Is Iran prepared to undo 30 years of anti-Americanism?

[BanglaBhoot]

As Obama spells out aims to engage with Iran, the Islamic Republic debates whether to step away from decades of hatred for the 'Great Satan.'

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Tehran, Iran - "On that day when the United States of America will praise us, we should mourn," said Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

His words so captured the uncompromising anti-American ideology here that they were painted like a billboard across the old US Embassy wall in Tehran, standing for years as a message of defiance to the West.

Today the quote is gone, recently painted over as if to signify a softening of Iran's hard-line rhetoric. But as President Obama spells out his wish to engage with Iran, is the Islamic Republic – which marks its 30th anniversary next week – really ready to set aside decades of official hatred for the "Great Satan"?

That is the debate now swirling across Iran, where leaders have been sending mixed signals as they anticipate an unprecedented public effort by Washington to reach out to its archrival.

[This is Part 2 in a two-part package on Iran's view of America under Obama. To read Part 1, 'Iranians wary of Obama's approach,' click here.]

Call for global respect

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Thursday called for a new level of global respect: "Bullying powers should learn how to speak correctly and be polite so Iran's cultured and peace-loving people listen to them," he told a rally in the northeast city of Mashad. "Iranians are logical people … and welcome anyone who offers a solution to problems of the world."

Analysts agree that only Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei can make a final decision on US ties – and justify it to ideologues that have despised America for a generation.

But not all agree that Ayatollah Khamenei can bring himself to do away with such a useful enemy. Last November he said not a day had passed "in which America has had good intentions toward Iran," and that the US-Iran problem is "like a matter of life and death."

"The Leader is a very rational person [and] wants to control the country and respond to reality," says Amir Mohebian, a conservative editor and analyst. "When the US sends a hard signal, the Supreme Leader is very hard. If the US sends a soft signal, he is very soft. We balance ourselves with our partner."

While Iran boasts the most pro-American population in the region, any substantive talks with the US are a big step for a regime that still chants "Death to America" at rallies.

"Some people think this is the time to solve the problem with the US in a balanced way," says Mr. Mohebian. "But others think the hostility against the US after 30 years is a main element of our identity, and if we solve it we will dissolve ourselves."

Mixed signals from Tehran

The mixed signals from Tehran can bolster either view. The firebrand Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote an unprecedented note of congratulations to Mr. Obama just days after the US election, noting high expectations for change. Despite fierce anti-Western rhetoric and verbal attacks against the US, Ahmadinejad has reached out more than any of his predecessors, telling Americans the US could be a "great friend" of Iran.

Tehran, Iran - "On that day when the United States of America will praise us, we should mourn," said Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

His words so captured the uncompromising anti-American ideology here that they were painted like a billboard across the old US Embassy wall in Tehran, standing for years as a message of defiance to the West.

Today the quote is gone, recently painted over as if to signify a softening of Iran's hard-line rhetoric. But as President Obama spells out his wish to engage with Iran, is the Islamic Republic – which marks its 30th anniversary next week – really ready to set aside decades of official hatred for the "Great Satan"?

That is the debate now swirling across Iran, where leaders have been sending mixed signals as they anticipate an unprecedented public effort by Washington to reach out to its archrival.

[This is Part 2 in a two-part package on Iran's view of America under Obama. To read Part 1, 'Iranians wary of Obama's approach,' click here.]

Call for global respect

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Thursday called for a new level of global respect: "Bullying powers should learn how to speak correctly and be polite so Iran's cultured and peace-loving people listen to them," he told a rally in the northeast city of Mashad. "Iranians are logical people … and welcome anyone who offers a solution to problems of the world."

Analysts agree that only Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei can make a final decision on US ties – and justify it to ideologues that have despised America for a generation.

But not all agree that Ayatollah Khamenei can bring himself to do away with such a useful enemy. Last November he said not a day had passed "in which America has had good intentions toward Iran," and that the US-Iran problem is "like a matter of life and death."

"The Leader is a very rational person [and] wants to control the country and respond to reality," says Amir Mohebian, a conservative editor and analyst. "When the US sends a hard signal, the Supreme Leader is very hard. If the US sends a soft signal, he is very soft. We balance ourselves with our partner."

While Iran boasts the most pro-American population in the region, any substantive talks with the US are a big step for a regime that still chants "Death to America" at rallies.

"Some people think this is the time to solve the problem with the US in a balanced way," says Mr. Mohebian. "But others think the hostility against the US after 30 years is a main element of our identity, and if we solve it we will dissolve ourselves."

Mixed signals from Tehran

The mixed signals from Tehran can bolster either view. The firebrand Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote an unprecedented note of congratulations to Mr. Obama just days after the US election, noting high expectations for change. Despite fierce anti-Western rhetoric and verbal attacks against the US, Ahmadinejad has reached out more than any of his predecessors, telling Americans the US could be a "great friend" of Iran.

Is Iran prepared to undo 30 years of anti-Americanism? | csmonitor.com

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Defiant, and doubtful

Feb 5th 2009 | CAIRO
From The Economist print edition

Iran gives America the finger

FEBRUARY 1st marked the 30th anniversary of the return to Iran of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini (see article), and his heirs have been celebrating the ensuing Islamic revolution. On February 2nd, to much fanfare, they launched an “indigenous” satellite, borne into space on a rocket of Iranian making, however much it may have owed to North Korean and other technology. Despite protestations that the achievement was entirely benign, with no menacing implications, it was greeted by the new administration in Washington with “great concern”. No wonder: reversing his predecessors’ stand-offishness, Barack Obama has indicated that he is ready for a direct dialogue with Iran. Launching a Safir-2 rocket looks very much like putting up a finger.

Iranians are no doubt proud of their scientific triumphs, despite the international sanctions that are unfairly, in their eyes, imposed on them, for their country’s obdurate pursuit of nuclear technology. They largely agree about such things as the wickedness of American support for Israel and the justice of the Palestinian cause. But, if visitors to Iran are struck by anything, it is the dominant mood of weariness. Unlike the Soviet Union or China in the 1950s, Iran is not sealed off from the world. Via the internet, satellite dishes, travel and interaction with a 2m-strong diaspora, its people are painfully aware of the prosperous cosmopolitanism enjoyed elsewhere.
Click here

They cannot help wondering why, with its educated population and bountiful resources, including the world’s second-largest reserves of both oil and natural gas, Iran struggles with high unemployment, low wages and surging inflation. Even if sanctions are partly to blame, rather than the all-too-evident managerial failings of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government, they cannot help asking why the world should be so hostile. Yes, they believe that Iran is a great country, and should be treated as such. But does this require constant friction with other countries, or postponing all fun to the afterlife?

The urgency of these questions will grow as the next presidential election, in June, approaches. Despite the official bluster, the idea of a thaw with the West has lately been provoked by such melting events as visits by American sports teams and academics, and a directive from NATO letting its members seek supply routes through Iran for their forces in Afghanistan. This warmth has been accompanied by a crash in oil prices that is likely to slash government revenues in half, brutally shrinking Iran’s margin for manoeuvre.

But Mr Ahmadinejad is not rolling over. Iran has pointedly failed to issue visas to an American women’s badminton team this month. The president still enjoys strong backing from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And his hardline allies, who have kept the reformist opposition in check since ousting it in 2005, may well now fix the June poll. In any event, they are hardly likely to allow the election of either a liberalising Gorbachev or a pragmatic Deng Xiaoping. But faced with the temptation of a more welcoming outside world, and the danger of economic paralysis at home, whoever it is that runs the Islamic republic may be obliged to opt for one of those models. After all, even the revolutionary imam himself, Ayatollah Khomeini, after eight years of war with Iraq, chose to “drink the cup of poison” and make peace with Iran’s most loathed neighbour, Saddam Hussein.

The Islamic republic at 30 | Defiant, and doubtful | The Economist

 

[Pashtun]

Very interesting read, indeed.

I personally think that it's a nightmare for Iranian govt. to have a friendly US establishment towards them. Because the more hostile America, the better justification for building the bomb, the less hostile america, more isolation for Iran and less chances for taking a shot at becoming 9th Nuclear power.

However, I don't trust Obama. He is that compassionate conservative that bush couldn't become. That means, Obama can drop bombs on people while running a smoothe PR campaign. And that's a grave threat I could percieve for Third World.