So today, I heard the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Sayyed Mohammad Khatami, give
a prepared
lecture
to a small audience at the University of Virginia. I had submitted a question in advance, as we were invited to do. And since only three questions were submitted,
at the end of the lecture they all got asked.
Mine was, “As a neighbor of Iraq’s and someone who cares about the wellbing
of the Iraqi people, do you think it is in their best interests that the
US army stay in Iraq or leave?”
Khatami gave a nuanced answer but soon came to the point: “If you ask
me should the Americans leave tomorrow, I’d say ‘No, don’t do it’.”
The reasoning behind his answer was as follows.
First, he noted that he would give a “personal response” to the question.
“We were very opposed to the US invasion of Iraq,” he said. (He had been
President of Iran at the time, remember.) Then he made a little joke
and said, “Of course, we were not opposed to the fact that they had removed
two of our greatest enemies from the scene! [That would be the Taliban
and Saddam.] But we were opposed to way it was done.”
He continued:
I think for the Americans, going into Iraq was difficult,
but getting out will very tough indeed! What America has done there
has increased terrorism, and maintaining the American presence there is very
expensive for you. But the most horrible thing is the number of civilians
killed there every day.At the time of the invasion, I was still President. I proposed then
that the US should work closely with Iraq’s six neighbors and the UN to find
a solution to the problem of Iraq in the most economical and efficient way
possible. My proposal was accepted by Kofi Annan, by Saudi Arabia–
and by Egypt, whom we had also approached. But the US didn’t accept
our suggestion, and went ahead with its own plan, with the support of the
British government.The result was a transfer of the problem of terrorism from Afghanistan to
Iraq. The terrorists used that occupation there as an excuse to destabilize
Iraq.Following the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism has risen to unprecedented
levels, in an unexpected way. And meantime, the military occupation
there has cost the US government quite a lot. The liberation of Kuwait
in 1991 was paid for by the Arab governments. But this one is paid
for solely by the US.So we are at a paradox. The occupation must end so there can be peace.
But also, you can’t leave the present Iraqi government at the mercy
of the terrorists.If you ask me should the Americans leave tomorrow, I’d say ‘No, don’t do
it’.The solution of America’s problem in Iraq can’t be unilateral. It needs
the cooperation of the neighbors in the region and of the UN.
He alluded to the fact that this would most likely take some time to organize.
(I would note, for my part, that many people in Iran right now must
be just delighted to have 140,000 US soldiers strung out throughout Iraq
and playing the role of sitting ducks or “hostages to fate” in the event
the US should attack Iran militarily. So why the heck would any Iranian
want the Americans to leave Iraq?)
—————
I’m afraid I don’t have the energy to give a fuller critique of the lecture
right now. Another attendee made notes on the Q&A session, and
underlined the following highlights from Khatami’s answer to the other two
questions:
–He said that it was well known that he and his successor
did not agree on all things. In particular, he did not think much of
Ahmadinajad’s call to purge the universities of liberals and he said quite
confidently that it would not happen.–Asked about Hezbollah and its use of violence, he said that Iran and Hezbollah
had very good relations, but that Tehran does not give it orders. He
added that “we” (I guess he meant himself) have criticized the Hezbollah
action of seizing the Israeli soldiers on July 12 and did not approve of
it. He went on to say that whatever one thought of Hezbollah’s initial
action, Israel’s response was disproportionate. He also referred (mistakenly,
I believe), to thousands of Lebanese being held in Israeli jails. Finally,
he said that Iran had advised Hezbollah to become part of Lebanon’s civil
society. [HC note here: The person interpreting for Khatami at this point had indeed referred to “thousands of Lebanese being held in Israeli jails. However, other Persian speakers present said that what Khatami actually said was “thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli jails.” As there indeed are.]
—————
There were several weird and /or surreal aspects to the general mis-en-sc
ène there in Thomas Jefferson’s beautiful, airy “Dome Rome”
on the UVA Grounds. We audience members all had to file in and
go through a rigorous security check before we could climb up the steps to
the large domed space. Then we sat chatting idly while members of the
State Dept. security detail accompanying Khatami scurried around doing various
things. At one point, three burly guys in black with flak jackets and
snipers’ kneeling pads came in bearing large closed black cases (which I’m
sure didn’t contain musical instruments): They walked right around,
exited a small door, and then came back in it and retraced their steps looking
a little sheepish. Other security guys in suits, wearing earpieces,
stood around the edge of the room and watched us all. Some pretty terribly
lounge music came in over the speaker system…
Then the room fell silent. “Oh, Quaker meeting!” I thought. But
no, it was the black-turbaned Khatami coming in up the stairs with his own
entourage and a large phalanx of university administrators and heavy-duty
profs– including my esteemed friend Abdulaziz Sachedina, who teaches in
the UVA Religious Studies Department and had been highly instrumental in
organizing this event. Everyone stayed very quiet as the arriving party
all shuffled to their seats, as if no-one quite knew what to do. Finally
Ed Ayers, the dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, walked to the podium
and with an embarrassed little “Hi” started the program.
Khatami had basically come to the US to participate in a big event of the
global, UN-linked “Dialogue of Civilizations” which he helped launch back
when he was President and which the present regime in Teheran now allows
him to carry on working with. (Say what you want about the political
system in Iran… but at least they have had an orderly handover of power
after an election, and the previous President is not only alive but also
still– within some limits–politically active. That is quite a lot
better than most other Middle Eastern Muslim republics.)
But the “breakthrough” came when the State Department acceded to Khatami’s
request to travel to other places in the US outside the 25-mile zone that
is allowed to people visiting the UN on official business. Hence his
recent visit to Chicago… his upcoming appearance at the Washington National
Cathedral, a visit to Harvard, and two visits here to Charlottesville. All
this, as the delicate diplomatic dance between the US and its allies, on
one hand and Iran’s present government (and its allies), over Iran’s nuclear
program,
grinds on
toward an uncertain outcome.
… So Khatami delivered his prepared lecture, mainly in Persian, with batch-processed
interpretation. The title was “Religion and Democracy”, but a lot of the
theme in the first half was the history of violence in the modern world.
I believe it was a fairly standard lecture that he may have delivered in
this or a very similar form elsewhere. Notably, without naming any
names, it made several strong criticisms of those who sought to use “hegemonism”
or “unilateralism” in the world. The speech included a broad survey
of the intellectual history of the past 150 years and included an informed
and to me interesting criticism of Marxism. He had a relaxed, easy
manner and made a few little humorous asides, including some in his halting
English. When he spoke in Persian, there was almost an element of chanting
in his voice production, though that was probably from having trained as
an orator in the Shiite seminaries.
Anyway, the lecture’s worth reading if you have the time.
I guess my main hope from this visit is that it helps create a climate in
which serious US-Iranian diplomacy at the highest level becomes possible,
so that the two issues of nuclearization (and fears thereof) in the Middle
East and the US presence in Iraq can both be resolved on a fair and orderly
basis– and through negotiation rather than through further confrontation
and violence. But I guess it takes two (or more) to tango?
Helena
“5) The right of all human beings to govern their destiny and have the freedom to exercise this right must be acknowledged and recognized for all.
Other mutually agreed points can be added to this list, but to realize such collectively shared views and inter-societal merits, clear workable strategies can be implemented nationally and internationally.”
Look who is talking about human rights here well can he tell us what he did when he was president in Iran? Or he thinks the people having short memory like his strange Mullah..
Read this then.
“During Khatami’s term, Iranian officials persecuted reformers, students, labor activists and journalists for “insulting Islam” and publishing materials deemed to deviate from Islamic standards.
In 1998 student protests were followed by severe repression, and a series of extrajudicial murders of dissidents were committed in the years thereafter. In 2004 the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression concluded that charges against those detained for criticism of the government “lack any objective criteria” and are open to arbitrary interpretation by the judiciary. Women of all faiths have also suffered discrimination and repression.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601647.html
His speech for export to US not for his citizens Helena…Mullah no wonders many faces..
Salah my brother! We finally and fully agree. When can I buy you coffee, I just got a bag of Najjar coffee from Lebanon and are willing to share it.
Keep it up.
David
I don’t think Khatami had much, if any power, to solve the problems you stated above, salah. Khatami’s main “accomplishment” is that he kept a balance (politically) inside and outside Iran. Ahmadinijad is ‘ruining’ that balancing act.
Do you know Khatami’s history in trying to change things in Iran? Please try a little research. He even tried to get schools to mix (boys and girls). He tried alot of things, many of which just became failed bills.
He even tried to get schools to mix (boys and girls).
Wow, what a concept. Maybe even let women attend soccer games, or wear anything they please…
How Helena could be on the side of such a retrograd society is just another sweet contradiction of life. Or is there any other explanation for that?
I am sure they do employ US PR firms, just like the Saudis. And you have to put lots of lipstick on that pig…
“Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran’s foreign policy, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was “directly involved” in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Kamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement. ”
Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
Iran Proposal to U.S. Offered Peace with Israel
by Gareth Porter
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE26Ak01.html
David,
Thanks for your offer
” In 1982, he was appointed as the minister of culture and Islamic guidance during the premiership of Mirhossein Mousavi. During the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, he served different responsibilities including deputy and head of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and chairman of the War Propaganda Headquarters”
Wow, propaganda Machine…! What a nice job, so he is the man for the right time now!
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/mkhatami/mohammad_khatami.php
SamAdams, I don’t know on what basis you claim that I am “on the side of” the Iranian government?
What I do argue, in this and all other contexts, is that keeping channels of communication, dialogue, amd negotiation open with people whose actions you might very strongly disapprove of is always better than closing such channels, and certainly a lot better– for everyone on the whole planet!– than going to war or taking actions that prepare the path for the waging of war.
This is what the age-old profession of diplomacy has been about: negotiating differences; seeking to understand the reasoning, arguments, and concerns of the other side; and seeking alternatives to warfare. We need these things more than ever today.
Your claim that I am “on the side of” Iran is baseless. It’s especially illogical since– as should be evident to anyone who’s been reading this blog seriously for any length of time– I have been calling for a very speedy US withdrawal from Iraq consistently since 2003. And of course I continue to do so. I was out on the street yesterday afternoon, as every Thursday, with the good activists calling for just that.
Please don’t come here and make hostile and defamatory comments– about me or about anyone else. This is a place for constructive and respectful joint enquiry, not mudslinging. Check out the guidelines before posting again.
“Maybe even let women attend soccer games, or wear anything they please…”
Actually, they do wear anything they please, they just have to cover some of it up 😉 Still, you’re nitpicking. What I am trying to show is that Khatami is not a cookie-cutter of a mullah. He’s quite willing to keep a balance whether it’s about the people’s needs or international demands. The problem for moderates in Iran is that he just didn’t have enough power to make a substantial difference in the Iranian’s way of life. It’s for this reason many people gave up on the notion of even voting for the next president and so they ended up with Ahmadinijad.
Helena,
this is what the age-old profession of diplomacy has been about :
I wish I can agree with you on this, far from all these world we “Mead east” we had have a lot of the age-old of diplomacy from your folk starting from let say 1900 thorough 1948 we ending in Lebanon war, I can not see ant diplomacy “Rail Diplomacy” that its balanced and build on respect and “negotiating differences; seeking to understand the reasoning, arguments” if you can help me to find one case that fit your words pleas?
khomsta,
He’s quite willing to keep a balance whether it’s about the people’s needs or international demands.
With all due respect of your view, I agree there is a struggle between Mullah those who you call them “Moderates” and those “Hardliners”, but 9/11 incident and Iraq war shows or let put it right US found itself in a big miss in the region first the absence of a real and robust regime/leaders that can make effective changes to be a good player for US can really on.
From Saudis to Jordan to Egyptian all fails miserably to do so, so Iran found itself in a vacuum of power in the region after demolished Iraq (I come back to this) so Iran making a lot of lobbing around the region and Internationally (like this Khatami’s Visit to US) to support Iran position as a good player in the region right now (ME/Gulf Region) specially after US lost their faith with Al-Saud and other regimes in the region, but unpredicted and secrecy of who hold the power in Iran make US so suspicious of Iranians move keep in mind Iran playing with different strings from Hezbollah to Iraq/Afghanistan and Israeli/Arab conflict makes no wonder Iran multi face and multi policies.
The demolition in Iraq I believe its product of the region fear of democracy and birth of new Iraq with prosperity with his massive resources in matter of wealth in assets and people wealth and knowledge, but Iran, Saudi, Kuwaitis and others fear from all from new Iraq in addition to those US thugs who managed Iraq after invasion, we end with Iraq today.
I can’t put all the faults on US alone, I think it’s a region fault and it’s lost of opportunity to the Arab for new change in the region which is Iraq was right to it.
“In 2000, BBCNews did a series of news stories about the rampant social problems in Iran:
“A new report, from Mohammad Ali Zam, the head of Tehran’s cultural and artistic affairs, acknowledged for the first time that
1) There are up to two-million drug addicts, some of them schoolchildren, with an estimated five tonnes of narcotics consumed every day in the capital, Tehran. The authorities in Iran have been unable to stem the flow of drugs across the border from Afghanistan, despite a desperate battle. But Mr Zam’s report says that easy availability of opium is only part of the problem. He says the young are turning to drugs because of a lack of any other alternative entertainment.
2) The average age of prostitutes has dropped from 27 to 20 years over the past few years, with a growing but an unspecified number of women involved, which could be due to a kidnapping problem that is leading to poor village girls being kidnapped by pimps and then forced into prostitution. Also, nearly all the young girls who run away from home end up as prostitutes.
3) 12m people live below the poverty line, and huge numbers are flocking to cities from villages. The country has one of the world’s youngest populations, with 35m people under the age of 20. Unemployment is rising as President Mohammed Khatami struggles to liberalize the economy.”
No Comment……
billmon has an interesting observation:
“It’s so much easier just to lose the war, especially when the Pentagon can throw a shitload of money to its favorite contractors while doing so.”
http://billmon.org/archives/002717.html
The point, I think, is that for your average decadent American war profiteer, losing is a better business proposition than winning – the more costly the better.
Salah,
Kudos again for your perspective on Iran. As a neighbor, and a mortal rival, your angle is sharper than Helena’s vol d’oiseau, and “can’t we all get along” approach to Iran. Her game is pretty clear, keep the light away from indefensible actors like Iran by relentlessly bringing up Israelo-Palestinian minutia. Now she is down to number of rockets fired… I am sure she’ll start a counter with number of cigarettes smoked by reservists. Sad lady, sad way to make a living.