claim that their leaders - including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei - have made statements indicating that Tehran will accept any agreement that the Palestinians themselves will accept.
Why, Iranian scholars asked me, doesn't the United States recognize this? And why doesn't Washington understand that Iranian statements criticizing the peace process have nothing to do with Iranian policy toward the Arab-Israeli situation and everything to do with the Islamic republic wanting to avoid being denounced as un-Islamic by Al Qaeda and other Sunni Islamic fanatics?
The nuclear issue is also understood very differently in Tehran than in Washington. America, and others, fear Iran intends to use the atomic reactor that Russia is building for it to acquire spent uranium in order to fabricate nuclear weapons and that it would give nuclear weapons to opponents of Israel such as Hizbullah and Hamas. Iranians, by contrast, see US opposition to their nuclear program as something that is basically unfair.
The United States acquiesced to India's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Washington has also acquiesced to Pakistan's acquisition of them - something that really upsets Iranians since they see the Musharraf government as highly unstable and susceptible to overthrow by Sunni Islamic fanatics. Washington has also, from Tehran's perspective, been very careful to avoid conflict with a nuclear-armed North Korea. So why, they ask, are American officials talking about a possible US or Israeli attack on Iran, which does not yet have nuclear weapons when it deals so carefully with these other states that do have them?
Iranians argue that the non-proliferation treaty allows signatories the right to acquire atomic energy, and so it is unfair to prevent Iran from operating the nuclear power plant that Russia is building for it. Some claim that Iran has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, while others think that it should. The latter, though, can't understand why Washington is acting as if a nuclear Iran would be more dangerous than a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea. Iran, they say, would not attack Israel with nuclear weapons since it knows that Israel and/or the United States would retaliate. Iran, they say, wants nuclear weapons in order to deter a nuclear attack upon it.
When I mentioned US concern about Iran providing nuclear weapons to Hizbullah and Hamas, my Iranian colleagues just laughed. They know full well that they could not control these two and that Iran would be blamed if either attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
The United States obviously doesn't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. You yourself have made that clear. But I think it would be a mistake to use force against Iran either to prevent it from acquiring them or to punish them if it does. At a time when our forces are already stretched thin, we don't need another conflict. Further, no matter how justifiable our intervention in Iraq was, we have paid a huge cost for it in terms of our relations with all too many of our allies. Intervention against Iran would only make this worse.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary. What my visit to Iran convinced me of more than anything is that Iranians want to be engaged by the United States. One Iranian scholar told me that Tehran's principle motive for seeking a nuclear weapons capability is to create conditions under which Washington will have to negotiate with Iran since Tehran would then be too dangerous to threaten and too important to ignore.
But is it realistic to expect that Iranian-American relations can improve when past attempts at this have all foundered? What makes this possible, in my view, is that the United States and Iran now face a common threat in the form of militant Sunni Islamic fanaticism that is as anti-Shia as it is anti-Western. Indeed, many Iranians regard this threat as more menacing to Iran than to the United States since the United States can leave the Middle East while Iran cannot.
How, though, could Iranian-American relations improve despite when important differences between us remain? Several Iranians I spoke with noted that Chinese-American relations went from hostile to friendly in the early 1970s as a result of the common Soviet threat both faced despite important Chinese-American differences remaining. Many Iranian officials hope that a similar rapprochement could occur between Washington and Tehran now.
But while a rapprochement is desirable, mutual mistrust seems to make it impossible. I talked with all the Iranians I met about various ways in which this situation could be improved. The idea that drew the most enthusiasm from them was the prospect of you visiting Tehran. This could create an electric moment, similar to Nixon's visit to China, which could move the relationship forward.
In closing, let me just say that I hope you'll consider this suggestion. It will take something dramatic to bring about an Iranian-American rapprochement. If it works, it would be a wonderful accomplishment both for you and for US diplomacy. And if it doesn't, the fact that you tried reaching out to Iran would serve to reverse the dangerously negative image of America as a threat to the rest of the world that all too many people have embraced.
Best regards,
Mark
P.S. Do you still listen to Stevie Wonder? I do.
Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University
We don't need to read your fake letter to your friend "Condi" -- jerk.
She probably hates his guts or something.
*sniff* *sniff* What's that I smell?
I'm not sure what to make of this.
"It's Crap, Scotty!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.