LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
2010 Webby Award Winner for Best Political Blog
 
February 20, 2012
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Acts of Love

Ideological Hypocrites

OWS Calls for May Day Strike

When Iran Talks Back

Krugman to Playboy: Economic Crisis 'Doesn't Have to Be Happening'

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Acts of Love
Ideological Hypocrites
The Lowdown on Fracking

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Déjà Pooh

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Reports

Iranians Skeptical About U.S.-Tehran Dialogue

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Posted on Dec 19, 2006
Tehran shoppers
Resse Erlich

Two women shop in Tehran

By Reese Erlich

Award-winning journalist Reese Erlich discovers that everyday Iranians favor talks between America and Tehran, but most think the negotiations will amount to little more than window dressing.

TEHRAN—Washington beltway insiders speculate that if only the United States opened talks with Iran and Syria, it might be able to escape the Iraq quagmire. But based on interviews with Iranians, such a hope appears to be a pipe dream.

The Iraq Study Group and some advisors to President Bush have suggested opening negotiations as a means to stop Iran and Syria’s support for various factions in Iraq’s civil war. So far the Bush administration has rejected such calls. But even if the U.S. tries to open talks, Iran is likely to drive a hard bargain. Iranian authorities calculate that the U.S. will remain bogged down in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And unlike a U.S. public polarized along party lines, the Iranian government enjoys considerable popular support on this issue.

Ordinary Iranians, interviewed at random in Tehran, favor a dialogue between the two countries but tend to side with their leaders on what that dialogue might accomplish.

As Ali Mohammadi cranked open the awning on his small grocery store in a working-class neighborhood of south Tehran, he noted that the U.S. faces tremendous problems in Iraq and said it will eventually have to withdraw its troops. “The problem of Iraq will be solved,” he said.

Advertisement

In another part of south Tehran, Masoud Rezaei sells colorful cotton cloth at a small fabric store. He was pleased with the Republican defeat in the U.S. midterm elections. “There’s a 90 percent possibility of improving relations as a result of the elections,” he said.

The optimists in Iran say if Washington and Tehran successfully negotiate their differences in Iraq, then the two governments could tackle the much more difficult issue of Iran’s development of nuclear power and enriching uranium.

Other Iranians argue that there’s little immediate chance of improving relations. Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize and a leading human rights activist in Tehran, noted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s long letter to Bush last May had little impact. “I’m not expecting any tangible changes in U.S.-Iran relations,” she said.

Even strong critics of Iran’s clerical government say the U.S. hasn’t taken advantage of recent possibilities to improve relations. In 2001, for example, Iran cooperated with the U.S. to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. Ebrahim Yazdi, former Iranian foreign minister and now a leading critic of the government, said Iran had helped bring together various Afghan factions to wage war against the Taliban.
“The U.S. government did not use that opportunity to resolve the outstanding problems,” he said. Therefore he doubts “if U.S. authorities really want to resolve problems with Iran.”

Ahmadinejad enjoys considerable popular support in his confrontations with the U.S.

In random interviews in various parts of Tehran, residents universally supported Iran’s right to develop nuclear power, enrich its own uranium and defy a U.N. resolution against doing so.

Interviewed at a middle-class shopping mall, homemaker Mahin Husseini said she supports Iran’s experimental efforts to enrich uranium. “We shouldn’t rely on other countries to give us the technology,” she said.

Opposition leader Yazdi said the Bush administration’s focus on the nuclear issue and its statements that a military attack against Iran is still “on the table” only solidify public opinion in support of conservative President Ahmadinejad.  Iranians rally round their government in times of international crisis, he noted, just as Americans did after Sept. 11. Iranians are particularly outraged that the U.S. has allocated $85 million to “democratize” Iran, according to Yazdi, because that’s a code word for overthrowing the government.

Iranians remember all too well the last time the U.S. “democratized” Iran. In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and replaced him with the brutal dictator Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.

“Democracy cannot be imported or exported,” said Yazdi. “American soldiers don’t carry democracy in their backpacks. It has to come from within.”

In fact, said Yazdi and other leading opponents of the government, Bush administration policies are counterproductive.

“When the U.S. government uses harsh words against Iran or the government allocates money to overthrow the regime, the authorities in Iran use that to suppress the opposition,” Yazdi said.

The U.S. should drop the nuclear issue and join with other countries to politically pressure Iran to improve human rights, according to Nobel laureate Ebadi, who noted that political repression has gotten worse under the Ahmadinejad administration. The government has increasingly closed newspapers, arrested political prisoners and beaten peaceful demonstrators.
“The U.S. government shouldn’t militarily attack Iran,” said Ebadi. “The Americans should pay more attention to the human rights issues in Iran.”

Back at the shopping mall, homemaker Husseini fills her shopping cart with housewares. She supports her government’s positions but remains optimistic. In the long run, she said, the two countries can resolve their differences.

“It’s better if Iran and U.S. have friendly relations,” she said. “I don’t want to see more wars.”

Reese Erlich is an award-winning freelance foreign correspondent. His book “The Iran Agenda: What the US Government Doesn’t Want You to Know” will be published next September.


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Hondo, December 28, 2006 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you, Outraged, for reprinting my comments. I hope it was cathartic.
Now, to your question. You asked how many of the world’s wars, wars in which appeasement failed, were pursued in the name of God. There have been many wars in the history of the world that were pursued in the name of God. America hasn’t participated in a war like that, but history shows that many countries have perverted and distorted the Word of God in order to achieve an evil, worldly purpose. I’m at a bit of a lost as to what your strangly ignorant question was trying to get at. Do you mean that Christian nations are always going to war in order to “evangelize” the world? If that’s what you meant, then at least we know that there are no limits to your ignorance. The world’s history proves you wrong. Perhaps you were confusing Christian countries with Muslim countries.
I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that you are deliberately trying to confuse and obfuscate the issues we are discussing. I said that we have a right to defend our country. You replied that evangelism equals violence. I tried to get you focused back on the topic by asking you to explain what you meant by that profoundly idiotic statement, and you responded by re-typing my post and then asking about wars in the name of God. You need more help than I can give you, son! Take a deep breath, re-focus yourself, and come back with something specific.

Report this

By Outraged, December 28, 2006 at 3:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo:

You said:
“Christians don’t believe in evangelism through violence.”

Then you said:(In the same comment no less)

“The Christian conservative correctly recognizes that these monsters pushed a war on us that we didn’t want. They must now be shown the error of their ways, and that can only be accomplished by a furious, brutal and relentless show of force that ultimately wipes Islamofascism from the face of the earth.”

But you also said:

“Islamofascism is completely sociopathic, and they refuse to be appeased. The only way we will ever create peace is to kill islamofascism.”
“At the present time, the U.S. has a president who won’t take any crap from Islamofascist terrorists.”


But then you made this comment:

“Turning my BELIEFS into “black marks on a glowing screen” (to quote a famous Aussie) helps me to clarify those BELIEFS.” (caps.mine)

According to Websters New World Dictionary:
BELIEF:
1.the state of believing; conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real.
2.faith, esp. religious faith
3.trust or confidence.
4.anything believed or accepted as true; esp. a creed, doctrine, or tenet.
5.an opinion; expectation; judgement.

So Hondo your beliefs (I mean, “those black marks on a glowing screen”)are just that Hondo, just your beliefs.


Also Hondo, I mean if your not pressed for time. Would you mind adding up all those wars, the ones that couldn’t be solved with “the same naive appeasement logic that has never worked in the history of the world.” how many of those were pursued in the name of god?

Just the same, I do AGREE with you on one thing:
“You can’t reason with people whose entire philosophy is completely devoid of reason.”

Report this

By Hondo, December 27, 2006 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, Outraged, your panties sure are in a bunch, aren’t they? Being a liberal, you naturally misconscrewed the point I was making about dialogue. I’ll type slower this time, so you can understand.
I am not opposed to dialogue. In fact, I love to have dialogues with all kinds of people. I especially enjoy the dialogues I participate in with all of you wacky liberals on truthdig. Turning my beliefs into “black marks on a glowing screen” (to quote a famous Aussie) helps me to clarify those beliefs. I rather enjoy reading the entertaining responses to my comments, as well. Reading a half-hour’s worth of liberal outrage sparked by my comments is almost as entertaining as a one-hour episode of “Walker-Texas Ranger.”
What I don’t believe in is appeasement with terrorists. Why? Because history shows again and again how utterly useless appeasement is. It doesn’t work. Period. Here endeth the lesson.

Report this

By Outraged, December 26, 2006 at 2:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo:
If you don’t believe in dialogue SHUT UP!  Find a nice dark little corner somewhere and stay there.

Report this

By Rickinsf, December 25, 2006 at 9:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m not a liar, but I did read your conveniently-linked profile, Hondo.

Perhaps I was reaching too far is guessing that “spreading the word” was an important part of your professed devotion.

I just noticed that in your two posts you’re dreaming “what if” Carter or Kucinich were president. It must more comforting than the reality of Bush/Cheney’s bungling.
And in all three you wrap with a call to slaughter.

Hey, Merry Christmas!

Report this

By james j, December 24, 2006 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama and hillary are in the pocket of the pro isreal lobby which supports the bombing of iran dont be fooled

Report this

By Hondo, December 23, 2006 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Rickinsf—Christians don’t believe in evangelism through violence. What a strangely ignorant question! I posted two comments on this thread and neither one referred in any way to evangelism. Why would you say that they did? Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension, or are you just a liar? What I did say is that violent force for the purpose of self defense is absolutely necessary to defeat the forces of Islamofascism. Being a Christian doesn’t mean that I am supposed to sit on my thumbs while murderous thugs and monsters destroy our society and kill our families. A liberal, being the “useful idiot” that he is, says that we must love these monsters, and establish a dialogue with them in order to create peace. Poppycock! The Christian conservative correctly recognizes that these monsters pushed a war on us that we didn’t want. They must now be shown the error of their ways, and that can only be accomplished by a furious, brutal and relentless show of force that ultimately wipes Islamofascism from the face of the earth.

Report this

By Rickinsf, December 23, 2006 at 9:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo

Why do all you Christianists believe in evangelizing through violence?

Report this

By Hondo, December 21, 2006 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dr. Knowitall says that, in order to work out differences, there must be dialogue. With all due respect, sir, that’s the same naive appeasement logic that has never worked in the history of the world. Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich are fond of spouting that nonsense, and it just isn’t true. You can’t reason with people whose entire philosophy is completely devoid of reason. Islamofascism is completely sociopathic, and they refuse to be appeased. The only way we will ever create peace is to kill islamofascism.

Take a look at http://hurricaneharry.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-negotiate-with-terrorists.html

It is the clearest, truest expression of what must be done to defeat radical Islam that I have ever seen.

Report this

By Lawrence Linnell, December 21, 2006 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

On-the-spot reports from inside Iran, like this excellent one by Reese Erlich, are all the more important in a time of increasing lies and disinformation being spread by the Bush Administration. With news stories of U.S.Navy holding maneuvers off the Iranian coast, and investigative reporters Sy Hersh and Scott Ridder predicting war on the horizon, it is essential to keep channels of communication open with people inside the country. If war comes, the people who will suffer are primarily the women and childrean of Iran, the very people Erlich interviews in the streets and shopping markets of the country. With the demonization of Iran since 1979, (when the US Embassy was occupied by Iranians outraged by the despotic rule of the Shah and his CIA supported Savak secret police), there’s a great need for press coverage of Iran showing the human face and diversity of the Iranian people. We need more coverage like Erlich’s. The idea of a war with Iran is madness. We have to struggle against the notion of a conflict which will solve nothing, increase suffering, and ultimately harm America.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, December 21, 2006 at 4:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re:42986 Hondo
    The USA, in its foreign policy, is roughly the equivalent of an elementary school playground bully.  That’s “worked” for decades.  But, now, the world has smartened up.  As for Islamofascist terrorists, they’ll meet the same resistance the world over that the US finally has.  Ordinary people everywhere understand that, in order to work out differences, there has to be dialogue.  Then there has to be acknowledgement and concession, and that’s what the money class in America is afraid of and why it’ll be a long, long time before things change, unless, of course, the money class is put out of business in our government.  In the meantime, ordinary people in America and the Middle East, and their children, will continue to be victimized.  George Bush and the Islamofascists should take their little game into a giant-sized X-Box somewhere and leave the rest of us alone.

Report this

By Hondo, December 20, 2006 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s not “Washington beltway insiders” who are hoping for dialogue between the U.S. and Iran/Syria. It is the modern liberal establishment that is hoping for appeasement. And I’m not surprised that Iranians don’t hold out much hope for the dialogue. At the present time, the U.S. has a president who won’t take any crap from Islamofascist terrorists. I’m very certain that if our president was named Jimmy Carter or Dennis Kucinich, the radical Islam crowd would be just pleased as punch! Of course, the resulting mushroom clouds on the American landscape probably wouldn’t do much for American happiness. But that’s OK, isn’t it. At least the murderous terrorists would know we love them!

Report this

By afm, December 19, 2006 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is wrong with the president.  He is in such a state of denial.  If he can’t or won’t pull our troops out of Iraq that maybe the congress should think about impeachment of this president.  Who does he think he is King George or God.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






                        Number of characters remaining: 4000

Are you a human? Retype the word you see here.

     

Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox


 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.