This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, which culminated in the takeover of the nation’s government by Islamic revivalist forces under religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Though we no longer have direct diplomatic relations with Iran, President Barack Obama’s desire to open direct talks with Iranian leaders, coupled with a recently receptive Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, provides an undeniable opportunity to begin at least some minimal form of reconciliation with the country. However, if the U.S. wishes to open up any long-term relations with Iran, past mistakes by those on both sides must be evaluated and learned from.
Once one of our closest allies in the Middle East, Iran’s constitutional monarchy under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 by Islamic revivalist forces under Khomeini. Opposing the Westernization of the country by what the forces saw as the over-reaching control of nations like the United States, as well as an overly oppressive and corrupt regime under the shah, the revolution culminated in the establishment of an Islamic republic that governs to this day. Following the 1980 hostage crisis, in which 52 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days, the U.S. broke all diplomatic relations with Iran. This is where we find ourselves today.
Amid the actions of Iran’s current president, Ahmadinejad, it is little wonder why U.S.-Iranian relations have been cast in such a negative light. His infamous visit to the U.S. in 2007, during which, among other things, he said, “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” has tarnished his image as well as that of his nation. More aggressively, his outspoken call for the annihilation of Israel and his vehement denial of the Holocaust, as well as his desire to further Iran’s nuclear energy program, has created an image of a volatile and power-hungry Iran.
The subsequent generations of the vast Iranian diaspora in Los Angeles, comprised to a large degree of the children of those who fled Iran immediately after the revolution, is largely represented in the UCLA student body. First-year neuroscience student Justin Sharim said his parents immigrated to the U.S. after Khomeini took power.
“I think we should open talks because I want the government in Iran, in the long term, to turn into a true democracy. The U.S. will be effective in doing this ““ it’s better than doing nothing,” Sharim said.
The Bush administration generally avoided negotiations with Iran. However, promising developments have already come about with the Obama administration’s April 8 decision that the U.S. would participate with other nations in talks with Iran over its nuclear program. It should be noted that at a time of open relations with Iran under the Eisenhower administration, the United States actually encouraged and fomented the growth of the Iranian nuclear program as part of the Atoms for Peace program.
With U.S. support in this endeavor, Iran was never considered any sort of threat. Any potential future relations with Iran could achieve such a mutually favorable and trusting relationship between both nations.
Iran’s response seemed to be similarly cordial. Speaking in Isfahan, a city in Iran , Ahmadinejad said, “The Iranian people would welcome a hand extended to it if the hand is truly based on honesty.”
If we hope to reconcile with Iran, which was at one time among the region’s most developed nations, we must begin to acknowledge our mistakes in our past dealings with the country’s leaders and mold our future policy actions to reflect such a reconstruction of our approach. Our interest in this nation after World War II, fueled by desires for a foothold in the oil-rich region, served as a catalyst for what would culminate into a modern anti-Western stance. The aggressive economic self-interest of Western nations such as the U.S. and England, especially with corporations such as British Petroleum, for too long shaped the leadership of Iran, building mounting suspicion and aggression toward Western endeavors in the region.
More recently, our military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has been viewed in the same negative light. The recent conviction of American journalist Roxanna Saberi could also serve to complicate matters. Convicted of spying for the U.S., Saberi has been sentenced to eight years imprisonment by an Iranian court. The State Department has called for her release, and the situation could prove to complicate talks with Iran over its nuclear program.
However, many people are still optimistic about an improved American-Iranian relationship.
“I do envision change. I think we can be more constructive in our relations and in our approach. We must not bow to short-term, expediency-driven statements and actions. We must build a long-term structure that benefits rights,” said Hossein Ziai, professor of Islamic and Iranian studies, and director of Iranian studies at UCLA.
It is no wonder the Iranian people have become suspicious of U.S. policy in the region. We must realize that our interests are not the only significant ones, and only through taking this approach can we achieve any sort of honest and long-lasting reconciliation with Iran.
Our image in not only the Muslim world but the international community could only benefit from mutual respect between both countries.
If you believe a reconstruction of past U.S. policy in Iran could fuel reconciliation, then e-mail Gharibian at cgharibian@media.ucla.edu.