I have just read through the thread of comments posted to our initial discussion of whether a future Iran could be stabilizing. It's a terrific debate, without the nastiness often found on the Web. My count shows that readers who posted are much more hopeful than our panel of commentators that a future Iran could in fact be stabilizing, with a roughly 60/40 tilt in that direction. I'll summarize the thread, and then offer my own comment.
When you hang out a new sign in the Internet mall, you have no idea who will show up or what they will have to say. But after two days of our PostGlobal experiment, I'm struck by what good comments have come in from readers around the world. I have read all 67 comments posted as of Friday morning, and almost without exception they are thoughtful and provocative -- in many cases adding a dimension you would not find sitting around a discussion table in Washington. As poster Chuck Thiessen wrote: "What great comments, wouldn't it be great if our current administration could open their minds to such discussion." Well, maybe they will.
The first observation I would make about the thread is that readers are much more open than was our panel of commentators to the possibility that a future Iran could play a stabilizing role in the Middle East. Obviously "future" is the weasel word here -- a future Iran with nuclear weapons hell-bent on destroying Israel would be wildly de-stablizing. A more democratic Iran that is drawn into a security relationship with the United States could play a positive role. But it was striking, as poster Al H. noted, to see the gap between expert opinion and readers. Nearly all our commentators thought Iran would be destabillizing. By my count, a solid majority of posters thought a future stabilizing role was possible.
A number of readers made a point that doesn't surface often enough in Washington, which is that relative to neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Iran is fairly democratic. As Jarhead said in his post, "political and economic freedom in Iran are far more advanced than in Saudi Arabia." Poster Afsaneh Mifenderski wrote: "The range of political views presented on a ballot in Iranian presidential elections is far broader than the rest of the Middle East." (I would exclude Israel from that, which surely has the broadest debate of any Middle Eastern country, from pro-Palestinian to pro-settler.)
Many readers noted the cultural and historical role of Iran. HK Naiudu said in his post, "Persian culture and history demands mutual respect and fair dealing to not only enrich the region but finally to bring some stability and development." And Naveed Safdiq Khan, writing from the newspaper "Insaf" in Lahore, rightly noted that the United States itself had good relations with Iran in the recent past (i.e., before the 1979 revolution) because of its centrality in the region.
A final point that struck me in the comment thread was how many people mentioned the underlying issues of deterrence and mutual balance in speaking about stability. Zacharius put it bluntly: The U.S. will not attack a nuclear Iran; Iran will not attack any nation with nuclear weapons or any nation under U.S. protection. Donna argued that "Iran, in over 250 years, has never committed an aggressive war," and TI said, "As long as Iran isn't bothered by others, it won't bother others." I wish I were so hopeful. I think it's up to Iran now to show the world that Donna and TI are right -- that it's prepared to act as a responsible member of the world community. Certainly Iran has offered abundant evidence to the contrary since 1979.
So how would I answer the question I posed for the panel? Like many readers and panelists, I would hedge it. I think a condition of security in the Middle East is bringing a post-revolutionary Iran into the international system and giving it incentives to be a stabilizing force in the region. Indeed, we need to be sending the message to Iranian leaders and people that the ONLY way they can achieve their goal of being a leading power in the Middle East and the Islamic world is by moving into a new era where they work with other nations to satisfy mutual security concerns. Right now, that requires Iran above all to reassure the world that it is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
I went looking for documents about Henry Kissinger's diplomatic opening to China (see my initial "Editor's Inbox") because I thought it would remind me, and the PostGlobal community, about how Kissinger was able to engage China -- and help Chinese leaders understand that they could achieve their goals best by working with the United States. In that way, the US opening to China marked the inflection point, and the beginning of the post-revolutionary era. That's a worthy ambition now, as the world seeks to engage Iran.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Comments (8)
"Stability" is a vague concept--but even so, if many parts of the world are to overcome disease,exploitation, hunger, and tyranny, a great deal of what many would think of as "instability" will be necessary. Mr. Ignatius makes a shrewd point re some of the effects of the US-China rapprochement, but China did have for decades before that diplomatic and other relations with the rest of the world. By refusing to deal with China, The US had manouvered itself into isolation. This raises a larger point: is there a systematic American ethnocentrism implicit in the view that Iran after 1979 was the cause of "instability"? The dark side of the friendly US relations with the Shah and his regime was the resentment evoked by
American tutelage (and our role in the overthrow of the Iranian government in the early nineteen fifties, along with our British friends.) Yes, Iran did support
various movements in the Mideast which we choose to term "terrorist"--but that term only works if one ignores the not entirely sublime consequences of our military support for Israel, And did not the US support Saddam in his war on Iran, in ways large and small? Regarding Iran as an actual and potential source of difficulty,
and attributing the most benign intentions to the US, is one of those moral simplifications in which the US and its foreign policy elite excels: that is the road to Baghdad.
June 17, 2006 7:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 17, 2006 07:44
I am very frustrated with the media's lack of focus on Iran's recent developements in its struggle for Human Rights and Democracy. Just last Monday (06/12/2006) there was another peaceful women's demonstration for gender equality. About 200 women were met forcefully with brutal Islamic women's police.
More focus on Human Rights and democracy movements in Iran, will correct the Nuclear problem on its own. Please pay more attention to the Iranian people's brave efforts to stand up to oppression.
June 18, 2006 8:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2006 08:34
"I wish I were so hopeful. I think it's up to Iran now to show the world that Donna and TI are right -- that it's prepared to act as a responsible member of the world community. Certainly Iran has offered abundant evidence to the contrary since 1979."
Camon David.
" Certainly the US has offered abundant evidence to the contrary since 1979 including' but not limited to; Nicaragua, armng saddam, arming Osama, Keeping Mubarak in power etc."
June 19, 2006 1:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2006 01:40
If I might make a suggestion based on what by the standards of the Internet age is long experience with discussion threads:
Getting a good, high-quality discussion site started is easy. Keeping it that way is hard. Most of the better discussion boards I have ever seen, starting with Slate's Fray some six or so years ago, began with committed, thoughtful, high-quality posters. Every one of them later struggled with a flood of posters with little to say and a tendency to say it carelessly. The publicly displayed rules for posting to the site were regularly challenged. Sometimes the challenges were dealt with firmly and successfully; most of the time they were not.
Post Global is an experiment for the Post's online operation. It's started well, which is great. Don't let it go to your heads. Be prepared to enforce rigorously the rules appearing on this page; if people start complaining about the enforcement, don't give an inch.
All expression on the Internet is not created equal. The sad truth is that most people seized with the desire to make their voice heard would be better advised to remain silent. Most of those people haven't heard about Post Global yet. Be prepared for the day they do.
June 19, 2006 1:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2006 01:48
Mr. Ignatius,
Please keep the discussion going. I hope that you are right is assuming there is a chance that some of our politicians or their staff may be influenced by the wise and civilized comments offered here. I for one share the optimistic belief in the writings of Tielhard de Chardin that we are in an evolutionary process in which humans will eventually learn to live together peacefully. But evolution is a slow process and we must be patient. Now seems to be the time to try to focus on our upcoming election to work with leaders who propose policies which defuse conflicts and lead to more effective cooperative efforts to deal with both local and world problems.
June 19, 2006 8:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2006 08:18
People in the US, you included, Mr. Ignatius, seem not to comprehend the double standard that Iranians see: that Israel is allowed nucllear weapons, but not Iran.
From their point of view, is it not hypocritical for the US to say we have appointed ourselves the world police, and it is up to us alone to decide who will have nuclear weapons, or nuclear energy technology? When did we become God?
We have done everything possible to undermine and destabililze Iran for many years, and we even refuse to say we will not engage in an unprovoked strike against them. Plus the US is encouraging a nuclear arms race in some areas [ India] and ignoring or secretly funding others [Pakistan]--and still we demand that Iran unilaterally disarm.
Unfortunately, we do not seem to have the caliber of diplomacy in DC that we once had. There seems to be no one, either in the government or the DC press, for that matter, who seems capable of thinking beyond the US-centric paradigm.
June 19, 2006 9:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2006 09:39
"Certainly Iran has offered abundant evidence to the contrary since 1979."
I'm curious, as maybe i missed a few things, but except for the incidents during the revolution of taking the Americans hostage, where did Iran show aggressive behaviour?
to me it seems like the anti Iranian tendency in the US really came from what happened in 1979. The US used Iran as their puppet state for many years under the Shah and i think it was understandable that there is a bias against the US domestic meddling in Iranian population. I'm not justifying the hostage crisis, i'm saying i could see how it happened. the fact that America held a superfluously aggressive behaviour against Iran thru embargoes etc for almost 30 years doesn't show the maturity of a superpower regime.
The US supported a regime change and was actively encouraging a regime change in Indonesia in 1965 where 800,000 people were killed. While the end result was probably more favorable for the US foreign policy, you can see how some people would continue to hold grudges against the foreign involvement.
The Iran-US conflict at the moment revolves around so many distorted facts of history that neither side really have a full 20-20 vision after the fact. Of course, having silly rhetorics coming from a third world country, you would expect the Leader of the Free World to show the maturity to lead and be the wiser one in this issue.
which America is decidedly failing and thus not very convincing for us, the rest of the world to see it as a competent world leader.
June 23, 2006 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 23, 2006 13:06
Good day
My name is I am Todd Millow.
Would you like to get secure, stable, reliable from day to day income?
Today you can forget about your home loans and bills. I am thinking I ve made right choice and I am in the nice profit since dec-2006. That is a real real estate deal.
The company is working with high yeild investments, forex markets, e-currencies and
online business as well.
Don't wait and Change your life today and receive yours 1% every day.
That is bigger than bank ratios! Yo may earn up to 43% per month.
Visit my homepage for the details and learn more about Company's investment opportunity.
http://www.instant-profits.biz
February 8, 2007 6:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 8, 2007 18:03