Please Note: I am not a lawyer and nothing in this site should be taken as legal advice. Check out my top 10 list of things that make more sense than taking legal advice from me. |
Can An Apology to Iran Pave The Road To Democracy?
Today I want to take a break from talking about copyright law. I want to talk about something more important than copyright law. I want to talk about the situation in Iran. What follows is the speech that I wish Barack Obama would make. I have no doubt that you will think that I am completely insane if you read only halfway through it. Please be patient and wait until the end of the speech before judging its merits.
Both Iran and the United States have fallen victim to themaskedanalyst’s law of pain. I’ll tell you what themaskedanalyst’s law of pain is in a second, but first I want to make an observation. When someone attacks you and severely injures you, you will remember it. If you aren’t careful, the pain to your psyche may last years after the physical wounds have healed and become the focal point of your life. The memories of that attack may consume you and drive you to seek revenge. Hopefully, you will use the legal system as a substitute for satisfying that primal desire, but when the legal system doesn’t work you may be tempted to take matters into your own hands. I’m not saying that such emotions are a good thing, but they are a human thing, and everyone feels them under the right circumstances. Themaskedanalyst’s law of pain recognizes this, but it also notes that you are much more likely to recognize the pain that drives your emotions and behavior than the pain that drives your enemy’s emotions and behavior. Themaskedanalyst’s law of pain is this: “The same wound that looks like a paper cut when it occurs to your enemy feels like an amputation when it occurs to you.” You are going to dwell on your own injuries far more than you will dwell on your enemy’s. You will probably minimize the significance of his injuries, and you might wish that his injuries were more severe.
Such is the situation between Iran and the United States today. We in the U.S. focus on the humiliation that Iran dealt us when they took our embassy hostage in 1979 and held our ambassadors under cruel conditions for 444 days. Americans see this as the starting point of our enmity with Iran, and this incident is burned deeply into our consciousness. There are many other reasons why we view Iran as our enemies and the enemies of freedom, but this is where it starts.
But the Iranians don’t focus on the hostage taking the way that we do. This is not how it started for them. Persia has a great and proud history stretching back roughly 4500 years to the Elamite civilization. The Iranians are justifiably proud of Cyrus the Great who founded Persia and declared the first known charter of human rights more than 500 years before Christ. Persia was a hub of intellectual achievement centuries before the Renaissance in Europe. Muhammad al Khwarizmi, considered by many to be the father of algebra, wrote the first book about solving quadratic equations roughly 1200 years ago. Abu Ali Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna, completed his fourteen-volume Canon of Medicine, also known as the Qanun in 1025. This compendium was considered authoritative until the 1700s and physicians to this day still rely heavily on ideas set forth in the Qanun. Omar Khayyám’s contributions in astronomy and mathematics alone are impressive. He calculated the length of a year within six decimal places and he invented a method for solving cubic equations. But he is best known for the rich poetry embodied in the hundreds of quatrains that he wrote.
I have only scratched the surface of Persia ’s rich and deep history—but that history also has a dark side. The Persians have been subjected to many waves of invasions throughout the years. And because of this history Iran is particularly sensitive to outsiders meddling in their affairs. And we in the United States have meddled in Iran’s affairs and our meddling is largely responsible for the hostility that the Iranians feel toward us. Great Britain occupied Iran during the Second World War and they maintained control of Iran’s oil industry after the war through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In 1951 the Iranian Parliament, led by Mohammed Mossadegh, voted to wrestle control of the oil industry away from the British when they voted to nationalize it. Great Britain asked us for help in overthrowing Mossadegh in 1951. We refused at first, but we were becoming more and more alarmed by the growing strength of the Communist Party in Iran. In 1953 we helped the British stage a coup against Mossadegh and we brought in Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi to lead the country. The Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist for 26 years and Iranians resent us to this day for the role we played in bringing him back to power. We remember well the humiliation that we suffered when the Iranian’s took over our embassy in 1979, but we sowed the seeds of resentment that led to the embassy takeover when we foisted the Shah onto the Iranian people. The situation in Iran is a perfect example of themaskedanalyst’s law of pain. The Iranian’s can’t feel the pain that their takeover of our embassy caused us and they can’t truly understand how it has influenced our view of them. And if we Americans know about our role in the overthrow of Mossadegh, then that knowledge is but a vague shadow in the back of our minds. We cannot possibly understand on a gut level how it has shaped the Iranian view of us.
Of course, I would be being simplistic if I were to attribute all of our differences to the overthrow of Mossadegh and the takeover of our embassy. There are numerous issues that separate us. Our views differ over the proper role religion should play in society. We have very real differences with Iran over human rights and the way women and gays should be treated. We differ fundamentally over Israel’s right to exist. And most importantly, we differ over Iran’s nuclear program. Take away the issues involving the overthrow of Mossadegh and the embassy takeover and there would still be tensions between us. But the tensions wouldn’t be as strong and the suspicions wouldn’t be as intense. There would be a greater opportunity for give and take and more room to maneuver if this history of aggression didn’t exist between us.
And so today I want to officially apologize on behalf of the United States to all the citizens of Iran for our role in the coup against Mossadegh. I apologize for our role in hijacking your government and meddling in your internal affairs. I want to apologize for our support of the Shah who brought you 26 years of ruthless dictatorship.
Now many of you may think that saying “I’m sorry” is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t go far enough to compensate you for the pain and humiliation that you endured as a result of our misguided actions. And you would be right. Something more is needed. We need to do something to symbolize our respect for you and your religion. We cannot possibly compensate you adequately for all your past suffering, but we can at least make a small symbolic gesture of friendship.
That is why I propose setting up a fund to help 5000 deserving Iranians make a Pilgrimage to Mecca every year. This fund would enable those who could not otherwise afford to make the Hajj to fulfill this most sacred of duties. This program will cost us about 15 million dollars a year, and since Iran had to put up with the Shah for 26 years it is only right that we should fund this program for 26 years.
I anticipate there will be numerous objections from both Iranian and American citizens. Some in Iran will cry out that this is a pittance and it cannot begin to compensate them for their long years of humility. And I can sympathize with that point of view. We will not pretend that this fully compensates you for the pain we put you through. But I hope this symbolic gesture will set the tone for our future relationship. Your real reward may lie ahead if the tone we set now can pave the way to settle our differences through negotiations and respect.
I anticipate a very different reaction from many Americans. I have no doubt that many Americans will object to spending $15 million a year to help Iranians go on Hajj. Some will say we shouldn’t be spending money this way, especially at a time when we are so heavily in debt. Most will be outraged at the thought of spending any taxpayer’s money on a project that promotes Islam. This outrage will be based on principle, and it wouldn’t matter if we were spending $1 or $15 million or $15 billion. Some will accuse me of appeasement and be horrified at the prospect of paying a single penny to a country whose favorite sport seems to be chanting “Death to America”.
To those who object, I can only say that I understand and sympathize with your objections. But it is not appeasement to apologize for your past wrongs. And make no mistake about it. Our actions in Iran during the 1950s were shameful. And it is not appeasement for us to compensate those who we have wronged by our behavior.
And I agree that we should not be spending any money for frivolous reasons during these tight times. And we shouldn’t be spending taxpayer’s money to promote any religion. But promoting religion is not this program’s primary goal. The primary goal is to create an environment in which we can settle our differences through negotiation and compromise rather than through threats and war. And I admit that this is a gamble. We do not know if it will succeed. Iran might not change its attitude and it might not take our concerns into consideration when formulating its policy. So there is some risk, but it is a small one with a potentially huge payoff. Consider this. We have spent over $100 million dollars a day on the war of Iraq. Isn’t it worth risking $15 million a year to explore an avenue that may help us avoid another costly war?
Now, there is one more objection that every American and a substantial portion of the Iranian people will raise. Why now? Why now of all times would you make this gesture? You are legitimizing a brutal government that has no respect for human rights. This regime has changed from a theocracy into a thugocracy and you are handing Ahmadinejad a victory. You are giving him something to brag about. You are giving him a chance to boast that it was under HIS watch that the United States bent its knee and begged humbly for forgiveness. You are propping up a tyrant who is using brute force to stay in power. You are disrespecting the memory of Neda Agha Soltan, the brave Iranian protestor who was martyred for the cause of democracy. You say you don’t want to interfere with Iranian internal affairs? Well, you would be doing just that by legitimizing Ahmadinejad’s regime and those who support him through thuggery and intimidation.
And for those of you who raise this point—I agree with you 100%. That’s why there is a part 2 of this plan. Part 1 consists of making a formal apology for our past actions, which I have just done, and setting up a fund to help those who are most in need to make the Hajj. But part 2 involves the disbursement of those funds, and that cannot happen until Iran has a government that is legitimate. I am not claiming that Ahmadinejad stole an election that he would have lost had there not been massive vote rigging. We don’t know that. But it is clear that there were voting irregularities and many Iranians certainly perceive that the election was stolen from them. The fact that the government has to rely on violence and the threat of murder to keep hundreds of thousands from demonstrating is disgraceful, and I and every American condemn this violence. Why would a legitimate government that was supported by the people have to use violence to crush widespread dissent?
So we will not disperse these funds while the government is suppressing the people. We ask Ayatollah Khamenei to stop the attacks against his people and to hold new elections monitored by U.N. inspectors. We understand your concerns that this may be an American trick to hijack your government once again, so to allay those concerns the U.N. monitoring teams should not have any monitors from the U.S. or Great Britain on them.
Ayatollah Khamenei, I have several questions for you. These are questions that demand answers. I know, I know. You do not have to answer to me. But you do have to answer to the people of Iran. And more importantly, you have to answer to Allah. Many people were suspicious when you called the results of the election a “definitive victory” and a “divine assessment”. What did you mean by calling this a “divine assessment”? Were you saying that this victory was blessed by Allah? Do you really believe that Allah wanted you to have an election that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, would see as illegitimate? Do you relieve believe that Allah blessed an election that would tear the people of Iran apart? Do you really believe that Allah wanted results which could only be upheld through brute force and intimidation, and censorship? Does Allah really want martial law for Iran? Or is it possible that you aren’t nearly as good at reading Allah’s mind as you think you are?
Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for your Guardian Council, has admitted that more votes were cast in 50 cities than there were people eligible to vote. This certainly gives the appearance that the vote was rigged. And your ability to count more than 39 million votes in just over 12 hours provides even more reason to believe that the vote was rigged. And the fact that Ahmadinijed even won in Mousavi’s home town really makes it look like the vote was rigged. Maybe the vote was fair and honest, but it certainly looks like it was rigged. Even if the election was as fair as you say it was, people perceive that it was stolen. You have a HUGE perception problem, and the more you use thuggery to try to contain that problem, them more people will perceive that the election was stolen.
You might be able to stifle dissent, at least in the short run. But this will only increase your people’s hatred for your regime. An Iran divided is a weaker Iran, and even you must find the current state of affairs undesirable. There is only one way to set the situation right. Hold a new election that is free and open. Let it be monitored by U.N. inspectors. I am not asking you to allow American or British citizens to be part of the inspection teams. The U.N. monitors must not come from the U.S. or Great Britain in order to avoid the perception that we are trying to hijack your election. There is no good reason for you to avoid a new election. After all, if Ahmadinejad won the first election by 11 million votes and if he has Allah on his side, then how can he possibly lose? What possible reason would he have to avoid an election that would make his Presidency look legitimate?
That is the speech that I want Obama to make. No doubt some of you will think I am mad. But I think that my proposal will either force the current government to hold new elections or it will cause even more Iranians to open their eyes to the despotic nature of their government. Perhaps it will cause some who are still loyal to Ahmadinijed and Khamenei to break ranks with them. Maybe it will even cause splits within the Revolutionary Guard that props up the regime. There are only two relevant questions in deciding whether we should make this offer. 1) What could we possibly gain? and 2) What do we have to lose?
Does this proposal violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?
Why do I think my proposal has a decent chance of being the straw that breaks the back of the Iranian regime?
I address these questions in Part 2.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.Please attribute excerpts you take from my work to themaskedanalyst and include a link to themaskedanalyst.com.