Your Excellency President George W. Bush
As an Iranian journalist who lives in the United States, I would like to take a moment of Your Excellency’s time to present my humble reflections on that part of your State of the Union address where you designated Iran, alongside Iraq and North Korea, as an “axis of evil” that supports terrorism and that needs to be brought to bay by military action, a statement that met with huge applause, indicating that most top-brass US politicians present in the session share Your Excellency’s views concerning the trio.
Iran was further described as a country ruled by two groups: the non-elected and the elected, and a few days later Your Excellency explicitly voiced support for the latter, while afterwards you described the Iranians – or at least some of them – as barbaric, declaring that military force would be used against Iran if it does not comply with international law.
Your Excellency
When he was in office, President Reagan also called the Iranians barbaric. But former US attorney general Ramsey Clarke responded by noting that the Iranian people’s philosophy of existence hinges, historically and psychologically, on resisting and objecting to injustice.
Most Iranians are confounded by an unfathomable point in Your Excellency’s speech: They hear your call for democracy in Iran but wonder why the United States sided with the non-elected tyrants in Iran some 50 years ago and orchestrated a military coup against Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq’s popular government, thus taking the Iranian democracy to the altar to safeguard America’s vested political and economic interests in the region.
The Iranians can, moreover, never comprehend why the US has time and again created snags along the way of the government that came to power following the 1979 revolution which toppled the non-elected tyrannical Pahlavi regime.
Such concerns prompt most Iranians to question how sincere and consistent the US is in its foreign policy.
Your Excellency
The US threat to use military force against Iran has definitely impacted the Iranian public opinion: The million-strong nationwide demonstrations on February 11, marking the Islamic Revolution’s 22nd culmination anniversary, undeniably prove the effect this threat has had. The Iranians displayed their firm resolve to unite around domestic power hubs rather than foreign powers in the event of any military attack. They, moreover, indicated their readiness to unite ranks even if a majority of them are fed up with the performances and policies of the non-elected few you alluded to in your speech.
Your Excellency
The Iranians are intelligent people who can well sense any imminent danger. Their huge demonstrations on February 11 attest to their realization of the danger of military attack, and they are, therefore, justifiably appalled. But the question that remains to be answered is “Why is it that instead of being infatuated with American liberal democracy the Iranians are terrified by US militarism and hegemony?”
Your Excellency
The Iranians actually have good reason to fear US military muscle. They know how far the American war-mongers could go once the US war machine is set in motion. And it is with such knowledge that they plead: “Don’t kill us, Mr. President!”
Having witnessed the US-backed 1953 military coup against their popular government, recalling the unconditional US support for the non-elected tyrannical Pahlavi regime, remembering how the US military downed a civilian Iranian carrier in the Persian Gulf – killing all 220 on board – and how the USS Vincennes’ commander was decorated for his bravado, the Iranians never doubt the US military’s might and ability to launch an all-out military campaign. Nor do they believe in the US claims to favor and foster democracy in the Middle East.
Mr. President
Even US claims to support Iran’s elected officials, including President Mohammad Khatami, are taken with a grain of salt.
The Iranians take pride in their fledgling democracy whose most crystal-clear manifestation was the 1997 presidential elections. But a glance at the US Middle East policy shows them that the US prefers uniform iron-fist rule over indigenous democracies in the Middle East.
For this reason, the Iranians hold that US-fostered political-economic relations in the Middle East conflict with regional democratic movements, since the US is avid solely to insure and safeguard its economic investments in the zone. And as such democracy in the Middle East – and especially in the Persian Gulf which is a major source of US revenue – is not palatable to the US.
The Iranians, therefore, found it natural for the US political sensors in the Middle East to beam warning signals to Washington after Iran’s 1997 presidential elections.
Mr. President
I had previously noted in my article “Midas Touch”* that the US has so far used the traditional monolithic, non-democratic, powerful, and despotic Persian Gulf regimes to safeguard its regional investments and capital returns.
If other regional countries that serve as the US’s economic backyards follow the suit of the Iranian democracy, Washington will lose its grip on the region and will even have to pay soaring political costs.
When it comes to developments in Iran, the White House then opts for a monolithic government, an objective which the US pursues through undermining the democratic front and strengthening the conservative camp that has the potential and the power for a uniformly despotic rule.
No matter how attractive President Khatami and the reformist camp are for the Iranians, they are viewed by the American statesmen as dangerous troublemakers, despite the latter’s superficial claims to the contrary.
Ever since President Khatami came to the helm, the US has shrewdly and intermittently welcomed reforms in Iran, while fully cognizant of the negative effect such support could have. The move could be interpreted as Washington’s secret way of assisting that Iranian wing which prefers to enforce security rather than to grant freedom to the people, an iron-fist security that can actually insure the financial and commercial Mafia-style interests of the said wing, while simultaneously warranting the economic interests of the United States.
In addition, if Tehran retains its hostile and violent image in the Middle East, the US can prompt the entire region to zoom in on Iran as a country lacking democracy, thus deflecting the public opinion from Israel’s criminal policies and measures and enabling Tel Aviv to continue with its political crimes.
The White House considers President Khatami guilty of shattering Iran’s monolithic political rule. Washington prefers to sit at the negotiation table with a monolithic iron-fist Middle Eastern state rather than a democratic government that could expose the US economic life vein in the Persian Gulf to a domino-effect danger.
The US does not allow anyone to fool around with the Persian Gulf oil and petro-dollars. Once Iraq unwisely stepped into this territory and faced the full-fledged US military muscle.
In case Iran’s fervent democracy becomes endemic among despotic Persian Gulf states, Washington will lose its monopolized hold and authority over the region.
So long as Washington can negotiate with only one party in the Middle East – and especially in the Persian Gulf – it prefers not to have to deal with sundry new powers – particularly democratic ones – in the zone.
Naturally as long as the US can reach all its political-economic objectives in the region through an Arab sheik’s decree, it will not want to prolong and increase the expenses of its agreements with the Persian Gulf states through Iranian-style parliamentary and democratic processes.
According to former US President Richard Nixon, money is not everything in the United States; it is the only thing!
To preserve its "only thing", Washington will not hesitate to sacrifice and stifle democracy, parliamentary rule, and freedom quests of nations that could stir insecurity in the US economic backyards.
Mr. President
The Iranians, therefore, find the warning issued to the non-elected few ruling Iran to be mere rhetoric, since they have witnessed how US allies in the Middle East have for years trampled upon democracy and human rights without ever being criticized or facing punitive measures. They, furthermore, question why non-elected governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and in other US-ally countries in the Middle East hold sway without ever having been criticized for similar acts.
Mr. President
The Iranian people contend that any warning issued to Iran’s ruling non-elected few actually serves to bolster these totalitarians who can use the “foreign enemy” ruse to create an atmosphere of terror and subsequently impose more restrictive policies and measures on the people. And all this ultimately hampers Iran’s reform movement.
Global war against terrorism, especially against the “axis of evil”, can in practice culminate into the “bliss of evil”, as such a campaign could boost American weapons productions and subsequently funnel money into the ailing economy. This is of paramount importance since prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the US faced an economic recession that was unseen in the past decade. According to figures released by the US Department of Commerce, the average US economic growth rate stood at 0.2 % between April and June 2001, slumping dramatically from more than 5% in the preceding year when the democrats held power.
Mr. President
As a final point, allow me to state that Iranians living in Iran or in the US are appalled at Washington’s threats against their motherland. This has prompted most Iranians residing in the US to unwittingly show fear-induced reactions to save their citizenry rights in case war erupts between the US and Iran.
They try to pay lip-service to US power wielders and to declare antipathy against Iran out of fear and out of the urge to protect themselves. And this should not happen in a democratic country.
Mr. President
Some of my Iranian friends who have led decent lives in the US for years as law-abiding tax-payers shouldering social responsibilities and helping the US thrive tried to dissuade me from writing this letter to Your Excellency. And to avoid facing any possible consequences from associating with me, in case the administration wanted to take action against me for writing this letter, they abandoned me altogether.
Mr. President
If their fear is well grounded, the US should think about solving this problem, namely such citizens’ sense of insecurity, before giving lessons of freedom and democracy to other countries.
If, however, their fear is unfounded, the purpose of liberal democracy is defeated, for it indicates that this system has so intimidated the non-native citizens that their personal and social actions are motivated by false fear, reflecting that the US government system has not afforded them the absolute sense of security that stems from heartfelt belief in their inalienable rights.
In both cases, liberal democracy appears to be a legal system lacking warrants for practical enforcement.
Mr. President
Now people in Iran ask: What has come over our fellow Iranians whom we entrusted to the United States? How their legal and social personalities were crushed to such an extent that they became panicky and passive in the US liberal democracy which, according to Professor Fukoyama, was supposed to be the best and ultimate form of government?
The most ideal form of US liberal democracy is when citizens can believe in citizenry rights and values. But the problem lies in the fact that the driving force for these rights and values is what I already quoted from former President Nixon: Money.
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully,
Dariush Sajjadi
February 14, 2002
* Midas Touch is available online at http://www.geocities.com/dariushsajjadi/englishmaterial/AIC.html
هیچ نظری موجود نیست:
ارسال یک نظر