Start with respect
U.S. foreign policy toward Iran
Majid Behrouzi
November 30, 2006
iranian.com
Imagine you and I are neighbors. Further imagine that I am very wealthy, live in a mansion, and have all sorts of connections in City Hall. You are, on the other hand, just an average Joe with an average income and average house. One day I approach you and tell you that I think you are an evil person and I despise you. I also tell you that the way you maintain your property is not up to my standards. I then go on to say that I am very bothered by the bushes on your side of the property line. They are, I say to you, just an eyesore which seriously threatens the property value of my house. I then continue to say that I want to give you $1000 to take the bushes down and plant evergreens in their place, and add that if you don't comply, I will take you to court. How would that make you feel? Intimidated? Threatened? Violated? What would you do?
What is wrong with this picture? Well, to start with, what I propose to you is an extremely crude and unproductive way of going about getting you to do what I want. I am more likely to get a positive response out of you if I approach you in a way that would affirm your dignity as a person and would seek your engagement, cooperation, and input. Second, what I do here with you is immoral in at least two ways. For one thing, it not only insults you, it also denies your humanity by treating you as a means toward achieving my ends. It is also immoral because it is inegalitarian and unjust in that it is a course of action that is available to me, but not to you. You don't have the financial resources to just spit out $1000 or hire attorneys to take me from one court to another. Lastly, it is a predatory act, something that bullies would do, which anyone with a sense of justice would detest and find objectionable.
What I described above is a good example of Washington’s much-touted carrot and stick "diplomacy" applied at a micro level. Carrot and stick “diplomacy” is clearly a crude and unproductive way of getting the desired results. Moreover, to those citizens of the world who follow the world events and have a sense of justice, especially to the ones living in developing countries, the carrot and stick "diplomacy" appears as an unfair and predatory way of engaging in world affairs. Furthermore, the carrot and stick “diplomacy” is immoral in that it violates the dignity of the nations which find themselves at the receiving end of this "diplomacy". Lastly, it is immoral in that it is a prerogative, exclusively, of the most powerful nations. Only they can exercise it because they can carry and lift big sticks. Smaller and less powerful nations, especially in the South and the East, cannot exercise this option over more powerful nations. And because of the inegalitarian nature of such diplomacy, these nations resent being subjected to it.
I find it quite abominable and objectionable when I hear our politicians and media pundits keep talking approvingly of the carrot and stick "diplomacy", as if it is an appropriate way of conducting foreign policy or a God-given right of the United States to exercise it over smaller nations. It takes a certain degree of hubris, arrogance, and self-righteousness to advocate such an immoral, bully-like, and predatory approach in the international arena, especially by a nation that prides itself in standing for justice for all and for championing the cause of freedom and democracy.
Moreover, far from being a diplomatic approach, carrot and stick is a flagrant subversion of diplomacy. Diplomacy is supposed to be a forum for negotiating differences and issues among nations carried out in the spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect. However, as bad as it is, the carrot and stick approach is not the only way of subverting diplomacy. Another form of such subversions that we have witnessed in the last few years coming out of Washington has been to regard diplomacy as a concession that we would be willing to make to others, provided that they first meet some of our demands. We make public announcements directed at, let's say, Iranians and North Koreans to let them know that we despise them because we consider them evil. We declare that we will not bring ourselves down to their evil levels by talking to them directly. However, we publicly announce to them that if they agree to our conditions, then we might talk to them in the presence of some other nations. We are so righteous and they are so evil that our talking directly to them would dignify them while making us feel or look undignified.
Further, when we implement the carrot and stick "diplomacy", it is usually an indication that we are very eager to use the stick, or we have already decided to use it. But as a PR gimmick, we have to offer the carrot first so that when we use the stick, we can justify and defend using it by saying that we did offer the carrot first, but the subject chose not to take it. We also offer the carrot under humiliating and threatening conditions to increase the likelihood that the subject will refuse to take it. We say to them that here is the carrot, but remember that "all options are on the table", which basically is a veiled threat to resort to violence against them.
To those who might say that my moralist approach to diplomacy is naive, or might claim that the U.S. should use "diplomacy" in any form or shape to preserve its national interests and achieve its policy ends, I would respond in two ways. First I would accuse them of advocating hypocrisy and shame them for being immoral and Machiavellian. Second, I would call their attention to the consequences of pursuing immoral forms of diplomacy. Twisting and subverting the meaning of diplomacy to serve the present interests of the country (assuming that doing so does serve short-term U.S. interests) is hurting its long-term interests by undermining America’s credibility in the international arena. Moreover, I would point out that, by all indications, the subverted diplomacy we applied to North Korea failed to preserve or advance U.S. interests and policy ends in that part of the world.
By all indications, Washington's subverted form of diplomacy toward Iran is also failing. 5+1 club, which by the way, likes to lay claim to representing the "international community", put together what was touted as a "generous" package of incentives in June and told Iran to accept it by August 31, or else it would face sanctions and/or possibly military actions in a sort of veiled threat coming from Washington. Take the carrot or risk being beaten over the head, so were told Iranians. It was also asserted in some quarters that if Iran did not accept the carrot, then that would be a good indication that it does not believe in diplomacy. When Iran responded to the offer within its own timelines by stating that the package is a good place to start negotiations, its offer was met with cold responses, especially in Washington.
We can now return to my original questions. What would you do? Would you take the $1000 and comply with my demand? If you think like a machine, most likely you would do a quick cost-benefit analysis and comply with my demand. But if you have any sense of dignity, you would most likely tell me to go to hell. However, if you are also stubborn and have been fuming with rage over my similar bully-like behaviors in the past, you might insult me right on the spot and go inside your house and start planning a strategy in defending yourself against my aggression in the court. You might start risking your financial security by mortgaging your house, for instance, to secure the money needed to defend yourself against this despicable bully that thinks he owns the world. Depending on how stubborn or how determined you are, you might even risk it all when I do end up making good on my threat.
Now let's see how Iranians are responding to Washington's carrot and stick approach, and to the overall subverted form of diplomacy that they have been subjected to by the United States in the last few years. By all indications, the voices coming out of the Iranian regime indicate that they are not intimidated by the threat of the stick, and that they take offense at being threatened. Numerous Iranian officials have said that while they enjoy the offer of carrots and the attention they are getting, and that they are tempted, they do not appreciate the stick part of the carrot and stick treatment. They keep saying that they are putting their foot down on their legitimate right to master the nuclear technology, while willing to be subjected to the most stringent of IAEA inspections. The voices keep mentioning that the United States should stop threatening them with open or veiled military actions, and instead sit down to talk to Iranians as equals. The Iranian regime, and Iranians in general, feel that they deserve to be treated with respect, and be recognized as a regional superpower, as they think they are. Iran is the old Persia with a great sense of dignity and pride in its past. Iranians, be it in the regime or outside of it, feel that it is about time for them to get back some of the glory of the past. Their dignity and pride aside, Iranians can be extremely stubborn, and if cornered, can take their stubbornness and their Shiite characteristics to heroic proportions. The U.S. will not get its way by bullying Iran. Wielding its stick in the air is not frightening Iranians.
But how do American foreign policy makers justify subjecting Iran to subverted forms of diplomacy? Well, what they do is demonize Iran as an evil power and a rogue nation by accusing it of supporting terrorism and by contending that Iran is not living up to our standards of freedom and democracy. Hence, they declare Iran as undeserving of respect, fair treatment, and trust. In addition to the rhetoric of our righteousness and their evilness, and everything else that follows from it, they keep making the dubious claim that nuclear Iran could be a "serious threat" to the national security of the United States. (This is the case of the lion calling the rabbit a serious threat to his safety.) But if we go beyond Washington's mongering of its ideology of freedom (now being euphemistically called "ideological struggle"), which only serves to confuse and complicate international politics, the real question that needs to be answered is the following. Why does the United States refuse to engage Iran in a positive, constructive, and respectful manner?
The main answer to this question is that Washington has serious issues with acknowledging Iran as a regional superpower or recognizing its interests in the region as legitimate. Washington's current mindset on Iran sees it as a rival to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Washington's future plans for the Middle-East do not include the presence of an influential and independent Iran in the region, especially in the Persian Gulf area. But why is this so? Why cannot Washington accept a powerful and independent Iran in the region? The answer to these questions involves a bit of history and psychology. Since the CIA-led coup d'etat of 1953 that destroyed Iran's fledgling democracy and installed the Shah as a puppet and lackey of the United States in the region, Washington has been stuck with the mentality that Iran belongs to the U.S. and that Iran should act as an agent of American interests in the region. This mentality finds it unfortunate that we lost Iran in 1979, and is adamant that we should get it back.
Washington sees Iran like a prodigal son who has gone astray, whom we need to bring back in line. The pipe dream in Washington is that things can go back to the way they were in the good old days if we succeed in pulling out another regime change in Iran. Washington just cannot let go of its possessiveness over Iran, yet it cannot change the current regime, for it is much stronger than Dr. Mossadegh's government that it toppled in 1953. Iran, on the other hand, has come a long way, and feels as if it were a power in its own right, and demands recognition and respect for what it is. The situation can be likened to a father who cannot let go of his authority over a rapidly-maturing teenage son who in turn wants to establish his presence as a man. The only solution to the problem here is that the father must change his mindset and accept, and treat, the son as a man in his own right.
Unless its hidden goal is to drag Iran into a protracted war, Washington's subverted diplomacy toward Iran has been proven to be an utter failure. This in part is indicated by the stiffening of the Iranian position on the current nuclear standoff with the West. Iran just recently announced that it has activated a second cascade of centrifuges. The failure of the U.S. is also signaled by the heating up of the war of rhetoric and ideology mongering between Iran and the U.S. (and between Iran and Israel). It seems that President Ahmadinejad has accepted President Bush's challenge and is upping the ante in his fiery speeches. If you check with people in the Middle-East, you will see that President Ahmadinejad has clearly beaten the U.S. in its own game of "ideological struggle". He has won the struggle because he has successfully tapped into the deep-seated belief of the people in the region that hypocrisy and hostility toward Muslims lie at the root of U.S. foreign policy and its military adventures in the Middle-East.
The U.S. must accept that it has made grave mistakes in the Middle-East, and has failed miserably. It also needs to accept that it is time to implement a genuine form of diplomacy and a respectful attitude toward Iranians, and toward the people of the Middle-East. America can really mess things up if it decides to make good on its military threats and bomb Iranian nuclear and military installations. Iranian dignity and stubbornness will not allow them to take American military aggression lying down. If the Iraq invasion was a bad decision, this one would be a disastrous one. If you think Sunnis are stubborn and tough fighters, you need to talk to Israelis about their experience with Shiites in Lebanon. Fighting to the bitter end, and at all costs, against oppression and injustice is one of the main characteristics of Shiite Islam. Unless the United States is ready to face a completely destabilized Middle-East and live with the consequences, Washington needs to show honesty and respect in its dealing with the people in the Middle-East. It can start this by approaching Iran with fairness, honesty, and respect on the current nuclear standoff. Iran would fall in line, and would agree to a strict regime of IAEA inspections if its power and rights are recognized. Comment
Majid Behrouzi holds a Ph.D. in (political) philosophy from York University (Canada) and is currently teaching Mathematics and Philosophy at Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland, Ohio. He is the author of two books by Lexington (2006): Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the People: The Betrayal of an Ideal and Democracy as the Political Empowerment of the Citizen: Direct-Deliberative e-Democracy.
|