by Katharine Keith
This month Iran celebrated the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. Along with it came another significant anniversary. Thirty-one years ago U.S.-Iranian relations collapsed.
The first blow to U.S.-Iran relations occurred in 1953 when the CIA staged a coup d'état in Iran, ousting the first democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. In his stead, the U.S. installed the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979. A group of Islamist students stormed the American Embassy in Tehran taking 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. These events resulted in the dissolution of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Since then the relationship between Iran and the U.S. has only become more intractable. Tensions have climaxed in a debate over Iran's nuclear ambitions. During this month's state-organized festivities, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran now has "the capability to enrich uranium more than 20 percent or even 80 percent."
"When we say that we don't build nuclear bombs, it means that we won't do that because we don't believe in having them..." he insisted. "The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to create an atomic bomb, we would announce it publicly and would create it."
This sent the global community into a frenzy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made several hard line comments about the country heading towards a military dictatorship.
The announcement was probably nothing more than rhetoric intended to distract from the protests against Iran's fraudulent presidential elections in June 2009 - dubbed the "Green Movement"- that were currently being squashed across the country.
Many solutions to the Iran quagmire have been proposed, including sanctions and military intervention. However, sanctions have thus far proven to be ineffectual. In a 2008 interview with The Nation magazine, Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi aptly said, "Sanctions damage the interests of the people, and they're not going to topple the government of Iran."
A military strike is also counterproductive. Such an attack will play right into the hands of the regime, who like to characterize us as the "Great Satan."
Instead, the United States should connect and communicate directly with the people of Iran, dispelling myths and building the trust that is necessary for conflict resolution.
Indeed, the Green Movement presents an opportunity to engage with the Iranian people without the intermediary of their government. Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: the next generation of Iranian leadership will be comprised of the people protesting on Iran's streets, not the Iranians hiding behind clerical cloaks.
In order for the United States to secure its long-term interests, it must change its current strategy from a berating monologue to one that recognizes the viability of the Green Movement and engages the Iranian people in dialogue. This can be done with public diplomacy tools such as cultural and academic exchanges, new media and international broadcasting. These mediums allow the Iranian public to have their voices heard.
In a piece in the Guardian News on Wednesday, Reza Zia-Ebrahimi suggested simply to provide Iranians with broadband internet access as a way to help the organization of the Green Movement. This would help get information in and out of Iran with little political interference. These are small gestures that could go a long way in aiding the movement, and will not go unnoticed by the people of Iran.
This is no time for battle cries or sanctions. While 2010 marks the anniversary of something old, it also marks the start of something new: a renewed Iranian spirit, ready and willing to cooperate with the West, despite whether or not their government will follow suit.
http://blogs.uscannenberg.org/neontommy/2010/02/listen-to-the-greens.html
May I please use the picture for a facebook event calling for a U.S. apology to the 1953 coup de tat? You can reach me at dschro1@luc.edu
ReplyDelete