Iran

May 29 through June 18, 2003

The one place I’ve visited which people have been least willing to understand is Iran. Iran is a wonderful country full of well-educated, open-minded, and surprisingly hospitable people. It is a land of beauty and poetry, culture and sophistication. Yet, most Americans tend to think only of Iran as the country of Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution; of the hostage crisis of the early `80s; and as one of those countries Bush placed on his “Axis of Evil”. (Occasionally, people also think of it as that country we just won that war with.) As I found, though, there is really much, much more than that to the country and the people. Iran has long been the crossroads of civilizations, leaving it one of the oldest cultures on earth. The former seat of the Persian Empire, Iran played host to many of Islam’s greatest centers for science and literature, which kept the torches burning brightly during the European Dark Ages. Despite this rich history, Iran is isolated on the world stage—to the benefit of neither Iran, nor the rest of the world.

Viewed as both an important front in the Cold War, and a valuable asset for its rich natural resources (importantly: petroleum), the modern history of Iran has been a complex one. Between World War I and the Islamic Revolution, the country was ruled mostly by shahs of the Pahlavi family. These men introduced some reforms including liberalization of the society, improvements of the status of women, and a more equitable distribution of land. However, during this time period, the interests of the people were mostly subjugated to the whims of the shahs. Foreign interference from Britain and the United States included a CIA-funded coup which re-installed Mohammad Reza Shah after he was briefly exiled by a popular movement. Throughout the greater part of the 20th century, the people of Iran chafed under governments which were not representative of the people. By the late `70s, a new hope had appeared for a movement which would have the power to unseat the shah and install a government in which the people would have a voice.

All facets of anti-government activism coalesced behind the one most powerful force: Ayatollah Khomeini. Communists, secularists, and islamists all found in him their best chance to fully and finally drive out the hated shah. Khomeini believed in the concept of an Islamic Republic, which consists of a representative government—not a pure democracy—based on the principles of Islam. A constitution was written which spelled out the rights of the people, including human rights, women’s rights, religious equality, and so on. It is an interesting document which shows a degree of liberality in the foundation of the government. (A copy can be viewed here. Compare with the U.S. Constitution.) Unfortunately, this liberality is not always—or usually—practiced by the government. Religious equality, for example, is almost never put into effect with regards to certain religions such as Judaism, or Baha’i. Human rights are violated in the context of extra-judicial prosecution. Newspapers which the clerics find unfriendly to the government are shut down. Candidates for political office are vetted by a committee of clerics, which created an uproar in early 2004 by banning thousands of reformist candidates. (Human Rights Watch is a good source for information on these issues.) While the government of Iran is certainly not the most oppressive, and has even made good progress in some areas of fundamental rights, the public’s frustration with limited freedoms and continued status as a pariah country have led to unrest and broad disapproval for the government. The zeal of the Revolution has been washed away and is largely irrelevant to a population approximately half of which was born in the time since the Revolution. Presently, most Iranians seem to be patiently waiting for the coming revolution which will return some of the freedoms enjoyed under the shahs, while improving the conditions brought on by the conservative religious authorities. This feature of the Iranian people—of not agreeing with their government—is a very important one for understanding them. Having lived for so long under such governments, it is easy for them to differentiate between a person and the actions of that person’s government. Thus it is that I received a warm welcome on my trip to Iran. As one teenage boy put it to me, “If there is a problem between our countries, it is between our governments—not our people.”

The act of revolting against an oppressive ruler is one which I think any American should be able respect. The act of revolting against a foreign power whose presence is not in the best interests of the people is, again, an act which any American should be able to respect. The desire for self-rule and freedom were two primary reasons for the founding of this country after the American War for Independence. Nonetheless, the people of the United States were—as they remain—blinded to these facts. Whether because of fears of losing a battleground in the Cold War, damaged pride, or old-fashioned distrust of Muslims, the Islamic Revolution was strongly opposed by the U.S. government. General American sentiment swung far against the Iranians with the taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy several months the revolution. This action was sparked by the American agreement to provide sanctuary for the deposed shah. Though the women and African-Americans were released after two weeks, 52 were held for nearly a year. During this time, the Iranians offered to release the hostages if the U.S. would return the shah for prosecution in Iran, apologize for past misdeeds, and promise to respect the autonomy of the Iranian government. President Carter refused, and sent in a covert military operation instead. This operation was to be a daring multi-day attempt to extract 52 people from the center of a very large city deep inside Iran. It was not given enough support by the political and military leaders, and failed horrendously, leaving eight Americans dead and abandoned in central Iran. The bodies of these fallen soldiers were paraded through the streets of Tehran, and gruesome images were broadcast all over the world. Understandably, this pushed American sentiment further against the Iranians.

When Saddam Hussein took what he thought was advantage of the disorganized state of Iran by invading, the U.S. stood firmly behind him, for strategic reasons if not outright hatred. In the ensuing Iran-Iraq war, approximately one million lives were lost—about half on each side. During the ten year conflict, the U.S. quietly supplied Iraq with dual-use products like armored ambulances, helicopters, and sophisticated computers. Members of Congress were implicated in a deal which saw an Italian bank funnel $5 billion to Iraq, using funds from U.S. loans. The Senate Banking Committee has reported that Iraq was supplied by the U.S. with materials for a biological and chemical warfare program, including live anthrax and chemicals for making mustard and sarin gas. Suffice it to say that U.S. policy has not been favorable towards Iran. To this day, we have no diplomatic relations. Iranians have been wronged by Americans, and vice-versa. The U.S. took actions which may have been wise in the context of the Cold War. However, the Islamic Revolution happened over 25 years ago, and the Iron Curtain fell over 15 years ago. In my opinion, it is time to try to mend fences. My small contribution to this effort was a visit paid to meet the friendly people of Iran.

I entered Iran on my Irish passport, as it is much easier to get a visa that way and I was not sure of what sort of welcome an American would get. (I landed at the end of May—a few weeks after George W. Bush gave his now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech praising the work of U.S. armed forces in Iraq.) However, soon after showing up I found that the people—who were very friendly and helpful to begin with—opened up further on hearing that I was American. They invited me into their homes for tea or dinner, and offered to show me around the sights or take me to parties. I have nothing but good things to say of the people I met. As for anti-american sentiment, I found three examples during my entire time in the country. The first was a series of murals on the walls of the old U.S. embassy. One of these depicted a skeletal Statue of Liberty, with words calling for the destruction of the U.S. Another showed the crashed and burning helicopters from the failed hostage rescue attempt. The second example was a very small and neatly stenciled sign in one of Iran’s prime tourist sites saying “Down with USA”. The third provides an interesting insight.

I had told everyone in my family, except for two cousins, that I was headed to Switzerland for some hiking. I was planning on doing that later in the summer, but thought that there would be too many grey hairs if my mom knew where I was going. Presumably, she would likely think that I would encounter less anti-American sentiment in Switzerland. So, I lied. (Mom has since told me that it was the right thing to do.) I came to a hotel in Esfahan. Just after I checked in, the manager introduced me to two other travellers sitting in the tea garden. I was introduced as an Irishman, and their English was poor enough that they didn’t seem to catch the American accent. As it tends to among travellers, the conversation quickly turned to politics. Within five minutes of my sitting down, the two were criticizing U.S. policy, as well as Americans themselves. They were—of course—two Swiss guys. Those were the only examples of anti-American sentiment I encountered in Iran. Later that summer, I did go to Switzerland, and ran into much more of it.

The Iranians themselves were very willing to put themselves in American shoes, and try to understand American actions. They were happy to see Saddam fall, but sad to see the destruction wrought on the people of Iraq—people who had taken half a million young Iranian men in recent history. They worried that Iran, next on the “Axis of Evil” list, would be next on the “liberation” list, also. In the U.S. today, there is a great emphasis placed on Homeland Security. Any American should be able to understand if people in another country want to work for their own Homeland Security. Among the people of Iran, obtaining nuclear weapons is seen as a way to ensure their security. While I disagree with that assessment, and do not support any new nuclear weapons program, I think it is understandable. If we could try to see the situation from the Iranian perspective, maybe we could work more effectively to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. By pushing more aggressively, and with no promises of Iranian safety, we only make Iran draw into itself more.

Iran is certainly not a pure and innocent country. It has problems like any other, but isolating its government and people only strengthens the hard-line elements, and is counter-productive to the “war on terror”, the spread of democracy, and the good of humanity. By embracing Iran, we can bring it to the negotiating table on subjects like its nuclear weapons program, and its support for terrorist groups working against Israel. We do not need to agree with them, or think that they are right; we need only respect the Iranians as people of an independent nation with their own concerns.

I took many pictures during my time in the country. Some of them turned out quite nicely. I have set up a gallery of them, here.