it is clear that there is a major ideological barrier to real dialogue between iran and the west. mistranslations are common, misunderstanding is encouraged, and it is easy to get the feeling that there is a strategy in place to ensure confusion and animosity instead of goodwill. i tend to see more of this mischief emanating from the west, but that is probably related to the fact that i live here, and it is easier to catch the lies on this side. iran is probably just as guilty.
but there is this one specific western myth that is definitely a big part of the problem: the myth of western ‘rationality’ that presupposes many positive qualities associated with the west and negative ones associated with the east, including iran.
in a different context and time, it would be called racism, but i expect that definition will come later. a bit like how the slave trade was first totally ‘justified’ by religious, racial and other myths, and then later described as ‘racist’. at some point, many westerners believed that their genes or skin colour gave them some sort of spiritual and/or intellectual superiority to other ‘races’, and enslaving people or taking over their countries was more like a favour, a civilizing effect. they sugar-coated this kind of racist self-deception with terminology such as ‘the white man’s burden’, and a host of other ideological justifications. the act of plunder was described as some kind of civilizing mission.
remnants of this kind of mind game remain today in the western discourse on iran. the ordinary american is more likely to see iran and iranians as ‘irrational’ beings who cannot be trusted with a nuclear bomb. but they are a little more subtle than that. knowing full well the racist connotations in openly labeling other countries and cultures as ‘irrational’, they apply further sugar coating by going one step removed and using a term like ‘dangerous’ instead.
if we look out for the terms ‘danger’, ‘threat’ and ‘risk’ in any report or speech on iran by israeli and western media and politicians, it becomes quite clear that the agenda is for the conflict situation to persist – particularly, in the minds of their own citizens. the politicians themselves are fully aware of realities on the ground.
what is this reality? well, we all have our own perceptions, but mine is this:
iran is and has been acting far more rationally than her enemies would like to admit. her priorities have included
– protecting iran and the regime
– challenging the power of israel – a proven regional warmonger – and building alliances in the region to contain israel and her allies and arming them in order to create a buffer zone for iran
– working against american interventionism and warmongering in the region. building a global alliance against american imperialism
– growing her influence in iraq once saddam’s regime was removed, and preparing the ground to take over as the biggest foreign sponsor once the americans leave iraq,
– same as above for afghanistan only with less success
– building up her own armaments industry,
– finding ways to defeat or weaken sanctions,
– building up political capital among muslim nations,
– developing nuclear capability mainly within internationally allowed rules, but remaining vigilant of the iaea and other un agencies as they often behave like tools of american imperialism, and
– adopting, and speaking from a position of strength rather than servitude
nothing about iran’s regional policy is particularly ‘irrational’. iran could have been more strategic and effective, and could have taken a more conciliatory path. all that may have been possible if one allows for the remote possibility that her foes would have reacted differently. but khatami perhaps proved the opposite.
in any case, while the iranian approach might have been better, it has not been irrational. on the contrary, iran’s military expenditure as a percentage of gdp and her overall tendency to war is far more humane and rational than that of the us or israel. iran’s military architecture is designed and built for defensive purposes. the us military is designed for offence, so much so that they could not respond effectively to a natural disaster such as hurricane katrina at home.
in other words, the us military structure is designed for plunder and loot in the name of ‘rationality’, ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. take your pick.
truth is, we are all equally irrational!
