My recent trip to Iran, a country in which I have lived and have been conducting research for 40 years, coincided with the introduction, into both the U.S. Senate and House, of resolutions authorizing President Bush to set up a naval blockade of Iran.
These resolutions received very little media coverage in America. But in Iran they were lead items on TV news and talk programs. They were covered extensively in the 20 national daily newspapers of Tehran, the capital city of seven million residents, with an additional five million more people in surrounding suburbs.
The newspapers, although expressing diverse views on domestic issues, uniformly depicted the U.S. congressional resolutions as tantamount to a declaration of war against their country. Consequently, I was put in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to my Iranian hosts over and over again why I believed these resolutions did not mean war.
A typical exchange occurred in a village I visit regularly in the summers for research on rural social change. While attending a wedding, I, as the American, became the center of attention for a group of seven local young adults, all studying at colleges in nearby towns.
These four men and three women were very curious about American culture, and they seemed to be far more familiar with American pop music than I.
Inevitably, our discussion turned to U.S. policy. Jasmine, an articulate 20-year old computer science major who had composed and read a poem for the bride and groom, asked, "Why does America hate Iran and want to attack us?"
My efforts to explain the differences between pending and approved congressional resolutions as well as their non-binding nature were not persuasive.
Thus, the students all nodded when Ali, a 19-year old engineering major, said, "American planes are going to bomb our homes, just like we see them bomb towns and villages in Iraq and Afghanistan on the [television] news. Not just the government station, but the BBC and CNN channels."
Leila, a 21-year old woman, added what seems to be a widely shared opinion: "Our air force is small and only has helicopters. How can it protect us from American bombers?"
The views these students expressed were similar to those I heard from typical Iranians I met in taxis, buses, on subways or while shopping in the urban covered markets, or bazaars. While Iranians over 35 and those who are religiously devout tended to be less enthusiastic than the country's youth about American culture, everyone shared the same concern that the United States would attack their country.
My conversations about U.S.-Iran relations with colleagues at the universities and think-tanks, however, focused more on issues of dispute between the two countries, especially Iran's nuclear energy program. The Bush administration claims that program is a cover for a secret nuclear weapons development project.
This charge is one that both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, have denied consistently since 2002. Based on discussions with scores of Iranians who follow the nuclear issue closely, I found three general perspectives.
First, there is a group of informed Iranians who believe their government is truthful about not having a secret nuclear weapons program and the U.S. allegations are merely a cover for a hostile policy aimed at weakening Iran or overthrowing its government.
A second group admits uncertainty as to whether Iran might have a covert weapons program. But that group also insists that Iran has a right to develop nuclear arms, especially since it is under threat by the United States, which has thousands of such weapons. For this group, the U.S. charges are hypocritical or even a racist effort to deny nuclear technology to non-Western, non-Christian countries.
A third group perceives all nuclear weapons as dangerous and insists that it would be wrong for Iran to develop them. Some in this group blame Washington while others blame their own government for not engaging in serious diplomatic negotiations to resolve the impasse.
Despite these different perspectives, all Iranians are concerned, even fearful, about the possibility of U.S. air strikes or an invasion.
The congressional resolutions, if passed and acted upon by the president, really could put the United States on a path to war with Iran. Unfortunately, genuine diplomatic negotiations to resolve international doubts about Iran's nuclear program never have been tried.
Now is the time for those concerned about the dangerous direction of U.S. policy to insist that our congressional representatives and senators withdraw support for naval blockades and sanctions and instead back substantive talks between Washington and Tehran.
Eric Hooglund is professor of politics at Bates College, Lewiston, and president of Peace Action Maine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Farhad Abdolian Antibes-France
e-mail: ny_farhad@yahoo.com (f.abdolian@yahoo.com)
Home page http://www.abdolian.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it" Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment