The current political unrest in Iran is not to be weighed in the minds of American intellectuals; analyzed and packaged as the birth pangs of a new government — one that will greet the United States with open arms and “unclenched fists.”
This superficial view comes from an American media that time and again reinforces a seemingly childish conclusion. The polarization of opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly idealizes current Iranian demonstrations in the minds of Americans.
Young men and women fighting an oppressive regime in the name of freedom and democracy, trendy green armbands, using Twitter and the whole thing has a nice ring to it. It’s almost even sexy. Reality, however, has to set in and, without debasing a nation’s perceived fight for freedom we must understand this “fight” has, with respect to Iran, little if any international implications.
Mousavi and Ahmadinejad do not differ strikingly on the ideological spectrum. When it comes to how Iran deals with the rest of the world they are proverbial peas in a pod. Except in this case one of the peas, Mousavi, has been made to look just a little better in the eyes of the West.
To simplify things, Ahmadinejad is commonly criticized on two issues — his belief that Israel has no right to exist and Iran’s nuclear program. Truly, if Mousavi’s election were to ease tension between Iran and the United States, wouldn’t he have to oppose Ahmadinejad on such issues? I’m sure that question can be answered in less than 140 characters. Try three — Y-e-s.
In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, a German news magazine, Mousavi was asked about such issues. His answers were strikingly similar to those of the currently disputed president.
“We will not abandon the great achievements of Iranian scientists. I too will not suspend uranium enrichment. We have a right to enrich uranium,” said the opposition leader. Mousavi was also asked, point blank, if he “recognized Israel,” to which he responded, “No, I do not.”
Now, Mousavi may come off as less incendiary when compared to Ahmadinejad, but he’s just another way of gift-wrapping an Iran that the United States is uncomfortable with. I mean, are relations any better between the United States and Iran since the election of Barack Obama?
The point is that Iran, like the U.S., operates within a specific paradigm. Its government is based on inherent and unshakeable foundations and, as long as these foundations are misunderstood and mistrusted, no change in leadership will “unclench fists.” It’s ludicrous to think that two men operating within such a paradigm would be so strikingly different.
Sure, the Iranian people may benefit from the slight differences between the opposition leader and their disputed president. When it comes down to it, however, this is not about us; it’s not about what we think. We can offer support, drape ourselves with green, read “tweets” and try to understand what is being fought for. When we offer this support, though, we must offer it not because it is beneficial to us but because it is beneficial for the Iranian people.
Zien Halwani is a sophomore molecular biology major and a contributing writer for the Summer Forty-Niner.
E-mail addresses are used only to notify you of replies and are not displayed
Comments powered by Disqus