In Defense of the Iranian People

Hi everyone!

With all this belligerent talk being hurled back and forth between the West and Iran and speculation about whether Iran has reached a "zone of immunity" as far as its nuclear aspirations are concerned, one is at risk of losing sight of the fact that Iran is a nation comprised of 74 million people who are all, for the most part, concerned with getting on with their daily lives--raising families, working to make sure they have money to put food on their tables, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs with perhaps a little saved over to splurge on the occasional vacation. In other words, the average Iranian is really not all that different from you or me. Yes, thirty-three years ago, the "people" violently overthrew a secular (and corrupt) dynasty in favor of an Islamic theocracy, but much of that fervor was derived from a collective--and perhaps naive--belief that the ayatollahs would strip the government of corruption and install a society that made up for the inequality and lack of morality that had been rife for decades under the Shah.

Thirty-three years later, those revolutionaries are now senior citizens. Two-thirds of the current Iranian population is under the age of 30, which is significant in that more than 50 percent of Iranians alive today were either not born during the Islamic Revolution, or were too young at the time to understand what it was all about and what it was in reaction against. All these young people know is that they live in a repressive and paranoid society that prevents them from enjoying personal freedom and has become the pariah of much of the civilized world.

As the U.S. and its allies assess the effectiveness of ever tightening sanctions and debate how best to destroy Iran's nuclear aspirations and cripple Iran's economy, let's pause for a moment to consider how all of this affects the average Iranian family mentioned above. A recent Gallup poll, quoted in today's New York Times, shows that "nearly two-thirds of Iranians though the sanctions would hurt their livelihoods. The poll also found that almost half of Iranians said there were times in the past year when they lacked enough money to buy food their families needed--triple the level from 2005."

I ask, how is this fair? Are these sanctions meant to incense the average Iranian to rise up against the government in the spirit of Tunisia or Egypt? They tried this in 2009--unfortunately, to little positive effect. Iran is essentially being held hostage between two rival political powers--Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious council versus President Ahmadinejad--each of whom is more concerned with preserving their grip on power than improving the lives of their citizenry. Put yourself in the shoes of our average Iranian. If your livelihood was indirectly being destroyed by a foreign power collective, would you be more likely to express anger at your own government or at the country/countries that were making your lives more difficult on a grass roots level? My guess is you'd choose the latter.

This column is not in defense of the ayatollahs. I am merely taking the humanitarian approach. Let's think about the Iranian people for once. Iran possesses a culturally diverse and rich history with a highly educated and sophisticated population. Until these people can effect positive change in their country on their own, we need to adapt a more compassionate and nuanced approach to how we deal with their government, otherwise we risk destroying an ancient civilization and inadvertently fostering an anti-U.S. mentality out of which nothing good will come.

Ciao.

Rescue at Sea: The U.S., Iran, and Basic Human Decency

Hi everybody!

I was going to keep it light today as it is Friday but I changed my mind after I started going through the afternoon's news. Earlier today, the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis rescued a crew of Iranian fishermen that had been detained since November by pirates somewhere in the North Arabian Sea. This is the same aircraft carrier that the Iranian government had indirectly warned on Tuesday not to dare enter the Persian Gulf on threat of a presumed military strike. The Stennis is on a return voyage from transporting aircraft for use in Afghanistan.

While initial reports are pretty vague, it seems the Iranian fishermen were rescued without incident and are on their way back to Iran, though how they are getting there is not publicly known. The pirates, whose nationality has not yet been released though we can probably assume they are Somalian or in the very least are backed by el-Shabab, are currently being detained on the aircraft carrier awaiting further action.

If nothing else, this is a good example of human decency on the high seas. It is common practice in sailing that when one encounters a sailing vessel in trouble one offers assistance if reasonably possible, regardless of nationality. I suppose it is more than a little ironic that in this particular case, the rescuer is American and the rescued is Iranian given the two countries' acrimonious history, especially recently. But there you have it.

I saw the initial report on CNN while I was in the gym this afternoon and then afterwards went to my trusty New York Times website to find out a little more. What set me off are the tone and content of many of the comments posted in response to the article by other readers. I know and appreciate the fact that relations with Iran aren't good and that there is still a lot of resentment toward Iran for the taking of hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. I get that. But haven't we moved on just a little bit since then? Obviously, I can't speak for Iran but I will venture a guess that perhaps the majority of Iranian citizens don't necessarily harbor the government-perpetuated belief that America is "The Great Satan." They may chant "Death to America" in their government-sanctioned demonstrations and burn effigies of our presidents and secretaries of state but I'm inclined to think that most Iranians today don't hate the U.S. with the fervidity of the 1979 revolutionaries. I read that something close to 50% of the Iranian population is under the age of 30 which would mean that half of all Iranians weren't even born or were just out of their mothers' wombs when the Shah was overthrown and the country became the world's first true theocracy. (On a side note, for an insightful and revealing look at the lives of a group of pretty extraordinary Iranian women at the time of and just after the revolution, read Azar Nafisi's brilliant memoir "Reading Lolita in Tehran.")

Okay, it is dubious that President Ahmedinajad or Ayotallah Khamenei will issue a public outpouring of gratitude to the U.S. for the rescuing of the sailors. And if the roles had been reversed, it probably isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that Iran would detain the rescued sailors and parade them in front of the media for some sort of political purpose or use them as pawns in a ploy to alleviate or negotiate the easing of recent U.S. and European sanctions. But is it really necessary to use this as a platform for Stars and Stripes Forever posturing? One person even commented: "Take that, Iran!" Really? What purpose does that serve other than to make the average American look like a petty redneck, which pretty much confirms what most of the rest of the world already thinks.

I realize this may sound like I'm the one being petty, and that isn't my intention. I just think that many Americans have a tendency to jump on the opportunity to shove the patriotic thing down the world's throat and tell everyone how morally superior we are, which ultimately does nothing to help our standing on the international stage.

The crew of the John C. Stennis did a good and decent thing today. The Iranian sailors are appreciative even if their government is not. Let's not make this into something more than it is: an example of basic human kindness. Some things are what they are and aren't meant to be used as props for needless patriotic muscle-flexing.

Ciao.