Anyone who follows this blog has come to know that I lean toward a pro liberal view of the world. In connection, I tend to advocate clear critical thinking and rational dialogue, and attempt to refrain from making outlandish assumptions or arguments based on snippets of information. Thus, when I examine US hubris, and by extension, Western ignorance in connection with discussions regarding Iran, typically I am annoyed, to say the least. But, from time to time, I am genuinely impressed.
Recently, The Economist asked several pertinent and pressing questions surrounding the Iranian issue and American politics to Flynt Leveret, Senior Fellow of the New American Foundation. His analysis, critiques and insights, it seemed to me, provided a legitimate and solid foundation from which to further study and understand Iranian society and politics. In regards to the strict dichotomy of moderates and radicals which western intellectuals often categorized Muslims, he stated:
I really think it is misleading to talk about the Iranian leadership in terms of moderates that, somehow, we can think about engaging, and radicals or hardliners who are simply beyond the pale. The critical question is: is Iran prepared to think about its foreign policy not in terms of ideology, but in terms of national interest?
Most of the candidates on the Democratic side are stuck in what I would call a moderate mush on the issue. On the Republican side, people seem to be falling all over one another to see who could be more robust in using military force against Iran, and I don’t think that’s a particularly constructive approach for American interests.
The biggest carrot that has to be on the table is what I would describe as a security guarantee from the United States: that is a commitment by the United States not to use force to change the borders or the form of government of the Islamic Republic…In terms of sticks…frankly, there’s no evidence that those kinds of measures produce much effect. The way we’re going to have to deal with Iran is really to put an offer on the table that addresses their fundamental strategic needs, and let them figure out that they will get more out of cooperating with the United States than by not cooperating—but we have never presented the Iranians with that kind of choice.
If you have 19 min, this is a must listen.
Click here to get access to the full audio interview.
~ by maffersalmon on November 14, 2007.
Posted in Academia, Alliance of Civilizations, Clash Of Civilizations, Globalization, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Liberation, War On Hubris, War On Terror, religion
Tags: Critical Thinking, Iran, Liberal Education, War On Hubris, Wesern Hubris
Stumble It!
The short answer to that very valid question is no! At a national level it is impossible for Iran to think about its foreign policy not in terms of ideology, but in terms of national interest?
The real power in Iran resides with the “Supreme Leader” – Seyyed ‘Alî Hossaynî Khâmene’î. He is both the political and religious leader of Iran, the Grand Ayatollah. There is no chance that ideology wil lever be put aside in favor of secular interests.
Matt, can you give an example of and “offer that would address their fundamental strategic needs”? Furthermore, would Mamhouds calling for the “destruction of Israel” and “more” research dedicated to finding out if the holocaust really happened – constitute part of their fundamental strategic needs? I cannot imagine much of an offer the US would tender that would facilitate they chant to wipe Israel off the map.
I do applaud your effort in maintaining and witting on this blog.