Category: Iran

Khatami at Monticello, calls for de-escalation with U.S.

Iran’s former president, Mohammad Khatami, came back to Charlottesville yesterday. His main message while here was that American and Iranian leaders should both find ways to de-escalate the hostility of their rhetoric and to work together to pursue common interests.

This, after saying at a gathering at the University of Virginia (UVA) here Thursday– and also on other stops on his current five-city tour of the US– that “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.”

Iran is, of course, one of the weightiest of Iraq’s neighbors.

During his return visit to C’ville yesterday, Khatami was visiting Monticello, the “historic” (by American standards) home of this country’s third president, Thomas Jefferson. After touring Monticello, Khatami and his entourage of some dozen people participated in a 30-person “scholars’ lunch” in the library of the nearby International Center for Jefferson Studies (ICJS), to which I’d been invited. As when he was at UVA on Thursday no-one asked Khatami this time either about Iran’s currently very controversial nuclear program, though I gather that on other stops on his tour he has been asked about it and has expressed his strong support for his country’s right to pursue peaceful nuclear development.

I would not have expected him to say anything different. On the other hand, if I’d gotten a chance to ask him a question at yesterday’s lunch, I might well have asked his views on how he thought the present nuclear-accusation crisis could be de-escalated.

His current tour around the country is anyway very significant since it is the first time such a high-ranking Iranian personality has been allowed to travel round this country since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978. (Iranian officials with business at the UN are allowed to go to New York to conduct that business. But under the UN’s headquarters agreement with the US, such diplomats can be limited by the US to traveling within a tight radius of New York City, and in Iran’s case these restrictions have applied continuously since the revolution.)

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Pres. Bush had signed off personally on the decision to allow Khatami to tour round the country this time. Here’s what Reuters reported about that:

    “I was interested to hear what he had to say,” Bush told the Wall Street Journal… “I’m interested in learning more about the Iranian government, how they think, what people think within the government.”

    … “My hope is that diplomacy will work in convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And in order for diplomacy to work, it’s important to hear voices other than [current President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s,” Bush added.

The lunch at the ICJS was was tasty and generous, and the library setting extremely gracious. But there were few opportunities for the 15 or so American participants to interact with the visiting Iranians, and no self-introductions so it was hard for us to know who the other Iranians actually were. I’m not sure if Khatami got any time to eat at the table at all! I suspect he ate later, after his entourage had all swept out to a different room in the building where they lingered for quite a while before departing.

I actually did get the chance to sit next to one of the visiting Iranians, who was with the “Interest Section” Iran maintains in Washington under the auspices of the Pakistani embassy. But the circumstances didn’t give us much time to chat.

Amongst the American participants, there were a handful of Iranian-Americans. A couple of these later remarked in particular on the high quality of Khatami’s rhetoric in Persian (as well as on the breadth and intellectual quality of what he said.) These people noted that this time– unlike on Thursday– Khatami was speaking extemporaneously, without any prepared text, which made the rhetorical skill he displayed all the more evident.

Even for myself, having no Persian-language skills, I could appreciate the general sweep and self-confident delivery of his rhetoric. And I thought on a few occasions there, as Khatami’s answers ranged from Pericles to the concept of “the consent of the governed” to basic issues of how political accountability is indeed to be measured, that some other presidents in the world– to name no names– might indeed have a hard time keeping up with such a discussion…

These Iranian-Americans and others at the lunch who know a lot more about Iran than I do expressed the judgment that what Khatami said was, in Iranian terms, extremely daring and might indeed cause some trouble for him once he gets back home. I feel unqualified to make a judgment on that. But I did note that Khatami seemed very seriously to be putting out feelers for the establishment of some form of a continued, broad, popular dialogue between Iranians and Americans as well as, perhaps, of some form of more discreet, “track two” channel of communication with people close to the Bush administration itself.

If the latter is the case, then one would certainly want to know the degree to which “messages” about going ahead with this could be expected to get back to the one place in Teheran where, by all accounts, they would have the most effect, and that is with Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei. As alluded to below, Khatami had several non-trivial differences of opinion with Khamenei during his time as president, 1997-2005. But intriguingly, back in June Kamal Kharrazi, who had been Khatami’s Foreign Minister, was appointed by Khamenei as head of a new body, reporting to him, called the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations…

So who knows where all this might lead? In the hope that it might lead somewhere constructive and– certainly– that it might help to dispel misinformation and de-escalate tensions, I am happy to provide below my best characterization of what was said during the scholars’ luncheon. (Remember, though, that the discussion was all conducted through an interpreter… Also, I’d run three miles earlier in the morning and was incredibly hungry by lunch-time; so yes, I did try to gulp down some mouthfuls of chicken between the times I was taking notes… )

Continue reading “Khatami at Monticello, calls for de-escalation with U.S.”

A Different Face on Iran

I admit to having been “busy” of late; perils of being a long term Iran watcher. Yet I, for one, am delighted at the prospect of the former Iranian President visiting Charlottesville and Thomas Jefferson’s legacy here this week – hopefully more than once.
Speaking of TJ, I have also been “busy” this past week starting my studies as a “Fellow” at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies, at Monticello, where I will be researching and writing about just what Thomas Jefferson meant in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence by “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”
Imagine that…. a “decent respect” for the opinions of humanity. (!)
Much more on both subjects, TJ & Khatami, in upcoming posts, as well as on the (over)-loaded subjects of Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran’s not so simple relationship to Lebanon….
For the moment though, I begin my own Iran reflections by highlighting a compelling, if all too easily missed, essay found in yesterday’s Washington Post – in the Travel Section – written by Steven Knipp.
Knipp’s nicely written account of multiple ironies he encountered during a recent fist journey inside Iran mirrors my own experiences, travels that began fifteen and a half years ago. Never mind that he is an experienced international journalist, well accustomed to reporting from the most difficult venues, Knipp begins with the admission of “being slightly uneasy about going to Iran.”
I know that feeling well; I first went to Iran in late January 1991. Back then, the diplomatic hostage saga had “only” ended a decade before, Iran’s devastating war with Iraq had stopped just over two years previously – and the effects were still widely visible. Adding to my jitters, American bombs were falling – the first time – on Saddam’s Iraq. So even though I had long studied Iran, I too worried that I might face hostile treatment for being a citizen of “The Great Satan.” (Shatan-e Bozorg)
Yet like me, Knipp encounters just the opposite:

Everywhere I went — from the traffic-choked streets of Tehran in the north to the dusty desert town of Yazd in central Iran, to the elegant cultural centers of Isfahan and Shiraz — I was overwhelmed by the warmth and, dare I say it, pro-Americanism of the people I met.
Ponder the irony of that last statement for a moment. While much of the rest of the world seems to be holding their collective noses at us Americans, in Iran people were literally crossing the road to shake an American’s hand and say hello. Who knew?

Knipp then recounts how he was initially coy about where he was from – America. He marvels at how Iranians time and again would react warmly to discovering that he was from America, and observes, “For better or worse, Iranians are avid fans of America: its culture, films, food, music, its open, free-wheeling society.”
I too learned the same lesson on my first visit, while at the shrine to Ayatollah Khomeini. I had lost track of time as I stood very close to Khomeini’s remains – mesmerized by the ornate setting, the families on picnics, and by the many earnest pilgrims leaving donations and requests in the lattice structure surrounding the coffin.

Continue reading “A Different Face on Iran”

Khatami in US (& coming to C’ville!)

Iran’s former (reformist) president, Muhammad Khatami, arrived in the US recently for a ten-day tour. Kudos to him for coming– and that his schedule will include participation in a United Nations conference in New York on the “Dialogue of Civilizations” on Friday, held to mark the upcoming five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Kudos, too, to the Bush administration for allowing the visit, in what many of their more Islamophobic supporters might well see as a worryingly friendly gesture towards this person who for eight years was the President of an “Axis of Evil” power.
Khatami is even coming to our hometown later in the week (and twice, it seems… or maybe not.) I think I’ll be at two of his events here (or maybe one.) I can’t blog ’em directly because the State Dept. security people won’t allow laptops, cellphones, or whatever. Khatami and the Iranian regimne as a whole have a lot potentially dangerous opponents who are active here in the US, including people who support the “Mujahedeen-e-Khalq” organization, which has long been on the US terrorism list.
But I’ll have my ever-trusty notebook and report on whatever I can of these events.
I think it is always great to be able to break down walls of distrust, to be able to identify and discuss common goals and common threats, and increase everyone’s appreciation of the humanity of people with whose actions they might disagree… All of which tasks are, really, a good part of what diplomacy should be about… So I’m very glad that Khatami’s coming here, and I’m really looking forward to seeing the interactions he has.
Here is an AFP report on some of his first events here:

    In first US visit, Iran’s Khatami calls for secular, religious dialogue
    by Mira Oberman, AFP (English),
    Chicago, September 2, 2006 Saturday 11:10 PM GMT– Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, in his first public appearance in the United States, spoke Saturday about the need to create a dialogue between the secular and religious worlds.
    His remarks came as Tehran and the UN Security Council head for a showdown over Iran’s nuclear energy program, which is suspected of masking an effort to develop atomic weapons.
    Khatami is the most senior Iranian official to visit the United States since Washington broke off diplomatic relations following the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran.
    “The people of true faith and the people who are truly concerned about humanity… These two communities can work together,” Khatami told community leaders gathered at a mosque in a suburb of Chicago.
    “They can communicate among one another for the betterment and better understanding of the cause of humanity,” he said through an interpreter. “The dialogue can help to bring these two communities together.”
    Khatami did not take questions from reporters or comment on the current impasse as Iran vowed to defend its nuclear program and the United States pushed for sanctions to force Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.
    Instead, he focused his 40-minute address on a philosophical discussion of how peace and human development can be best achieved.
    Neither religions that preach a complete withdrawal from the material world nor the modern religion of science and materialism can eliminate insecurity, Khatami said. Only by finding a “third way” that addresses both the spiritual needs and the material needs can a “life of peace and satisfaction” be achieved, he said.
    Khatami also called for greater dialogues between religious groups.
    “There is a great opportunity of dialogue and cooperation and working together among people of faith and people of religion,” said Khatami, a reformist who was president from 1997 to 2005 and whose successor is the more hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
    “But I mean people of true religion — I don’t mean the extremists, I don’t mean the terrorists or the people who exploit the name of religion,” he said.
    Khatami, who founded and heads the International Institute for Dialogue Among Civilizations and Cultures, was granted a US visa on Tuesday even though he was president when the United States declared that Tehran backed terror activities.
    Khatami was scheduled to address the Islamic Society of North America’s convention later Saturday night in Chicago.
    On Thursday he is expected to address a select audience at the Washington National Cathedral. He will to attend a United Nations conference in New York on the “Dialogue of Civilizations” on Friday, which comes five years after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
    He might also meet with former US president Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was marred by the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran.

(Hat-tip to co-poster Scott Harrop for the AFP piece. I think he’s also pretty busy these days…)

Bernard Lewis Watch

Bernard Lewis, where are ye when we need ye?
(Irony alert)
At a time when nattering bloggers, columnists, traditional conservatives, and even neoconservatives are openly questioning our rightly guided President’s mental and psychic faculties, we need you, oh wise and venerable Princeton high priest of neoconservative orthodoxy, to really show us the true straight path to enlightenment, to rally our troops around the “doctrine” that bears your name and directed us so brilliantly in liberating and controlling Iraq.
We cannot think of anyone who has been so astonishingly consistent in his prediction accuracy about what would happen after the US invaded Iraq. Even as you now counsel patience, we can see that your vision of secular democracy, imposed forcefully and creatively from without, is now flourishing everywhere in the Middle East. It is simply miraculous that with a track record like yours, you retain such a bipartisan following among US political leaders.
We are of course most grateful that two weeks ago, you capped off your distinguished career by giving us clarity for today – August 22nd. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, you drew from your vast experience to declare that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad – indeed all of Islamic Iran – was the real crazy threat to the world and must never be permitted to have nuclear anything. Islamic Iranians are, well, just too, too, too…. Islamic, to be permitted the luxury of a MAD nuclear capacity.
In your essay, you selectively invoked a 25 year-old quote from Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to inform us that Islamic Iranians really can only think in terms of a cataclysmic choice between annihilating the rest of the world, or joining hands in martyrdom. Never mind that this quote came in the context of perceived global support for Iraq’ invasion of Iran, and no, you never mentioned that Khomeini himself interpreted his own model for Iran’s relations with the world, “neither East nor West,” as meaning ties between respectful equals, rather than the old “lion vs. lamb” patterns.
You instead keep it brilliantly simple for us – and especially for our much challenged President. Its either us, or them. Let’s not be confused with the quarter century of subsequent smokescreen meant to conceal Iran’s true intentions. So if they’re not with us, they must be against us.
From your ascended status, you specifically prophesied for us that today, August 22nd could “possibly” be the day the end of the world will be made manifest by Iran. You were suspicious that the Iranian President had chosen today for Iran’s response to the latest round of European proposals to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. Given that some Muslims commemorate this as the day of the Prophet Mohammad’s miraculous flight to Jerusalem, you warned that, “this might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.”
You didn’t even need to cite any evidence of such actual thinking; your steadfast WSJ editors have such faith in your genius. Yahr!
So if you have not yet taken flight yourself, we beseech you now to help us mere mortals fathom how Iran’s announcements today simply comfirm your divinations of the end of the world. As such, how should we then live? How shall we respond in unison to any suggestions to the contrary? And which stocks of companies on the plains of Armageddon do you advise for us to sell short?

Chinese Commentary on Iran Nuclear Case

If you’ve only been briefed by American MSM sources about the latest page in the saga over Iran’s nuclear program, you might be thinking that finally, the great powers, including China and the Soviet Union, are now on board with the United States. On July 11, US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack confidently declared that there were “no divisions” among the “P5+1” countries (the veto wielding UN Security Council members plus Germany) regarding their willingness to move towards “punitive measures” against Iran.
That characterization would be news to China, one of the P5. Today (19 July), the US government’s own “Open Source Center” released a translation of an interesting commentary appearing on Junly 13th in China’s official news agency, Xinhua Domestic Service. I append the document below.
After a rather balanced and positive rendition of key recent developments, the commentary includes striking interpretations of Iran’s ongoing “room for maneuver,” US Ambassador John Bolton’s “desperation” (sic), and a pointed reference to the Russian view that “sanctions at this moment will undermine the positive trend that is emerging.”
As this is, after all, an official Chinese news source, China’s own stance is left as ambiguous and non-committal: China remains opposed to nuclear weapons proliferation, maintains that “the best option is to peacefully settle the Iran nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations,” and hopes that “all concerned” could soon resume talks “on the basis of the package proposal.”
No “slam dunk” here.

Continue reading “Chinese Commentary on Iran Nuclear Case”

George Will vs. The Weekly Standard

In a wildly confused front-page Washington Post story today (19 July), Michael Abramowitz asserts that President Bush is “facing a new and swiftly building backlash on the right over his handling of foreign affairs.”
Abramowitz claims “conservative intellectuals and commentators” are infuriated by perceived “timidity and confusion about long-standing problems” ranging from Iran to North Korea to Lebanon. Kenneth Adelman tops the cake by accusing President Bush of middle-of-the-road “Kerryism.” By “conservatives,” Abramowitz is mostly referring to “neoconservatives” – no doubt the many who went apoplectic when the Bush Administration recently appeared to shift gears on Iran and even to de-emphasize the “regime change” mantra.
Yet burried within Abramowitz essay is a vague reference to yesterday’s startling WaPo essay by traditional “conservative” columnist George Will. Will argues first that the Administration’s core hope that the democratic “infection” emanating from the democracy imposed on Iraq has, at best, produced democratic movements prone to extremism. He then rejects Secretary Rice’s rejoinder that democatic turmoil and “violence” is unavoidable.

“that argument creates a blind eye: It makes instability, no matter how pandemic or lethal, necessarily a sign of progress. Violence as vindication….”

Yet Will saves his most choice words for attacks on the Administration coming from what he deems to be a radically un-conservative and different direction, one

Continue reading “George Will vs. The Weekly Standard”

“A bad movie rerun” and international opinion

I’m glad Helena has already focused our attention on Friday’s WaPo essay by David Ignatius. I think it worthy of further comment, particularly to draw out his points about Israel’s endgame and about the role of international opinion.
Yet like Helena, I question several of his assumptions, beginning with his acceptance of the “received wisdom” in Washington that Iran somehow is responsible for all Hezbollah actions. But more on that in a separate essay.
I do appreciate Ignatius’ laconic observation that “you can’t help but feel that this is the rerun of an old movie — one in which the guerrillas and kidnappers end up as the winners.” Just as in 1982 and beyond, Israeli military assaults into Lebanon and Gaza have little chance of earning Israel any meaningful friends within the targeted territories.
Then, Israel invaded Lebanon to “smash” Palestinian terror; in the process, as Yitzak Rabin later ruefully observered, Israel “let the Shia genie out of the bottle” and in the process catalyzed the creation of Hezbollah. What “unintended consequences” will arise this time?

Continue reading ““A bad movie rerun” and international opinion”

A “Global Hunger Strike?”

A “Global Hunger Strike”?
Commonly understood, “hunger strikes” are intended as a form of non-violent action, a voluntary fast with an intended political or human rights aim. Yet I confess to being puzzled by recent, more casual, deployments of the “hunger strike” as a political tool. I apologize in advance if this suggestion seems far too cynical, even Thatcher-esque.”
I don’t have a set thesis here, rather a working question, for which I will be interested to learn the thoughts of jwn readers. My question is prompted by the pending 3 day “global hunger strike” to take place on July 14-16. Orchestrated by prominet Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji, these “global hunger strikers” are demanding that the Iranian authorities release all political prisoners held inside Iran, including former MP Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeni, Professor Ramin Jahanbegloo and labor leader Mansour Osanloo.

Continue reading “A “Global Hunger Strike?””

Graham Allison on Taqiyya?

Harvard Professor Graham Allison is one of the better known political scientists in America. His classic text, “The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” remains widely inflicted on graduate students and has sold over 350,000 copies. Allison later helped found Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and then served for several years in the Clinton Administration as an Assistant Secretary of Defense. A 1999 2nd edition of his Cuban Crisis text was written with Philip Zelikow – whose latest post is as Counselor to Secretary of State Rice.
Whatever his political loyalties, Allison is something other than “liberal” on his current presumed area of expertise – “nuclear terrorism.” Instead, he’s lately been making one of the more ultra-hawkish cases for “dealing with Iran.” Here’s his recent essay on the subject with Yale Global.
I emphasize the original link, because one significant alteration has sometimes been made in its subsequent re-prints around the world – namely whether one revealing sentence in the last paragraph about “taqiyya” gets included or not. More on that below.

Continue reading “Graham Allison on Taqiyya?”

Something’s changed: Bush to Iran

Having closely followed the US-Iran saga for well over 20 years, I’ve seen a lot of false starts and missed opportunities to improve relations. Yet despite having had my hopes burned repeatedly in the past, I have a working hunch that something potentially quite interesting is happening, mostly behind the scenes, between Iran and the United States. On the surface, the rhetoric has changed significantly. From the American side, consider President Bush’s important, but almost ignored speech on Monday (June 19th) before the graduating class at the Merchant Marine Academy. Iran was a primary focus of the speech, comprising nine paragraphs which I reproduce, with running comment below:

Continue reading “Something’s changed: Bush to Iran”