Perhaps more than anything, diplomacy is about gestures. In interpreting them, we rely on our knowledge of the other, on the symbolic value of the gesture itself, on whether there is hidden meaning behind the gesture and of course on whether the gesture was directed at us or someone else. With the forthcoming UN general assembly, a series of gestures, some contradictory, have been made by Iran and America which could potentially have serious and lasting consequences for peace and stability not only in the greater Middle East but in the world.
As Iran prepares to arrive in New York under the stewardship of Hasan Rouhani, it has decided to release a number of political prisoners. There will be those who will argue that Rouhani’s move is a calculated move to bring about goodwill at the UN and others will argue that it is in keeping with a man who said in his election campaign that “a strong government does not mean one that limits the lives of people.” Meanwhile, American authorities have decided to seize a high-rise building in Manhattan that they claim is an asset of the Iranian Melli Bank in keeping with the current American policy of suffocating Iran financially.
Although the timing of the American move and indeed its efficacy might be seen as unnecessarily provocative, it seems that beyond this sabre-rattling perhaps things can inch forward with Barack Obama recently admitting that he has been exchanging letters with his Iranian counterpart. In 2009, Obama had stated that his administration was committed to pursuing ‘constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community…and an engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.’
A few months after Obama’s direct video address, I sat in Damascus watching the results of the Iranian elections. A Syrian friend thought out aloud: ‘I find it very strange,’ he said, ‘that the Iranian people are now being supported and all these countries are rushing to make speeches about freedom and liberty but tomorrow if these protests come to nothing, then it will be these very people who will be punished. In fact, you know they might even get us, as a way of getting to them’
Four years later my Syrian friend’s words could not ring truer and one can only wonder at how punishing a population with crippling sanctions can ever be construed of as grounded in ‘mutual respect’ or a form of ‘engagement’ that is not premised on threats.
The sanctions continue their silent but deadly assault. As food prices, fuel prices, medical supplies and basic living costs spiral in Iran, some voices have emerged in the West which are calling for a review of the efficacy of sanctions. These voices range from Obama’s former deputy assistant secretary of state John Limbert, who was also one of the hostages in US embassy in Tehran in 1979, to Thomas Pickering a high-ranking diplomat in the State Department. A number of think tanks and policy houses have also called for a reassessment of the way in which sanctions are used and prominent amongst them are the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Atlantic Council and the American Federation of Scientists. Of course there are still prominent hawkish voices too like that of the retired General James Mattis who while deposing to the Senate Armed Services Committee said that he was ‘paid to take a dim view of the Iranians’ and that the armed forces had 'what it takes to make it the enemy’s longest day and their worst day.' In Iran too, Rouhani, in a carefully worded speech, asked the Revolutionary Guards to stay ‘above’ politics.
The problem then is one of perception, the way in which the other is viewed and a matter of trust that people come to the negotiating table to negotiate and have not already adopted an inflexible position. It seems that one of the hardest things, whether at the level of the individual or indeed of institutions, is to be able to view scenarios and situations from the others point of view and in this, language in the broadest sense plays a key role. As a crude example, ‘rights’ and its Arabic/ Persian equivalent ‘huqooq’ implicitly have their own particular historical genealogies and contexts. Unless both parties are able to place themselves in the others shoes then, inevitably each interprets what they want according to their own paradigm. Thus, Rouhani’s recent reiteration of Ayatollah Khamenei’s old position that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic, may perversely not resonate in America where both Democrats and Republicans see nuclear weapons as a logical projection of the state’s power.
The current ‘Western’ suspicion of the Iranians was not one catalysed by the Islamic Revolution in 1979, although perhaps exacerbated by it, but was there even before during Dr Mossadegh’s government, which was decidedly nationalist and not Islamist. Fans of perennial struggles and teleological history might even read this back onto the Ancients but that would be a tad fanciful.
The fact of the matter is that for all the jingoistic rhetoric and vitriolic statements, the common person is the one who suffers and this is the issue which should be first and foremost on the minds of both the Americans and the Iranians as they decided on a course of action. In the mad scramble for power, an entire people are silently suffering while the noose of ‘smart’ sanctions is tightened more and more. Sanctions rarely, if ever, lead to domestic political change. It is therefore important that for some times now this has been acknowledged and highlighted by a number of important voices that inform the policy debate on Iran in America.
One of the most important points that needs to be tackled, if there is a possibility of talks, is to address how sanctions can be lifted. Of course, worries about the domestic political and financial ramifications of this, necessarily restrict diplomacy to back-channel talks, but the problem in these is that both parties inevitably end up second-guessing the other and therefore not really reaching any tangible conclusion. Keeping in mind recent events and even the rather brief and apparently ‘inadvertent’ lifting of internet restrictions in Iran recently, which some speculate was an ‘experiment by the new administration,’ it seems that the republic is trying to offer an olive branch. It seems that the Americans might even take a hold of this opportunity as US officials have said that although a meeting has not been planned the two heads of state might meet each other when they address the UN general assembly. One can’t predict the future but one has to at least view it with optimism and hope that a drive to reduce the suffering of individuals, who are far removed from the world of political machinations, will ultimately catalyse a sensible direction in policy.
Ali Khan Mahmudabad is a PhD student in History at the University of Cambridge who writes a fortnightly column for the Urdu Daily Inqilab
>> Educated subcontinental Moslems, are some of the most detestable slimeballs.
Do you know that you yourself are one of the most detestable slimeballs? Also one of the mosr repetitive and boring posters.
Educated subcontinental Moslems, are some of the most detestable slimeballs. They are the biggest supporters of pan-Islam, and go to great pains to explain, mitigate or justify Islamic terrorism all over the globe. When they do condemn such terror, it is cleverly hedged with references to Hindus, or Jews and some "injustice" inflicted on Moslems. Thus they are bringing their Arabian ideology into India, and passionately involving India and Hindus, with global Islamic ideology and terror. And they also push the Zionist Hindu conspiracy theory most aggressively. A Pakistani judicial commission investigating the Mumbai terror attacks, has accused the Indian government of staging the whole thing. These are educated, subcontinental Moslems, not some street rabble. Haroon Siddiqui, an educated subcontinental Moslem working for the Toronto Star, is a huge commentator and supporter of global Islam.
The idea, that Gen. Musharraf was the cause of the death of Benazir Bhutto is an unusual idea, and Pakistan doesn't seem to feel so at all. The reason why Gen. Musharraf became army chief, then President was because Benazir Bhutto was supposed to be President for a long time afterwards, when the gen. became army chief. Because Mr. Zulfiqar Bhutto was the cause of the division of Pakistan, and because it seems, that he caused West Pakistan to be attacked also, during the War of Bangladesh, the ascent of certain army officers in the hierarchy was initiated. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq was promoted bypassing other senior officers in the hierarchy, because he was seen to be very amenable to Mr. Bhutto, according to the print media of India and Pakistan. Perhaps, Gen. Musharraf was made army chief, because he would remind Ms. Bhutto (Benazir) that she had nothing to have against an army officer who had his ancestral family from New Delhi.
The plain fact is, that in South Asia, Pakistan felt India was going to invade and conquer Pakistan. They have been making every excuse to make their earlier embarrassing idea relevant, the idea being embarrassing, because India is looking at Pakistan and saying, we don't want Pakistan's problems. People are land grabbing in India anyway, and land is easy to grab. I don't know how these ideas are communicated. Also, because India did not conquer Bangladesh, the idea that Pakistan got was, that the ethnic identity of the Pakistani in the west was the target of a plot, where the west of Pakistan was in danger of conquest. India always maintained Pakistan was divided by Pakistan, and India did not divide herself. It is forgotten, that the 'establishment', that is running the administration of Pakistan, has many pre-partition Indian dignitaries in their number, and they are overwhelming in the number, by majority. The only Pakistani's in the establishment, who seem to be trusted by their army, and who are from an Indian ancestry relevant to today, are Pakistan army officers. Gen. Musharraf was made army chief, because he is from a New Delhi ancestry, and Benazir Bhutto was perhaps President, or because she was going to be very relevant to Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto had nothing to discuss with a Gen. with Musharraf's credentials, when the security of Pakistan was being guaranteed by Musharraf.
American debate about Iran is tied to Israeli security, plain and simple.
As long as Iran insists its foreign policy is purely based on "wiping Israel off the world map", or that "Israel is a cancer, which needs to be removed", no debate in USA will approve of any friendship with Iran, or lifting of any sanctions against Iran will occur.
This is the plain truth of the matter and Iran better understand it. It needs to come out with an unambiguous and categorical statement about Israel's right to exist, along with perhaps that for an independent Palestinian state also next to it, until then, the call for US and Iranian handshakes is a big mirage. It is not happening.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT