Cyrus Hadadi’s Nov. 21 column,”War and Peace,” makes an interesting point about the failed back-channel negotiation attempts between Iran and the United States in 2003. Unfortunately, to make that point, Hadadi takes great liberties with the truth.
Hadadi’s column seems to suggest the failure of back-channel negotiations can be attributed to the besieged neo-conservative warmongers who are “determined to worm their way back into power by maneuvering America into war with Iran.” It argues that Iran “wanted to restore diplomatic relations with the United States and be welcomed back into the world community,” and that “the Bush administration missed its golden opportunity” by ignoring Iran.
In support of this argument, the column cites unverifiable historical “facts,” such as John F. Kennedy’s pursuit of détente: “In the 1950s, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev promised that the Soviet Union would ‘bury’ America, but that didn’t stop John F. Kennedy from pursuing a policy of peace and détente.”
The truth, at least according to Encyclopedia Britannica and most other mainstream references, is that détente did not appear in U.S. foreign policy until 1967, four years after Kennedy’s assassination.
After changing the historical appearance of détente, the column conveniently ignores its demise after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980. It ignores the fact that Reagan was elected in 1980 on a platform that opposed the concessions justified by détente, and that the Berlin Wall did not fall during the days of détente, but after détente died.
The column gives the impression that the concessions of d̩tente were successful Рthat d̩tente should be applied to Iran. The historical facts would suggest otherwise.
The concessions of détente failed to weaken the Soviet Union, and they will fail to weaken the Islamic Republic of Iran. Détente failed because it tied American foreign policy to the international policy of its opponent, focusing on the superficial words of diplomats and ignoring the state’s domestic policy. This gave legitimacy to states that were inherently opposed to democracy – states that oppressed dissent – states that used hostility to the West as a way of rallying domestic support. Under détente, Communism thrived.
In contrast, Reagan emphasized the importance of a nation’s domestic policy, the way it treats its own people. Reagan’s policy rejected détente, and the Soviet Union was weakened because the U.S. refused to ignore Soviet internal policy when considering U.S. foreign policy. Reagan tied concessions to domestic change.
There were many problems with the column. It misrepresents the past to prove a point about the present. It fails to address the opposing view. Rather, it creates their position and places quotation marks around conveniently unenlightened remarks such as “Talking to Iran is appeasement,” and “Iran wants nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.” After creating a caricature of his opposition, it attacks this straw man to prove the point. The conclusion, “talking with Iran back in 2003 could have helped stabilize Iraq, save American lives, prevent the August 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah and put Iran’s nuclear program firmly under UN auspices,” is as contrived as the column’s historical facts.
The U.S. should not give concessions to an Iran that, according to Human Rights Watch, “routinely uses torture and ill-treatment in detention, including prolonged solitary confinement, to punish dissidents.” Bush did not miss an opportunity in 2003.
Hadadi calls the Iranian offer a “golden opportunity.” I disagree. A golden opportunity would have been if Iran offered to support freedom of speech, permit a free media to operate without fear of detention or to protect the rights of minorities.
Appeasement is defined as “granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.” Giving Iran international legitimacy and removing sanctions would have maintained peace with a potential enemy without changing the undemocratic practices of the enemy. If this isn’t appeasement, I don’t know how better to define the word.
Martin Stern is a sophomore biology major. He can be reached at drewstern@gmail.com.
