originally posted here
To Simon Rosenberg, NDN:
As you know I just returned from Iran a few weeks ago and have a decidedly different take on the general consensus concerning Iran, a take that is also different from yours in many ways.
I think first, you (and many, many others) overestimate the 'cultural' similarities between Iranian Shi'a and Arab Shi'a. I cannot tell you how many times I heard Iranians 'dis the Arab Shi'a as uncouth and uncilized and, they say it was the Persians who brought them 'real' culture. Does the Iranian government support the Shi'a in Iraq? Yes, of course. But those ties are not nearly as strong as the media--Nasr included--leads people to believe. (I know Steve Gilliardis going to say, "but they can still cut-off our supply lines if they want." And he's right, so is Col. Lang. But that's a confluence of interests, not culture.)
You also say something that I have a real hard time with:
One of the first acts of the revolutionary Iranian government was to end up in a war with Iraq, a war that lasted 8 years and cost more than a one million lives. America sided with the Iraqis in the war to help curtail the expansion of the Iranian, Shiite-led revolution, a revolution that Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, was very well aware could radicalize his majority Shiite population. Shiites well remember whose side America was on in this terrible battle.
One of their first acts? Perhaps Nasr spun this in his book, or someone else, maybe Ken Pollack? The bottom line is this: Saddam Hussein waged aggressive war against Iran; he invaded the Iranian province of Khuzestan for the oil at a time when Iran was extremely weak, and it's army divided by the revolution. We, meaning the US, winked when he did so, gave him the chemicals--and the Germans--to do it and the satellite targeting data as well. Iran did not instigate the war in any way shape or form. Your post makes it sound like they did, but they didn't. Furthermore, the idea that Iran is this hyper-aggressive country that wants to take over the world needs to be disabused and right quick, mind you. This tendency to see the Iranians as very aggressive people, who want to invade other lands and convert peoples to the Shi'a faith only reinforces the dominant media narrative (and the neocon narrative) constructed in this country. It emboldens the neocons and creates the political space for Bush to bomb Iran before he leaves office. Fact is Iran hasn't invaded another country in over 200 years.
Now, all this is not to say that Iran doesn't have some very serious human rights issues it needs to address. But the country spends only $6 billion a year on its armed forces. We spend $400 billion. A regional hegemon on $6 billion alone? We can't even do it on $400 billion.
Do they support Hamas and Fatah? Yes, they do. Do they support Hezbollah? Yes, they do. Do they send arms to both? Yes, they do. So what? We prop up and support all kinds of odious regimes in our foreign policy too. Again, I am not excusing it, but what Iran does has to be looked at in a larger context. For almost 150 years Iran was dominated by Russia, then the UK and then the US. Throughout all that time they tried to develop a real constitutional monarchy and then democracy. First in the revolution of 1906--which the Russians and Brits surpressed. Then in 1953 with Mossadeq (who we overthrew in favor of the Shah). They want to remain independent of any great power. That is their sole overriding foreign policy goal, not the export of revolution.
Furthermore, Iran has a deeper civil society, and is more modern than almost all the Sunni Arab states. Women have 30 seats guaranteed in parliament; women can vote; they can drive and yet they are still treated in an absolutely odious and abhorrent fashion in general. This I do not excuse. But look at Saudi Arabia? Some paragon of progressive values there, yeah? Iran's treatment of gays is simply horrid. Some religious minorities in the country, including Christians, have churches and representation in parliament--although the Bahai are not treated well at all, again, it's better than Saudi Arabia where one cannot worship any other faith but Islam.
Iran, again, is far from perfect, but it's not a fascist or a totalitarian society in any way. You'd be hard pressed to find this represented in the American media, however. They treat Iran and the Shi'a as some sort of Islamist monolith intent on wiping America (and Israel) from the map. Of course, Sunni leaders in other Arab states don't care for Iran because they see Iran as a more modern state than their own, with much more popular sovereignty, a country that actually tries to take care of its own people with its oil wealth than their own and it scares them.
Again, I want to stress Iran is far, far, far from perfect, but it has a lot more to offer the Middle East (and America under the right conditions) than any of the Arab states, and it does offer its people a lot more than they do.
Of course, this is also what Ted Koppel reported last month for the Discovery Channel, if you don't believe me.
"Ah," the critics will say, "what about the nukes?" Or as you falsely imply, "Iran has aggressively pursued nuclear weapons despite extraordinary global condemnation." The Iranians are no where near being close to having a workable weapon. Go ask Dr. Jeffrey Lewis at Arms Control Wonk. The issue before the UN and the IAEA is Iranian completion of the fuel cycle, which is a first step towards a nuclear weapon, but still a very, very long way from it. (Have they been deceitful to the UN and IAEA? You betcha. But that's no reason not to be objective about it all, instead of getting all worked up about "nukes! ohmigodtheiranianshavenukes!") When people write things like, "Iran has aggressively pursued nuclear weapons despite extraordinary global condemnation" it makes it so much easier for the neocons and their enablers to demagogue the "we need to attack Iran" issue. It reinforces the 'hordes of Shi'a who are coming to get us' narrative that the media so much loves. Where does that lead us? Especially when Iran is ten years at a minimum from having a workable nuclear weapon.
Lastly, while Vali Nasr is an excellent scholar, his family fled Iran in the wake of the revolution, which means they were more than likely Royalists, supporters of the outsted Shah of Iran--although I do not know this for sure. If his father is who I think he is, his father is a brilliant scholar in his own right. That being said, if his family were Royalists, well, I know many Royalists and they have lots of axes to grind. We should keep this in mind. For exiles time doesn't heal all wounds, it only makes them deeper. Just look at Cuba.
As with any other country in the world, there is a lot of gray here. It's not simply a good-guy versus bad-guy dichotomy. Besides, we really need to get past these Bush-Manichean constructs, right?
I'm eager for your response.