Iran and America: Dialogue in Four Languages

Why did I say four languages? Because I recognize that everyone in America and Iran uses two different languages. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, President Obama focused mostly on internal affairs, but briefly discussed the peace process among Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iran. In his discussion of Iran, he focused on three principal points: negotiations, nuclear weapons and war. This part of the discussion was very vague, which is what made it impossible to distill a clear and specific message from his speech.

Obama said, “These negotiations will be difficult; they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran’s support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies, and we’re clear about the mistrust between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these negotiations don’t rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.

“The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed. If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon. But if Iran’s leaders do seize the chance — and we’ll know soon enough — then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war.”

From the Iranian perspective, we can also see two different languages. One of them is used by extremists and another is used by moderates. For example, Ahmad Khatami said in a Friday sermon on Jan. 31 that the American government is like a cow. This language produces nothing but hate and violence, and ignores what the Holy Quran demands of us when the Almighty says, “O you who have believed, fear Allah and speak words of appropriate justice” (Sahih International Translation 33:70) and “And speak to him with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allah]” (Sahih International Translation 20:44).

Comparing Obama to Bush makes me see that the Obama era is the appropriate time for Islamic and Arab states to promote the formation of an independent Palestinian state. However, we, at this time, should understand and take advantage of his problems with the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby.

Obama stressed that all options are still on the table. That means the choice of war against Iran, and that type of statement would naturally have had a response from his counterpart in Iran. The general commander of the Revolutionary Guard responded that they were eager for war with America and that their dream was to fight against Americans. There is a big gap between the two perspectives. Obama indicates that if it were war, it is the last and inevitable choice, and the choice will not be taken off the table. As for the other side, it is anxious for war, a warmonger by its description.

Reading and reflecting on Obama’s speech shows me that he focused mostly on American development and prosperity and the improvement of American lives. He spoke about students, workers, builders and so on. Most of his speech focused on building America, but the situation is different in Iran. The extremists are only proficient in discussions about war and how to deal with America, without focusing on solving the problems which Iran is facing at this time.

Fortunately, Obama firmly supports direct negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran. He also sent a strong signal to Congress, saying that he will use his veto against any new sanctions against Iran.

I think that we are in front of two cultures, with contradictory lifestyles and manners of thought. Firstly, there is the culture of life and the culture of death. Unfortunately, most revolutions such as the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the October Revolution in Russia and the French Revolution, have greatly succeeded in imposing a culture of death on their countries. When we look to the East or the Middle East, we see that we are fighting each other, and we are training our children to carry out suicide bombings! We are destroying our homes with our own hands. I look to what is happening in Syria and what happened in Egypt. Yesterday, Mubarak was put in a cage in court: Now it is Morsi’s turn and so on. All of us live in a cage, because we imagine our rivals in a cage. We cannot live without revenge and hatred. We want to fight hatred with hatred and wash away blood with blood. This chain is an eternal circle in our history.

Another thing that we should think about here is the difference between treatment of presidents in America and countries in our area, such as Iran. When the period of their service ends, American presidents are treated with great respect as former presidents. I look at Clinton, George Bush Senior and Junior, and Jimmy Carter. Now let us take a look at the former Iranian presidents: The first president of Iran, Banisadr, who lives in exile in Paris; the second president, Rajai, who was killed in an explosion; Hashemi Rafsanjani who sank his family into a whirlpool of judicial accusations; and Khatami, who could not participate in Mandela’s funeral. This results in a culture of death.

It teaches us that when military men and officers resolve to replace decision-makers and politicians, a culture of death will be the inevitable result. Thus it supports all extremists in the world, somehow, in strengthening each other. They destroy real life. In Iran, we had to deal with a very bitter situation. Over the last eight years, we witnessed the defrauding and betrayal of the people. Now the new Iranian president and his administration are trying to talk about life, peace and improving Iran’s relationships with its neighbors. Rouhani’s language tends to be very clear and transparent.

Thus, I believe that President Obama must not use neoconservative language in his speech. They have their own representative to put forward their ideas. Rouhani has named his government “a government of hopes and wisdom.” Believe me, each one of us in our region, in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, is clinging to hope and wisdom, because war is destroying our hope and our wisdom. In our ancient myths, when the father kills his son, it means that he is killing the future — because the father represents the past.