COMMENT Why the US can't bully Iran By Shahir Shahidsaless
For better or worse, Iranians are a proud people. This characteristic has roots
in Iran's long history, its long-lasting geopolitical influence, and - for a
good part of history - its dominance in the region, which could even be
considered extreme.
At the same time, Iranian culture is very hospitable towards Westerners,
American included. As long as they feel they are not being ridiculed,
humiliated or looked down on, Iranians extend royal treatment to foreigners.
The above cultural nuances may seem simple or obvious, yet they
are widely ignored by policymakers and their advisers in the US when dealing
with Iran.
Strategic policies towards Iran cannot be developed in an office in Washington,
relying on biased defectors, opposition groups or out-of-touch academics as
advisers.
Assurances given by advisers like Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami and Ahmed Chalabi
regarding the reaction of Iraqis to the US invasion undoubtedly encouraged the
George W Bush administration to take advantage of the "unresolved conflict with
Iraq", as stated by vice president Dick Cheney's Project for the New American
Century group, and attack Iraq in 2003.
Those experts, Iraqi opposition groups and individuals all saw the celebrations
coming after the fall of Saddam Hussein. What they didn't see (or didn't want
the administration to know) was that celebrations would by short-lived and once
the party was over, anti-American forces and sentiments would take over.
After 30 years of hostility between Iran and the United States, a tall wall of
mistrust separates the two governments. But, the biggest obstacle today in
engaging Iran is the US government's persistence on a failed policy of carrot
and stick.
The reason why this policy will never work with Iran is twofold. One lies in
the mentality of Iranians, which was touched on earlier. The outcome of
bullying and showing muscle to Iranians is astonishingly contrary to what
Western policymakers think.
By threatening Iranians, seeds of hatred, resistance and determination are
planted. In a speech delivered last month, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad said,
The
biggest mistake made by Mr Bush was the way he and his companions were looking
at human society. They were after dominance and superiority over people. When
they wanted to talk to people, they were speaking from a position of strength,
and they were looking down on others. If this policy is going to change, then
the US government should talk in a respectful manner to nations. The real
change is to change your tone when talking to other nations. You should talk
with respect and humbleness. Otherwise, just using new words but talking with
the same tone indicates that no change has occurred.
The other
reason why the carrot-and-stick policy is futile is that the Iranian regime
believes that sanctions cannot and will not go so far as to threaten their
existence.
Yes, the regime is concerned about its survival. However, those in power don't
believe that by having the "stick" in their faces, including tougher sanctions,
their power will be challenged. And who can bring them down anyway? Currently,
there is not a single thinkable alternative for the people of Iran, either
inside or outside the country. None.
The editor of Keyhan newspaper, Hossein Shariatmadari, a man very close to the
center of power in Iran, including the Sepah-e-Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary
Guards Corps), security forces, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and
Ahmadinejad, once wrote: " ... if we are made subject to sanctions [obviously
serious ones], then, naturally, we can use some leverage, such as closing the
Strait of Hormuz ... Of course, there are numerous other leverages that will be
discussed later."
Whether Tehran is militarily capable of doing this or not is not the issue. The
issue is that, in the minds of Iranians, the West is aware that once Iran is
severely threatened it has the potential and capacity to disrupt oil production
in the region by attacking oil tankers, pipelines, refineries and production
facilities, including those in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman. This would, of course, pose a real threat to the
survival of Western economies. With this perspective in mind, the language of
threat is not an effective weapon as Iranians believe that it can only go so
far.
The message sent by US President Barack Obama for the Iranian new year, Nowrouz,
was palpably different in tone from what the Iranians are used to. That was
encouraging. Yet, in the same speech, relying on the same old policy, he urges
Iranians to avoid supporting "terror" and attempting to build "arms".
Ayatollah Khamenei wasted no time in making a reference to Obama's message: "It
is not understandable that Obama congratulates the Iranian new year, but, at
the same time, accuses Iran of supporting terrorism and efforts to gain access
to nuclear weapons."
If there is any hope for a breakthrough in Iranian-American relations, American
policymakers need to get this message at some point: with the Iranians, the
policy and language of bullying and threat does not and will not work.
Shahir Shahidsaless is a Canadian-Iranian political analyst writing
mainly in Farsi. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and has
devoted the past 10 years predominantly to researching and writing about the
Middle East and international affairs for Farsi-speaking magazines, papers and
news websites both inside and outside the country. He has authored a book,
which has been published in Iran and Germany.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
