“Don’t Kill Us, Mr.
President!”
Your Excellency President
George W. Bush
As
an Iranian journalist who lives in the United States, I would like to take a
moment of Your Excellency’s time to present my humble reflections on that part
of your State of the Union address where you designated Iran, alongside Iraq
and North Korea, as an “axis of evil” that supports terrorism and that needs to
be brought to bay by military action, a statement that met with huge applause,
indicating that most top-brass US politicians present in the session share Your
Excellency’s views concerning the trio.
Iran
was further described as a country ruled by two groups: the non-elected and the
elected, and a few days later Your Excellency explicitly voiced support for the
latter, while afterwards you described the Iranians – or at least some of them
– as barbaric, declaring that military force would be used against Iran if it
does not comply with international law.
Your
Excellency
When
he was in office, President Reagan also called the Iranians barbaric. But
former US attorney general Ramsey Clarke responded by noting
that the Iranian people’s philosophy of existence hinges, historically and
psychologically, on resisting and objecting to injustice.
Most
Iranians are confounded by an unfathomable point in Your Excellency’s speech:
They hear your call for democracy in Iran but wonder why the United States
sided with the non-elected tyrants in Iran some 50 years ago and orchestrated a
military coup against Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq’s popular government, thus taking
the Iranian democracy to the altar to safeguard America’s vested political and
economic interests in the region.
The
Iranians can, moreover, never comprehend why the US has time and again created snags along the way of the
government that came to power following the 1979 revolution which toppled the
non-elected tyrannical Pahlavi regime.
Such
concerns prompt most Iranians to question how sincere and consistent the US is in its foreign policy.
Your
Excellency
The
US threat to use military force against Iran has definitely impacted the Iranian public opinion:
The million-strong nationwide demonstrations on February 11, marking the
Islamic Revolution’s 22nd culmination anniversary, undeniably prove
the effect this threat has had. The Iranians displayed their firm resolve to
unite around domestic power hubs rather than foreign powers in the event of any
military attack. They, moreover,
indicated their readiness to unite ranks even if a majority of them are fed up
with the performances and policies of the non-elected few you alluded to in
your speech.
Your
Excellency
The
Iranians are intelligent people who can well sense any imminent danger. Their
huge demonstrations on February 11 attest to their realization of the danger of
military attack, and they are, therefore, justifiably appalled. But the
question that remains to be answered is “Why is it that instead of being
infatuated with American liberal democracy the Iranians are terrified by US militarism and hegemony?”
Your
Excellency
The
Iranians actually have good reason to fear US military muscle. They know how far the American
war-mongers could go once the US war machine is set in motion. And it is with such
knowledge that they plead: “Don’t kill us, Mr. President!”
Having
witnessed the US-backed 1953 military coup against their popular government,
recalling the unconditional US support for the non-elected tyrannical Pahlavi
regime, remembering how the US military downed a civilian Iranian carrier in
the Persian Gulf – killing all 220 on board – and how the USS Vincennes’ commander
was decorated for his bravado, the Iranians never doubt the US military’s might
and ability to launch an all-out military campaign. Nor do they believe in the US claims to favor and foster democracy in the Middle East.
Mr.
President
Even
US claims to support Iran’s elected officials, including President Mohammad
Khatami, are taken with a grain of salt.
The Iranians
take pride in their fledgling democracy whose most crystal-clear manifestation
was the 1997 presidential elections. But a glance at the US Middle
East policy shows
them that the US prefers uniform iron-fist rule over indigenous
democracies in the Middle
East.
For this
reason, the Iranians hold that US-fostered political-economic relations in the Middle East conflict with regional democratic movements, since the
US is avid solely to insure and safeguard its economic
investments in the zone. And as such
democracy in the Middle
East – and especially
in the Persian Gulf which is a major source of US revenue – is not palatable to the US.
The
Iranians, therefore, found it natural for the US political sensors in the Middle East to beam warning signals to Washington after Iran’s 1997 presidential elections.
Mr.
President
I
had previously noted in my article “Midas
Touch”*
that the US has so far used the traditional monolithic,
non-democratic, powerful, and despotic Persian Gulf regimes to safeguard its regional investments and
capital returns.
If other
regional countries that serve as the US’s economic backyards follow the suit of the Iranian
democracy, Washington will lose its grip on the region and will even have
to pay soaring political costs.
When it comes
to developments in Iran, the White House then opts for a monolithic
government, an objective which the US pursues through undermining the democratic front and
strengthening the conservative camp that has the potential and the power for a
uniformly despotic rule.
No matter how
attractive President Khatami and the reformist camp are for the Iranians, they
are viewed by the American statesmen as dangerous troublemakers, despite the
latter’s superficial claims to the contrary.
Ever since President
Khatami came to the helm, the US has shrewdly and intermittently welcomed reforms in Iran, while fully cognizant of the negative effect such
support could have. The move could be interpreted as Washington’s secret way of assisting that Iranian wing which
prefers to enforce security rather than to grant freedom to the people, an
iron-fist security that can actually insure the financial and commercial
Mafia-style interests of the said wing, while simultaneously warranting the
economic interests of the United States.
In addition, if
Tehran retains its hostile and violent image in the Middle East, the US can prompt the entire region to zoom in on Iran as a country lacking democracy, thus deflecting the
public opinion from Israel’s criminal policies and measures and enabling Tel
Aviv to continue with its political crimes.
The White House
considers President Khatami guilty of shattering Iran’s monolithic political rule. Washington prefers to sit at the negotiation table with a
monolithic iron-fist Middle Eastern state rather than a democratic government
that could expose the US economic life vein in the Persian Gulf to a domino-effect danger.
The US does not allow anyone to fool around with the Persian Gulf oil and petro-dollars. Once Iraq unwisely stepped into this territory and faced the
full-fledged US military muscle.
In case Iran’s fervent democracy becomes endemic among despotic Persian Gulf states, Washington will lose its monopolized hold and authority over the
region.
So long as Washington can negotiate with only one party in the Middle East – and especially in the Persian Gulf – it prefers not to have to deal with sundry new
powers – particularly democratic ones – in the zone.
Naturally as
long as the US can reach all its political-economic objectives in
the region through an Arab sheik’s decree, it will not want to prolong and
increase the expenses of its agreements with the Persian Gulf states through Iranian-style parliamentary and
democratic processes.
According to
former US President Richard Nixon, money is not everything in
the United
States; it is the only thing!
To preserve its
"only thing", Washington will not hesitate to sacrifice and stifle democracy,
parliamentary rule, and freedom quests of nations that could stir insecurity in
the US economic backyards.
Mr.
President
The
Iranians, therefore, find the warning issued to the non-elected few ruling Iran
to be mere rhetoric, since they have witnessed how US allies in the Middle East
have for years trampled upon democracy and human rights without ever being
criticized or facing punitive measures. They, furthermore, question why
non-elected governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates,
Pakistan, and in other US-ally countries in the Middle East hold sway without
ever having been criticized for similar acts.
Mr.
President
The
Iranian people contend that any warning issued to Iran’s ruling non-elected few
actually serves to bolster these totalitarians who can use the “foreign enemy”
ruse to create an atmosphere of terror and subsequently impose more restrictive
policies and measures on the people. And all this ultimately hampers Iran’s reform movement.
Global
war against terrorism, especially against the “axis of evil”, can in practice
culminate into the “bliss of evil”, as such a campaign could boost American
weapons productions and subsequently funnel money into the ailing economy. This
is of paramount importance since prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks,
the US faced an economic recession that was unseen in the
past decade. According to figures released by the US Department of Commerce, the
average US economic growth rate stood at 0.2 % between April and June 2001,
slumping dramatically from more than 5% in the preceding year when the
democrats held power.
Mr.
President
As
a final point, allow me to state that Iranians living in Iran or in the US are appalled at Washington’s threats against their motherland. This has prompted
most Iranians residing in the US to unwittingly show fear-induced reactions to
save their citizenry rights in case war erupts between the US and Iran.
They
try to pay lip-service to US power wielders and to declare antipathy against Iran out of fear and out of the urge to protect
themselves. And this should not happen in a democratic country.
Mr.
President
Some
of my Iranian friends who have led decent lives in the US for years as law-abiding tax-payers shouldering
social responsibilities and helping the US thrive tried to dissuade me from writing this letter
to Your Excellency. And to avoid facing any possible consequences from
associating with me, in case the administration wanted to take action against
me for writing this letter, they abandoned me altogether.
Mr.
President
If
their fear is well grounded, the US should think about solving this problem, namely such
citizens’ sense of insecurity, before giving lessons of freedom and democracy to
other countries.
If,
however, their fear is unfounded, the
purpose of liberal democracy is defeated, for it indicates that this system has
so intimidated the non-native citizens that their personal and social actions
are motivated by false fear, reflecting that the US government system has not
afforded them the absolute sense of security that stems from heartfelt belief
in their inalienable rights.
In
both cases, liberal democracy appears to be a legal system lacking
warrants for practical enforcement.
Mr.
President
Now
people in Iran ask: What has come over our fellow Iranians whom we
entrusted to the United States? How their legal and social personalities were
crushed to such an extent that they became panicky and passive in the US liberal democracy which, according to Professor
Fukoyama, was supposed to be the best and ultimate form of government?
The
most ideal form of US liberal democracy is when citizens can believe in
citizenry rights and values. But the problem lies in the fact that the driving
force for these rights and values is what I already quoted from former
President Nixon: Money.
Thank
you for your attention.
Respectfully,
Dariush
Sajjadi
February 14, 2002
* Midas Touch is available
online at http://www.geocities.com/dariushsajjadi/englishmaterial/AIC.html