28 May 2008
The Problem With Talking to Iran
Amir Taheri’s insightful analysis in the May 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal of a government’s two operating modes—as a nation-state or an ideological cause—ignores the fact that it was precisely by confusing those roles that the Bush Administration has sought to obfuscate the reasons for its invasion of Iraq. It is not in the interest of the American people that the U.S. adopt the mission of spreading democracy around the world.
Talking to Iran will require that the U.S. act as a nation-state, too. It takes two to tango. Likewise, Ahmadinejad and his boss, the Supreme Leader, are not appropriate counterparties for substantive talks about the real issues between Iran and the U.S. The Iranian nation has traditionally preferred authoritarian rule, but without ideological intolerance. They now realize that ideologically prejudiced authoritarian rule brings much worse dangers than potentially unwieldy democracy. However, they await assumption of power by a secular indigenous ruler.
When that happens, American desire for stability in the energy-rich region and conformance with customary international behavior will probably also be served. Therefore, it is up to us, through non-ideological and perhaps non-governmental means, to find true representatives of the Iranian nation-state to talk to and to support the establishment of rule that pursues that nation’s real interests.
Amir Taheri’s insightful analysis in the May 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal of a government’s two operating modes—as a nation-state or an ideological cause—ignores the fact that it was precisely by confusing those roles that the Bush Administration has sought to obfuscate the reasons for its invasion of Iraq. It is not in the interest of the American people that the U.S. adopt the mission of spreading democracy around the world.
Talking to Iran will require that the U.S. act as a nation-state, too. It takes two to tango. Likewise, Ahmadinejad and his boss, the Supreme Leader, are not appropriate counterparties for substantive talks about the real issues between Iran and the U.S. The Iranian nation has traditionally preferred authoritarian rule, but without ideological intolerance. They now realize that ideologically prejudiced authoritarian rule brings much worse dangers than potentially unwieldy democracy. However, they await assumption of power by a secular indigenous ruler.
When that happens, American desire for stability in the energy-rich region and conformance with customary international behavior will probably also be served. Therefore, it is up to us, through non-ideological and perhaps non-governmental means, to find true representatives of the Iranian nation-state to talk to and to support the establishment of rule that pursues that nation’s real interests.
Comments:
Post a Comment
