Learning How to Talk to Iran Means Learning to Understand Iranian Culture

This is from a recent op-ed in the New York Times, “How to Talk to Iran,” by Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Ali Shabani:

For thousands of years, Persian culture has been distinguished by customs that revolve around honor and esteem. Preserving one’s aberu [saving face] is tantamount to maintaining one’s dignity. There are almost no instances in modern Iranian history when maslahat [expediency] has trumped aberu. The West has poorly understood these concepts. This was particularly true under President Bush, who rewarded Iran’s tacit acceptance of the American invasion of Afghanistan by labeling Iran a member of an “axis of evil.”

Following the 2003 allied invasion of Iraq, the Swiss ambassador to Iran reached out to Washington with an unofficial outline for a “grand bargain” with Tehran that would cover everything from Iran’s nuclear program to its support for militant groups in the region. Despite this bold step, Iran was left out in the cold. Vice President Dick Cheney is said to have dismissed the initiative, reportedly asserting that “we don’t talk to evil.”

We now know, thanks to a recent memoir by the former Iranian nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani, that the Bush administration reached out to Tehran a year after dismissing the proposal. Not surprisingly, partly because of the blow to its pride, the Iranian government rejected the offer of direct, high-level talks as insincere. In the nine years since, Iran’s nuclear program — a major symbol of prestige for Iranians — has grown immensely. Things have gotten a lot more complicated.

I don’t care what you think personally about Iran, Iranians, Shiite Islam (the dominant form of Islam that is practiced in Iran), Ahmadinejad’s antisemitism, or anything else Iranian for that matter, if your goal is to reduce tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, while at the same time reducing tensions in the region and specifically between our two nations, then you have a responsibility not to assume that the Iranians will negotiate on your cultural terms alone. You need to be able to  talk and respond to them in ways that respect who they are and where they come from–just as you would expect them to do with you. It’s worth reading the entire op-ed.

Cross posted.

This entry posted in Iran. Bookmark the permalink. 

3 Responses to Learning How to Talk to Iran Means Learning to Understand Iranian Culture

  1. 1
    guagua says:

    The article stinks ironically of orientalism, and lacks any perspective on realpolitik. It’s pointless grandstanding and self promotion with an air of exceptionalism.

    “Face” is a human concept, not an Iranian one. We have this in China too. Even cultures that don’t have a word for it experience the same pride, shame, etc associated with face. The west has problems talking to Iran because it doesn’t respect Iran. (Not that respect shouldn’t be earned.)

    Consider these factors:

    1. Persia has a distinct history and identity from its Arab neighbors, plus a streak of cultural nativism growing amongst young Iranians
    2. Shia Islam can be played against Sunni Islam. Should the Sunnis resist, the Shia’s minority status in the Islamic world can be leveraged for populist pity
    3. Iranians have a disdain for Ahmedinejad both at home and abroad
    4. Young Iranians reminisce of pre-Islamic Republic times, and show willingness to adopt western customs as a part of modernization
    5. Persian identity, and perhaps physical appearance, are “closer” to the white European than its neighbors
    6. Iran is located strategically to “split” the Middle East between its fundamentalist Arabia neighbors, tribal Afghans, and nationalistic Pakistanis
    7. Iran’s historical clout as well as its current nuclear potential can be manipulated against an already leery Arabic world

    In essence, all these factors can be exploited to maximize division and strife in the region for the benefit of more advanced countries, yours and mine. Instead of treating them like enemy number 1, the Iranians should be welcomed “into the fold” and given lip service for their ethnic self-determination to enable them as a fifth column in the region. We need to create a condition for them to see THEMSELVES as superior to their neighbors. This force, along with an ascendent and fiercely nationalistic Turkey, on top of Western-friendly states like Lebanon and Jordan, will eventually force the Islamic world into division, irrelevance, or complete submission to western style liberalization. The forces of secularism and moral guilt have worked in Western countries, and there is no reason that faced with disunity, they will work on the Islamic world. Should they submit to these ideologies, they will essentially neutralize themselves as a threat and bring about a soft cultural victory for the West.

    Thus, the friendship of Iran is far worthier than that of Israel, although both can probably be juggled with skillful diplomacy.

    Your problem is that liberal thought focuses too much on morality, compassion, and other emotions. That automatically discredits itself from any sort of political usefulness. Your conservatives are too busy being fearful and overly focused on irrational social “issues”. The correct way to deal with Iran, for both my country AND yours, is actually very similar. But it can only be executed by an administration with an understanding and prioritization in realpolitik. My country has the authoritative capacity to do it, but we lack interest in the region. Yours is too involved while lacking the decisiveness and emotionless approach required.

  2. Guagua:

    The article stinks ironically of orientalism, and lacks any perspective on realpolitik. It’s pointless grandstanding and self promotion with an air of exceptionalism.

    Do you mean my post or the article I linked to? If the latter, I would suggest you go read more of Mousavian’s writing, which is steeped in realpolitik, though a very different one than you have outlined in your post.

    “Face” is a human concept, not an Iranian one. We have this in China too. Even cultures that don’t have a word for it experience the same pride, shame, etc associated with face. The west has problems talking to Iran because it doesn’t respect Iran. (Not that respect shouldn’t be earned.)

    Of course, but “face” is, nonetheless, situated differently, privileged differently, and valued differently in different cultures. It is not orientalism to acknowledge that, nor is it orientalism to suggest that someone from the United States who is sitting across the table from someone from Iran should understand something about such a difference between their two cultures. Indeed, bothering to understand that is one sign of the respect you rightly point out the United States doesn’t really have for Iran.

    Having said that, your “factors” 1-7 seem to me, in general, pretty accurate descriptions, though I am not sure the Sunni-Shia divide would ever line up as neatly as you imply. Giving “lip service [to Iran] for their ethnic self-determination to enable them as a fifth column in the region,” on the other hand, unless I misunderstand what you mean, sounds to me like a far more cynical manipulation of the concept of “face” than what Mousavian and Shabani suggest in their op-ed. Iran, broadly speaking, already has a strong cultural sense of itself as superior to its neighbors (just as the Arabs, broadly speaking, have a sense of themselves as superior to Iran); and they certainly don’t need us to create a situation in which they will, finally, understand that. Another way of saying this, and this too applies to your seven factors, is that your perspective, as you have outlined it here, lacks an historical awareness of Iran.

    The forces of secularism and moral guilt have worked in Western countries, and there is no reason that faced with disunity, they will work on the Islamic world. Should they submit to these ideologies, they will essentially neutralize themselves as a threat and bring about a soft cultural victory for the West.

    I assume you mean “not work on the Islamic world,” yes? The language of submission that you employ here suggests, again, a cynically manipulative approach that condescends to Iran in ways that I think will ultimately backfire no differently than the approach the United States has taken has already either backfired or shown little or no progress.

  3. 3
    guagua says:

    You are missing the point. To reveal your true intentions in any kind of political dealing will make you suspect even to your friends. Like all good politics the point is not to come off as manipulative, while BEING manipulative.

    The point about orientalism is just a sidenote. Regardless of how they frame “face” the overriding factor is good diplomacy is good will and perceived mutual respect. All players should be regarded as more or less identical pieces subject to the same human bias, emotion, political consequences etc. Promoting cultural uniqueness in the realm of realpolitik is an error commited by naive populists who place too much importance on minor differences while ignoring the overwhelming similarities shared by all societies. It’s the uniform Go piece vs distinctive Chess piece scenario. One is better for macro-diplomacy, the other is suitable only for smaller situations. It would be beneficial to understand their culture at the same time, but it is hardly central to the purpose.