|
Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed here solely belong to Arya Zarrinkelk and do not reflect the attitudes or mentalities of any organization or group. If you needed this cleared up for you, then you haven't been paying attention to my writing, but that's okay better safe than sorry I say. Enjoy.
Dr. Trita Parsi was invited to come and speak to an Episcopal Church in Baltimore, MD by a self-made Iranian Discussion Group. For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past six years or so, Dr. Parsi is the leading expert on U.S.-Iran relations and he functions under the National Iranian American Council, which is an organization that attempts to influence Congress on issues pertaining to U.S.-Iranian relations. They have made our constituency group heard on a myriad of issues ranging from human rights to immigration. Without them or Dr. Parsi, I shudder to think about where our constituency group would be as far as representation goes.
A handful of Baltimoreans were interested in learning more about Iran and it’s dramatic history with the U.S. The demographics of the audience were predominantly over the age of thirty-five with a few senior citizens, but my work colleague and myself were definitely the outliers of this age range. Regardless the place was relatively full and the audience was hungry to learn more about Iran’s history with the United States.
He began his lecture on the history and the current development of Iranian politics. Like most of his speeches he talks about Mohammad Mossadegh and the CIA backed coup to remove him from power, even though he was the first democratically elected prime minister of Iran. Parsi told the audience how this simple event has left a bad taste in Iranians mouths for many years and thusly have made them extremely sensitive to any kind of political involvement from an outside country in internal Iranian affairs. Later on in his speech Dr. Parsi revealed to a surprised audience the terms of the Grand Bargain that the Iranian reformist government offered the Bush administration in 2003. Parsi himself was privy to this document and told the audience of its inclusive nature. The Grand Bargain in essence offered everything to the Bush administration that it currently wants from Iran. Highlights included nuclear transparency, the ending of support for U.S. defined terrorists in the Middle East, and most importantly of all signing on to the Beirut accord which would mean that Iran would officially recognize Israel. The document itself was delivered by the Swiss to serve as a neutral entity and add some gravity to the document’s importance. The Swiss representative was later chastised for this act, but it demonstrates the arrogance of the Neo-Cons in the White House that would dictate the internal struggle to come.
Parsi continued his lecture by outlining this internal struggle that occurred in the White House once the document was received. Some viewed it as an opportunity to generate sincere dialogue with Iran. Cheney and his cronies were staunchly opposed to it and felt confident that their presence in Middle East would be so strong (i.e. once we were in Iraq we would be greeted as liberators/heroes/etc.) that Iraian support would not be needed. Thusly the hardliners killed a potential opportunity for real diplomacy with Iran. Whether or not it would have been successful one will never know, but more importantly the U.S. failed to take an opportunity to redeem itself and it’s tumultuous past with Iran. It is only now being referred to more and more in the media, but I always wondered why it did not receive more attention from the press once the story broke.
The most intriguing part of his speech was a section in which he spoke about a meeting between American, Israeli, Palestinian leaders and the Head of the Revolutionary Guard. The purpose of this meeting was to present and discuss the Grand Bargain and all of its terms. The head of the Israeli army was in attendance at this meeting and after it was over he deemed the offer as a genuine one. Yet it was still ignored completely. Upon hearing the White House’s flippant response to this unprecedented offer the crowd responded with a series of snorts and sighs as if to express their frustrations as well as to say, “What else is new?” with this administration and our leaders in general.
The modern age has left a slough of U.S. citizens that I have interacted with despondent. This despondency isn’t due to the rising cost of living. It isn’t because of the explosion in the price of oil or food. Nor is it due to the surging tide of overpopulation. It isn’t because of the current state of the world either. The vast amount of conflict, famine, disease or climate change isn’t the reason people are citing for their apathy. From those random citizens that I have spoken with, their despondency stems from our leadership. They feel betrayed by their leaders. They cannot fathom why a handful of our leaders would put profits before us. However, this issue is not necessarily such a black and white issue. It is quite more complex than it appears at a first glance.
Case in point: Dr. Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council. My own personal reaction was confusion. Why was this story not made public if not to all Americans, but at least to the Iranian American community? More importantly why would someone like Dr. Parsi, who vies so diligently to address Iran more diplomatically, not put pressure on the Bush administration to get it accepted or at the very least share this information with the Iranian American community, with the hopes that a public outcry or demand could assist him in getting the Bush administration to take the bargain seriously. I cannot predict what ifs, but I have an inkling that if we as a constituency group were made aware that such a bargain was on the table we could have greatly helped Dr. Parsi and our other constituent champions in getting the Bush administration to take this bargain seriously.
Parsi closed his speech by clarifying the strategic incentives of making Iran an ally as well as to press heavily upon our leaders to make strides to end the human rights abuses occurring in Iran today. His greater point was that this is a strategic battle and not an ideological one. He finished by saying that the heart of the matter lies with the people of Iran. This is when I asked my questions.
In inquiring as to why this information was not made public Dr. Parsi had a few things to say about it. He mentioned a Frontline special that referred to it. (I had actually seen this special- yes, the one with Ted Koppel- and the bargain itself was merely mentioned in passing. It was not the main focus of the special). This being a huge tactical blunder on the Bush administration’s part, it would have severely hindered their desire for reelection. His final point was that large issues such as this require some level of tact and delicacy in order for them to be successful. My gut reaction to these answers was utter disgust with the state of the media. These past 8 years could have been an opportunity for the media to assert themselves as a force that political figures should be wary of, however they allowed themselves to become (in essence) the 4th arm of the Bush administration. For those of you playing along at home, yes I do see the irony in my words, no need to rub it in. When I asked Dr. Parsi later on as to why he didn’t break this story to the American or Iranian American public he informed me that he needed corroboration from a member of the White house staff, for if he went public with this information prematurely, it would have been merely disregarded as a rumor and carry no weight. Thus, when Flynt Leverrett mentioned this during a New York Times Op Ed piece Dr. Parsi could substantiate it.
It is in situations like these we find our leaders failing us. Yet how often do we consider it from their specific standpoint? From my understanding politics is more about playing within the realm of the established infrastructure than it is doing the right thing. There are so many unseen factors at play that are understandable yet unforgivable; the foremost being the concept of job security. So many of our leaders have to follow the specific ideology of their superiors that they are incapable of thinking for themselves. This immediately ensures that the circumstances of the situation cannot dictate the solution to the policy issue at hand. Other aspects include losing political influence, burning ties with those who do have political influence, doing the wrong thing in the short term so that the right thing may be done in the long run are also constantly in play.
In this specific situation it becomes difficult to understand how this could have been the case considering the head of the Israeli army deemed this offer as genuine. Like so many other examples that have been exposed in the past year, we find after the fact that the White House and our leaders have failed us. I would like to point out (again) that Dr. Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council has done a tremendous amount of amazing work (which I believe does not need to be accounted for by our readers) to put our constituency group on the political map and without him and NIAC I don’t know where our political standing would be within the eyes of legislators. However, this type of mentality is simply haunting us as a nation.
Another example of this can be found (of course) within the energy organizations (read: Big Oil). Big Oil has controlled the emergence of the hybrid and electric cars since their inception. I remember seeing an electric car on my high school campus in 1999 and seeing how ugly it was. Since motor companies and Big Oil have a symbiotic relationship in this country, the electric car was poorly designed on an aesthetic level at the behest of Big Oil. This in turn ensured that the American public would not buy the car, much to the delight of Big Oil. Now the consumer (read: you and me) pays the price.
The impetus for this article is the current state of the nation. I am relatively new to understanding the inner workings of the political machine, but from the little I have seen and the history I have learned these are the reasons why our country is not only consistently touted as hypocrites, but is in the current state that it is in. (10% of the nation controls 90% of the wealth and the divide between classes gets larger and larger with every passing fiscal year). The hardest thing to remember is that all of our leaders are human and thusly I cannot blame them (too much) for looking out for themselves/jobs/influence. For everyone will always choose himself or herself over everyone else when push comes to shove. I just wonder where our society would be if people did the right thing instead of the self-interest thing.
I challenge our leaders to re-examine themselves and their roles in our lives. Due to the decisions guided by self-interest (i.e. Cheney being confident of the amount of success that would come with invading Iraq means no need for diplomatic relations with Iran) thousands of people both here and abroad must feel the fear and uncertainty of what tomorrow might bring them. Our leaders and policy makers should always put the interest of their constituency group ahead of their own.
I am writing this the night before I am slated to give an introductory lecture to International Relations to a group of high school students. When I listen to these students speak with their idealism it reminds me of the greatness that can be accomplished by the people living in this country. My plan for tomorrow is to instill two major lessons within these future leaders; 1. Do your damndest to do the right thing and put aside your own personal agenda for the constituency group you are serving and 2. Think for yourself. If everyone were to follow these ideals, I know that the world would be far better off than it is today.
|
