Washington and Tehran: “Celebrating” 30 Years of Hostility!

These days, we remember the attack launched against the American Embassy in Tehran, when a group of Iranian students attacked the Embassy and captured more than 50 American staff members.

The event can definitely be taken as the first chapter of hostility between the two states since the Islamic Revolution. However, this does not overrule the existence of a history of hostility that began in the early 1950s in the form of the American-British collaboration against then Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Musaddiq.

Thirty years passed, and the relation between the two countries remains the same so we can conclude that no change has affected the relationship. Despite political changes within each country in the form of changing of personalities (presidents), feelings of rejection and enmity still stand. These can not be disguised by the diplomatic statements issued sometimes by Tehran and other times by Washington in an effort to downsize existent contradiction.

The legitimate question, it seems, is: Why go on with this hostility? Notably, the two parties both celebrated the event.

In the last few days, American President Barack Obama did not hesitate to talk about it, calling on Iranians to wipe the slate clean and forget about the past. Meanwhile, the Grand Murshid of the Islamic Revolution warns of the hostile American policy against Iran. This time, Iranians celebrated in a way that could be the first of its kind since the Revolution. They were divided about the event. Government supporters condemned the U.S., shouting “death to America!” while the opposition shouted “death to the dictator… death to Russia!”

The question we asked remains open: Why go on with this hostility? The answer can be explained by the following points.

First, the pictures that Iran and the U.S. have drawn about each other did not change: A picture Iranians summed up as “the arch devil,” and Americans described as “the renegade state.” With these two pictures present, it is very unlikely that hostility will subside.

Second, there is a clear clash of interests between the two. This is normal in the world of politics, especially if the difference is controlled and managed. However, in the Iranian-American case, it does not seem to be like that; the Iranian vision of many issues is 99.9 percent different from the American one. It is something that did not change and does not seem likely to change in the near future. For the U.S., Iran is one of the major culprits that have placed American interests in danger until 2025.

Third, being hostile to America, for Iran and especially for the conservative political elite, is one of the sources of legitimacy for the Iranian regime. Hostility towards the U.S. is a tool used for garnering public opinion against the former monarchical regime that was a tool in American hands. Is it possible for the current regime to simply give up one of its sources of legitimacy?

Remembering the attack against the American Embassy will remain a landmark in the history of relations between the two countries. It seems that it is there to stand as a wall against any progress that could be achieved in the future. Therefore, this wall could be tougher than the Berlin Wall that already collapsed.