مقاله اي از پروفسور كمالي پور در نيويورك تايمز

Culture clash: U.S., Iran politics similar, which fuels conflict
This story ran on nwitimes.com on Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:12 AM CST
Commentary by Yahya R. Kamalipour
Americans dislike Iranians and Iranians dislike Americans, but the world dislikes both.
In a recent BBC World Service survey, conducted by GlobeScan and the University of Maryland, Iran was most widely viewed as having a negative influence in the world, followed in second place by the United States. The survey asked 39,433 people in 33 nations across the world how they saw various countries.

Nations' politics are similar, which helps fuel conflict
The U.S. and Iranian administrations and political alliances are more similar than different. President Bush was elected by an electoral base of conservative, largely rural, religious voters and perceives himself as an enforcer of Christian moral values.

Similarly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected by conservative, largely rural, religious voters and perceives himself as an enforcer of Islamic moral values.

One of the ironies of our time is that the religious fundamentalists in Christianity, Judaism and Islam believe they are "commanded by God" to do what they do.

Can God be on "our" side and "their" side at the same time? If one really and truly believes in God, then there is only one superpower -- a merciful, kind, fair, loving and peaceful god. A god devoid of hate, bigotry and violence.

In terms of political ideology, the U.S. and Iranian populations are both polarized. In the United States, as Abe Aamidor observes, the neoconservatives are the mirror image of the New Left (as we called it 30 years ago) and of the Progressive or "Social Democrat" political movements generally. Just as the New Left celebrated Third World violent revolutionary wars of national liberation, the neoconservatives came in time to assert, "We can do the same thing, you know," (witness their support for the Contras against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua).

Just as the New Left believes in social engineering and the power of leadership from the top to radically improve society, the neoconservatives believe the same thing. Their mission is to expand their sphere of influence, persuade other nations to cooperate, and propagate their point of view nationally, regionally and globally.

However, the post-monarchy revolutionary scene in Iran is complex, and the civil institutions are still in flux or nonexistent. The conservative faction is firmly in control of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government. The moderate/liberal faction is marginalized, and there is conflict between and within both factions.

Since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, conservative Iranians have marched in the street of Tehran and shouted, "Marg bar Amrika" -- "Death to America." Since then, the United States has imposed punitive sanctions on Iran, has labeled it as "an axis of evil," imposed a trade embargo and sought to isolate Iran in the world community.

Since the hostage crisis, Iran and the United States have not directly communicated with each other, have not exchanged ambassadors and continue to insult and marginalize one another. They refuse to see each other face-to-face and have been involved in a circular and cyclical communication pattern, greatly complicating matters. In other words, they have been engaged in a dangerous political dance -- a dance that might easily lead to death and destruction.

In both nations, politics and religion have converged. Consequently, the voices of reason have been replaced by voices from the beyond.

Civil liberties have suffered. People's private lives have been invaded through illegal wiretaps, Internet monitoring and arrests. A sense of insecurity, intimidation and fear permeates the air. One president justifies his actions and inactions in the name of "war on terrorism," and the other in the name of confronting a foreign (mainly U.S.) invasion.

In terms of freedoms, the United States increasingly resembles Iran and other developing countries.

Now, the United States and Iran are at each other's jugulars over the Iranian nuclear program. The key point in this confrontation for the West is to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear energy/technology ambitions, therefore limiting its growing dominance in the Middle East. The Iranian nuclear program was initiated during the earlier, Pahlavi regime by the same Western powers now opposing Iran.

As an experienced observer of global affairs, particularly the Middle East, my sense is that any military confrontation with Iran will have disastrous and grave consequences throughout the world. The conservative Iranian president's rhetoric and regime notwithstanding, Iranians have had centuries of experience playing the chess game.

Hence, in view of the Bush administration's position in Iraq, the unease in Afghanistan, the victory of Hamas in recent elections and the derogatory caricaturization of the Prophet Mohammad in the European press, the chess game between Iran and the West seems to be at a stalemate.

At its recent emergency meeting, the International Atomic Energy Agency board has decided to report Iran's nuclear case to the U.N. Security Council. This is, transparently, a step toward a new pre-emptive war in the Middle East.

A global culture clash is in the making. Short-sighted political and defiant religious forces have created a highly polarized, tense, divisive, agitated and volatile global environment -- particularly in the Middle East and within the Muslim world.

What we and they need is to set aside our counterproductive and often disastrous macho mentality and get out of the existing cycle of violence.

We need to devise creative solutions based on wisdom, cooperation, dialogue, fairness and mutual respect