The art of compromise

US-Iranian relations have been in a very low and often hostile level for close to 30 years. Both countries have unresolved grievances and rather long memories. During this period, the International role and standing of both countries have changed. By the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has become the sole superpower for the first time in the history. Ironically, this new role and the subsequent events resulting from this role — especially in the Middle East — has created circumstances that have made Iran to emerge as a regional power to contend with. With regard to the history of Iran and the role, she has played in her past, this position appeals to the Iranians irrespective of their varying ideologies, place of residence, level of education or wealth.

According to the statements made by the US Intelligence communities, expressed publicly at the various podiums including the Senate Committees, the US is almost entirely blind and deaf to what is happening inside Iran. Judging by the statements made by the present administration’s officials they all — from the President down — receives their information from two sources. The information either comes from the Iranian dissidents of all colors each with their own particular agenda or those made available by Israel. Unfortunately, even the information provided by Israel is also tainted. This is due to the fact that Israel resembles an island surrounded by hostile elements that would inevitably force her to place its own national security before the interests of the US, probably its only supporter in the international arena.

It is for these reasons that it is timely that the US should revise its policy and approach to Iran. Sanctions, ignoring, hostile actions, taking, or creating issues has not worked so far. In the meantime, Iran has grown from a country crippled by a revolution and a long debilitating war to an undeniable regional power in search of its deserved dignity and a place in the decision-making tables. This position has even forced some elements in the US government and the military to discuss breaking a long-standing taboo and eliminate this possible source of belligerence by the use of nuclear weapons.

So far, the US has resisted bilateral discussions, which is the most logical solution for international conflicts and was used so successfully during the Cold War. Several elements have encouraged and sometimes worked quite hard to produce this outcome. This is obviously an incorrect approach and is harmful for both countries. The remedy is for the US to know the country better and change the tactics that have been unsuccessful so far. The following are the reason why two countries should resume talking, without mediators. This will help to figure out a way to find a solution for the grievances that produces the gulf in between. The past history shows that there are no mediators that do not have agendas of their own and do not benefit from fishing in the muddy waters.

To start with, let us look at the historical aspects of the US-Iranian relationship.

US-Iran relationship: past and present
In the late 19th and beginning of the 20th century, during the early stages of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, an American by the name of Howard Baskerville assumed a venerated degree of adulation and almost sainthood amongst the Iranian masses. Baskerville is arguably the source of affection that many older Iranians have for America. This Nebraskan missionary lived and was killed in the northwestern city of Tabriz.  Baskerville was a teacher in the American School, one of many such institutions created by the American missionaries who had worked in the city since the mid-19th century. He arrived in Iran in 1907 fresh out of Princeton Theological Seminary to teach at the American Memorial School in Tabriz, and was swept up in the first Constitutional Revolutionary mood which was going on. Taking the revolutionary fervor of the country to heart he participated in the demonstrations and was killed during a fight with a royalist blockade that was starving the city. This tragic incident happened on April 19, 1909, when he led a contingent of 150 nationalist fighters into battle against the royalist forces and a single bullet tore through his heart, killing him instantly nine days after his 24th birthday. Many Iranian nationalists still remember Baskerville as a symbol of an America that they saw as a welcome ally and a useful “third force” that might help Iran to break the power of Britain and Russia who were strangling Iran and threatening to divide the country into two spheres of interest. In the eyes of many Iranians who care about democracy and freedom, Baskerville is considered to have offered his own life for their cause and a sculpture of him is erected in the Tabriz House of Constitution.

A number of other Americana nationals, like Morgan Schuster appointed as the Treasurer General of the country during the initial stages after the Constitutional Revolution and Dr. Samuel M. Jordan the great educator and founder of the Secondary-High school education who by the virtue of services to the country are still remembered with great respect. Despite the Revolutionary zeal of the present regime their names still remain on the streets, Boulevards and theatres named after them earlier. During WW II presence of the American troops amongst the occupying forces, not only did not diminish the American popularity amongst the Iranians, the American Soldier became the symbol of kindness, evenhandedness and generosity.

The life of this cordial and kindly relationship came to an abrupt end in the August 1953. The increasing US interests for the control of the Middle East oil supplies led to the US government to back Britain that was involved in a conflict with Iranians who wished to nationalize the oil industry and have a larger share of the wealth of their country. The US backing of Britain led to the * CIA staged coup in Iran, overthrow of the democratically elected and very popular prime minister, and return of the Shah to power from a short-lived exile in Rome. The following events which led to the humiliation of Iranians and their sufferings at the hands of the ever increasing oppression imposed by the Shah’s secret police SAVAK were the contributing factors in the increasingly strained relationship between the US and the people of Iran. 25 years of living under an arrogant and corrupt  regime, upheld by a brutal secret police, and the suffocating oppression all supported by the US, plundering of the national wealth by US civil and military industrial corporations, led and shared by the Iranians close to the Shah’s regime, created an explosive atmosphere that resulted in 1978 Revolution. Repercussions of the Iranian revolution and political losses suffered by the US were immense. Loss of Iran as a partner and a reliable client state had deprived the US literally from its eyes, ears and means of exerting pressure for the purpose of preservation of interests in the region. The ultimate and most undesirable outcome of this event was that the US had ended up in an unenviable situation where it had to rely on only one source of information namely Israel. The position was even worse considering that Israel had an agenda of its own; for the Israelis protection of their own national interests was far more important than defending the interests of the US. Immediately after the revolution the US tried belatedly to repair its damaged relations with Iran by adding to the number of US diplomats familiar with the language, traditions and culture of Iran and approaching the figures in the opposition. However the Hostage Crisis threw the US-Iranian relationship into a headlong, downward spin that has continued ever since.

The **Hostage Crisis that followed the power grab by the well organized Iranian religious establishment, started initially as a gut reaction to prevent a sudden and probable counterattack by the defeated regime and its supporters. Uncertainty about the real or imaginary power of the remnants of the SAVAK, Shah’s secret police, confusion about the real reasons behind the sudden and unexpected collapse of a state that only a few months earlier had been called the “Island Of Stability” in the region and being afraid of another CIA backed coup were some of the reasons behind the actions of a handful of students. However, to the surprise of its perpetrators the action received an unexpected massive support from the public. The main reason behind this, at the time seemingly inexplicable, is now thought to be a manifestation of the national sense of betrayal from a source which had been considered a friend and a supporter at the hour of need. Iranian grassroots believed that the US had abandoned them and supported an old known enemy, Britain, when Iran was in dire need of a friend during the oil crisis of 1953. Ayatollah Khomeini and other theocrats, uncertain of their hold but with their hands on the pulse of the public, realized the importance of the opportunity inadvertently handed to them. By using this tool, they were able to outmaneuver their secular opponents however they were aware that they would have to pay the considerable price of the wrath of the International community especially the US. This was a deal they were ready to accept and pay for later.

In response to these unfortunate events, the greatest diplomatic and military power of the world the US would not and has not forgotten or forgiven the humiliation suffered at the hands of a few priests and their revolutionary followers. On the other hand the insurmountable suspicion and fear of Iranian regime from retaliation by the US, fuelled by the old grievances over US behavior in the past and the results of the hostage crisis, in a nutshell form the nucleus of the factors that lie at the heart of the present unfavorable relationship between the two countries. 

Iranians have paid dearly for their misbehavior. Financially they have lost billions of dollars in unearned revenues. The country has suffered severe economical blows due to the sanctions and the loss of a whole generation killed or maimed during eight years of the war of aggression by Iraq.  All accessible intelligence evidence suggests that Iraq attacked Iran at a wink and a nod from the US. During the war, unhindered by the International community Iraq freely used all manners of warfare including poison gas and bombardment of the civilian population centers. From psychological and human point of view, the conflict cost for Iran was the loss of several hundred thousand lives and thousands upon thousands of maimed and handicapped, young and old, civilian and combatant. Presence of the maimed war veterans and the burden of caring for them, the terror of missiles raining on the major Iranian cities, the destruction of ancient Iranian civilization centers the use of chemical weapons against the soldiers and civilians alike, total destruction of larger and smaller cities by the Iraqi army are still alive in the memories of the people and are parts of the price paid. The direct participation of the US forces, at least at the final stages of the war resulting in the destruction of the infrastructure of the oil industry, annihilation of the Abadan Refinery the largest in the world and Kharg Island again the largest offshore loading platform in the Persian Gulf, the intelligence provided to the Iraq harvested from the US spy satellites hovering over the area are all reminders of the terrible punishment dealt out. Iranians still grieve upon shooting down of the civilian Iran Air aircraft with over 270 persons on board over international waters by a missile fired from a US naval vessel at the last days of the Iraq war and the bigotry surrounding the US response compared with the similar incidence with a Korean aircraft shut down by the Soviets well inside the Soviet airspace.  Added to the problem is the US disregard for certain part of the Algiers Agreement reached on release of the hostages, promising to keep out of Iranian affairs and a promise not to participate in the overthrow of the regime. These factors are the elements which are ingredients of a deep distrust between the US and Iran that make reaching a détente in relations extremely difficult. These are also the elements that are instrumental in providing public support for the ruling regime that does not hesitate to dust them off and flaunt them whenever needed.

Iran in the eye of the history
Compared to the rest of the region, Iran is a peaceful non-aggressive country in spite of its size, population, and relative economic prosperity. Throughout its history especially in the past 250 years, Iran’s military forces have been used as a deterrent or purely as a defense force. Conversely, Iran has been a subject of aggressions by its neighbors and even countries from further a field. Romans, Arabs, Mongols, Turkic tribes, Afghans, Ottomans, Russian, the British, and lastly the Iraqis have each taken a turn in attacking looting and sometimes temporarily holding parts of the country. Even during the reign of the Safavid dynasty, the last of Iran’s great kings, the military power of the country was used for purely defensive purposes resisting or expelling the aggressions of its neighbor the Ottomans from parts of Iranian soil that they had occupied.

During the WWII in spite of the declared and internationally recognized neutrality of Iran, she was attacked on September 1941 by the Allied forces and parts of the country especially towns and civilian centers were bombarded by the Russians and the British forces. My own hometown and my own family home was the target of the Russian bombs on the first day of the attack and a number of my close relatives were lost during this first attack.

Demography of Iran
Origin of the people who have settled in the Iranian plateau is from the Caucasian tribes of the mountains to the northwest of the plateau. Through the intrusion of the various marauding tribes and folk groups into the country, Iranian heritage extends from the Mongol Genghis Khan to the Macedonian Alexander. As a result of these invasions and the culture and languages left behind, Iranians have assumed the present different subtitles of Azeris, Gilaks, Persians, Kurds, Lors, Baluchis, and Turkmen etc. Each of these apparently different ethnic groups speaks a different dialect with its roots in Farsi, widely known as Persian which is the common language of the Iranians. The only exception is the Arabic speaking Iranians of the southwest and southern Iran who use Arabic as the local language. In spite of these diversities and apparent different ethnicities that are quite confusing for the foreigners, Farsi is the cultural backbone of the people of Iran and has been so for close to one thousand years. The language is not limited to the present borders of Iran but is widely used by the peoples of the Old Persian Empire. This includes Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan and India, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It even constituted the cultured language used by the people of India, and Azerbaijan Republic before the British and Russians replaced Farsi with their own languages. The recent assumption and the consequent discussions about using these ethnic differences as tools of splitting Iran on the lines that followed the events in Iraq is an erroneous myth introduced by elements who intend to use these factors as a tool for manipulation of the less knowledgeable planners of the prospective military actions against Iran. Investigating journalist Seymour Hersh and former UN weapon inspector Scott Ritter report that the US and the Israeli agents in Iraqi Kurdistan, Azerbaijan are already engaged in creating and training groups to be used as “agents provocateur” in future actions inside Iran.

This is not a new idea. The previous victim of this assumption was Saddam Hussein counting on the cooperation of the Arab speaking Iranians with his invading troops. To Saddam’s utter surprise the Arabic speaking tribes who were to be liberated by their Arab brethren, became the initial barriers resisting the invasion. The assumed Arab population of this area fought the invading army house to house and with tooth and nail until the central government that was in a post-revolutionary disarray could get organized and gather a proper military force to fight off the invaders. Almost a half century earlier immediately after the end of WWII the so called Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, a puppet government created by the Russians under similar assumption, which was to isolate and include the Iranian Azerbaijan inside the Iron Curtain, was easily dislodged and sent packing as soon as Russians ceased their support of the regime. 

Even religious disparity cannot be used as a tool for divide and rule tactics in Iran. The official religion of Iran is the Shiite sect of Islam. It constitutes close to 90% of the population. The rest are Sunnis Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews. People of these faiths have lived and are living together in peace and harmony for many centuries. Although various religions have their own elected representative in the Majlis (Iranian parliament) only Muslims are constitutionally permitted to assume the seat of the President of the Republic. The only religious groups that are not accepted and are persecuted by the regime are Baha’is who claim to have their own Mahdi, the Baha’ollah. However, persecution of the Baha’is is not new and has been going on since the birth of the faith in mid 19th century.

Therefore the Iranian ethnic and religious diversity is part of the fabric of the nation and sectarian or language disparities do not run deep enough to create significant weaknesses to be used as levers. The historical facts point to the opposite; any foreign intervention in the past has only served to unify the nation and this fact is probably the secret of its survival as an independent identity amongst a sea of different races and nationalities for almost 30 centuries.  

Shiite sect, its characteristics and structure
As mentioned almost 90% of the Iranians are Shiites.  Arab domination and conquest of the Persian Empire was only successful militarily. In reality, Arabs could not achieve the total subjugation of the several centuries old Iranian civilization. One of the many and continuous efforts to liberate the country from the Arab domination was creation of a rift between the successors of the Prophet Mohammad through introduction of the Shiite sect into Islam. The movements started by the Iranians supporting Hussein the reclusive grandson of Prophet Mohammad who had been denied the seat of Islamic Caliphate by the Mo’avia bin Umayya, an elected successor to Ali, Hussein’s father and the 4th Caliph after Mohammad. To escape the persecution from the reigning caliph, Hussein accepted the invitation of the people of Kufa — city in the present day Iraq — and  together with all the members of his family including women and children decided to immigrate to this remote city. Sensing the beginning of a budding rebellion Mo’avia sent his son Yezid with a force of over 10,000 men to stop Hussein’s immigration. Hussein and his family with only a handful of armed men were surrounded in the present day Karbala. Following a few days of resistance, the followers of Hussein, numbering only 72 including women, children and infants, were defeated. The goal was achieved through deprivation of the immigrants from their water supply, an absolute taboo in the Arabian Chivalric rules of the time. All the male members of the family including a 6 months old baby were put to sword. Although Mo’avia and his successors the Umayyad dynasty ruled the Islamic world for over one century, the saga of Imam Hussein became the story of the first martyr of the Shiite sect and the beginning of a deep and permanent rift in Islam. It is the day of this massacre that is celebrated by the Shiites in bloody scenes of self-flagellations every year. According to the Shiites, Hussein’s act is considered the ultimate act of self sacrifice for a cause. Veneration of Imam Hussein has become the national symbol of Iranian aspirations to fight for the principles, the support of the underdog and championship of the lost causes. It is interesting to note these tendencies in the heart of every Iranian and probably this is the reason behind the Iranian support of the Palestinian cause. It is also the cause that the more Iranian government is threatened by the Big Bad USA the more support it is going to enjoy amongst the people of Iran.

Geopolitics of Iran; the Iranian Plateau
Geopolitically Iran has been and probably still is the most valuable real estate in the world. In the past, this piece of land was the key bridge joining East Asia and the west. This is probably the reason why, facing the prospects of the crossing the barren deserts of the Arabian peninsula in the south and the frozen expanses of the central Asian deserts and the hostile impassable mountains of Tibet and Afghanistan the only remaining hospitable crossing was through the fertile valleys of the northern and central Iranian plateau. Alexander is the only western invader who has crossed this country from the west while Mongols from the east and the Arabs from the south could achieve this goal and cross Iran successfully. Romans, Byzantines and later Ottomans could only breach a short distance into the northwestern Iran before retreating to their own territories. The plateau straddles the Caspian Sea in the north and the Persian Gulf in the south. It is covered with high mountains and deep almost impassable valleys in the north and west and a central arid desert in the east and south. The country lies on vast supplies of oil, natural gas and other minerals including Uranium. Water has always been a problem in the Middle East and Iran is no exception. However, the presence of high snowy mountains catching and precipitating the humidity of the prevailing winds mainly from the west, a central fertile but arid plateau combined with the ingenuity of the inhabitants has created the Quanat System of irrigation. The system is extremely difficult to maintain but effective. It simply brings the water of the mountain aquifers through subterranean canals to the fertile plains of the centre. This system of irrigation is the secret of independence, wealth, and the cultural heritage of Iran. Prior to the discovery of oil, it was these qualities, and the geopolitical position of Iran that attracted the invaders and was the source of the country’s problems.

Despite of its not very large surface area Iran borders with 15 sovereign countries. They include Iraq and Turkey in the west, Armenia, Azerbaijan in northwest, countries around the Caspian Sea, namely Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation. Afghanistan in the north east and east, Pakistan is in the east and through the Persian Gulf Iran borders with all the Gulf States, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar. Except for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey, all of the above countries are oil rich and potentially unstable. These are countries that the West depends on them for its energy supplies. Added to the equation is the important fact that Iran has a tight grip on the Straits of Hurmoz through which all the ship-born supplies of oil, almost 25% of world production passes. All these factors make Iran the key to the Middle East and aptly the guardian of the energy supplies of the Western world. Aware of this fact the newly developing energy hungry power pole awakening in the East, China, India and Japan are making advances to Iran that is not hidden from the eyes of the West and Iran.  Participation of Iran in the last meeting of the Shanghai Group as an observer and possible partnership later should be regarded as an indicator of the desire of these countries in having Iran to lean to their side.     

Who runs Iran today?
The Clerical class or Mullahs

T he present Iranian government is a Shiite theocracy called the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is fashioned after the ideas of the late Ayatollah Khomeini who against all imaginable odds hammered out and drove home these ideas during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The constitution of the Islamic Republic was mandated by a general referendum carried out shortly after the revolution and expulsion of 25 centuries of uninterrupted monarchic rulers. According to this constitution, the ruling elite occupying the top of the hierarchy is made up of The Guardian Council ( GC) a committee of the Shiite clergy headed by the Supreme Leader elected and appointed by the same body. The GC is in effect an upper house of parliament with the power to approve or disapprove the lower house's resolutions. The council has 12 members. Six are clerical Islamic canonists and six others are civilian jurists. The Supreme Leader appoints the clerical members and the secular group are elected by the Majlis the lower house of legislation from among candidates nominated by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). Supreme Leader and the GC appoint even the members of SJC. In other words there is a wide open revolving door between the highest levels of the governing bodies and the clergy.

The government is made up of the President and his cabinet of ministers with limited executive powers. The legislative powers are at the hands of the Majlis deputies. The members’ candidacy is vetted and approved by the GC and then are elected by the people. All legislation voted by the Majlis has to be approved by the GC and the Supreme leader before it becomes the law of the land.

The Shiite clerics that reach the apex of the hierarchy and the exalted ranks of Ayatollahs and Grand Ayatollahs go through an extremely rigorous process of selection and education with a steep pyramidal system. The education requires a lifetime of study in various seminaries usually adjacent to a holy shrine like Qom or Najaf. The final goal of each student is to attain the position of an Ayatollah but only few reach it. The process requires the students or Talabehs to go through a rigorous and frugal life style and tough study program paid for by the budget provided to the Ayatollah responsible for the seminary.

All Shiites including the Grand Ayatollahs are religiously bound to have an Ayatollah as their personal sources of emulation in all matters of their lives. Ayatollahs as a group, are called Maraaj’e, literally translated; the source of emulation or Mentors. The most prominent recent example of these personalities and their influence in the running of their flock is Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the role he played in the course that post occupation Iraq has followed.

As entrance to the religious schools and seminaries are open to the general public, advancement is entirely personal; therefore creation of a hereditary elitism or aristocracy of the incumbents is practically impossible. The slow process of ascension in the system may take up to 40 years. The system of progression is not unlike Catholicism however, the greatest difference is the positive ratio of wealth and glitter to the elevation of status in the Catholic Church compared to the negative one amongst the Shiite clergy. The higher an Ayatollah climbs the more his life style is marked by simplicity and abject frugality, especially amongst the Grand Ayatollahs. Another point of difference is that contrary to the Catholicism or the Anglican Church where there is only one Pope or one Archbishop at any given time, in the Shiite sect there are several contemporary Grand Ayatollahs with competing undesignated spheres of influence each comparable if not equal to the other. The Shiite clerics keep a direct and constant contact with their flock by living amongst them and through their particular life style. Throughout history, they have often championed the cause of the people on their conflicts with the secular powers. However following an age old unwritten mutual contract, the secular powers have spread their influence over the masses through the power of the clergy. On occasions, the clergy have successfully challenged kings and sultans while in case of the reverse, it has invariably ended in the detriment of the secular powers. A good example of all characteristics named above is the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Although, during his own lifetime, he reached the apex of power, toppled one of the oldest monarchies in the world, and replaced a ruler, he wore the simplicity and frugality of his life and later his office as a badge of honor.  He is the manifestation of the power of the Shiite clerics and the pivotal role they play in the relationship between the secular powers and the populace.

Financially the clerical organization is a self-sustaining independent system. The faithful provide the cost of the running of the system by taxes regulated by the Koran. These taxes are irrespective of the revenues paid to the State. Theoretically  Islamic religious taxes amount to a one time Estate Tax equal to 1/5th of any persons estimated wealth and an annual 1/7th income tax. Revenues are paid to the Imam of the local mosques, which after deduction of the expenses of the local network are sent to the Grand Ayatollah who is the accepted Marja’a (source of emulation) of the area. The Grand Ayatollah then decides on the further distribution of the funds. As the revenues are calculated and paid voluntarily by the individuals personally, the collected revenues are an irrepressible and uncontrollable source of income. In other words, the source, the amount, and the end use of the funds are not controllable by any extent of imagination or any outside authority. Considering the number of the faithful and assuming that only practicing believers abide by these taxation laws, the sums collected are still staggering. It also is representative of the strength of the network and the extent of social influence of the Shiite religious establishment. The only factor that plays the role of the checks and balances and prevents concentration of excessive power in one person, eliminating emergence of personal cults is the plurality of Grand Ayatollahs. Depending on the extent of the sphere of influence, powers of each individual Grand Ayatollah is varied. This constitutes a natural flaw in the system and becomes the source of bitter rivalries and behind the scenes backstabbing.

The long and arduous training period of over 40 years for the top clerics, as well as educating them in the fundamentals of the religion, it also provides them with all the tricks of the trade for diplomacy, clean and dirty politics, conspiracies, and the techniques of infighting and eventually doing away with the rivals. History shows that in conflicts between the clerics themselves, almost no holds are barred. If the use of conspiracies, rumor mongering and other less violent techniques are not sufficient to bring the opponent to his knees, the use of thugs and club wielders and in modern times Kalashnikovs and suicide bombers may enter the arena. Thus, Machiavellian mannerism is an integral part of life of the Shiite clerics. In other words, this long and protracted system of training turns them into extremely competent politicians and adversaries with a thorough knowledge of Real-Politics. These characters become most unassailable if one takes into account, the source of the power they wield; it is not granted by man but ordained by God.

It is through these methods that the present Iranian regime has not only succeeded in strangulation of its secular opponents but also has alienated and disarmed the clerical sources of opposition and objection.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the present Iranian Supreme Leader, the virtual source of power and the man who has a finger on the proverbial button and by many is considered to be a Pragmatist mullah, has been through this educational mill and under his benevolent spiritual surface lies a reactionary hardliner. If in the past, he has ever demonstrated any leniency and relinquished some of the restrictions dictated by the Shiite laws, the compromise has been a temporary measure and has been carried out under duress. Ordinarily the decisions have been made for the preservation and good of the theocratic dominance and maintenance of hold of the clerics to the seat of power.

The theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic although on the surface fragmented and polycentric, is a self-preserving and disciplined organization. The regime and its supporting structures are well aware of their public unpopularity. The system is run in a manner that totally excludes any form of outside control or accountability in a country that is relatively wealthy. The elite manage and distribute the country’s wealth and only a small portion seeps down into the society on an according to the need basis. Naturally this type of governance invites corruption. The true followers are rewarded handsomely and the ultimate qualification for becoming included in the inner circle is absolute loyalty. A significant character of the regime is its nepotism where the ruling elite including those who play the role of the opposition are related to one another by blood or by marriage. Ayatollah Khatami, The former reformist president was a close relative of both Ayatollah Khomeini the founder of the republic and Ali Khamenei the present Supreme Leader. Regime’s response in dealing with unauthorized opposition does not spare anyone including the clergy. Clerics like Grand Ayatollah Shari’atmadaari, and Taleghani were two early victims of the regime while Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, the heir apparent to Ayatollah Khomeini has been in house arrest for over 10 years. To discourage opposition the punishments of the dissidents extends beyond the opponents and include his extended family and friends. The combined character of rewarding the followers handsomely and crushing the opposition ruthlessly has created a suffocating atmosphere of subservience that makes any meaningful and effective opposition impossible. However this Machiavellian system of governance is not unique to the Iranian regime. Writing about the lessons learnt form the Cold War Paul Wolfowitz the Assistant Secretary of Defense (2000=2004) recommends; ”….demonstrating that your friends will be protected and taken care of, that your enemies will be punished and that those who refuse to support you will live to regret having done so.

The System of Governance
Like any other country of its size and population a formally structured government runs Iran. The republic has an executive branch headed by the president. The legislative section is the house of deputies called Majlis. The deputies are elected by the people and although the candidates are vetted and selected by the GC, the bills passed by the Majlis do not automatically become law unless approved by the GC,

The Executive branch has no real authority in enforcing decisions beyond running the ordinary daily affairs of the country. The Supreme Leader, in reality is the only person who has the final say in all the major decisions especially matters related to the security and stability of the regime and realm.

For this obvious reason, the presidents of the republic are regarded as the mere lackeys of the Supreme Leader and their public statements regarding national or international polity are to be taken with a fistful of salt unless acting as a feeler or a mouthpiece, leaving room for the Supreme Leader’s eventual change of mind and retraction of a certain policy. A good example for this fact is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statements regarding the Iranian foreign policy towards Israel and the US. The Supreme Leader Khamenei has tacitly and once openly in 2003 declared his willingness to negotiate with the US and recognize Israel.

Revolutionary Guards and Basijis
Due to the strong ties between the Iranian Armed Forces especially the top brass and the Shah/US establishment, the present regime has never trusted the military from the beginning of their rule. Initially the regime tried to eliminate the Regular Armed Forces by ruthless purges, imprisonment, and executions. However, the Iraq war stopped them cold in their madness and the army, air force and the navy had to be sanctified, and deployed to dam the flood. Unfortunately, even the great show of loyalty and the superb performance of the armed forces did not save them from the continued animosity of the regime. During the post-war years the military has lost its pivotal role and been replaced by a force with absolute and unshakable loyalty to the regime. The new force consists of a regular military and a civilian irregular force. The military part is called the Army of Guardians of the Islamic Revolution or simply Revolutionary Guards (RG). The civilian irregular affiliate is called the Basij Corps. The initial command structure for RG was created in Lebanon where the Resistance groups to the Shah’s regime had formed, trained, and was waiting to enter Iran.

Strangely, the training and management of the RG is copied from those of any of the ideologically based military forces. The structure and training is on line with the ideological training tactics of the German SS. It is formed with the same type of selection, ideological persuasion, and training. RG consists of a section responsible for domestic issues and the other, similar to Wafen SS, responsible for the purely military tasks. This type of organization and selectivity of operations were practiced to perfection during the Iran-Iraq war years.

Military service is mandatory for men in Iran. RG is a selective-voluntary force. Members of the Guard are recruited either from the volunteers with strong family allegiance to the regime or are cherry picked amongst the conscripted. The basis for entrance, which is tested rigorously, is an almost blind ideological devotion to the principles of the Islamic Republic. Strengthening the latter and further indoctrination makes up a fundamental part of the training of the Guards. So far, the regime has not neglected arming the Guard with whatever modern weaponry that it has been able to acquire legally or through open or clandestine arms deals.

In anticipation of the danger of probable foreign attacks against the country and considering the fact that the regime has no intention of any offensive warfare, the weaponry and type of the training is built upon the principles of a defense force with special emphasis on the guerilla type urban warfare. Experts believe that their armament is not up to the par with the military forces of the modern industrial countries. However, what the Guards lack in the modernity of weapons and armaments, they substitute it with a blind faith in a religious ideology that makes them an adversary to contend with. The RG and their tactics have been re-exported to Lebanon and are used by the Hezbollah militias. During the recent conflict, the performance of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon was a demonstration of these capabilities.

The RG has its own type of Navy and Air Force which is adapted to its requirements. Basij, the civilian or irregular branch that resemble the Hitler Jugend are armed, as well as their belief, with clubs and Kalashnikov. Basijis who started as the teenaged canon fodder with keys to paradise around their necks are nowadays used for the suppression of the internal opposition and are called upon for enforcement of the regime’s extralegal intentions. The influence of the RG does not end with the military matters. Its former and retired members like the retired military of all nations, engage in civilian and political activities. Gradually the names of the former RG officers and commanders are cropping up in almost all levels of the Iranian society including the highest seats of power. President Ahmadinejad is a former RG officer. They are even populating the ranks of the opposition to the regime and dissidents abroad. Mr. Mohsen Sazegara, one of the founders of the RG has managed to include himself amongst the hopefuls like Prince Reza Pahlavi son of the former Shah of Iran and Mr. Hossein Khomeini, the grandson of late Ayatollah Khomeini all being hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, AEI.

Concentration of power in the hands of the R G is a rapidly developing phenomenon in the Iranian political scene. The Guards, who earlier used to be guided, supported and led by the Supreme Leader, are gradually forming their own power center and in an inconspicuous or open fashion express their wishes and draw the lines. These expressions have certain unexpected consequences that are not always foreseen by those occupying the seats of power. This new center has added yet another element to the existing power centers in Iran and has increased the confusion of the pundits debating on the matters related to Iran. Understanding of the role and the goals of this close- knit fanatical group, who often have fought shoulder to shoulder in the trenches of the Iraq War, is an essential element in all calculations related to the political fabric of Iran. Their reaction to any proposal should be taken into account in all equations.

The above named groups make up the power structure and the outward appearance of the regime. The fundaments of regime’s power rests upon the masses supporting them in the urban and rural populations who have benefited most since the takeover of the regime. Provision of amenities, basic education, health care, relative improvement in their economy and the most important, a strong sense of Class Power provide these masses with sufficient incentive to support and provide fodder for the force necessary to defend the regime. This body makes up the majority of the population of the country.

The Fault Lines
One of the major achievements of the previous regime was creation and strengthening of the Middle Classes that made up the bureaucratic fabric of the country. It was the disenfranchisement and disillusionment of this class with the former regime that led to the latter’s downfall. In the early days of revolution and shortly thereafter the middle class constituted the engine of the revolution and provided it with the know-how that prevented a total chaos after its success. Realizing the potential power and the laic nature of the class, the regime gradually reduced its powers by a crippling inflation and the divergent curves of income versus living costs. Thus, faced with a constant battle for survival the middle class has turned into an inefficient bystander in the political scene of the country.

Likewise, the potential power attributed to the younger generations of the country is exaggerated. Those of the youth that are educated and have proper connection to the financial, political, and clerical elite, have their umbilical cord attached to the regime and would not be likely to cut the branch they are sitting on. Those less educated, traditionally join the ranks and files of the faithful who historically are attached to the clerical system. These are the bodies that form the Basijis  or fill the lines of demonstrations and prayer rallies ordered by the regime for various purposes in the times of need. However, the vast majority of the educated youth with no connections to the elite joins the multitude of the middle class or the unemployed and become engaged in the daily struggle of survival.

The number of youth with extended stay in the parental home is quite high. This group includes mainly the educated unaffiliated youth with high expectations. Unemployment and its consequences are partly camouflaged by the working parents who continue supporting their offspring as long as it takes. The consequence of this extended support is trading of political volatility expected from the youth with the conservatism of the elderly needing stability for survival. One of Ahmadinejad’s election vows, “The Marriage Allowance”, was the grant of financial assistance to the youth who wanted to leave the parental home and start their own.

The most destructive affliction of the unemployed youth is the ease of availability and extensive use of narcotic drugs. Production, use, and distribution of narcotic drugs have skyrocketed during the reign of the present regime. Western style youth culture introduced by the unchecked flow of information through satellite television and internet, combined with unemployment, poverty, easily available drugs and extreme disparity of wealth is a volatile mix that creates its deadly byproducts. Ironically, prostitution in the Islamic Republic has mushroomed to a degree where it has lost its social stigma. Young women are particularly vulnerable. Periodically wrath of the regime descend upon the unfortunate victims. Attacks of hordes of motorcycle riding club-wielding Basijis move them temporarily underground to reappear in even larger numbers shortly afterwards. This apparent lack of success to eliminate drug abuse and prostitution compared with the success achieved in the almost complete suppression of the political opposition seems surprising. However, it is rumored that the regime uses the afflictions of the youth to its own advantage and would rather keep the youth busy with these –in their view — harmless aversions rather than having them poke their noses in the affairs of the state.

The staggering inflation and the severe disparity between the incomes and the high living costs is a stark reality in Iran today. This reality is synergized by the pretentious show of wealth by those inside the inner circle and their associates and families. This is a clear manifestation of the runaway corruption in the country and a constant national bone of contention. This problem is unique to Iranians because of a peculiar national trait. Contrary to the other autocratic and corrupt societies where the elite live in their own closed communities, Iranians are open, and extrovert people not reluctant to flaunt their wealth.

In the past 27 years, since the ascendancy of the Iranian Ayatollahs to the seat of absolute power, the life style and the status of the clerics have undergone a dramatic change. The windfall of the riches afforded them by the positions they hold has made them rich beyond any extent of imagination. Their actions to spread the so called Islamic Justice and the harsh treatment of the opposition have also alienated them from the ordinary people of the street creating considerable measures of threats to them and their families. These factors have inevitably and increasingly distanced and subsequently separated them from their roots and their traditional power base, the grassroots. As a result they have metamorphosed into the shape and behavior of the autocrats they have opposed for centuries. Simply put the mullahs, intoxicated by the riches and through separation from the masses they once represented, have lost the tools of their trade.  

Iranian society, like many other developing countries, accepts a small dose of corruption for support of the daily life. People know first hand that their official wages cover only a portion of the expenses for a frugal daily living. The rate of inflation and the price of commodities combined with the snail pace of adjustment of the wages with the living costs are not compatible with an honest one, or even two-salaried life. It is the massive official corruption for the support of the extravagant and mind-boggling luxuries of a few that has become a thorn on the side of the public. The manifest extravagance and luxurious life of a few is not comparable even with the jet- setter styles of the heady days of the Shahs regime. This is especially conspicuous when it is the traditionally, seemingly poor clergy and their followers and supporters that practice this luxurious unparalleled extravaganza. The people also blame this manifest corruption on foreign business partners of the Iranian officials and accuse them to be as guilty as the men in power. This factor adds to the xenophobia, propagated strangely enough by the mullahs themselves. 

 The regime is well aware of the rampant corruption of its own creation and has tried to put a stop to it without much success. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon and a sign of national discontent against the show of extravaganza by the “Haves” is the election of Ahmadinejad who is a veteran of Iraq war, a down to earth populist, an unassuming, and a seemingly frugal man by the “Have Not”. As the corruption is deep-rooted and is extremely widespread, Even Ahamdinejad’s efforts to eliminate or at least curb the problem have been ineffective. To mask this inability the president has taken refuge in creating issues that are inflammatory, tinted with demagogy and of a nature not possible to measure. His insistence on Iran’s nuclear program, comments on Israel and further international agitations are smoke screens and are intended to muddy the waters of his so far unsuccessful internal policies.

The factors named above may turn out to be the Achilles heel of the regime. Meanwhile the rather simplistic and uninformed western description of the complex structure of the Iranian political scene and the imaginary fault lines described by the pundits are dangerous tools in the hands of the politicians and diplomats dealing with Iran. As mentioned, the complex interdependency of the fabric of Iranian regime, past and present, or the relationships and connections of apparent supporters and opponents of the regime makes their classification in western terms difficult if not impossible. Mr. Rafsanjani, the former president of the republic and the present head of the Expediency Council is named to be the head of the so-called pragmatists. The Supreme Leader Khamenei is in the surface a hardliner; but in reality he is a weight on the scale, to balance the excesses of both sides.

The so-called reformists are made up of a loose group of people that each for reasons of their own opposes the rulers of the day. They all are aware that the causes of the present problems of Iran are not the temporary occupants of the seats of the executive branch but the idea of the “supremacy of the theocrat”, Velayate Faghih.  Temporary and loosely connected opposition groups form prior to each election and melt away soon after. Some, especially those that have been driven out from the power, not only are not part of the solution but are the cause. Some vivid examples include Ayatollah Karroubi the former speaker of Majlis, and Mr. Behzad Nabavi, the former minister of heavy industries. Both are known to be corrupt to the core. To this group also belong people like the cleric; Moosavi Kho’einiha with the nickname of “Executioner Mullah”. He is one of the revolutionary prosecutors responsible for elimination of countless numbers of innocents and dissidents. Rafsanjani the Pragmatist is listed in the Fortune 500 magazine as one of the few richest men in the world. Prior to revolution he was a member of a small town pistachio farming family who had turned to become a cleric. He and his family’s present fortune is well beyond the salaries received from their civil service and are suspected to be fringe benefits of the positions they held during Mr. Rafsanjani’s term of office. Mr. Rafsanjani entered the latest presidential elections as a reformist and a pragmatist. He even managed to get into the run up election with Mr. Ahmadinejad. The people rewarded him for his overt corruption by preferring his rival.

What to Do?
In the British government, a seat is reserved for someone who occupies the chair of the Permanent Undersecretary of any given department. These persons, who rarely change, are responsible for the continuity of the basic policies of the realm that do not alter appreciably by the changes inside a particular government or the change of the governing party. Unfortunately, these posts or anything similar to them are not predicted in the structure of the US government. The direct result is that the policies are to be resolved in the span of a president’s term of office, which in realistic terms is quite short. Therefore, chronic and long standing problems like the Palestinian problem or the Iran question is treated in jerky, temporary and a need to act manner. The inevitable result of his mode of operation is the present state of affairs. 

Resolution of the Iranian question has several major and essential parts that have to be recognized and addressed accordingly. The first item in the agenda is to understand the fact that the Iranian problem is a slow process and cannot be solved in a term of office of any party or president. Short term solutions have been applied, for instance during the Eisenhower /John Foster Dulles term of office, leading to a coup d’état, overthrow of a democratically elected government and the following disastrous results.   Another essential fact is that no matter how the media pundits and some politician in the US try to present “the Iranian Problem” as a conflict between East and West or a Clash of Civilizations and Cultures, deep down it is nothing but a series of rather unfortunate but unresolved and spiraling disputes between the United States and Iran. Each country has its own rightful grievances, each demanding vindication of sorts. These grievances have been continuously aggravated and exacerbated by the events and by ignorance or by people with malicious intentions. A perfect example is the recent court order to confiscate and sell the several thousand years Iranian antiquities lent out by the Government of Iran to the University of Chicago. The aim is to pay for the damages to the families of the victims of a bombing perpetrated by Hammas in Israel, allegedly supported by Iran. Another example is the rumor propagated by a certain newspaper regarding Mr. Ahmadinejad’s decree forcing Iranian minorities to wear identification badges similar to the yellow Jewish star of the Nazi era. The allegation proved to be so outrageous and distasteful that both the culprit newspaper and the State Department repudiated the report, only after it had been blown to extreme proportions by the scandal seeking, news hungry media. The result of these actions and negative propaganda, backfire producing an opposite reaction amongst Iranians and providing the regime with the much needed and undeserved support. As a result, these mostly unintended but sometimes malicious acts produce an escalation of the grievances and fulfill the ill intentions of those with the agenda of keeping the two nations apart.  

Iran, the US and Israel
It is of paramount importance to understand that any discussion of politics in the Middle East including Iran is neither accurate nor complete if the role and effect of the Jews as an ethnic group and Israel as a Jewish State is not taken into account. It is also important to note that unlike the US, where the Jewish faith and the State of Israel are intertwined, the view of the people of the region towards the people of Jewish faith living amongst them for centuries is quite different from their views on the State of Israel. On the other hand, no matter how unfair it may sound, it is argued that as Israel is a democratic state and the governments of a democratic country are elected by the people of that country, the people of Israel are collectively responsible for the actions of their government. Obviously this belief does not imply that the all Jews are responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. The whole point of discussion is that as it has been said often enough it is important to re-emphasize that being against the actions of the Israeli government doest not by any mean anti-Semitism.

For centuries and ever since Cyrus the Great, Mordechai and Sarah, Jews in Iran have enjoyed a peaceful coexistence with the Iranians. They are regarded as Iranian and Jews at the same order of preference. This is proved time and again by deeds and not by rhetoric. During the terrible years of Holocaust, when the rest of the world had allowed its conscience to take a 5 years long nap, members of the Iranian Diplomatic Corps persuaded The Vichy regime in France to accept that the Iranian Jews were Aryans of Jewish belief and the Iranian Chargé d’affair in Berlin issued hundreds of Iranian passport for the Jews in Berlin. They are the unsung heroes and unrecognized Schindlers and are well known and loved by the Iranian Jews. Hospitality shown by the Iranians to the Polish and Czechoslovak Jews escaping the Nazi atrocities in their own countries traveling through Iran during WWII has not been forgotten by those who survived the ordeal.

Until 1976 Iran’s relationship with the State of Israel was cordial and friendly. Prior to the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt, Iran was the only Islamic country that had established diplomatic ties and extensive coöperation with Israel. The coöperation extended to the training of the air force personnel and members of security forces as well as a wide array of financial and construction projects. SAVAK, the Shah’s infamous security police and Mossad, the Israeli secret service had close ties and exchanged information and training techniques freely. This close relationship and mutual cordiality started to wear thin after the Camp David Agreement. Israelis began to withhold certain information vital to the security of the Shah’s regime about the upcoming unrests leading to the overthrow of the Shah. Israel had somehow obtained the tightly held secret of the Shah’s little known fatal illness. This knowledge combined with the fact that the Shah’s government had not sufficiently prepared the country and especially the monarchy for a life after the Shah, was not comforting. Simply put the regime’s suppression of political education and activities leading to establishment of a viable political system backed by the people of Iran were sounding the alarm bells in the corridors of corridors of power in Israel. Israel was getting prepared to loose a friend and fend for itself. However, Israeli politicians understood that the collapse of the regime in Iran was not all bad news for Israel. Israel was aware that the collapse of Iran Israel would become the sole Client State of the US in the region. This was a lifetime opportunity that would not escape the insightful Israeli politicians.

While Iran was at the throes of a revolution, Israel was hurriedly preparing the groundwork to establish and hold this unique and enviable position in the region. Because of the precarious geological situation of Israel in the region this was considered to be a legitimate ambition. Israelis were aware that the other US allies in the region i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan were not reliable or competent enough to neither vie for the position nor be of any assistance if the need arose. To put the idea in a nut shell, Israel’s ultimate goal was to make her own security appears to be concomitant with the security of the US and become the sole partner and guardian of US interests in the region. This was a major and fundamental shift in the role of Israel and the political landscape of the region.

As time would show, by succeeding in her aims, Israel would be able to push the US foreign policy to her side to an unprecedented degree. To maintain this strategy Israel would not hesitate to use any means including strong arm tactics, even on the US soil, including political action lobbies, political bribery, electioneering blackmail and even espionage against the US. As a result the US would be forced to engage all its political, financial and military might to support the state of Israel. This would ultimately push forward the ultimate Israeli goals laid down by the Zionist founders of the country; Expansion of their country to the boundaries of the historical Israel.

After the Iranian Revolution and disappearance of a heavily depended ally, the US was left practically*** blind and deaf. It was particularly true in case of happenings inside Iran and for that matter the areas including the southern regions of USSR and Afghanistan. As the US spy satellites did not cover the area yet the US had to rely solely on the intelligence provided by Israel with its limited local capability especially inside the USSR.  The direct result of this lack of intelligence was the surprise Russian occupation of Afghanistan. After the formation of the Revolutionary government in Iran and its show of hostility towards Israel, especially after the Hostage Crisis, Israel was in full control succeeding to persuade the US foreign policy planners to use Iraq as the most effective antidote against the Revolutionary Iran, the enemy of the US and Israel.  Persuading Saddam Hussein, with promises of direct and indirect from the US, proved not to be too difficult. He was still stinging from the humility he had suffered in the Algiers Conference in 1975 at the hands of the Shah by being forced to abandon Iraqi claims to the shipping rights in the Shatt al Arab, the waterway that provides Iraq its only access to the Persian Gulf and constitutes the border between Iran and Iraq. Assuming that he would never find the old enemy in more chaotic and disarrayed condition, Saddam was more than eager to oblige.

With this plan Israel intended to kill two birds with one shot; by keeping the two major and most populous nations of the region busy with one another it would commit them to bleed each other as long as possible and eventually reduce or eliminate any future threats to Israel from one or both countries. To make the playing field even, and drag the conflict as long as possible, Israel’s earliest direct involvement in the conflict was elimination of Iraq’s possible future nuclear capability by destroying OSIRAK, the Iraqi atomic reactor. The next step was persuading the Regan Administration to supply arms Friends and supporters who were playing on behalf of Israel in the Regan Administration are all familiar names: Dick Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul Wolflowitz, and the incoming Secretary of Defense, Robert Gate. Curiously enough, at the time Israel was one of the handfuls of suppliers of military arsenal to Iran, against the blockade placed on her by the US and the rest of the International community following the hostage crisis. This was a win, win strategy as not only it helped Israel to achieve its goals; it also provided her with the much needed cash from the oil revenues earned by Iran.

Ever since, by control of the US foreign policy in the region, Israel has managed to increase the dependency of America on her own position in the region. She has also received increasing amounts of financial and military aid from the US. In spite of regional and international objections to its misdemeanors, Israel has driven the US into embarrassing situations and acquired free hands in the treatment of the people of the occupied territories. Consequently the US has used the greatest number of her Veto powers in the UN to protect Israel, and has paid the price by being at the receiving end of the animosity of the Arab and probably the Moslem world. The latest Veto by the US in the UN Security Council sanctioning Israel for the shelling of civilian homes, resulting in killing of 18 civilians, despite the fact that even Israel has admitted to committing the atrocity has angered the Moslem community the world over. Mr. Kofee Annan, Secretary General of the UN has endorsed the warnings of a group of experts on Palestinian problem as the root cause of the present conflicts between Moslems and the West is significant. Some even assert that even the events of 911, could have been avoided if the US had not been involved in this conflict in such a lopsided manner.

This practical domination of the US foreign policy has been achieved by deep penetration of Israelophiles into the vital organs of the US administration: the Congress; the White House; the State and the Defense Departments during the past two decades (see Mearesheimer & Walt’s paper on the subject). The most conspicuous Israelophiles in the departments of the State and Defense are people like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Frum, opinion builders like Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, PNAC (Project for the New American Century) director Gary Schmitt, and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace analyst Robert Kagan, think tanks like AEI and lobbying groups such as AIPAC. Most of these men are believed to have dual citizenship of Israel and US and have been around the policy making institutions since the conception of the idea during the Regan presidency. They are assisted by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and several members of the Congress. Israel has achieved its goals by the use of lobbying, disinformation, large contributions during elections and pure political manipulation of both parties. One of the major aims of Israel and Israelophiles is to work diligently to keep the US-Iranian relationship as frigid as possible. Where by chance or by design the US-Iran relationship has been discussed without the knowledge of Israelophiles, the group have obtained the information through espionage against the US. It is even believed that the recent war on Iraq was originally planned to be the first step of occupation of Iran. However indiscretions committed by Israel, bombardment and killings of civilians in Lebanon, West Bank and the Gaza strip are embarrassing and increasingly putting the US in indefensible diplomatic spots. The recurring and increasingly lame excuses offered, are causing discussions even in the captured and rather intimidated main stream media and the people of the United States. It is encouraging the media to start questioning the wisdom of the blind support of Israel. Even some politicians are paying the price of their close attachment to the Israel lobby. The recent disastrous defeat of Senator Rick Santorum, the third ranking member of the Republican Party hierarchy and the loudest defender of the Israeli policies by a little known democrat are indications not to be ignored.

These suggestions may sound far fetched, conspiratorial and right out paranoid but the course of events and a cursory look at the headlines of the past few months makes these theories easier to fathom. For these reasons, as long as Israel continues to have a stranglehold on the US foreign policy, all US-Iran relations, meetings and discussions must be carried out by people and parties than have a clean slate and have proved to be impartial with no interests other than that of the two nations.

Iran’s  role in the political arena
The following features grant Iran and Iranians an important geographic and political role in the international scene;

  • Largest individual coastline in the Caspian Sea;
  • Strategic location on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hurmoz, which are vital maritime pathways for the 25% of the world’s crude oil transport;
  • The second largest oil and probably the largest known natural gas reserves in the world;
  • Ample supplies of Uranium ( yellow cake) inside the country;
  • Leader and spiritual home of the Shiite sect in the world
  • A population of almost 70 millions with a literacy rate of close to 90%, and highest mean level of education in general population, comparable to that of Israel
  • Homogenous ethnicity compared with neighboring countries in spite of the false publicity to the contrary;
  • Economic self sufficiency partly by means of access to enormous supplies of oil and natural gas.
  • Presence of successful and well educated Diaspora spread all over the world with awareness and dedication to their heritage, regardless of their ethnic or religious background, location or citizenship

In view of these facts ignoring a self supporting Iran, with a large educated population, a homogenous non-aggressive country in good standing with the people of the region, a supporting Big Brother figure for the lesser but no less important states in the region, feared and at the same time respected by the neighbors, straddling the two most important oil rich areas of the world is parallel to the same treatment China received until president Nixon reversed the behavior. With the named potentials, Iran has the capability to become a suitable partner for any global power, seeking influence in this uniquely important region. The fact that another power pole, the Shanghai Group — at least economically if not militarily — is flirting with the idea is evidently clear. This is a fact that is recognized by the Western Allies of the US, especially by the Europeans.

Unfortunately, at this crucial and pivotal moment, the US polity is being coerced to turn a blind eye to this fact most probably by the Israelophiles in the administration, and the state of Israel through the influence of the Israel Lobbies in the US. This is witnessed by the fact that in the past few months, especially since the temporary occupation of Lebanon, no Israeli politicians, nor their allies in the US, irrespective of their political affiliation, have missed the opportunity of Iran-bashing in their appearances in the media. Their audacity in inserting distorted truth, half lies and misinformation in their statements is astonishing. Even the thought of any US-Iranian rapprochement drives most Israeli politicians and Israelophiles in Washington into a frantic state.  It seems that any prospect of a thaw in the US-Iran relations is a state that has to be prevented by all means. What is forgotten is the support that Iran has afforded Israel in the past. During the short period of existence of the Israeli State, Iran is the only Moslem country to have had a friendly relation with her and supported her at the time of her most dire need. Iranian support during the Yom Kippur/Ramadan war is a good example of this fact. The harm done by the present short-sighted actions of those in charge of the US-Israel-Iranian relations is harmful to all three countries especially to the long term interests of the State of Israel. This fact is well recognized by the non-Zionist Israeli intellectuals and those who believe in an Israel that wishes to survive in a potentially hostile environment. Due to the centuries old friendly relationship and co-existence between the Iranians and Jews, a return to this state is what is desirable for both people. Governments come and go however lasting relationships are made by the People.  The Iranian community in Los Angeles, a microcosm of Iran as such, is the perfect example of this claim. The main economical pillar of the Iranian Diaspora in Los Angeles is made up of Iranian Jewish immigrants who strongly support the Iranian traditions, culture and structure.

Developments of the recent past like the fall of the Soviet Empire and fragmentation in the political structure of the Central Asia, the predictable increase in the needs of the energy requirements of the eastern half of the world, peaking of the easily obtainable and cheap central Asian-Middle Eastern oil and the inevitable US failure in domination and subjugation of Iraq has brought about new realities. The Tehran regime clearly realizes that the present US administration has decided to disregard the articles of the Algiers Treaty, signed following the release of the hostages. In the agreement the US undertakes to adopt a policy whereby it abstains from any attempt to overthrow the Iranian regime. The use of Regime Change rhetoric by the present administration, holding day-long conferences at its political mouth pieces like American Enterprise Institute, passage of bills in both houses of Congress against Iran, creation of dedicated budgets to finance efforts against Iran, and recent open threats in the use of military force including Nuclear bombs have forced the Iranian regime to adopt countermeasures against these serious threats. The fate of Saddam regime after suffering years of sanctions in spite of compliance with the UN resolutions and his obeying practically all the US demands, compared with the North Korea, has taught Iran the inevitable lesson.

The scenario would have been entirely different if the US had succeeded in the Iraq campaign. Obvious evidence to this truth is the Iranian approach to the US in 2003 where the Supreme Leader suggested a normalization of relations with the US, resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue and recognition of the state of Israel. This was a clear sign of the Tehran Regime’s fear from the eventual extension of the conflict to Iran. Neocons did not hesitate to announce to announce these intentions from the rooftops and in their publications including detailed military plans on how and where to attack Iran in a recent issue of the New Republic Magazine. The combination of the arrogance created by the initial military advances and the influence of the Israelophile neocons in the administration succeeded in neglecting this approach by Iran and keeping Iran and the US at an arms length. However the present situation has changed the game plan dramatically. Even the neocons, like Perle, Feith, Adelman are trying to cut the losses, abandon their previous masters ( see interview in Vanity Fair, November 2006) who played into their hands. Relying of the short memory of the people, they are changing horses to join the anti war wave carrying Democrats to victory in the mid-term US elections to follow their own aims under a new roof. Richard Perle who had gone in hiding is featuring in various talk show, ironically the ones with leftist tendencies.

Threats from the US and the presence of 135,000 American troops, the air force bases and the naval fleets in the vicinity during the past 3 years has given the Iranians ample warning to prepare and get ready. They obviously know that they are by no means capable to prevent the eventual hellfire brought upon them by a US air strike. They are making sure that they at least will be able to make life extremely difficult for the troops on the ground inside Iran and for that matter, in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever else the US interests may be.

A foolish and arrogant attempt in use of force in behest of the biased people inside the administration with agendas of their own might create the Achilles heel of the US interests in the region. Its dire consequences which will involve all of the Western powers may alter the future course of the history. These threats and eventually acting upon them may lead the world to face another polarization of the powers, this time with the bulk of the energy supplies and the number of population tipping the balance eastward.

The art of diplomacy is the ability for compromise, flexibility, hard work and true dedication to finding the root cause of the problems one intends to solve. Impartiality is the ultimate quality of an acceptable and efficient intermediary. Selection and appointment of these key elements is the undisputed duty of the patrons of the involved parties in the conflict, if resolution of the problem is really intended. This duty falls heavier on the shoulders of the party that is holding the stronger hand, in this case the United States. Unfortunately, so far the US has not played the role of an impartial intermediary in the resolution of the problems of the Middle East. A cursory look at the list of intermediaries in the Palestinian- Israeli conflict shows that except for Senator George Mitchell, the rest of those acting on behalf of the US or generally as intermediaries have all been Jewish. No matter how impartial they have tried to act, their faith has made acceptance of their impartiality an impossible task from the Arab point of view. Even in the Iranian conflict the responsibility has so far been carried by people who have had more interest in satisfying the immediate shortsighted goals of their superiors than willingness to find and address the mutual interests of both nations.

In my belief, and as all handbooks in the conflict resolution techniques recommend, the first objective in the resolution of the problem would have to be to find and reveal the points that are of mutual interest for the two parties in the conflict rather than concentrating on the points of their differences. The next obvious step would be to weed out the elements feeding the causes of the conflict or throwing obstacles on the way. This is not an easy task. The US-Iran conflict has been going on for nearly 30 years. The roots of the conflict may be deeply bedded and covered in the dust of history, but the weeding to clean out the outside interests and remove the elements that do not represent the mutual interests of the two nations is the initial step. A closer look at the common regional and international interests of the two nations is their striking similarity. Iran and the US have great overlapping areas of interest in the Middle East. Naturally, since the take over of the US Embassy in Tehran, the Tehran regime is considered a hostile one by the US governments. As a mark of its displeasure, the US government has labeled the regime autocratic, undemocratic, brutal, abuser of Human Rights, usurper of the rights of women and all other nicknames coined for the opponents of the US, countries like the USSR, Communist China, Cuba and Venezuela and people like Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. On the other hand Iranian regime has a genuine historical fear from the US intervention in the policies of their country. Iranian fears and suspicions are fuelled by US rhetoric about Regime Change and placing Iran in the Axis of Evil. Iranians know that the US has implemented a regime change in Iran before and there is no reason why it might not happen again. In response to the American name callings and behind the scene intrigues Iran respond in her own way by wild demonstrations flag and effigy burnings and calling the US foul names in Iran or by their minions elsewhere in the Middle East.

It is an open secret that openly or discretely, the Iranian regime has suggested direct talks and the US government has bluntly refused the suggestions. The Iranian Regime is aware of the fact that during the past, and even at present, the US has chosen to accept far stranger bedfellows like the Shah of Iran, Suharto of Indonesia, the Saudi Family, Sultan Mohammad of Morocco,  Aliev of Azerbaijan, Mubarak of Egypt and Nazarbeyov of Tajikistan but to name a few.  The US activities in response to the 9/11 attacks by creating black hole prisons, ghost prisoners, kidnappings, torture, spying on US citizens and foreigners alike and elimination of Habeas Corpus, all in the name of National Security, has emboldened Iran and other oppressive regimes to demand the same rights and apply the same excuses in their indiscretions. They feel that the targeted assassination by use of drones legitimizes their use of less sophisticated but as intelligent and as deadly suicide bombers. They both claim civilian lives and call it a Collateral Damage. The new position of the US has brought her to the same level as the countries who are the US partners hosting the victims of Extraordinary Renditions.    

Not sounding as an apologist, in spite of all direct and implied accusations hurled at Iran, the present regime, primarily by force and not by choice, allows a remarkable degree of laxity in the issues concerning the country’s minorities and women far greater than some of the countries named above. Except for the MKO, the militant Islamic Marxist group that has claimed many lives by terrorist activities inside Iran, participated in the Iraq War on the wrong side and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of American citizens and assassinating American Service Men, the theocratic government has cut quite a lax leeway towards other groups. Iran has allowed women’s participation in the electoral process; it has women and minorities amongst the elected members of the parliament, Majlis, with a woman Nobel Prize winner and a Vice President amongst its ranks.

With sufficient effort all the stumbling blocks mentioned above could be removed, if there are good intentions to do so. At least for the show and with the help of the right group of propagandist and a white wash, Iran could look and smell rosier than at least Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Considering the fear of the Iranian regime and their desire for survival at the seat of power, they will go a long way to remove the sword of Damocles from above their head. After the Invasion of Iraq by the US, they knew that the winning cards were stacked in favor of the US, but the situation has changed since. Iranians feel that the playing field is more level and the two sides may start appropriate negotiations. A number of experts including Ali M. Ansari of the St. Andrews University, Scotland and Rey Tekyeh of Council on Foreign Relations have written and explained these facts to the fullest. I believe that the final main object of the exercise for both sides should be to start negotiations aiming to resolve the old and stale differences and allow Iran to return to her pre-revolutionary Partnership status.

These negotiations must allow face saving solutions for both sides. The least one should expect from these contacts would be to:

  • Increase control of the US and her Western allies on the disappearing energy sources,
  • Block the efforts of the emerging Sino, Indian – Russian block from engaging Iran in its ranks,
  • Provide security for the vulnerable oil rich regimes of the region including, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
  • Decrease or remove the threat of Hammas and Hezbollah to Israel,
  • Reduce the present dependency on Israel for protection of the Western interests in the region,
  • Permit the US to have a second source of intelligence from a quarter that is closer to the Islamic Nations and governments of the region,
  • Permit the US to take a firm and internationally defendable stand when Israel crosses the red line and causes deep embarrassment for the US amongst its friends and allies,
  • Use the considerable Iranian influence in calming the Iraq situation,
  • Re-create a solid and rich market for the US industry in Iran,

The instruments to be used for the initial start of these negotiations are the non-aligned, apolitical Iranian Diaspora who have not committed themselves to activities that are considered suspicious by the Iranian regime. They visit their homeland freely and are capable of creating a rapport with the regime. On the American side the State Department has access to a large number of professional diplomats who spent 444 days of their lives in captivity in Iran and naturally established a strong rapport and understanding with their captors. It is important to note that a fair number of the former hostage takers are presently occupying very senior and sensitive posts in the Islamic Republic.

Obviously, this is not going to come cheap, as Iran would have certain demands that have to be negotiated and partially met. Iran’s probable demands may consist of;

  • US guarantee for the security of the regime,
  • Removal of the sanctions imposed on the country mainly by the US,
  • Removal of blocks to Iran’s participation in W.T.O,
  • permission to continue with its nuclear technology program,
  • Recognition of Iran as a major regional power,
  • A seat at all the negotiation tables concerning the region.

Considering the present regional conditions all above demands are logical and acceptable. Some of the conditions have already been achieved. In the words of a new study of Iran's foreign relations by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, “Iran has superseded [the US] as the most influential power in Iraq.” The only sticking point is the Iranian nuclear program. Even this point is in reality not a non-negotiable point as the US has admittedly approved possession of nuclear technology even nuclear weapons by her reliable friends like India, Pakistan and Israel.  So far the Iranians have not yielded to the pressures applied on them to abandon their nuclear technology. They have relied on Russia for the continued construction of Bushehr plant which incidentally was started by Westinghouse in 1970s and China for support in the UN. The alternatives are to continue rejection of the Iranian ambitions and accept their possible annexation to the Shanghai Group. or to drop the objections and join them in developing the technology. Evidently the latter alternative has already been suggested by the Iranians. Considering the US situation in Iraq, the developing wedge between the US and some of her European allies this may not be a bad idea after all. US participation in the development of Iranian nuclear technology would at least allow a close control of the ambitions of the Iranians to hold them to their promise of not developing nuclear weapons. In the meantime it will dispel Israel’s anxiety over the issue, if the anxiety is genuine.

The recent midterm election results and the apparent purge of the neocons, is a hopeful sign. However presence of Vice President Dick Cheney inside the administration and election of the ultra-hawkish Independent Democrat Joseph Liebermann in the senate with his finger on the scale to tip the balance are still worrying. Added to these suspicions is the transfer of the neocons’ center of political gravity and activities from Washington to London. Mr. Richard Perle is now agitating and granting interviews from his London Office. Israelis are rightfully worried and are not certain if they would be able to continue enjoy the same preferred relationship with Mr. Bush’s successor. Especially they are not certain if the next president would be influenced by the Evangelical church who think that “supporting Israel is the Foreign Policy of God” 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s hurried journey to Washington less than one week after the midterm elections is the sign that Israel is worried about its position and will try to preserve it by all means. Talk of a preemptive strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is ripe. Israel is trying to browbeat the US to take the first step but also threatening to strike by itself. Nevertheless, there is a window of opportunity that should be used. One may hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel and the madness of a strike against Iran will be prevented. Iraqi quagmire and the events in Lebanon have clearly demonstrated that military solutions are not viable alternatives especially in the light of the present public mood in the US. No matter how close the relationship, it is the American men and women who put their lives on the line. Israel has not hesitated to cause or allowed attacks on the US and probably would repeat it if she feels threatened or if it would save her strategies. Loss of over 30 US personnel caused by Israeli Air Force planes on the “USS Liberty” an American communication vessel serving in the Mediterranean during the 1967 Six Day war is an example.

It is understandable that these suggestions are probably out of the question for the present Stewards of the realm. However, faced with the new realities in the country they may choose other means of solving problems than by letting loose the dogs of war.  If the diplomatic solutions prevail and it is implemented by the professional diplomats with a thorough knowledge of the region and experience of the Middle East, it may be the path to salvation.

Obviously for the majority of the Iranians and for the Western interests a democratic and stable form of government in Iran would provide the highly desirable stability and reliability needed in the region. It is superfluous to say that any outside intervention or activity for a speedy overthrow of the Tehran regime would prove to be counterproductive. It is essential that introduction of democracy in Iran is best left to the Iranians as democracy is not an unknown and unpracticed phenomenon in the country. Iranians have been fighting for democracy in their country for a century. It is always the foreign interventions that have foiled these efforts. They plead for non-interference this time around.

In view of these facts it seems that time is ripe for the two governments to accept that they have done enough harm to each other since 1978 and allow reconciliatory attempts come between them.

Dr. Zia Ahari is a retired Iranian physician living in Northern California. The views expressed are the author’s and are not the opinions of any political group or party.

Notes
References are in the form of hyperlinks marked with underlined blue text.

*All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. 2003. ISBN 0-471-26517-9.  Stephen Kinzer.

** The Crisis; The President, the prophet and the Shah — 1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam. 2004. ISBN 0-316-32394-2. David Harris.

*** See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism. January 2003. ISBN 140004684X .Robert Baer .

Meet Iranian Singles

Iranian Singles

Recipient Of The Serena Shim Award

Serena Shim Award
Meet your Persian Love Today!
Meet your Persian Love Today!