The Dilemma of Iran and US relations has put Iranian-Americans in a Quandary
4/27/06
David N.
Rahni, Ph.D.
Abstract.
There is compelling evidence to conclude that the US administration, while avoiding direct
negotiation so far, is preparing for an "oil-driven" confrontation with
Iran that could range from imposing
universal sanctions, to military interventions. Remember Vietnam and Iraq Quagmires?
It is deja-vu all over again, as those who do not learn from history are
bound to repeat the same mistakes. Whereas noone denies the repressive nature of
the current government in Iran on domestic matters, and the
belligerent rhetorical tone of its government leadership on foreign policy and
nuclear technology issues, these imperfections must not give pretext to a
superpower to inflict pain and sufferings on a whole nation. The seventy million
people of Iran, since the 1906 Iranian Constitution and as evidenced by the only
democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mossdegh of the fifties who was
overthrown by the in part US sponsored Coup D'etat, and particularly since the
1979 revolution, have repeatedly expressed their longings for democracy and
freedom through ballot boxes and civilian unrests. The majority of the four
million Iranians in Diaspora, especially the one million Americans of Iranian
heritage, are unequivocally opposed to any level of military action against
their motherland where they still possess strong family and cultural ties.
Conversely, they by and large envisage direct multi-lateral negotiations
anchored on mutual respect in which the US takes a strong leadership role, as
the alternative to yet another war that could lead to the possible loss of lives
of tens of thousands American and allied soldiers, economic loss in the hundreds
of billions, and catastrophic loss of Iranian lives and infrastructures
unprecedented in modern times. The Iranian-Americans from all walks of life, one
of the most vibrant, educated and affluent immigrant communities of the
twentieth century and recognized for their substantial contributions to the
betterment of America,
reaffirm their allegiance to the US first and foremost. In fact, it is
due to such conviction that they, similar to the majority of their Americans
aspire to uphold the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights by opposing those
government policies that result in waste of our human and material resources on
the one hand, while tarnishing the US stature and credibility in the
international community, on the other. By the same token, they yearn for
homegrown fundamental democratic reforms in Iran through
critical multi-lateral engagement that does not involve meddling by outsiders.
Finally, it is anticipated that the US Government safeguard the full
protection of its Iranian-Americans under the code of law when it comes to their
security and realization of personal and professional aspirations. (You may sign
a petition on the above statement at http://www.petitiononline.com/fe011056/petition.html
and, or read the comprehensive article on the subject herein.)

Recent speculation about
US military intervention in
Iran has created a heated debate
worldwide. One community that finds itself caught in a unique dilemma is the
estimated one million Americans of Iranian descent. While this community feels
strong allegiance to the US,
and whereas they have contributed substantially to the advancement of the
economic and social infrastructures of the US, they,
nonetheless, feel strongly connected to their ancestor's land where many still
have extended family and cultural ties.
The US-IRAN stalemate, twenty-seven
years in the making since the revolution of 1979, lingers on.
Iran has become a
US foreign policy priority
ever since President Bush categorized Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in
an "axis of evil" and cited "crusade" during his first State of the Union
speech. Iran's predicament has been further exacerbated post September 11, 2001
when the US administration opted for unilaterally and "preemptively" taking the
battle to the "Middle East", first by military intervention in Afghanistan, and
then with an all out occupation of Iraq. The nationals responsible for the 9/11
attacks were said to be Saudi Arabian, Pakistani and Egyptian, and none were
Iranians. Despite the repressive nature of the Iranian regime inside the country
and its intermittent irrational behavior in the international community, there
has never been any proof of Iran-sponsored terrorist activities on
US soil.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have turned into costly
propositions for the Americans, firstly in terms of the loss of American
soldiers and civilians, soon approaching 3,000, and secondly, in terms of
economic loss soon approaching one trillion dollars incurred on the
US alone. Some military and foreign
analysts believe the US will remain in the Middle East for the long haul,
perhaps many decades, and that the projected human loss and financial cost could
run to as many as tens of thousands of Americans and allied forces, and as much
as a few trillion dollars, respectively. These estimates do not even mention the
catastrophic heavy causalities of the indigenous people, which have thus far run
to over one hundred thousand civilians in Iraq alone and economic and
productivity losses estimated at another trillion dollars. The
US administration's cry to
root out terrorists in Afghanistan uncompleted, was changed to destroy
weapons (never-to-be-found) of mass destructions in Iraq, and has
now been modified to "democratize" and reform the region, a "democracy" that has
yet to be realized. Regardless of how one interprets the situation, the control
of the natural resources of gas and oil remain at the center of the
US foreign policy of
intervention in the Middle East. With respect
to international laws and international agencies, the US takes a dual apporach
to these laws and organizations: when they serve its stated goals, the US
resorts to them and expects them to serve its purpose, and when such laws or the
agencies dare object to US global actions, they are ridiculed, discounted,
branded by name calling and their budgets and thus existence are undermined.
The
US administration finds
itself agitated by the baseless symbolic rhetoric of Iran's new President Ahmadinejad on
Israel, and the alleged ulterior
motives of his administration to seek nuclear technologies with ultimate
possible dual applications. This has increasingly led the US to turn toward the Iran stage, presumably as a way to expand
"democratization" outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Upon close examination
of the Middle Eastern countries, Iran, notwithstanding its dismal
record in human rights, lack of transparency in socio-economic equity and
fundamental internal problems, nonetheless, seems to be the only country that
has not yet submitted to becoming "democratized". One can hardly identify
another country in the region where American military presence and, strong
economic influence is not already pronounced. One can only yearn for a true,
independent democratic Iraq,
Afghanistan and/or
Iran that would actually take the
prime interest of the indigenous inhabitants into consideration and then
hopefully be emulated by other countries in the region. However, every
indication shows regressive trends when external aggression is imposed. In the case of Iraq, an
incipient civil war is only intensifying, with the possibility of the country
disintegrating into at least three smaller countries- a Shiite base in the
center and south, a Sunni base in the west, and the Kurds in the north. Scholars
specialized in the historical perspectives of the region acknowledge the
critical constructive role Iran could play in the region if they are taken
seriously in a multilateral negotiation where the US is directly engaged. The
common ethnic (Indo-Iranian), religious (Shiite) and cultural (Persian) values
have tied the Iranians with their Kurdish, Iraqi Shiites, and Afghani brethrens
for centuries.
One
may rightly argue Iran has the legal right, as a
signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other pertinent international laws
and conventions, to develop non-military nuclear technologies for civilian
peaceful purposes (energy, medicine, product development). Iran's lack of
transparency in its conduct of international relations, mistreatment of its 70
million Iranians, its dubious behavior in dealing with the "words of dissent" by
nearly four million Iranian expatriates abroad, and other covert activities in
Lebanon, Iraq and perhaps the Occupied Palestinian territories have been seized
upon by the US administration to beat the drum for yet another war in the
region, and through media to prepare the court of American public opinion,
"should all other options fail."
There is increasingly a strong sentiment among Americans that taking on
yet another all out military intervention in Iran will be
counter-productive to long term US geo-political and economic interests. That
said, it would probably not deter another pre-emptive unilateral aggression,
when the time is right. Ironically,
the US has been instrumental in removing two of the staunchest enemies of Iran,
the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's B'aath government in Iraq that
had invaded and swiftly occupied a major part of western Iran in 1980, leading
to a war dragging on for eight years, a million dead including some from
biological and chemical weapons licensed by the US, and hundreds of billion
dollars of economic loss imposed on Iran.
The
one million Iranian-Americans find themselves in a quandary. On the one hand,
they have left their homeland for the US due to lack of socio-political and economic
reforms in Iran. On the other, although they
have pledged allegiance to their adopted land, they cannot see the
US going down a pathway of
destruction that would be detrimental to both their adopted, and their
ancestor's, countries. They vividly remember 1953 when Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh,
the only true democratic elected prime minister of Iran, who nationalized the oil and gas in the
country and was successful in achieving a favorable verdict on this matter in
the International
Court in The Hague,
was overthrown, in part by the covert operations of the US
administration. The Iranian-Americans recognize the danger of
US intervention, which may go far
beyond covert propaganda operations and instigations, into any magnitude of
military interventions [tactical (nuclear or conventional) strikes and/or
occupation).
Having
listened to exhaustive discussions on the Iran-US circumstances in various
academic, community and internet-based forums, there seem to be an emerging
consensus that has developed in the Iranian American Community, as
follows:
A.
The Iranian-American Community of one million strong reaffirms its loyalty to
the US and its constitution and laws. It
further anticipates that the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights
especially the 1st amendment, and the Rule of Law continue to apply
to ALL Americans, including naturalized citizens and permanent legal residents
regardless of their country of origin.
B.
The Iranian-American Community anticipates that the US will remain
strong both domestically and internationally, and believes that our strong
foreign policy should not be driven by military aggressions or pure economic
dominant objectives before all possible rational and peaceful negotiating
avenues-as verified by the international community of nations and global
non-governmental organizations-are exhausted.
C.
That the US foreign policy adopt a long-term, more balanced and less belligerent
foreign policy anchored in American ideals respecting the independent
aspirations of other nations for democracy, human rights, freedom and security,
and will engage in serious multi-lateral direct negotiations to prevent and
resolve conflicts. Such options, if and when diplomacy fails should include in
progression: direct negotiation and positive genuine persuasion, diplomatic
isolation, restriction of travel for government officials of the adversarial
government, freezing of alleged government staff personal overseas assets,
freezing of the country's assets, followed by progressive intelligent sanctions,
and perhaps finally sanctions that exclude the essential day-to-day commodities
such as food and medicine. The use of conventional military confrontations,
although philosophically immoral as it always yields reprehensive human tragedy,
may only be exercised against proven aggressions and only after all other
options are truly exhausted.
D.
That with respect to Iran in particular, the Iranian-American Community's
majority opinion is to oppose any level of military actions including the so
called tactical bombing, and emphatically nuclear strikes. Such a position is
now substantiated by more than half of Americans according to most recent polls
as well as the unanimous majority of citizens of other countries, especially the
Europeans. Therefore, the US must
devise innovative, i.e., non-interfering ways of empowering the Iranian
people to ultimately achieve their longing for democracy, the rule of law,
freedom, and security and progress, while dealing with the Iranian government in
such a delicate fashion that the historical role of the Iranians and their
unique cultural values, almost 10,000 years in the making, and the human
resources and current infrastructure of the country, is not jeopardized under
any pretext.
E.
The Iranian-American Community aspires to facilitate a homegrown, independent
process inside their former homeland that will lead to the institution of
infrastructure, culture and education. Such a paradigm shift in approach for all
Iranian peoples should bring about a fundamental change to exercise their
franchises at the ballot box and decide the direction for the country as a
whole. The Iranians worldwide nostalgically reminisce about the aspiration of
Iranians for democratization that actually began in the mid to late nineteenth
century and continues to the present day.
F.
The Iranian-American community expects the transformation of the Iranian
society. It specifically envisages a day soon where people's voices are truly
heard and acted upon through ballot boxes and the court of justice, when the
society includes all sectors of its population including women, and members of
all religious and ethnic compatriots on equal footing, and when the environment
and natural resources, according to the concept of sustainable development and
intergenerational equity, are safeguarded and preserved. Any solution to the
problem of Iran must have at its core the
plights of the Iranian people.
Although
the community believes that according to international conventions, a sovereign
country such as Iran, that has been the signatory to NPT is entitled to the
development of nuclear technology for civilian purposes, it, nonetheless,
understands the apprehension of the US and the west for the possible dubious use
of such technology as Iran had continued its program in secret and through
acquisition of parts and know-how via clandestine sources. The fact still
remains that in the past few years alone, nearly 2000 inspections of dozens of
Iranian sites have been carried out by the IAEA, where the surveillance cameras
are in operation around the clock. Notwithstanding the country's legal right for
the development of civilian nuclear technologies, the Iranian-American
Community, following the advice of the scientific community, believes that
renewable, non-nuclear based sources (solar and wind) are the answers to meeting
the energy needs of Iran.
Therefore,
taking advantage of "democracy" as the slogan now used by the
US to galvanize the Middle Eastern
countries is in the right direction so long as the institution of democracy
occurs from within these respective countries. When the theological
establishment in Iran are impelled through non-confrontational means to allow
the seed of democracy planted over a hundred years ago to take root and grow, it
will yield a much better ambiance that is conducive to mutually beneficial
exchanges of goods and services and socio-economic development between the US
and the west on the one hand, and the Middle Eastern countries as typified by
Iran, on the other.
Historically,
a mass exodus of Iranians from the greater Persian plateau has occurred
presumably for fear of religious persecution, by people of the Zoroastrian faith
emigrating to Gujarat and Mumbai, India. From the mid-19th
century, Iranians of mostly Assyrian and Armenian (Christian), Baha'i,
Jewish and Zoroastrian faiths, have sporadically emigrated to the west,
including the US. It was not until 1979 that
the new government with its fundamental socio-political changes caused the most
recent mass exodus of three million from all walks of life comprised mainly of
Moslem faith; one million are in the US alone. They are duly
recognized as being among the most educated, affluent, law abiding and
productive US citizens. They
are contributing immensely toward the US economy (in
education, scientific research and development, medicine and healthcare,
business and manufacturing, the arts and civic service) and to the
advancement of the quality of life of the nation as a whole. Despite such
vast, by and large individually based contributions, the community as a whole
has not yet fully achieved the representation it truly deserves in
government and the socio-political arena.
The
Iranian-American families and their Community strive to reach an equilibrium
between assimilation and loyalty, to the US, while selectively instilling the many noble
aspects of their Persian heritage in the children. There is an emerging
consensus in the community advocating opposition to military intervention and
pre-emptive selective strikes against their homeland where they still have close
family and cultural ties. They envisage the urgent need for a homegrown,
independent democratization of their homeland leading to freedom, justice and
security. The Iranian-American Community continues to move forward on
the path of progress that is anchored in an outward and upward
bound outlook. This involves community and civic service, and grass roots
political activism in the broader American society whereby their personal and
professional aspirations in the US will be more effectively
heard, and better served. The second and soon third generations
of Americans of Iranian ancestry are increasingly playing a vital role in
their highly visible professional leaderships as well as their altruism,
volunteerism, and civic and political engagements, as typified by a large number
of professionals in the legal and political fields. In much the same
fashion, there is a social evolution in the community that is more conducive
toward working together for common causes.
While the primary loyalty of this Community is vested in their new home,
the US, they are very much connected to
the land of their ancestors through family, culture and history. As subject to
laws of the US, they feel a
pivotal role in safeguarding the sovereignty, security, and integrity of their
ex-compatriots in Iran as their paramount responsibly.
Any ultimate solution for Iran, to them, must have at its foundation, the
aspiration of the Iranians and the country of Iran.
About the Author: David Rahni, (drahni1956@yahoo.com), a
naturalized Iranian-American, is professor of chemistry and adjunct professor of
dermatology in New
York. Having prolifically written across a wide spectrum
of disciplines, he has also served as adjunct professor of environmental
law.