Blogs and Stories
How Barack 'Hussein' Obama Is Charming Iran
Jae C. Hong / AP Photo
Even at his inauguration, Obama was making subtle appeals to the rising dissent in Iran. Now, he's given his first presidential interview to an Arabic satellite TV network. Author and longtime Mideast correspondent Geraldine Brooks on the huge dividends that could come from finally opening a dialogue there.
Barack Obama has said he is prepared to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At his inauguration, he did something better. He began to talk past him, directly to the Iranian people, who will elect their own new president later this year.
Obama’s middle name, Hussein, is familiar and recognizable to all Muslims, but for Iran’s Shiites it is especially beloved. It is the name of the martyred son of their venerated Imam Ali, invoked at their most sacred festivals, blazoned on religious gathering places, chanted by weeping mourners at the times of their personal loss. How confounding that the leader of the nation so long excoriated as the Great Satan should choose to be sworn into office using the name of a Shiite saint.
Iran’s hardliners are an increasingly thin encrustation atop a population who would welcome a thaw with the US.
Obama undoubtedly understands this. At a campaign fundraiser on a summer evening a year and a half ago, the then-underdog candidate Obama gave a short speech in answer to a question on Iran that showed him to be exquisitely aware of Iranian history and sensitivities. In it, he reflected that it might not be a bad thing, in talking to Iran, to acknowledge that America’s role in the coup that unseated the democratically elected leader Mossadegh in 1953 was a mistake, as was our clandestine support for Saddam Hussein while he bombed Iranian cities such as Khoramshah to rubble in 1988. If he were to make a similar speech to the Iranian people, there’s a chance that the Ahmadinejad era of terrorism-supporting, holocaust-denying, nuclear-proliferating fanaticism could soon be behind us.
Iran is a demographically young country and a culturally venerable one. Many of its people hunger for change but a painful history of being pushed around by great powers, including England, Russia and the US, has made them highly resistant to bullying. Nor do they appreciate characterizations such as George Bush’s unfortunate “axis of evil” remark, which belittles the proud and ancient Persia of Hafez, Cyrus and Rumi.
Dissent in today’s Iran is diverse and deep-seated. About seventy percent of Iranians have been born in the 30 years since the Islamic revolution. They don’t remember the shah or Khomeini or the US Embassy siege. Many listen to hip hop and heavy metal, watch illicit satellite TV and yearn for more personal freedoms. A significant number have risked jail and endured beatings in their quest for a more open society.
Among the older generation are former supporters of the Islamic revolution who have become disillusioned over time by the corrupting effects of power on a religious establishment that promised to represent the “shoeless ones” but has instead mismanaged a resource-rich economy at the expense of the poor. Others, who always despised the revolutionary regime and who could have emigrated, have stayed instead to fight for the soul of a culture they love. These are the people who continue, despite many official obstacles, to make remarkable films, run an opinionated and vigorous press, and ensure that universities still retain voices brave enough to teach above the drone of propaganda.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Iran's Hillary Clinton
Geraldine Brooks is an author and journalist who worked for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Wall Street Journal. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in fiction in 2006 for her novel March, and her novel Year of Wonders is an international bestseller. She is the author of Nine Parts of Desire and Foreign Correspondence.
If Hillary Is Worthy, Then So Is Caroline
Geraldine Brooks is an author and journalist who worked for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Wall Street Journal. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in fiction in 2006 for her novel March, and her novel Year of Wonders is an international bestseller. She is the author of Nine Parts of Desire and Foreign Correspondence.
Michelle's Closet Agenda
Geraldine Brooks is an author and journalist who worked for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Wall Street Journal. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in fiction in 2006 for her novel March, and her novel Year of Wonders is an international bestseller. She is the author of Nine Parts of Desire and Foreign Correspondence.
Any Iranian president it a puppet for the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is the real power in the country and who controls the Iranian Guard. It would be very hard to change the culture in Iran without changing the clerics who actually control the government. An article by the Iranian journalist and dissident Akbar Ganji calls Khamenei a "latter-day sultan" http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001essay87604/akbar-ganji/the-latter-day -sultan.html
This was an interesting piece, at least until I tread the words
"Although a council of conservative clerics dictates who can run for office..."
Come on. You can't argue that Iran is a moderate western-leaning society -- as evidenced by its elections -- but then simply dismiss as a tiny caveat that "a council of conservative clerics dictates who can run for office"
It may be that the silent majority in Iran wants change. Well then. That silent majority has to do some -- maybe most -- of the work. It was crystal clear the silent majorities in Eastern Europe wanted out from under the Soviet Union's control. It is by no means obvious that the majority in Iran really secretly want to join hands with west and sing songs of shared visions.
Let's talk to Iran. But lets' also LISTEN to Iran. Somehow in the west we are so anxious to find partners for peace we ignore the painfully obvious -- that sometimes we really do have significant differences with other peoples and movements and creeds. Until there are clear signals that Iran (and the rest) are abandoning jihad and the struggle for a new caliphate etc., we are best advised to keep vigilant
To have Iran as a friend, or at least to be on speaking and/or negotiating terms, would be such a help to we, the US. A help to us in the Middle East and a help to our oh-so-ridiculous 'culture'.
The Republican notion of not talking to nations that we have disagreements with luckily has not yet started WWIII... although ex-Pres. Shrub did his best to help that notion along.
I agree that we should be talking to Iran (that's one reason I voted for Obama), but Brooks' article talks about the "thin encrustation of hardliners", which seems to indicate that dramatic change in the country might be easier to achieve than has been thought. I disagree with that idea if that is what she is saying. It will not be a shoo-in, and will take more than a shoe-throw at the Ayatollah.
Talking to the Iranians, or talking past the Iranian government is the best solution. Bush lumped them all together into a big blob of radical militants...which was an awful thing to do.
It is unfortunate that the clerics control who can run, but it is up to the people of Iran to revolt and change that, not America.
I'd like to believe that Obama spoke past Ahmadinejad, directly to the Iranian people, but have my doubts his speech could carry that far. On Tuesday the NYT had a story about reactions to Obama's speech--in Iran, the correspondent reported that state run television completely ignored the event. In China, viewers got to see the speech up until Obama said the word "communism," at which point state-run TV cut him off. When the speech was reprinted in newspapers, the line about stepping toward governments willing to relax the grip on their own countries was edited out.
I'm not saying Obama's approach is completely lost on the world, but I don't think we can see it'll be that easy, either.
@ Zugwang
While state sponsored TV can do and censor as they please, the internet has increasingly made News from TV irrelevant even in countries like Iran and China. I admit that China's filtering of the internet is formidable, it is still much easier to get the message through these days than before the internet. Having talked to some friends I have that are from Iran, the filters in Iran are no where near as sophisticated and they are geared more toward the censor of pornography. I think if any Iranian want to see Obama's complete speech, they'd have to look no further than Youtube or even whitehouse.gov.
The United States cannot and must not negociate with terrorist states. This gives legitimacy to repressive and totalitarian governments that exist only to promote the power and wealth of a few fanatical despots, regardless of the adjectives they use to describe themselves or their so-called ideologies. However, dealing directly with the people and the thinkers of these states is likely the best weapon against terrorist states. Witness Poland in the 1970's and 80's, witness the fall of the Berlin wall, witness the fall of Russioan communism. Grant you, if the United States hastens the overthrow, by its own people, of any government, the United States must be prepared to assist those people in the determination of a replacement, but talking to people is the best idea to come down the pike since the fall of Babel. Don't talk to terrorist leaders, don't negociate with them, don't give them any credence at all, but do talk to their repressed people. That is why God invented the internet. Dialogue of ideas, concepts, and shared beliefs and experiences is the best way to come to mutual respect and perhaps, a modicum of understanding.
Speaking directly to the Iranian people is a wise idea. Spreaking to the Rulers of Iran is waste if time. To apologize for US behavior is also ridiculous as students of history know well that the Cup of 1953 did not overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran as the Iranian Constitution of 1906 did not calll for elections of a Prime Minister. While the US assisted in the coup that resulted in the return of the Shah, the people of Iran participated in returning their Sovereign to power. US supprot of Iraq in the war with Iraq while not popular in Iran was in US interests as it was an attempt to curtail the advancement of the Mullahs evil intents.
It would be in world interet to assist the Iranian people in removing the barbaric corrupt religious imposters who have enslaved the Iranian people.
You know, Ronald Reagan showed us the way. All we had to do to neutralize our deadliest and most implacable foe......................was sit down and begin talking with them.
Plus... Republicans are terrible. They extoll torturing nobodies over talking with presidents.
To jag...
Ronald Reagan showed us how to arm radical elements of our deadliest and most implacable foe... and later we got to see who would end up being targeted by those we armed.
We funded and armed Saddam Hussein. We funded and armed Osama Bin Laden.
Reagan showed us how to make problems best left for a later generation to deal with.
He's not the first to do this.
Bush on February 3, 2005:
"Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you"
Good intention works.Understanding builds relationships, sooner or later.Tact, manipulations, complacency and even military might have their fallouts.Every action has its reaction.
So it's easy to understand the change in Iran that may not match to America's likings in the given circumstance.
If Bush's careless rhetoric in 2002 could work to finally bring Ahmadinejad to forefront pushing back the reformers, Obama's correctional measures can well change the scenario again.After all, nothing is permanent than change.
Let's hope 'open mind' will open minds, and Iran too will start believing Obama's 'America-friend to all' mindset and his good intentions and will react the 'friendly way'.
@Kirbonicus
That's as maybe, it was dialog that destroyed the Soviet Union, not the Mujahadeen.
If you haven't learned that arming people simply because they are 'My enemies enemy' then you're just being naive. What killed the Soviet Union was Reagan's willingness to talk directly with regime that not only had us targeted in a nuclear capacity but also supported and funded terrorist attacks against us and our allies.
The more people see and talk to each other, the more they realize there is a better a way, and the more the doors open the more the people on the street get a glimpse of what the benefits of friendship are.
Wow - this is quite a stretch. Sorry, Obama's inauguration speech doesn't qualify as Obama talking to Iran.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.