Stuck in the middle
America vs. Iran: National interests and
January 11, 2006
Recently, I read Kenneth M. Pollack's The Persian Puzzle:
the Conflict between Iran and America. It's a book that
discusses the roller-coaster relationship between the United States
and offers recommendations to both countries (mostly the US) on
how to improve relations.
As a former National Security Council official, Pollack presents
an "insiders" look into American foreign relations
with Iran. This view, however, is simply a common sense approach
to world affairs. But Pollack's book does more than outline
the history of a tumultuous relationship; it forces on the reader
a set of questions that challenge ideas about identity and national
allegiance (whether or not it was his intention is up for debate).
And the end result for me, and I'm sure for many young Iranian-Americans,
is discomfort and uncertainty.
It would be impossible to find two Iranians who describe their
identity equally. Whether you came here twenty-five years ago or
yesterday, at the age of two or thirty, how much "Iranian" you
put in the "Iranian-American" is ever changing. I do
my best to keep it 50/50. My culture and values come from my family -- which,
for me, is synonymous with Iran.
Though I was raised in the United
States, my parents and their parents came of age in Iran. And the
principles they've passed along to their children come from
a long, several millennia old tradition of Iranian culture and
heritage. It's something most every Iranian is proud of and
has served as a unifier in Iranian history and the many Iranian
Diasporas around the world.
However, like many children of revolution-era migrants in America,
I have an unwavering allegiance to the United States. Though my
impact on American foreign policy is non-existent, I always support
any course of action that is in the best national interests of
the United States. And that, at many times, comes into conflict
with the other half of my identity.
More often than we'd like, the best interests of the US result
in the worst outcome for Iran. A brief survey of Iranian-American
relations during the second half of the 20th century serves as
an easy reminder of this reality. Of course, many propose courses
of action that serve both nations' interests equally.
human history has proven time and time again that the dream of
equality among nations is nothing more than that -- a dream.
The fact of the matter is that Iran and America can never be
life long friends, just like any two nations cannot remain cordial
Nations have interests; at times they bring the two together
and at times they make war. How, then, can Iranian-Americans find
happy medium in the world of realpolitic?
It's safe to say that the United States position towards
Iran has failed. Not only has the US lost what is arguably the
most important country in the Middle East as an ally, it has
sat idly by while growing US enemies make themselves at home
Unfortunately, the American public doesn't care either. And
with the nuclear issue on every front page, the American public
is still losing sight of the bigger picture.
Fortunately, however, a few heads were turned last year and Pollack
does a nice job outlining the new threats. The geopolitical earthquake
that took place with the 2005 Iran-China US$ 100 billion, 25-year
LNG deal forced many Washington thinkers to consider a new approach.
Should the US remove sanctions? Should the US better ties with
Iran for the sake of slowing Asian powerhouse economies?
questions have been on the table for a decade, but are now
being seriously considered. Yet, regardless of how US policy makers
answer these questions, one fact remains: In the long term,
weak, but regionally strong Iran is the best scenario US policy
makers could want. American interests are best served with
a strong Middle Eastern Iran to exert influence in the region (i.e.
Shah's era), and a weak global Iran that that can be exploited
by the world's superpowers (i.e. the Shah's era). But
how can Iranian-Americans be happy about any of this?
As much as Iranians abroad want
democracy and freedom in their homeland, the world's powers
are working against them (as
are many Iranians themselves). You can't help but think that
the US loves Ahmadinejad for creating an environment in which
the world's most talented and brightest minds cannot create
industries other than oil that will play a hand in the world
joins Khomeini and Khamenei, among countless others, in promoting
backwards thinking that discourages and halts any real progress.
The alternative to these zealots is obvious. Had Iran avoided
its revolution and eight-year war, the country today would
be as powerful
as any Western European nation. And that's the last thing
any Western nation would want. Thus, the dream of a democratic,
free and prosperous Iran is so far fetched that at least one
side of the Iranian-American will pay a heavy price.
Pollack's book made me think about my identity while considering
national interests. I'm sure many Iranian-Americans ponder
these thoughts, too. We have so much to be grateful for --
after all, the US has given Iranians so much more than Iran
at the same token, without our culture and traditions, we'd
be just another dull, boring group with nothing unique to offer
With this in mind, which would you rather have? A
powerful United States that exploits the rest of the world to make
very comfortable at home; or a strong and free Iran that does not
pander to the world's powers. The jury is still out for me;
but I know that regardless of the ups and downs of Iranian-American
relations, one of the two will lose. And I'd rather not be
in the middle when that happens.
Mazi Bahadori graduated from UC Berkeley with
a degree in history and is a
Congressional Intern. He was born in Iran and raised in the