Iran 30 years after the revolution

[Hobo1]

zakiyeh and milena, if you recall from a previous post, I have traveled to Iran as a young man - 10 years before the revolution. Unfortunately, it is hard for most people to distinguish between the politics of a country and the people of the country.

I retired to an island in the archipelago of Indonesia a few months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the bombs in Bali and the subsequent rise in global tensions caused my terrorism and military actions. I also recall the dramatic drop off in tourism - and the same, "everybody said this place is dangerous" remarks from brave tourists.

Fortunately for Indonesia, the government had less tolerance than most Western countries for terrorists who killed innocent people in God's name. Today the country no longer carries the burden of a Travel Warning from the US State Department and tourism has returned to normal.

My point is most Western countries (and its people) do not carry grudges too long. Now that the US has elected a new President, and resoundingly rejected the international policies of the past President, the opportunity exists to improve relations between Iran and the West. Of course, diplomacy is a two-way street, so only time will tell if we will find a road to detente.

You must have heard of the old adage, "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". You must know that virtually all Americans fervently hope that Iraq will find a peaceful way to govern itself in a way that is fair to all segments of the population. As a neighbor and long-standing enemy of Iraq, it will be tempting for Iran to use its resources to destabilize Iraq. I can't see how those kind of actions could benefit Iran if the goal is to stabilize the Middle East.

Other areas which will test Iran's willingness to reduce tensions in the area are its relationship with Israel and a clarification of its intentions with regard to developing nuclear energy. To be perfectly clear, failing to endorse a two state solution between Palestine and Israel would be standing between the road to peace in that area. Also, any actions that suggest Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons would also be regarded as a move toward regional destabilization.

Of course the few of us in this forum can't change international policies. We can, however, try to communicate why our respective governments act the way they do.

 

[zakiyeh]

zakiyeh and milena, if you recall from a previous post, I have traveled to Iran as a young man - 10 years before the revolution. Unfortunately, it is hard for most people to distinguish between the politics of a country and the people of the country.

I retired to an island in the archipelago of Indonesia a few months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the bombs in Bali and the subsequent rise in global tensions caused my terrorism and military actions. I also recall the dramatic drop off in tourism - and the same, "everybody said this place is dangerous" remarks from brave tourists.

Fortunately for Indonesia, the government had less tolerance than most Western countries for terrorists who killed innocent people in God's name. Today the country no longer carries the burden of a Travel Warning from the US State Department and tourism has returned to normal.

My point is most Western countries (and its people) do not carry grudges too long. Now that the US has elected a new President, and resoundingly rejected the international policies of the past President, the opportunity exists to improve relations between Iran and the West. Of course, diplomacy is a two-way street, so only time will tell if we will find a road to detente.

You must have heard of the old adage, "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". You must know that virtually all Americans fervently hope that Iraq will find a peaceful way to govern itself in a way that is fair to all segments of the population. As a neighbor and long-standing enemy of Iraq, it will be tempting for Iran to use its resources to destabilize Iraq. I can't see how those kind of actions could benefit Iran if the goal is to stabilize the Middle East.
Other areas which will test Iran's willingness to reduce tensions in the area are its relationship with Israel and a clarification of its intentions with regard to developing nuclear energy. To be perfectly clear, failing to endorse a two state solution between Palestine and Israel would be standing between the road to peace in that area. Also, any actions that suggest Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons would also be regarded as a move toward regional destabilization.

Of course the few of us in this forum can't change international policies. We can, however, try to communicate why our respective governments act the way they do.

Of course there are conflicts between people and governments and this is common for all countries; but this contradiction has been reduced to a great amount for Iran after the revolution. Now after 30 years we are glad still, to be able to say what our government says is what most of our people want. But what we want has been mistold by the US government and that affects what the US nation thinks and wants about us.

You talked about Iran's possible intentions towards destablization in Iraq. What if I say USA is only trying to get hold of the huge resources of oil in Iraq and benefit from having another stay at the strategic location of the middle east?

You might have not known that during the Iran-Iraq war which was started by Iraq, armed & encouraged by the United States and some european countries, we hosted many Iraqi refugees that were victims of their own ruler in their own homes. So we didn't have any problem with the Iraqi people. Our enemy was Saddam and so we fighted whoever fighted in his name. He had beginned the war and we only fighted to defend our home. You can get assured of Iran's good heart by what Iraqi prisoners in Iran have told about how they were treated and compare that to how Iranian prisoners were treated in Iraq. So this nice and hosting treatment of Iranians which every visitor talks about is not what Iran's government lacks. It is "cruelty" and "injustice" that define who our enemy is; as is the case about Israel.
About the nuclear weapons I just have to tell you that using such weapons which affects not only the militants but also kids and women, and actually a whole generation is against our religious laws and our beliefs about justice. What is saddenning is that Israel which has these weapons and is already using them on palestinean kids is not only blamed, but also encouraged.

 

[samsara15]

I think it is a pity that the US is so automatically hostile to Iran, but the religious government of Iran under Khomeni in the time or Carter and Reagan did a lot to instill that attitude in Americans, however unfortunate and misguided that attitude may be. Albeit the Americans, by supporting the Shah, years earlier, did their part to mudduy the warters as well. There is plenty of blame on both sides.

 

[Hobo1]

Of course there are conflicts between people and governments and this is common for all countries; but this contradiction has been reduced to a great amount for Iran after the revolution. Now after 30 years we are glad still, to be able to say what our government says is what most of our people want. But what we want has been mistold by the US government and that affects what the US nation thinks and wants about us.

You talked about Iran's possible intentions towards destabilization in Iraq. What if I say USA is only trying to get hold of the huge resources of oil in Iraq and benefit from having another stay at the strategic location of the middle east?

You might have not known that during the Iran-Iraq war which was started by Iraq, armed & encouraged by the United States and some European countries, we hosted many Iraqi refugees that were victims of their own ruler in their own homes. So we didn't have any problem with the Iraqi people. Our enemy was Saddam and so we fighted whoever fighted in his name. He had beginned the war and we only fighted to defend our home. You can get assured of Iran's good heart by what Iraqi prisoners in Iran have told about how they were treated and compare that to how Iranian prisoners were treated in Iraq. So this nice and hosting treatment of Iranians which every visitor talks about is not what Iran's government lacks. It is "cruelty" and "injustice" that define who our enemy is; as is the case about Israel.
About the nuclear weapons I just have to tell you that using such weapons which affects not only the militants but also kids and women, and actually a whole generation is against our religious laws and our beliefs about justice. What is saddening is that Israel which has these weapons and is already using them on Palestinian kids is not only blamed, but also encouraged.

Your remarks are very clear and show deep understanding of some fundamental policy differences between the US and Iran. I can understand the structure of your government is something that fits with the lifestyle of the Iranian people. Most people who today live under a fully democratic style government are highly skeptical about religious leaders holding a position of power in any government. Most Western countries, in their history, have live with a government where religious leaders held a position of power. When religious leaders have a legal hold over the citizens, a strong temptation develops to become more fanatical and autocratic all in the name of strengthening religion. Most Westerners cherish our strong separation between religion and nation government, but recognize other people in other countries have the right to choose their own form of government.

You talked about the desire of the US to hold power over oil supplies in Iraq and the desire to have military bases within the Middle East. These are two good observations. I believe both of these issues are unintended consequences of a war whose original purpose was to remove Saddam Hussein. From my observations, most American people disagree with any policy of keeping a strong grip on Iraq oil and do not want military bases located in any country where we are unwelcome. Obviously a minority of American would like to stay in Iraq for profit or for other reasons. But a majority of Americans do not want to be in any country where we are not welcome.

By the way, I do not hear President Ahmadinejad speak about these two subjects... oil and military bases. I can watch the Al Jazeera news channel and have read his major speeches on the internet. Do you hear him speak about these issues often?

With regard to the Israeli conflict, this is an issue that frustrates everyone. I can empathize with your feelings of sadness for the Palestinian people. However, in the past 40 years I have seen both Israel and Palestine miss so many opportunities to make a lasting peace between the two peoples. Both Palestinian and Israeli leaders have always looked for ways to be "winners" and never looked for a way to find a lasting peace. This most recent Israeli invasion into Gaza is only another chapter in a big book which has seen aggression on both sides.

Death is synonymous with war. In all wars you will find "cruelty" and "injustice" - believe me I fought in the Vietnam War. You cannot look at the death of women and children alone and judge who is to right and who is wrong. Even now Hamas continues to say it will never accept the existence of an Israeli state - and President Ahmadinejad has also expressed this opinion. Would you be happier if the television news were to show the dead bodies of Israeli women and children? Would you then blame Palestine as being cruel and unjust? Looking at dead bodies on TV is not the way to discover the truth.

Now the Israelis are forming a new government that rejects the "two state solution". All this tells me this war will continue and there will be continued bloodshed in the future. If both Palestine and Israel insist on war - and believe it is the only way to solve this dispute - then the West is powerless to impose a diplomatic solution.

 

[zakiyeh]

Hobo1 I'm sorry for the delay. I was in my new year holidays.
your question about the two intentions, oil and military bases. Actually the idea was so obvious for me I couldn't remember any exact reference to it. But I'm sure both Ahmadinejad and Ayatullah Khamenei have referred to them. I don't say these are the main or the only intentions though, but whatever the main idea is, It's not democracy and human rights.
What is important to note here is that the intentions that the soldiers are taught to believe for their stay, which might be as well holy and gracious are different from what the government has in his head.
About Israel and the rejected offers, I believe the offers were far less than the rights of the palestinians which were somehow forced out of thir lands. they had the the right to refuse because those offers (Genaral Assembly's Resolution) were not obligatory and you see sometimes standing for your rights, either you end in getting or proving it gets more important than your life, especially when fighting for that right somehow matches your religious beliefs.
Imagine two kids playing. one grabs the other's toy and they start fighting over it. would it be fair to stop the fight without the toy given back?

 

[Hobo1]

With regard to the intentions of the US in Iraq, the issues of oil and military bases have never had wide consensus in the US. The idea of spilling American blood to obtain Iraq oil is an abhorrent thought to most Americans. Some would say that the US has imperialist intentions and needs bases in Iraq. Yes, there are some (commonly called Neo-conservatives), who see American hegemony (or influence) in the world as the best way toward world peace. It is safe to say that American has, once again, learned the lesson that world peace and world cooperation to solve global problems can only be accomplished if all nations who share that goal sit down at the same table.

However, I think it is important to say many nations in this world ultimately rely upon the United States to be the foundation of stability in the world. You cannot ask the US to stay out of the Middle East and in the same time look to the US for support in solving problems such as Palestine - or the Afghanistan/Pakistan problem which could easily flow into Iran.

As far a the Palestine vs. Israel issue, I am sure the world would be eternally grateful to the first person who can find a solution to that problem. Unfortunately, the land known as Israel, Canaan, Judea, Palestine, and many more names which has been occupied by the Phoenicians, Persians, Macedonia, Romans, Arabs all over the Middle East, Mongols and Turks. Who is a Palestinian and who is a Jew? Until 1947 neither group had clear "right" to any territory. Even the Kurds have a stronger claim on territory because they have continuously occupied the land of their ancestors yet they, like the Palestinians, never have had a country.

So to use your analogy, we have two kids fighting over a toy, but known one really knows whose toy it is! If Palestinians wish to fight to the death over what they believe is theirs, that is their right. But that certainly doesn't say that either side of this conflict has the higher moral ground - regardless of what religion they are.

 

[zakiyeh]

A few weeks ago, someone gave me an american made program to watch. It was called "Iran is not the problem". it was made at the the time Bush was president. It wasn't bad, although I disagreed with some parts (especially with what the Iranian-American activitists said!). But on the whole I advise you try to get hold of it and watch it. It answers or at least talks about most of our questions and discussions.
The official site is http://iranisnottheproblem.com/; Only it seems you can't watch it for free there And I couln't upload the whole program. I wish you can find some way to watch it.