What
is missing from the narrative surrounding Iran and its nuclear program is a
discussion of history and identity that might help to clarify why the US-Iranian
relationship is so dangerous today.
Why does Iran want or need a nuclear program in the first place? Is it to threaten the US or its allies, to end Western influence in the Middle East, to support terrorist activities, or to project Iranian power and export the revolution? Or is it much deeper than that?
Iran's history is ancient. Names like Cyrus the Great, Xerxes, and Darius leap from the pages, as immortal figures integral to the formulation of Iranian national identity that link today with the glory and resplendence of its past.
Cyrus the Great established what was to become the largest empire in history up to that point: the Achaemenid Empire. This eventually conquered Babylon, and other regional powers like Macedon, Athens and Thermopylae. Ultimately it came to embrace parts of Libya, Egypt, the Mediterranean, and Levant, and stretched as far East as the Indus River.
The greatness of the empire established by Cyrus has remained a part of the intellectual and traditional psyche of Persians throughout the millennia. However, some of the greatest conquerors in history have decided Persia's fate. First, Alexander the Great plundered and burned Cyrus's capital of Persepolis in 334 BC.
Then, for the next ten centuries, the Persians absorbed the influences of those around them, especially Greece, Egypt and India.
The Byzantines exhausted Persia, making it that much easier for the next great conquerors, the Arabs, to sweep into Persia around 630 AD, forever altering the makeup of the Middle East
There is oftentimes a frustrating effort for Iranians to find a link between Islam and their rich pre-Islamic history.
That said, a legacy of being conquered time and again has certainly affected Iran today, and the imperialism of last century is part of that as well.
At the turn of the 20th century, Russia and Great Britain were vying for access to the wealth of Iranian oil. In the end, the British won out and established the Anglo Persian Oil Company (APOC).
The nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), formerly the APOC, in March of 1951 became a giant factor in Iranian history, shaping its identity. In the minds of Iranians, oil and its benefits belonged to them.
Iranians perceived the British government as manipulating Iran through the AIOC, manipulation that was designed to keep the bulk of the population impoverished, docile and on the sidelines of this power politics game.
The nationalization of AIOC and the consequent CIA and British intelligence overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh cemented the image of Iranian martyrdom at the hands of foreign powers.
It also signaled that Iran was still a weak player in world politics, susceptible to manipulation and coercion by great power politics.
This episode, as many authors acknowledge created a lasting effect on Iran, and the role that rising US power was to play in the Middle East.
After the devastating Iran-Iraq war, which lasted most of the 1980s, the new face of the Islamic Revolution was to be a nuclear power program.
An indigenous nuclear program, nuclear energy and even the possibility of the eventual development of nuclear weapons capability would signal once and for all that Iran was again standing tall on the world stage and would be a beacon for all Muslim countries to follow.
Iran's vast natural resources and unique geographical position are what brought upon it the desire of outsiders to control Iran over the centuries. Nuclear power would be a step toward producing an energy source that was potentially unlimited.
Nuclear power, in the minds of Iranians, signaled an end to the ability of foreigners to dictate Iran's future.
A nuclear program, like the oil industry, was something Iranians could own; hence they would be the sole beneficiaries. The regime plays on these sentiments as national interests.
This is not to say that Iran is entitled to create nuclear weapons, or that Iran does not have to answer for past transgressions and secrecy in its nuclear efforts. As signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran has responsibilities that it is not living up to, and needs to be held accountable.
However, in order to understand the problems with Iran, a policy maker has to know both sides of the story. Too often, history is lost in the rhetoric and we find ourselves beating a repetitive and dangerous drum. We must make a concerted effort to deal with this problem in an appropriate way, one that recognizes not only our own history and identity, but the history and the identity of those we seek to influence. Without this, we are truly blind.
Why does Iran want or need a nuclear program in the first place? Is it to threaten the US or its allies, to end Western influence in the Middle East, to support terrorist activities, or to project Iranian power and export the revolution? Or is it much deeper than that?
Iran's history is ancient. Names like Cyrus the Great, Xerxes, and Darius leap from the pages, as immortal figures integral to the formulation of Iranian national identity that link today with the glory and resplendence of its past.
Cyrus the Great established what was to become the largest empire in history up to that point: the Achaemenid Empire. This eventually conquered Babylon, and other regional powers like Macedon, Athens and Thermopylae. Ultimately it came to embrace parts of Libya, Egypt, the Mediterranean, and Levant, and stretched as far East as the Indus River.
The greatness of the empire established by Cyrus has remained a part of the intellectual and traditional psyche of Persians throughout the millennia. However, some of the greatest conquerors in history have decided Persia's fate. First, Alexander the Great plundered and burned Cyrus's capital of Persepolis in 334 BC.
Then, for the next ten centuries, the Persians absorbed the influences of those around them, especially Greece, Egypt and India.
The Byzantines exhausted Persia, making it that much easier for the next great conquerors, the Arabs, to sweep into Persia around 630 AD, forever altering the makeup of the Middle East
There is oftentimes a frustrating effort for Iranians to find a link between Islam and their rich pre-Islamic history.
That said, a legacy of being conquered time and again has certainly affected Iran today, and the imperialism of last century is part of that as well.
At the turn of the 20th century, Russia and Great Britain were vying for access to the wealth of Iranian oil. In the end, the British won out and established the Anglo Persian Oil Company (APOC).
The nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), formerly the APOC, in March of 1951 became a giant factor in Iranian history, shaping its identity. In the minds of Iranians, oil and its benefits belonged to them.
Iranians perceived the British government as manipulating Iran through the AIOC, manipulation that was designed to keep the bulk of the population impoverished, docile and on the sidelines of this power politics game.
The nationalization of AIOC and the consequent CIA and British intelligence overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh cemented the image of Iranian martyrdom at the hands of foreign powers.
It also signaled that Iran was still a weak player in world politics, susceptible to manipulation and coercion by great power politics.
This episode, as many authors acknowledge created a lasting effect on Iran, and the role that rising US power was to play in the Middle East.
After the devastating Iran-Iraq war, which lasted most of the 1980s, the new face of the Islamic Revolution was to be a nuclear power program.
An indigenous nuclear program, nuclear energy and even the possibility of the eventual development of nuclear weapons capability would signal once and for all that Iran was again standing tall on the world stage and would be a beacon for all Muslim countries to follow.
Iran's vast natural resources and unique geographical position are what brought upon it the desire of outsiders to control Iran over the centuries. Nuclear power would be a step toward producing an energy source that was potentially unlimited.
Nuclear power, in the minds of Iranians, signaled an end to the ability of foreigners to dictate Iran's future.
A nuclear program, like the oil industry, was something Iranians could own; hence they would be the sole beneficiaries. The regime plays on these sentiments as national interests.
This is not to say that Iran is entitled to create nuclear weapons, or that Iran does not have to answer for past transgressions and secrecy in its nuclear efforts. As signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran has responsibilities that it is not living up to, and needs to be held accountable.
However, in order to understand the problems with Iran, a policy maker has to know both sides of the story. Too often, history is lost in the rhetoric and we find ourselves beating a repetitive and dangerous drum. We must make a concerted effort to deal with this problem in an appropriate way, one that recognizes not only our own history and identity, but the history and the identity of those we seek to influence. Without this, we are truly blind.
No comments:
Post a Comment