[Reader-list] Why Iran Should Engage the West?

[gowhar fazli]

One more by the same author:

Why Iran Should Engage the West?
  
  
  The Fertile Crescent, or West Asia or the Middle
East is a paradox and a milieu resplendent in twisted
ironies, the kind that makes a mockery of history and
where history continues to pan out or denoue in ,
unfortunately,a macabre manner.This observation, which
can neither be rationalized as a 'historical
dialectic' nor by recourse to the or the nature of its
peoples greets us , almost on a quotidien basis-news
paper reportage, visual images , other forms of media
and , unfortunately, gory events like September 11.So
much so that we have become inured to the regions
realities or its perplexities.This , we are told ,is a
function of or accrues from the regions' history , its
complicated and its convoluted encounter with history
or modernity.That is, history(and modernity)defined
narrowly, and in the interest(s) of power.The
implication being that we have to be resigned to the
state of affairs that the region seems to be in a vise
like grip of or in the world view of a
 certain school of thought or more acurately ideology,
neo conservatism, a condition eminently susceptible to
a vigorous display and exercize of power.This theory
and its application now stands discredited by events
and the reversion to the same, so to speak , in the
region.These dichotomous views are overlaid by the
stuff of politics and powerplays peculiar to the
region-all in all a predicament that renders the
region as either a cauldron of complexity that defies
'clear cut' solutions' or one susceptible to cynicism,
the kind inherent in traditional
statecraft.Consequently , any attempt to bring a
semblance of normalcy to the region is either a
Sysphan or a Percivalian endeavour.Such I hasten to
add is the condition in the region of extremes.I,
aware of these complexities and the rather Sysphan
nature of the endeavour , still may want to offer
remedial pointers toward addressing the issues that
bedevil the region and hold it hostage.Or in other
words, the very nature of
 the project -given the complexity(and convolutions)
that defines the region and its politics may render it
fantastic and incredible.I, nonetheless, would want to
venture into this domain. It becomes pertinent to add
here to state and articulate my position or , let us
say, the vantage point:I ,speak , as a muslim , albeit
one , without roots, a self acclaimed or self
described quasi spokesman of the mustafazeen , the
oppressed , a concerned citizen of the world ,
definitely not a gharbzadeh('westoxified' or
westernized clone) nor a member of a static society
disillusioned by initation into a dynamic society nor
a disaffected immigrant seeking plenitude by recourse
to disguising injuries or wounds exacted (or
suffered)by an ambivalent(and torturous) relationship
with the 'west', by writing, at least not in this
paper or essay.The pertinent deigression complete, let
me now return to the theme of this essay.
  The starting point for peace , stability and
prosperity in the region may perhaps lie in
underststanding or putting into perspective the
complex reasons that render these elusive goals or
condition(s) non exigent.A brief essay such as this
cannot do justice to the elaboration of or untangling
of these giordian knots.This rather tautological
statement is paradoxically not a tautology but a bald
restatement of the complexity and mean ironies that
define the region, articulated de nouveau, in the
interest of putting into perspective the paradoxes and
and convolutions that define the region.Or more
specifically, the interplay of history and the
importance of both taking recourse to it(history) and
jettisoning it or , in the least, aspects of it.The
past, as we all know, in the Middle East has been
tense, the present even tenser but the future need not
be.The reasons for this condition or admixture of
conditions have been dwelt upon and explicated by
scholars and analysts of
 integrity as well as one's lacking this
virtue.Hairsplitting or dwelling on aspects that make
the past present is a recipe for disaster.The real
question(s) are or have now become exigent are the
conditions or prospects under which a new dawn may
arise in the Middle East.Bringing this to pass may
perhaps be predicated upon by jettisoning or in not
being in guided by historical paradigms or being their
prisoner.How is this scenario or condition to be
achieved is the question that should exercize minds
and strategizing of interested parties.At this point
in time , it is the moment that may be of supreme
importance.I shall return to this theme after
explicating on a feature or attribute of the region
and Iran's pivotal role in it.I commence by asserting
or contending that Iran is the Middle Easts' natural
hegemon.A beleagured one though.Explicit recognition
of this axiomatic fact - perhaps the unspoken truth
known to powers that be-may lie the prospect of a
semblance of peace
 and real prosperity in the Middle East region.This
bald assertion or a counterintuitive one for some, can
be validated by a corpus of evidence and 'fact's or
the contrary.That is, the converse , can be argued ,
convincingly and perhaps reassuringly for some.The
clout that this hegemonic status offers has been
rendered more poignant or powerful by the cauldron or
the pandora's box, that the Middle East has now
morphed into.That is to say, the religious schisms and
ethnic divides that have historically defined the
region but kept under wraps by either 'strong men' or
the nature of the states of this region have burst out
in the open.A tenous or precarious peace accruing from
this can perhaps only be held by the presence of
military apparatus of the US or its leaning on allies
that it(the US) can lean on.Pregnant in this scenario
or condition is the prospect of or jockeying for
influence and room for maneouvre, to eke out tactical
advantages by parties that have a stake or
 deem themselves to have a stake in the regions past,
present and future.This, however, does not bode well
or may suggest a future that will continue to be
marred by what is or has to or needs to be
avoided:gratuitous violence and killings.It
may,however, counterintuitively, here be here that,
the moment needs to be grasped and a reasonable path
for the region charted. This moment - brought about by
an admixture of serendipity, stupidity, cupidity,
arrogance ,good and bad intentions among other things-
may be the one that gives short shrift to the burden
of history that hangs or hovers over the blighted
region and give rise to a new awakening or a redefined
infitah.First, let me address the vital question of
War and Peace in the region.It is becoming
increasingly obvious that that this vital question of
war and peace in the region hinges on ,or is related
to the domestic politics of the wounded hegemon and
its potential victim or and adversary, Iran.Neither, I
daresay,
 smells of roses.That is to say, domestic politics
-the looming elections and the change this would
entail- of the US renders it open to the kind of
posturing where Iran becomes or is the lightning
rod.(This, of course is lent poignance by the
potential of embarassing or discomfiting the neo
conservative wing of the Republican Party.The US'
military establishments' stance and position is
germane here too).Similar stuff, if I am allowed to
take recourse to common parlance, may hold true for
Iran.That is to say, Iran's international posture may
be determined by its domestic constraints-especially
political(and economic) ones.Harsh rhetoric and
posturing, by both parties thus become intevitable.In
order to understand(or test) the validity of this
assertion, it becomes pertinent to dwell briefly or of
the premises that undergird the hopes(vain) of of one
side of the divide , the US , its understanding or
take on Iran's state society relations and banking on
nationalism.Hopes
 that have , time and again, thwarted any real attempt
at rapprochment.Vain hopes of 'reformists' or
'progressives'-both value laden terms open to
misinterpretation and misuse-of overturning the
political system of Iran have not materialzed neither
are they likely to.Irans's history , especially its
modern history, suggest or I daresay, clearly point
out to the tenacity of what determines the rhythms of
its society:religion or religious faith.This ,
naturally , is reflected in the nature of its
state.The 1979 revolution was or may I daresay merely
have been a metaphor-a consequential one-of
this.Nationalisms' appeal in Iran ,which may animate,
a section of Iran's people, is ephemeral and
tenous.Hence positing a misaligment of state society
relations in Iran and hoping for a disjunture to arise
through an admixture of external pressure(containment)
and internal discontent may be illusory or if I may
use a stronger word, delusional.The status quo,
however, implies and means
 an uneasy detente defined or accompanied by
skirmishes.Now this scenario suggests a deadlock and a
kind of a status quo ante bellum,a situation not worth
the price that has been paid in blood and treasure.The
question that naturally follows is:how do we reach an
equilbruim point which restores a measure of sanity in
the foriegn policy posture(s) of the countries
involved:the US and Iran.
  First and foremost, the onus lies on the United
states: an exigent recourse needs to be taken to to
jettison comprehensively the rather revolutionary
element premised on false and questionable assumptions
that crept into US foriegn policy after September 11
and a follow up and discourse that reviews and crafts
a coherent policy of engagement with the world. (The
consequences of neo conservatism are writ large all
over the world:dwelling on these is a non starter).Its
major premiss, giving or according history a shove
through or by the use of expendable might , change
political systems and or align them with the US'
political system, or systems approximating the
republican form of governmant stands discredited
now.States foreign policy postures are not driven
solely by the nature of their governments or
societies.This reductive stance or premiss makes a
mockery of the complexity that defines the post cold
or international system or I daresay , or even the
period or epoch
 preceding it if we take the begginings of the modern
state system as a reference point.The point being that
much else is involved in determining a state's Foriegn
policy or international posture.Second, there is no
guarantee that states or a concatenation of states may
or will eschew interest(s) or the desire for
aggrandizement or esteem and other prosaic interests
if the complexion, tone and tenor of a government
changes and is in alignment with the preference of the
major power or powers.Yes, this condition and scenario
may or ease or smoothen friction, over certain issues
and problems , but may not resolve for good, the vital
question of War and Peace, as the rhetoric of one
school of thought or theory, namely the Democratic
Peace theory suggests.It may be pertinent to note here
that the assumptions(and the conclusions) of the
democratic peace theory may be a subterfuge or a
clever attempt to overcome the nation state paradigm
and as a convenient cover up for great
 power politics or great power concatenations or
'civilizations'.The corollary to this is that the
coming to pass of the political make up or scenario
inherent in the so called democratic peace theory may
revert world politics to a concert of powers who will
or may exert influence to determine wolrd affairs and
politics.Now the question that may be asked here is
how does this bear on or is related to Iran?Iran, as a
beleagured hegemon of the region, in the crosshairs of
the wounded hegemon and being eyeballed by it , on and
off, can either retreat into a posture of defiance
,use its influence to make trouble - manageable and
containable by the superpower-, adopt a posture of
extreme defiance toward Israel, support proxies, drift
into the orbit of a reactionary Russian pole or
patchwork alliances with states who share some of its
concerns and interests, albeit, of an inconsequential
nature.Iran , on account of recourse to these
strategies,may be able to salvage its
 soveriegnty and keep the nature of its government
intact , albiet at a price:suffering accruing to its
people.Now this is a price that Iran , as its history
tells us, can absorb or be willing to pay.Its people,
drawn by or naturally influenced by the ethos or
pathos of Shi'ism are eminently capable of resistance
and the government can effectively tap this reservoir
or energy, howseover irrational it may seem to the
outsider.So the question now naturally morphs into a
presciptive one:what can or should be done?Or what can
or should dominate the though processes of Irans
elite.It is here that the nature of its government and
the premises that animate it may be of assistance to
us.The question that should or may be pertinent to the
powers that be in Iran (or exercise them)should be the
promise implicit in the nature of its government, the
promise that the philosopher king , for want of a
better word, , at a minimum, has to deliver on-the
compact, he an account of his well
 earned and superior knowledge, wisdom,(and insight)
into the affairs of men and more arcane and abstract
matters- between God and people is beholden to.Or , in
other words a committment to the comprehensive well
being of his people.This contract may need to be be
taken recourse to in both letter and spirit.The good
or nice thing being that this option is eminently
possible, given the historical juncture, induced by
globalization , the whole world finds itself it.
  Now let us return to the the theme (or drift)of
world politics:the contours of world politics, as I
have pointed out, suggest a drift toward regionalisms
or a concatenation of civilizations-real or
imagined-underpinned or butressed by local or regional
hegemons.In this case, resource and power pooling may
as well determine the decision making framework or
grid in international organizations and other foci or
halls of power.Consequently, Iran may be given short
shrift or may not be able to fish for powers that can
offer it support or validation for its stance on a
variety of issues, save perhaps in terms of lip
servive or on matters (or issues) that are ,in
essence, inconsequential or tangential to these
concatenations.Where this would leave Iran does not
leave much to the imagination.In the interests of or
the schema of this essay, I may take recourse to the
game of elimination to determine or suss out remaining
options that Iran can(and has) take recourse to.China
and
 India immediately strike the mind.(The EU , by
virture of its very nature and complex problems
especally in terms of clout or , to use a vulgar
expression, throw its weight around on the world stage
may be conveniently ruled out).Both India and China,
it would appear, are caught up (or have chosen to
immerse themselves) in frantic endeavors to reclaim
lost pride and dignity, with a vengeance.Toward this
end, both appear to be trying to take advantage of the
contemporary phase of globalization or technology
induced globalization.By enmeshhing themsleves in the
processes of globalization, both appear to, at the
risk of sounding tautological, want to hold a seat in
the halls of power.In this sense, support for Iran ,
in some fora, may be premised on grounds other than
the ostensible ones.That is to say, lip service , that
obscures their respective agenda's, and recourse to a
kind or sort of balancing behaviour that , at best,
offers Iran temporary respite or solace.More
 importantly, neither has anything substantive to
offer either the world , at large, or Iran, in
particular.This assertion is buttressed by recent and
very astute scholarship which posits that the
definitive framework or the tone and tenor of the
international system and structure is so embedded and
structured, that notwithstanding or regardless of
challenges or change induced complexity - systemic or
otherwise- the outcome(s) will be defined by terms set
by the west.The implication is obvious:any change ,
paradigm shift(s), even of a stupendous kind, will be
negotiated through and/ or articulated in a western
idiom.This, I lend my weight to this observation(or
analysis)-may be the prosaic truth or the, depending
on ones's perspective, the sad or good or bad reality
of international politics.Insofar , its implications
or consequences on Iran are concerned, the choice is
stark:resignation to this reality or defiance that
will or may most likely lead to isolation and
 marginalization in the fora of world politics.Now as
I have pointed out earlier, isolation is an option for
Iran but at a price.....
  This macro description of the drift of world
politics may now needed to be buttressed or followed
by issues (germane) peculiar to the Middle East and
Irans relation to these issues.The most nagging and
intractable is the Israeli-Palestiniian one.(I am, of
course, ignoring not for the lack of its importance
,the Iraq cauldron here).Nothing can detract from the
importance of this to either Iran or the muslim world
or its victims.This issue needs to be and has to be
resolved.Iran, here now holds both an ace and perhaps
the requisite tools to moderate the conflict and then
help guide or help craft a way to resolve this
dispute.A stance that prolongs the dispute does not
help anyone-either those implicated in the dispute ,
its victims or bystanders.The import of this statement
holds true for both Iran and the wounded hegemon, the
US.Much blood has been spilt and will continue to be
spilt if dated and non starting positions are adhered
to.Or even the purported solutions that
 are popularized or publicized, regardless of the
mockery that the fait accompis accomplished on an
everyay basis, make of these stances or alleged
solutions.I am no expert on this particualr dispute.I,
however, may venture or opine:imagination may be a
powerful tool and weapon, and perhaps very relevant to
a reasonable resolution of this particular
dispute..Prosaic and or hackneyed 'solutions', that ,
hypothetically, posit linear progess in resolving this
dispute -inflected and rendered rather intractable by
a combination of sacrality, history, power politics
and regional politics- but easily obstructed should
now be jettisoned and it(imagination) taken recourse
to as a central or guiding principle or conflict
resolution principle in bringing this conflict or
resolution to a reasonable closure-satisficing ,to all
parties involved.Again, Iran has , in its arsenal, or
repertoire , the means to bring this, to pass.Insofar
as the sole superpower, is concerned, it too ,may have
 to or need to look inward, introspect and be bold and
beautiful.Implicit and explicit in these putative
prescriptions are or may be , in the least, the seeds
of a better Middle East and the world ,at large.A
world which can or may be rendered a better and an
inhabitable place.At a micro level, the nature of this
engagement can be salubrious for Iran and the Middle
East or the Fertile Crescent.And at a macro one,it
holds particular resonance for the oppressed, or the
mustafazeen, or the Muslim.It is about time that we
too reclaim our or aspects of our lost heritage and
engage with the world in an idiom that is salubrious
,reflects our real essence, and make this world as
good or at least, approximating, what we have been
promised in the after life.This may or could be our
jihad, our striving,and the painful struggles inherent
in this.More specifically, this may mean or entails,
grasping the oportunities opened up by globalization ,
a degree of selective(and perhaps painful)
 amnesia and viewing globalization as it is: a neutral
phenomena whose fruits can be ejoyed by all and
sundry.This, I can state, as a common member , or for
want of a better word, laity, of my faith,is or should
be our animating or determining principle in re
engaging with the world and perhaps I daresay, can or
may be eminently possible within the framework or
guiding principles that inform our faith-a value
system in which respect for the inherent dignity of
man is implicit as well as explicit.It(Islam) is
neither weak or susceptible to breakdown.It has
endured and will endure.The question is the form of
engagement that, we , the mustafazeen, or the
oppressed or the muslims, choose for us with the
world.It is about time that we jettison debilitating
aspects of the past and grasp the future that God has
laid open for us.Otherwise, the march of history will
leave us behind, let us wallow in pity, self pity,
self flagellation and at the mercy of events of
historical
 import.Let us, if I may be allowed to use an
expression, grasp the bull by its horns.This course
may even constitute our duty, in the prosaic and
common sense use of the term or word.Last but not the
least, I close with or by a rather rhetorical but very
pertinent and germane admonition , that is ,take
recourse to the Holy book that is our inspiration, the
Quran, which , both from the point of view of lay
understanding as well as scholarly exegesis stresses
the role of human agency in attempting to ameliorate
the human condition:'Allah Helps those Who Help
Themselves'.Lest I be challenged and asked for
evidence or impugned,my humble response would be to
the refer the reader to the theme that stands out in
islamic and/or islamicate history:the tranforming and
redemptive role played by the Muslim of yore -animated
by a special vocation and view of destiny- as a human
agent,transforming, traducing and contributing to the
effloresence of civilization , broadly understood,
thus
 rendering the world better.This role-in which Iran's
stance and role is vital and special-is the one that
needs to be reclaimed.

Unfortunately, the balance of nature decrees that a super-abundance of dreams is paid for by a growing potential for nightmares.   
      
Love is an act of endless forgiveness, a tender look which becomes a habit. 

Peter Ustinov