Iran at the Crossroads

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Click here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

Digested First Pages:

A note on this conference. In numerous places throughout the conference reference is made to events using terms such as this week, today, etc. so it's important to know that the conference took place between Aug 14, 2006 and October 9, 2006.

1:0 Richard Farson Our new conference is sure to be interesting because it is both topical and urgent. The conference is Iran at the Crossroads and will deal with the full range of concerns about Iran that the world now shares including the nuclear issue, support for terrorism including Hezbollah, the current social climate in Iran and life after the theocratic state. We are fortunate in having as our leader Dr. Farhad Saba, who was born in Iran and served in the reign of the Shah as national head of educational broadcasting. He came to the U.S. a number of years ago and is now Professor of Educational Technology at San Diego State University and a good friend of WBSI. We connected with Fred (Farhad) some years back because, like WBSI, he was a pioneer in online distance education and now heads a company, Distance-Educator.com. He has been a close observer of the developments in the Middle East, and because of the current events there we look forward to a most stimulating conference. So, welcome, Fred.

Response 1:1 Farhad Saba In starting our discussion, I thought it would be helpful to present a quick overview of antecedent conditions to the current unrest in the Middle East instigated by Iran. Richard asked me to write a paragraph. Well it grew to be 5 or 6. These are followed by a question to get us started.

As I used to be reminded in high school, almost on a daily basis, Iran was a continuous monarchy with kings ruling the land for the past 2500 years. They ranged from Cyrus the Great, the first King of the Achaemenian dynasty of ancient Persia, who freed the Jews, and was praised in the Bible, to Muhammad Reza Pahlavi who left the country in 1979, thus ending the continuous monarchy.

The succession of the Pahlavi Dynasty with the current Islamic Republic also ended the process of Western modernization. Western modernity had reached the country since the advent of a constitutional monarchy in 1906 patterned after the constitutions of Belgium, France, and Great Britain. But it was not until Reza Shah Pahlavi took over in 1925 when he started establishment of unprecedented secular institutions, such as a modern security force (trained by no other than the father of General Norman Schwarzkopf) to a banking system, the University of Tehran, and government ministries in charge of heath education, agriculture, and other similar functions.

The Iranian Shi’a Ayatollahs sided with the progressive movement in 1906 to change the system of absolute monarchy to a constitutional regime with two houses of parliament, the Majlis and the Senate, thus setting the stage for rapid progress. Reza Shah’s effectiveness in bringing Western modernity to Iran took hold with rapid completion of projects such as the transnational railroad (with the aid of Germany).

Increasingly, however, as Western modernity took hold, the Islamic clergy departed from Western modern ideals and drew closer to another form of modernity exported to them across the border from the then Soviet Union. If there was a reformation in Shi’a Islam, it was its marriage with an unlikely bride: Marxism. The offspring of this marriage was Islamic Marxism which became of age in 1979, and promoted the current conditions.

Today, the ruling Islamic Marxist regime aspires to make Islam the only religion in the world by annihilating followers of other religions starting with the Jews in Israel. The overwhelming majority of Iranians, however, look to the West for goods and services ranging from household appliances and cell phones, to college education and the hope for democracy.

The position of the United States is crucial to the Iranian population who happens to be very young–half the 60 million people are under 18 years. The ruling regime sees the U.S. as its number one enemy and aspires to destroy it, while many young people see the U.S. as a source of hope for creating conditions in which democracy can bloom in the country.

The question is how the U.S. can defend itself against the Iranian regime that is intent to destroy it, while helping Iranians who strive for establishment of a democratic regime in the country?

1:2 Richard Farson I watched Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes interviewing the president of Iran last Sunday, and he certainly didn't treat him like a head of state. But I also didn't hear from him any comments that would support the idea that Iran intends to destroy either Israel or the U.S., though he was very critical of the current administration. One complaint was that he felt that we in the U.S. were demeaning of Iran and I must say Mike Wallace exemplified that attitude.

Might the best way to prepare a defense would be to have a better understanding of that country and what's going on there? I'm guessing that this conference may take us in that direction.

1:3 Walter Anderson Fred, I look forward to this conference and welcome the opportunity to find out more about what's happening in Iran. I am interested, curious, apprehensive, not particularly well-informed. I note that your impression of the last Shah is considerably more favorable than the one I had formed, and would like to hear more on that subject, since obviously it is important background.

1:4 Sandy Mactaggart This is an interesting and timely subject given the polarization that has been exacerbated over the past month. As one of those who, in a previous WBSI conference, believed that the removal of Saddam Hussein would give Iraq a better opportunity to enjoy individual freedoms and create a more tolerant Islam, I have been appalled at the results that have ensued from good intentions badly executed.

The old Iraq had a Shi’a majority, firmly controlled by a fierce Sunni minority. It served as a buffer between Sunni Saudi Arabia, America's friend in the Middle East, and Shi’a Iran, which has long characterized America as 'The Great Satan," and acts accordingly. In attempting to bring democracy, we are in the process of creating conditions that will ensure that the new Iraq will be controlled by radical Shi’a elements that will become the natural allies of Iran, not Saudi Arabia.

America has caused a lot of unintended misery, and spent much more treasure than expected, to produce very negative results. What can be done?

1:5 Farhad Saba Thanks, Walter. I appreciate your interest, and understand your apprehension. During the time of the recent Shah, Iran moved from a backward country to the verge of development. She was not in war, and had cordial relations with both the Soviet Union, and the U.S. Also very friendly relations were maintained with Great Britain, and France, and later with China. Considering critical economic indicators, the country made major achievements with the majority of the people benefiting.

Political developments, however, were not as impressive. The Shah failed in cultivating a polity who was willing to give him credit for keeping the country in peace and providing steady economic growth. He also did not develop self-sustaining political institutions that could fill the political void. The Islamic Marxists found an opportunity in the 1970s and filled this void. In my grade book, he receives an A for international relations and domestic economic development, and an F in political institution building.

1:6 Farhad Saba Sandy: Thanks for your comments. There is no question that the situation in Baghdad is not ideal. But, Baghdad is not the entire country of Iraq. Other major cities, with the notable exception of Najaf the site of the Shi’a shrine of Imam Ali, are relatively quiet. The constant bombings in Baghdad is the work of Iranian Revolutionary Guard members who are waging a war with the United States, without directly engaging the U.S. troops, by killing Sunni citizens. If Iran withdrew its forces and money from Iraq, the situation would stabilize quickly. We are quick to blame the U.S., but we also have to understand that Iran is intent in waging a war with the U.S. whenever possible. Iraq is extremely convenient, Lebanon is not as convenient, but is a second best. If neither of these places were available to Iran, she would have used another territory and another excuse for its hostility. Please, keep in mind that the current regime of Iran has no choice other than creating constant external crisis to divert attention from the miserable domestic economic conditions.

1:7 Richard Farson I recall that the distinguished U.S. architect, Jacqueline Robertson, worked several years for the Shah, master planning the complete redevelopment and modernization of Tehran, and then everything fell apart.

1:8 Douglass Carmichael In Iran, did we miss an opportunity as the middle class progressives were in a strong position and getting stronger prior to our Iraq adventure and we polarized the situation, giving increasing opportunity for leverage to the more ambitious empire-driven Persian Iran, and the leverage to crush the reformers?

My starting point understanding goes like this:

The Shah was increasingly monarchical, resisted middle class participation, and created a great student resistance to him. Torture and such increased rapidly in the last years. He had left behind the aspiring and pushed out the religious. He was left with a narrow base indeed. I would not call this good economic development, much less, as Farhad points out, good institution building.

Iraq was a balancing act, and Saddam was a person who could do it. Can anyone do better? Under him Iraq had a large middle class, secular, and technically proficient.

The U.S. forced Iraq into a war with Iran.

The U.S. may have been right in Iraq 1, but Iraq did have some serious issues with Kuwait.

George H.W. Bush left him in power because his associates understood that taking him out would unleash a civil war.

The war in Afghanistan was ill-conceived because we never took seriously the perception that we had caused the Afghan problem by supporting what became the Taliban, which was a "purification," though not of our liking, of a corrupt society. By smashing the Taliban we crushed a reform movement without offering much in its place but more war, and a newly arising Taliban.

Our problem with Iraq was both intent and execution, not just the latter. We seemed to be acting on the idea that folks in the Middle East would admire our strength. But our stupidity trumped at every step. Our long term support of Israel without demanding that Israel respond creatively and reasonably to the Palestinian question has created a losing hand for the U.S. and Israel. Our idiocy gave an opening for Iran ambitions and wide spread fear/hatred of the U.S.

If I had to conclude, I'd say we are on the edge in a nuclear war that will happen. Israel is now undefendable, and we are a vastly more interesting target for terrorists. What could have been an interesting Beirut like cosmopolitan Middle East is now not just polarized but made of bounded segments with weapons but without an economy. Very dangerous.

On Iran in Baghdad, my understanding is that still most of captured suspects are Iraqi. Am I wrong? The urgency of the moment makes it hard to deal with questions like the contribution of the realities of "globalization" to the problem. For example, Islamic fundamentalists are not basing belief on old traditions but are basically following fascist or communist leaders who picked up ideology in the 30s. In the anti-colonial period local people world over were looking for a way to deal with colonial power and economy. The Middle East is one place where the problems were never solved, no viable open economy emerged, and leaders used the ideological tools at hand. Who can blame them? Not to agree, but to understand them, is the act of humanism.

I just finished reading John Updike's The Terrorist—highly recommended; also Infidels by Wheatcroft, a history of invective back and forth between the two civilizations—very helpful.

I also think we should all read http://juancole.com and for those who can handle tougher stuff, http://billmon.org

1:9 Richard Farson Having suffered what is widely considered a political and psychological defeat, and considering their former standing as an invincible military machine, even a military defeat, will Israel move quickly to restore its reputation by bombing Iran, or some other such action? Or will they lie low and hope that when the Lebanese return to their devastated homes that these newly homeless refugees will blame Hezbollah? Juan Cole spells it Hizbollah. Which is correct?

1:10 Lincoln Bloomfield On a couple of interesting points Fred first made, and while we are clearing the brush:

Iranian (Persian) pride. At a State Department policy planning workshop on Iran last year at which I was the only non-specialist, two Iranian businessmen who had somehow gotten permission to fly to Washington made a powerful argument that the key element in understanding Iran under any regime was pride. I’m afraid that a cultural weakness among us Americans is a literal and self-regarding approach to both friendship and enmity which somehow fails to comprehend the feelings of the other. BTW, after hearing from the official and unofficial experts from both countries, my own conclusion was that it was an exercise in competitive ignorance.

Israel: On my first visit to Iran two years before the revolution to deliver lectures etc, I was interested on arriving at the Hotel Intercontinental to see the entire lobby filled with an art exhibit of—Israeli paintings. Dick, I'm afraid that the clever and dangerously warped Iranian president has several times called for wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Nuclear: Several British and U.S. researchers at Harvard/MIT have developed an intriguing plan for a multinational uranium reprocessing facility to deal with Iran's legitimate--but highly suspect--right to peaceful uses of nuclear power (they lied about it to the UNIAEC for 18 years. Assuming any USG and EU will try to deal with the obvious hazards of a Persian bomb, not to mention Islamist extremism, I see the principal challenge for the U.S. for the foreseeable future somehow starting to reverse the coruscating anti-American venom spreading like a pandemic through the world.

P.S. Dick, how about a somewhat larger font for the posted messages? The strains of living under the Bush regime don't need the add-on of eye-strain, Thanks!

1:11 Richard Farson Interesting personal experiences, Linc. I'm not doubting the danger Iran represents to Israel and the U.S. I just want to keep some perspective. Juan Cole, an expert in the languages of the Middle East, questions the translation of the Iranian president's words as "wiping Israel off the face of the earth," which implies a military action. He says that the president is quoting Khomeni who, when referring to the Soviet Union during the cold war, said something to the effect that time will end the regime. I can't remember the exact quote but it was more of a prediction and a wish than a military threat, and had to do with the regime rather than the state. And we don't have such a strong case against Iran for deceiving the IAEC when Israel did the same thing.

I'll check into the font size, but I suspect it is not under our control.

1:12 Farhad Saba Douglass, we tend to judge history by the most recent events of an era. I was witness to the economic boom in Iran from as far back as I remember to the departure of the Shah. In the 1950s the majority of the middle class could afford a pair of shoes, and the rest, who lived in abject poverty, walked barefoot. In 1979, the overwhelming majority of middle class could afford a car and the poor people could afford at least a pair of shoe; there was virtually no unemployment.

I agree, however, that the Shah alienated everyone, including his most staunch supporters, towards the end. I gave him an F for his failure in political institution building. But, I think this discussion should be as much about the future as about the past. The failure of the Shah in political institution building is only important as far as the future is concerned. I do not see any new viable institutions being built in Iran at this time, either. We have a crisis here that is not going to be resolved by a mere regime change.

The current regime in Iran has no solution for its domestic problems. Therefore it has to create crises outside. It is destabilizing for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. It is fighting Israel, and the U.S., and intends to export its brand of Islam to the rest of the world. It is spending the lion’s share of its oil income to import extremely unreliable nuclear energy processing plants from Russia. What is left is spent on supporting proxy armies, such as Hezballah in Lebanon and Muqhtada al Sadr’s militia in Iraq.

The question is would there be a line drawn to mitigate Iranian expansionism? For Hitler, the line was drawn in Poland. I think we are still in the appeasement mode as far as Ahmadinejad is concerned.

1:13 Farhad Saba Richard: Hezb in Farsi means party and Allah as we know is Allah! So, if there is a correct spelling for Party of God it should be HezbAllah. However, newswires have adopted Hezbullah, which is the way the word is pronounced in everyday conversation. I hope this makes sense.

1:14 Bill Longhauser Richard, I was struck by your comment about how the president of Iran was not treated like a head of state by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. I think the issue goes beyond Mike Wallace. It seems to me that the question is what is the impact of television on world affairs? Does the medium of television automatically become demeaning to any head of state? Does it trivialize any issue? I found it rather ironic that the Bush administration refuses to engage in diplomacy with Iran but the president of Iran is interviewed on a popular television program in prime time.

Foreign diplomacy is playing itself out on Larry King Live and other television programs. It’s astounding. You want to hear Condi Rice? Tune into Larry. The highest officials of government in the world appear on one of the lowest forms of presentation. Don’t forget that both Bush and Kerry appeared with their wives on Dr. Phil before the 2004 election. And this is only the beginning. Wait until 2008—perhaps cooking with Martha Stewart.

1:15 Lincoln Bloomfield Bill's comment on private sector contacts was intriguing. So-called parallel, dual-track diplomacy, and other unofficial channels with the Sovs were abundant and its still not clear with what efffect in policy (as I discuss in Accidental Encounters With History).

But with a less coherent society like Iran it seems promising. Of course lots of the pre-1979 Iranian students we trained at MIT and elsewhere became educated radicals back home. But with such a pig-headed leadership in DC, do-it-yourself diplomacy might be worth promoting big-time, along with massive tourism ("guided tours to nuclear sites"?)

PS typeface miraculously large, thanks to someone (Allah?)

1:16 Richard Farson The NY Times carries an op-ed this morning saying that Hamas leaders are willing to negotiate with Israel as a side-by-side state, if the U.S. and West help out. If a settlement in the Israeli/Palestinian situation were to take place to the satisfaction of Hamas, would this quiet the Iranian anger at the U.S.?

1:17 Douglass Carmichael Thanks for the linguistics of Hezb Allah. To demonize the Iranians and their president leads to war. I prefer to focus on the fact that Ahmadinejad is rather weak and there are other leaders with other agendas. Persian are ambitious for Persia. But they also have a tradition of high civilization.

The idea that Hezbollah will rebuild Lebanon, and those who know their tradition of social welfare can only see that this is not a mere illusion, puts the U.S. in an increasingly jeopardized situation.

On behind the scenes diplomacy, there was the effort out of Eslsen and others bringing soviet and American together, and I got to participate in what were called the Edinburgh conversations, bringing mid level fast track American and soviet officers together in the seventies. What is so striking is that there is so little leadership in the U.S., and it is so circumscribed, there is so little access to power. Bush is like a queen bee, and the rest of us drones.

I hope we focus on the larger picture, the forces and issues and opportunities, in the situation.

1:18 Farhad Saba I am delighted to see that Bill and Lincoln have commented on the role of media and parallel diplomacy. Our discussion is taking place in the background of a massive deconstruction (and I hope reconstruction) of institutions everywhere. There has been, of course, criticism of the UN, and its ineptness in dealing with various crises. We also see diplomacy taking place on television. Fax machines and to a lesser extent the Internet were also credited for the major transformations in Eastern Europe.

Just as a point of information, this week, the Iranian government ordered the police to collect satellite dishes throughout the country.

People with satellite dishes can see news broadcasts and various programs that are generated in Los Angeles by several companies in Farsi. There is a sizeable private broadcast industry in Southern California with popular Iranian music, talk shows, and political commentary. Many people could see these programs via the satellite in Iran. Periodically, however, the government collects the receiving dishes and destroys them.

1:19 Farhad Saba Richard: Israel for Iran is nothing but an excuse. They are not neighbors, and Israel’s behavior does not affect the lives of ordinary Iranians one way or another.

The current regime in Iran, I am sorry to say, will find another excuse for its hostile attitude if Palestine is established as a state and if she recognizes Israel.

The issues, as we have discussed over our lovely lunch meetings while enjoying the sea breeze in La Jolla, is the incompatibility of a religious regime with the secular world.

We (that is the imperial we) in the West see the world from the prism of Enlightenment. The political revolution which occurred as a result of Enlightenment, was brought to Iran in 1906 (a century late). It lasted until 1979. Now we are back to the Middle Ages in Iran. The decision makers in Iran (as hard as it is for us to believe) have no notion of Enlightenment other than that it was an aberration in the world history which brought decadence to the West.

Independent thinking, respect for difference of opinion, tolerance, and a rational interpretation of reality (as compared to interpretation based on religious mythology) is what the decision makers in Iran consider as the cause for the West’s decadence. If you believe in Islam, and its doctrine (or Christianity or Judaism for that matter) how can you be tolerant of any other point of view?

In the West, through two centuries of secularization we have developed a democratic political system in which the ideal and striving towards tolerance and respect for multiple points of view has become possible. This, of course, includes assimilation of Christianity, Judaism and many other religions and pseudo religions in society.

Accommodation of any other point of view is "haraam" (prohibited) in orthodox fundamentalist Shi’a Islam. This is why I cringe, when I see comments to the effect that it might be possible to negotiate with "moderate" Shi’a leaders. A moderate Shi’a cleric is one who lies to the enemy to buy time or other needed benefits at the time, since lying to the enemy is "halaal" (sanctioned).

1:20 Farhad Saba Douglass: I believe in opening multiple channels of conversation with as many different people form a variety of viewpoints on the political spectrum as possible. A puzzle that has remained in my mind is why President Carter did not do this in 1978 and directly opted for Khomeini as the "Gandhi of Iran" and its only savior.

As in today, there were many possibilities at his disposal. So, the question is how to establish a discourse with such people as perhaps a starting point for building viable political institutions.

Today, Iranians hold a wide spectrum of political opinions in Iran, and elsewhere in the world. You will find the Tudeh ("masses" in Farsi) Party (or the communist party of Iran) the most articulate and rational entity. On the other hand, the Green Party of Iran (located in Germany) has a formidable environmental and political agenda. A large group of poets, authors, and commentators inside and out the country are contributing to the political discourse. Many of them are imprisoned in Iran, and even there through hunger strikes, and similar methods convey their displeasure of the situation.

There are professional engineers, agricultural scientists, professional military officers, university professors, and many other similar professionals who have been marginalized by the regime. Also, do not forget the important role of tribal leaders who with a variety of political backgrounds are supporting separatist movements in Iran.

There are also genuine Muslim believers, who go about their daily lives, but are governed by the political class and are oppressed by the regime’s fascist goons.

You will find two groups particularly willing to engage in meaningful conversation; women who are persona non grata, and young people who see no future for them.

How do we engage them?

1:21 Bill Longhauser Farhad: Fax machines were clearly influential but they only transmit information that already exists. They have more to do with time than with content. Television presents an "image" that pretends to be reality. Unlike the Sunday morning talk shows (they are entertainment as well), Larry King is an entertainment show and his softball obvious questions reveal nothing but give the "appearance" of seriousness. When Condi appeared on Larry’s show, the coup was not in extracting new or important information; the coup was getting her to appear. A feather in Larry's cap. She is mixed in with a wide range of various celebrities. It really doesn’t matter what she says. Other than the fact that she knows she is safe from any possibility of receiving an insightful question from Larry King, why does she appear? Is it diplomacy? Or is it pure image? Is Iran watching? Hezbollah? Hamas? Israel? If so, is what she says official? A fact? Would she offer a cease-fire on Larry? Arnold announced his candidacy for governor of California to Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.

We would NEVER order the police to collect satellite dishes in our country. Is this because we believe more in freedom? Or is it essential to our government "that we watch".

Farhad, please correct me if I am wrong, but I am having a difficult time seeing how the current administration encourages " Independent thinking, respect for difference of opinion, tolerance, and a rational interpretation of reality". I am seeing America struggling with its own incompatibility of a religious regime with the secular world. It was the catholic church that refused to give John Kerry communion because he believed in a woman’s right to choose.

As we discuss our relationship to other governments in the world and always claim the highest moral ground, wouldn't it behoove us to be cognizant of at least the appearance of hypocrisy?

1:22 Richard Farson We are a very religious country, far more church going than almost any other developed nation. Belief in God is true for 96% of our population, and our attendance at least once a week at church is 44% compared to 21% in France, 4% in Sweden and 3% in Japan. And the vast majority, 85%, believe in heaven, and 71% believe in the devil, up from 63% in 1977. Is it possible that we would militarily confront a nation with so many similar beliefs.

Fred, you make the case that Iran is anxious to cause trouble for the U.S., but if we were to believe Seymour Hersh, writing in the current New Yorker magazine, it is President Bush who wants to make war against Iran. I would think they have much more to fear from us than we do from them. Am I wrong about that?

1:23 Bill Longhauser Another addition to the discourse on "incompatibility of a religious regime with the secular world": Bush's rejection of Stem Cell Research. And let's not forget about one of the most opaque/transparent abuses of our language: "Intelligent Design".

1:24 Douglass Carmichael The thoughts about Carter are very interesting. Would the Republicans have tried to impeach him? I'd like to explore that period more. I know it more through knowing Iranian students in DC during that period. I watched the progressive ant-shah students cave in to the intimidation of the Khomeini supporters.

I can't accept that there is the religious third world and a secular west. Part of the last hundred years is the breakup of simple anti-religious beliefs, like positivism and Marxism (and as a psychoanalyst, I'd add the Freud of the 19th century). Solid metaphysical foundations are gone, and not to be recaptured (fundamentalisms will try). We really have an opportunity for more openness, less doctrinaire self-righteousness, more pragmatism. It is here where much of the Iranian middle class/students and less doctrinaire Islamics have some core similarities. But this similarity cannot emerge when the choices actually offered are

1. the Anglo-American version of economics and media controlled democracy, sometime called freedom, globalization, the only game in town (Friedman in the Lotus and the olive tree). The reality of which is increasing concentration of wealth and power in narrower hands.

2. The use of democracy, technology, business to further the well being of all (not right away but in that direction, prevented in the current arrangement.

This point of view is embarrassing because it implies that the much of the jihad energy, much of the increasing criticism of the U.S. economy at home and abroad, much of the anti GMF campaign, much of he drift toward populism in Latin American politics - are based on shared perceptions.

Look at the hysteria about Lamont.

A deeper part of what I am thinking about is that science, rationality, the western perspective, is exactly as religious as Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Jain, Lutheran..

They are systems of belief that tie the world together (re-legere)and have different rituals, iconic figures, hopes, ...

Thus we are more alike than the differences we focus on suggest. I see hope in this, but the U.S. as a fundamentalist belief—I think of Fukuyama's The End of History, a belief in markets and democracy and avoiding looking at the role of capital and media as a fundamentalism willing to kill to maintain its belief, which is a flag covering the interests of the very large number of people benefiting from this economy at the expense, not only of the rest, who are much more numerous, but on a path to destruction, the fate of all empires, narrowing ownership and participation.

1:25 Richard Farson Doug Carmichael passed along to me this morning a blog write up of the prospects of our attacking Iran, triggered by a 9/11 type terror attack on US or Europe, in which we would have been complicit. Interesting scenario, but judging from the administration’s preparations, it may not even be necessary to have the triggering event.

But it does raise the troubling issue of what the next 9/11 attack would bring. I worry much more about our response than I do about the attack itself. Is it conceivable to this group that we would attack Iran and possibly Syria at the same time? And what is Israel going to do to restore its reputation for military invincibility? Are we about to join them in a new military adventure? Dick Cheney has only two and a half years left to democratize the Middle East.

1:26 Farhad Saba Bill and Douglass have introduced several layers of complexity to the discussion. Our interaction can take many branches from hereon. I hope I can keep track of all of them.

One level is the current administration. It is considered to have theocratic tendencies, although it is not how theocrats in the Middle East view it. If that were the image of the current administration, establishing a dialog with Ayatollahs would have been easier. Unfortunately, the President is not very articulate, so I am not sure that a dialog between him and the Ayatollahs would be a good idea in any case. The Shi’a clerics have intense training in language arts, logic and rhetoric. Any junior cleric in a seminary in the holy city of Qom could far surpass the President in his use of language and sophistry.

Another level is the American society. As Richard documented, the majority of Americans are religious, they believe in God and go to church on a regular basis. This is the best kept secret in the Middle East. The so-called man on the street in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or any other country in the region for that matter has a hard time visualizing Americans as religious. Far from it, they believe Americans are decadent. What is the source of this belief or image? Hollywood? The Voice of America? If the people in the Middle East recognized the religious tendencies of the Americans, dialog with them would have been facilitated immensely.

Perhaps the most challenging and complex level, coming through in your recent postings is the transformation of culture in the U. S. and Europe. We are in an era in which our belief in science, technology and ideas of progress and development are severely challenged. I was in Santa Barbara visiting family and . became concerned about my younger cousins who have no philosophical guideposts as my generation had when I was growing up. They live in a world that all value systems are as valid as any other value system. The question is how can we hold our society coherent as it is attacked by terrorism? Eventually, we would be a stronger society as result of the current renaissance. But, do we have time to articulate and resolve issues related globalization, post-modernism, multiculturalism, etc. Is this how "Rome" declined? According to Gibbon, she broke down from within, as she was under attack from without?

These levels would inevitably lead to the selection of our next leader in the White House. Do we need a "philosopher king" in the White House who understands the many levels of complexities that you have introduced here? Who would be an ideal president in the White House in 2008?

1:27 Richard Farson Fred, your call for a philosopher king in 2008 is a tall order. We have no one in line with those credentials, I'm afraid. But the more serious problem is that none of the candidates in either party can even mention the fundamental issue, which is our relationship to Israel and the Israeli/ Palestinian situation. Nobody, even in the media, let alone politicians, can point out the colossal mistake we made in postponing the cease fire in Lebanon, or in sending bombs to Israel for that war. So there can be dialogue, presumably, but not about that, and without that what good can come of it? 60% of the financing of the Democratic campaign for the presidency comes from the Jewish community. We will continue to do as Israel wants. And Israel keeps shooting itself, and the U.S., in the foot.

1:28 Harlan Cleveland I would urge that we focus more on Iran, and what we should be doing to influence our future relations with Iran.

In the 1950s, I taught a number of Iranian graduate students. They were bright, motivated, and activist. There were then many Iranian students in this country; they were furious about the Shah's regime, and networked effectively to protest against it. But almost as soon as the Ayatollah Khomeini took over, most of those Iranian ex-students found themselves even more opposed to theocratic rule in their country, and a good many became American citizens.

Now, in a third phase, I find my former students, now adult friends, tearing their hair about the baleful effects of the long period (roughly, 1979 to today) during which Americans haven't been learning what's happening in Iran and younger Iranians (who are most of the Iranian population) don't get much information, and do get plenty of disinformation, about what the United States is like and what kind of people Americans are.

Prior to 1949, I had several occasions to visit Iran which I found very useful in my own thinking and writing. (As a small example, my wife was in a discussion of history with a group of educated Iranian women. She said something about "Alexander the Great," and one of her interlocutors cleared her throat and intervened gently. "Around here," said the Iranian woman, "we just refer to him as "Alexander.") It would surely be best if there were millions of such conversations going on between Americans and Iranians, from which both would learn much that would be mutually useful.

As it is, such interaction is mostly bottled up by mutual hostility, either induced by current events (the nuclear issue, Israel, Hezbollah, etc.) or provoked by memories of mutually well-founded resentments (such as the long detention of U.S. diplomatic hostages, and the U.S.-engineered dumping of a democratic leader named Mossadegh long ago)--compounded by bloody-minded regimes both in Teheran and in Washington.

So, my question to our moderator Farhad (Fred) Saba is: Despite the mutual hostility of governments, how can we open up fruitful channels of information/ conversation between the Persian and American peoples?

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Click here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

top