The following are comments in response to the Iran-U.S. poll conducted on April 2, 1997. Each (*) represents a comment from a different person. None are from the editor.

* The officials of Iran and US are in direct contact with each other. I call it direct and hidden. Remeber Iran-Contra affair. The president of a country does not send Rafsanjani a gun for nothing. I think it is a very bad policy from US that its allies can do anything they want to do without any punishment. I think the present condition in Iran to a great extent was caused by the wrong policy of US during the last 50 years in the middle east.

* How can anyone sit down and speak with a government that murders and tortures its own citizens across Europe, Turkey, and at home. Have you bought into the lies that Rafsanjani was flinging at Mike Wallace? The only time to talk with the present government is when their leaders are finally on trial for giving orders to assasinate dissidents. We should treat the government like the animals they have proven themselves to be.

* I hope that Iran and the US do hold talks, but the US owes a big apology to Iran. Also, I think that the reason that the US put the sanctions on Iran was because of the Israeli Influence on the government, I think that all Iranians and Moslems alike should band together and do something to end the Israeli influence. A site that I visited, //www.aipac.org, which was in one of the comments sent to you, proved my theory and the theory of the person who sent the comment.

* The urrent policy of IRI, starting with the unspeakbe action of taking American hostages, and then supporting all sorts of terrorists in the world, is to blame. What happened 30 years ago, has nothing to do with today's situation, as what happened between Japan and US 50 years ago, did not prevent the two countries to be friend today.

* Although the 1953 coup is clearly the biggest wrong, it was typical US activity at the time. I think with greater inter-cultural awareness and religious tolerance of today's US citizenry, destabilization of another country is US Policy gone out of control. The US would do better schmoozing the power elite and maintaining people-to-people exchanges for an improved flow of information. And the same goes for Iran. (Although as a former government invitee, I think they are doing their best in a somewhat chaotic system)

* Make no mistake, even if the US opens direct diplomatic relations with Iran tomorrow, it'll be looking for its own so called 'vital interests' (i.e. the interests of huge oil cartels). It's therefore the duty of an independent government in Iran (which doesn't exist) to watch for Iran's interests. But, even with Islamic republic in power, its always better to not give excuses to war mongers on both sides to create tension which only can result in more misery for the people (case in point: Iraq). Therefore, I'm for direct diplomatic relations but not because I think it'll be 'gol-o-bolbol' (rosy) immediately, just because it'll create a decreased possibility of open hostility.

* Clinton does not have too much time to think about the relations between the two countries because after Rafsanjani is gone it could be very difficult to make things better.

* Amaericans have repeatedly shown their inability to judge the situation in their foreign policy, the latest in Somalia. If it were not for the might of American Industry and Military power they would have paid much heavier for their mistakes. The problem is that they never try to learn from past mistakes.

* I think that the US was directly involved in the revolution, and that in the words of a famous guy "the US never had a better friend!" They lowered the price of oil,and opened a huge market for American military stuff in the Iran-Iraq war. Also with their coming to power, the making of a possible super power was totaly abolished and so on....

* Both countries should open a dialogue and maintain a relationship. However Iran needs to watch the behavior of the US. The main issue is that US is interested in Iran's resources and capabilities. Americans did and will support any rulers, group or ideas that agree with the US. This person can be the Shah or somebody within the Islamic Republic. As long as the US behaviors are under careful watch, both countries need to exchange trades and cultural affairs.

* I think the reason why the silence between the two countries is so long has little to do with what has happened in the past ( taking over embassy and US supporting Iraq during the war, ...) what is more important right now is the opposing strategies of the two countries. The US is against terrorism and Iran, by helping Hizbollah, is not helping remove the existing suspicion of the western countries about supporting terrorism. On the other hand the US is holding a lot of money that allegedly belongs to Iran and also the US sanctions agains Iran is another reason for the two countries not to have direct talks. Every step towards lifting each of these differences would help getting closer to direct talks. But I don't think that is going to be any time soon.

* As an Iranian , whose country , his peolpe , his pride , his dignity , his resources , his history , his present , his people's life and future have been torn apart , humiliated , bombarded , damaged , abused , ignored , rejected and you name it , I claim it is U S govrenment that should be held responsible for all the damages .

* My personal interest in Iran deals with the culture and music of an ancient land with a beautiful history. Relations between the US and Iran need to be reestablished but the problem is one of differing religions and public interest. Iran is 99% muslim and still adheres to old world beliefs which I believe keep people blind in the face of universal truth. In order for the talks to happen, muslim restrictions on human rights, such as women's equality will have to change, as well as other issues. I'm not sure that will happen, so, the US will have to decide, can it deal with a country which still believes in a dogmatic/patriarchal society. There is good reason for the rapid growth of Sufi orders and their growth is a response to a regime which does not allow for individual development. I would love to see relations between these great nations and maybe this treaty can be an example for other countries.

* I think Iran v US situation will remain the same as it is now until such time that either Iran is so powerful in the region that US has no choice but to normalize relations with Iran or the political situation in Iran changes so drastically that it could be justified in US public opinion.

* I long with lots of hope that there will be peace between Iran and the US one day, as they can benefit from each other very much. I don't forsee it in the near future though.

* I agree with one of your respondents in sharing this information with the State Department. This would be enlighthning information for the US State Department. Although I am fairly confident the State Dept. already is knowledgable of the sentiment held amongst majority of the Iranians living in the US. If people in Iran could readily have access to this survey and freely been able to convey their thoughts, I would suspect the results would have leaned toward initiation of dialouge between the two governments. But there are too many "conditional" clauses in the previous sentence.

* Iran needs to stop its anti-West activities and the spreading of Islam to the West. We all know that without the technology and help of the developed Western countries Iran will become a fourth or fifth world country. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran do know more than ever the need for development. We are living close to the year 2000, however Iran is living in 1900. Thus, religion and its spread to the West should all be stopped. There is no place for religion and government to be together.

* I wouldn't call the current conflict, something that can even be called a conflict. The U.S. vs. Iran situation reminds me of Cuba vs. U.S. 'conflict' that has been going on for decades. Neither country really poses a problem for the other, but they have demonized each other so much that they can't even go back to the bargaining table. Iran is the 'terrorist' country and the U.S. is 'Great Satan'. How will Clinton justify talking to terrorists and how will Khameneie justify talking to the Great Satan? I am personally happy that Iran and the U.S. don't have any relations at the moment because you know we, the average Joes, will get the short end of the stick. Can't fully blame the Americans for it though since almost all of our politicians are ready to sell the country down the drain. There is always a buyer for the item being sold. We are not gaining by not having normal relations with the U.S. but we are not losing either. Let's just say the poor will stay poor and the rich will get richer. We will always be the backwards 'eye-ranians' and they will always be the aggressive thugs. Let's just keep the status quo.

All I want out of life is to live a happy life and if Iran and US improve relations, this won't do me any good. It is not like the poor in Panama and Haiti have become richer and happier.

* The conflict between Iran and the US is actually a conflict between east and west. This conflict started in 1096 with the first crusader war. This is a conflict between the poor and the wealthy.

* There is no justifiable reason why the US cannot "cohabitate" with Iran, It would make for a better and safer world.

* The people of Iran are the most important issue here. If relations between the two governments are eased, then the people stand to benefit the most. As it is well known, the Iranian population doesn't hate the US. There has been a great deal of political animosity in our past, but that really doesn't address the everyday issues of people in Iran. Iranians aren't in the streets screaming "Marg bar Amrika" (Death to America) anymore; a majority are too busy trying to make ends meet. Most people try to get visas to come here for whatever reason: education, visiting thier families, political asylum, etc...I feel that both countries need to stop this charade of animosity and resolve whatever differences between them. Let us put the interests of the people at the forefront of whatever needs to be done to "improve relations" between the US and America.

* I think the U.S. foreign policy towards Iran is a lazy one that lacks sophistication. The United States continues to treat the leadership in Iran as a single group with the same belief system throughout the regime. The fact is that the ruling regime in Iran is comprised of several factions. The United States policy should be tailored towards working with the build up of the regime and its different factions. Continuing the senseless economic sanctions and total rejection of the regime as the legitimate government in Iran will only play in to the hands of the hardliners in Tehran and will isolate the moderate factions (as it has!). Furthermore, the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and towards Iran continues to be held hostage by the Jewish lobby who undermine any independent and realistic consideration of the situation in the region by drumming up opposition against the possibility of any meaningful dialogue between Iran and the United States. For the above reasons, it is obvious that U.S. is the party to take the first step in the path to reconciliation.

* Here's how I think the scenario will go: - There will be some behind-the-scenes talks before a public announcement of talk intentions - Iran will ease some of its ridiculous demands and sit at the same table with the U.S. - The results will be compromising for both countries, with Iran ending up losing more. However, Iran will turn around the whole picture and announce to the nation that "The Great Satan has come to its knees and has admitted to all its wrong doings. Power of Islam defeats the Great Satan." Not surprising, coming from Iran.

* We Iranians as a nation will be better off to have more peaceful and productive relations with other countries, rather than creating more enemies!

* This is the way I see it. Iran was becoming a very westernized. I personally feel that, that was for the better. And the US loved it for a while. The Shah was giving them petroleum. But after that when the Shah stopped letting himself be used by the US, the US got mad, because the Shah was not letting his country be taken advantage of. Didn't America secretly love it when the ayatollah and his friends were trying to overthrow the Shah?!? No longer would they have to deal with him, and the newly westernized Iran. But HAH HAH in your face Mr. President and the rest of you Americans who had a hand in overthrowing the Shah! You thought that Iran would just dissipate into nothing without any bitterness. You thought that we wouldn't care. You thought that once Khomeini was in power you would just be able to take our oil, and lead on with your merry little lives. Well hah! The whole Middle East hates you, and you are afraid of nuclear attacks. Now understand me here, in no way have I ever liked the new government of Iran, and I know that the Shah wasn't perfect, but Iran is not at all what it used to be. However, I am sick of America's interferences, and the way they demean our culture. Who cares if we are more religious? For over a thousand years Iran was the most advanced country medically, culturally, and later theologically. Europe was practically built on their knowledge of the Middle East. It's time for a little respect.

* The peeing contest between the two goverments should end. Their is no reason why self-confident goverments cannot talk to each other. Iran is talking to Iraq after 8 yers of bloody war, why not with the US?

* Engaging Iran in the international community and having friendly relations with the U.S. would be a disaster for the Islamic government because right now they can use the U.S. and the economic embargo as an excuse and a scape-goat for all their problems. Once they resolve their disputes with the U.S., they'll have to stop supporting terrorism and Hezbollah, and come up with some real answers to the country's problems instead of blaming every thing on the U.S. and Israel. That's why I can't see any direct talks between the two governments in a forseeable future.

* Just after Clinton won his second term there was a brief period when a lot of people thought that a rapprochement between Iran and the U.S. might actually be possible. It was felt that this would be precisely the type of "dynamic and historic" diplomacy which Clinton would use to resolve a particularly thorny issue in contemporary U.S. foreign affairs. But the moment passed, and Clinton reaffirmed the "tightened" embargo rules due to increased Republican pressure in Congress. A contributing factor was Newt Gingrich's statement that the U.S. had allocated $18 million in the new budget for undermining the Islamic regime. The next day, the Iranians promptly passed a $20 million special allocation as a countermeasure !! Unfortunately, and in all probability, as the next President of Iran will be a hardliner, it appears that any hope of a rapprochement has been pushed back even further.

* When we were children, our parents taught us that men (civilized men) resolve conflicts, no matter how bitter, through dialogue. Fighting and threats were for the weak-minded, for the simpleton. May I respectfully state that I believe both nations are behaving in a simple, weak and narrow-minded way. They are both behaving like children. Conflict, verbal or physical, cannot be avoided in the absence of meaningful dialogue. The longer it takes to bring about such a dialogue, the more difficult the initial steps to mediation will be. If President Bush was right, and we do mean to establish a new world order (based on justice, respect and peaceful coexistance) then all nations on earth must be incorporated into a just and acceptable order of humanity. Dialogue with those perceived to be on the fringes of our new world order would seem to be a logical and essential step in our great struggle for peace.

* The American Government did Iran wrong, many times in the past. The U.S. government should be taught a very harsh lesson, but only through the political means and global exposure and boycott. The U.S Embassy, and their personells by no means should have bee detained as hostages.

* Open Relations with US will save Iran's Economy but does not mean that Iran should depend to US like the pre 1978 erra,...

* I chose the first option ( the 1953 CIA ...) for the fifth item, since it was the first great interference of USA in our affairs which changed the destiny of our nation a big deal. The other cases was happend because of the first one. Many miseries of our nation is because of that. I don't want to put all of our problems on the shoulders of USA, but if they hadn't interfered , we surely whould have had a better condition, if not the best. I am for peace, but I will never forget what they did to Mosadegh and the other ones . I will shake hand with them , but I will have that history in mind. It is a good lesson for us, how we should deal with them.

* Please investigate how US sells arms to all these fools. Even to Jordan which has nothing. But US with proper machinations forces Jordan to purchase arms from US through money borrowed from rich Arabs like Saudies.

* US-Islamic Republic relations reflects a bad marriage. A lot of common interest, but too many conflicts at the same time!

* Nothing is proved, but concerning the terrorism, it's possible that Iran was involved at 1986 in the terrorism in France with Vahid Gorgi. This is absolutly unjustified and Iran must answer to this. However, I I'm not sure that was due to the Iranian government since there are two powers who control the contry. It is also possible that Iran has killed some Iranian member of the opposition in Europe. This also is unjustified and Iran has also to answer for this, if It is involved. But when Golda Meir, the first Prime Minister of Israel asked Mosad to kill opposition Palestinians even in friend contries (and they did it), World's reaction was not as hard as for Iran. About the USA, both Iran and the USA are members of the UN. And the UN strongly "forbids" the meddling of foreign contries. This can be discussed for Iraq and also MAYBE for Kennedy's cruisaders against USSR/Cuba. But certainly not for the coup d'etat against Mosadeq or against Allende and neither for US Marines in Panama sent by Reagan. In short, both contries are "guilty". Exactly like all contries in the World! Like Wallace after his interview with Rafsanjani, I think they can at least start to talk together and they have nothing to loose. It is ridiculous to let the problem become bigger and bigger.

* The government of U.S. is more curious about iran than is the government of iran about U.S. Iranian officials never care about where an U.S. official goes or what he does. On the other hand, U.S. officials have always been monitoring, objecting and commenting on iranian officials' actions, trying to relate their deeds to terrorism, etc. In fact, they give themselves more space than is internationally available for them to act. Unfortunately, the government of the U.S. is deeply influenced by Zionism (Israel), so taking action towards showing an islamic state as a black-state is very normal. -There are a lot of facts our dear expatriates (especially those who have not been to iran since long time) are disabled of observing in the U.S. because of hard informatic shielding and widely spread propaganda against iran. -Women status in Saudi Arabia and Qatar for example, is much worse than is in iran, they can not even drive cars!! Deprived from many social services. Have the U.S. media brought the case to your kind attentions? No. Simply because they (Arab Gulf States) serve the U.S. government. -So it is not ONLY a matter of human rights, social life or other well-coocked-spiced soups from American media, it is strategy and politics, it is a state of PAYING LESS FOR MORE OIL.

* The relations between Iran & US should be looked at in the context of the relations between a criminal regime (government of Iran) and a government that has historically supported repression in Iran. The people of Iran will not benefit from normalization of Iran - US relationship. This will prolong the life of this blood thirsty regime and delay its overthrow by the just armed struggle of the masses.

* The U.S. Government should never conduct direct talks with a government that sponsors terrorism against the U.S. and its allies.

* Not to have a clear relationship is a good excuse for both goverments. There is someone to be blaimed all the time either in Iran or in US.

* It shouldn't natter what type of goverment Iran has, as log as it is by the people for the people. Until we achive that there won't be peace in Iran.

* Right or wrong, justified or not, Iran's actions at the end don't matter to me; there is only one Iran and all I can say is 'ZENDE BAAD IRAN'

* This is all a case of the Moslem world being afraid most of the SECULARIZATION of their countries rather than anti-West per se. It is also interesting that the US ended up supporting one of the most conservative Moslem nations (Saudi Arabia) against one of the most secularized (Iraq). This ended up being the FIRST of many Gulf Wars, in the name of OIL of course with democracy obviously having nothing to do with it.

* You may want to forward the results to the State Deprtment or the White House. I am sure they can benefit from what Iranian people think about the situation.

* Please send the poll result to the Iranian government whatever it is.

* In my opinion; Iran's government is trying to do anything to get their hands to the money that U.S. had frozen for long time (sine the revulsion 1979). The Mullahs would do anything to stay in power and this money would help them a lot, since they don't have the support of their own people. To get that, they are willing to become friend of their own enemy if it's necessary. I don't see any common ground between these two governments. They do NOT trust each other at all. U.S. does not look at Iran as an respectful country. U.S. can not see loosing big business to Japanese and European in general; because, U.S government is under big pressure from big corporations. After all theses corporation are big contributors to the Gov.. The only common interest is MONEY (for Iran) and selling more good and merchandise or getting more contract(for U.S.). God help all of us for more time to come, if this meeting\contact take place. Thanks for the opportunity to express ourselves.

* No matter what the differences are between two poeple, two government, or two religion, we must learn first to behave like a human being and then to begin a dialoge to resolve the issues. Because some issues may never be resolved depending on what the differences are, but we should be able to live and love one another with our differences.

* The conflict is actually between the powerful Israeli lobby in the US and the US Government. The US has a real interest in starting to talk to the Iranians, but due to the strong pressures from Israeli groups, the US Goverment has sacrificed US interest for Israels need to have an enemy. The D'Amato bill met strong resistance from Clinton, but he was to weak to fight the lobby. Actually, in May 1995, Pelletreau stated that extraterritorial application of the US sanctions would be counterproductive. "We want to isolate the Iranians not isolate ourselves". 16 months later, without any provocation from Iran, the US state department changed its mind.... Right now, US companies are suffereing, the Iranian economy hasnt substantially been affected, the Europaens are laughing all the way to the bank and the Israelis are making sure that the only potential competitor for hegemony in the Middle East is being politically isolated and contained. Simply, a democratic and free Iran would undermine Israels importance towards the west, both politically and economically. The Israelis know that the best way to avoid this situation is to strengthen the radicals in Iran, which they are doing by pressuring the US to contain Iran by sanctions. Please visit AIPAC's site to find out for yourselves: //www.aipac.org.

* Iranian Gov Officials never know their strong point in resolving the problems they waist time by using "Shoar & Shoar" (slogan) when they are in weak point they suddenly wake up and for saving their ass do what ever they want. Ex-American Hostages , Ending Iran-Iraq war ...

Related links

* THE IRANIAN Surveys
* Bookstore
* Cover stories
* Who's who