The Iran Agenda Today

The Real Story Inside Iran and What's Wrong with U.S. Policy

Reese Erlich

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138599055
• eBook ISBN: 9780429941573
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Based on frequent, first-hand reporting in Iran and the United States, The Iran Agenda Today explores the turbulent recent history between the two countries and reveals how it has led to a misguided showdown over nuclear technology. Foreign correspondent Reese Erlich notes that all the major U.S. intelligence agencies agree Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since at least 2003. He explores why Washington nonetheless continues with saber rattling and provides a detailed critique of mainstream media coverage of Iran. The book further details the popular protests that have rocked Tehran despite repression by the country's Deep State.

In addition to covering the political story, Erlich offers insights on Iran's domestic politics, popular culture, and diverse populations over this recent era. His analysis draws on past interviews with high-ranking Iranian officials, the former shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, and Iranian exiles in Los Angeles, as well as the memory of his trip to Tehran with actor Sean Penn.

Written in skillful and riveting journalistic prose, The Iran Agenda Today provides inside information that academic researchers find hard to obtain.

ONE

In Tehran with Sean Penn

All our senses were assaulted simultaneously as we walked slowly down the inclined road into the Tehran bazaar. We smelled the fragrance of fresh spices, heard the cacophony of merchants hawking their wares, and saw the yellow saffron rice and deep purple eggplant. It was June 2005.

The crowds jostled Sean Penn, Norman Solomon, and me as we worked our way deep into the narrow byways of the bazaar. Sean was there on assignment for the San Francisco Chronicle; Norman was writing for his media analysis column; and I was reporting as a freelancer for the Dallas Morning News and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Radio. I had visited the bazaar during my previous trip in 2000 and figured this was a good way for Sean and Norman to get acquainted with ordinary people.

Middle East bazaars were the first shopping malls. Tehran’s main bazaar consists of a vast underground network of stalls, shops, and stores. You can buy anything from ridiculously expensive hand-knotted Persian silk carpets to ladies’ underwear. Both are clearly displayed for passersby. There are no fixed prices. Bargaining is a proud tradition in Iran. If you pay the first price asked, you are clearly not from around these parts.

As we walked past the many shoppers, our translator and guide, Maryam Majd, suddenly became aware that this would be no ordinary visit to the bazaar. “Everyone is whispering Sean’s name,” she said a bit apprehensively. Although I don’t speak Farsi, I could hear the mumbled recitation “Sean Penn” and see the startled looks on people’s faces. We had arrived in Tehran two days before, without any prior announcement. So most people were very surprised to see the world-famous actor, with his wavy hair and piercing eyes, just ambling by.

In meetings at Sean’s house north of San Francisco before our departure, we all agreed that the purpose of the trip was to learn the views of Iranians toward the United States and their own government. Sean was visiting as a writer, not an actor or celebrity. He did not want to become the focus of the story and refused to give any media interviews.

“Do you think they know me over there?” he asked me during one preparation session. “Oh yes,” I responded. But none of us had any idea how well known Sean was in Tehran—nor the buzz his trip would have, even years later.

We were walking in the bazaar, looking at the incredible array of clothing, household goods, food, and antiques. We stopped at a stall where Moshtabor was selling small home appliances such as irons and blenders. He asked that we use only his first name.^*

We asked him about the U.S. assertion that Iran’s quest for nuclear power disguises a plan to build nuclear weapons. Moshtabor said Iran is not building nuclear weapons. He defended Iran’s desire to have nuclear power. “Every country needs to have access, and it’s our right,” he told us.

Moshtabor told us that compared to the 1980s, cultural restrictions are much more relaxed in Iran. The government usually looks the other way if people choose to drink alcohol in their own homes or see their girlfriends without male relatives present. The ­government won’t allow most Western films to be shown in theaters or on television, but the films are readily available on pirated DVDs. In fact, major Hollywood films often reach Tehran before being released in the United States. Moshtabor told us that many Iranian young people are obsessed with Hollywood movie stars.

At that point Sean, who had been interviewing someone else, walked over to join us. “That guy looks just like Sean Penn,” Moshtabor told us with a big grin. Suddenly he realized that he was talking to the real Sean Penn. “I’m going to see The Interpreter,” he blurted out. “I know you were married to Madonna.”

Great. We’ve come halfway round the globe to meet ordinary Iranians and discuss matters of grave international concern. And Iranians want to talk to us about Madonna.

That encapsulates the contradictions in today’s Iran. Ten thousand people chant “Death to America” at Friday prayers. But afterward, those same people invite us home for lunch. In part, that reflects traditional Iranian hospitality toward strangers. But it’s also a genuine friendliness and fascination with things American. Many Iranians studied in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. I’ve met Iranians who speak with a Bostonian or even a valley girl accent.

But most Iranians strongly criticized U.S. government policy. Yes, they are bombarded with clerical propaganda denouncing the United States and Israel. But they also haven’t forgotten the U.S. support for the shah’s dictatorship^* or the American navy ship that shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 people on board.^† They may love Sean Penn, but they would take up arms against Donald Trump.

Since the 1979 revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed shah, ­successive Democratic and Republican administrations have vilified Iran. They have argued that Iran poses a threat to U.S. national security, with the reason varying by the year: It spreads Islamic revolution; it supports terrorists; it plans to develop a nuclear bomb; it kills American soldiers in Iraq. That hostility has remained, even when some of the U.S. justifications have disappeared. For example, the United States rarely mentions Iran’s trying to spread its Islamic revolution anymore, because Iran largely stopped doing so in the 1980s. The United States just shifts the goalposts and comes up with new ways to score the game.

U.S. policy is controlled by a relatively small ruling elite of corporate executives, military leaders, government bureaucrats, and politicians. That elite is supposed to be subject to democratic control. In practice, however, the American people have little influence over its decisions.

The U.S. ruling elite always want to confuse national security with corporate/military interests. The people of the United States face no immediate threat from Iran. Iran cannot and would not launch a military attack on U.S. territory. While it supports groups that have used terrorist tactics in Israel and other parts of the Middle East, it is no supporter of Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, or other terrorist organizations that pose a real threat to the United States.^* If the current government of Iran disappeared tomorrow, Americans would be no more or less secure. But Iran does threaten the interests of the political, military, and corporate elite who run the United States.

The Great Game in the Internet Era

In the early part of the twentieth century, Britain competed with Russia, the Ottoman Turks, and other imperialist powers to control the oil wealth of the Middle East. Oil was vital to power navy ships and home-front industry. The British had no oil of their own, so they had to control colonies and neocolonies that did. The imperialist powers called this scramble for natural resources the Great Game. For them it was a game; for the people of the region, it was deadly.

Today the players have changed, but the Great Game continues. Charles Freeman, Jr., was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia (1989–92) and Under Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (1993–4). He welcomed me into his office at the Middle East Policy Council in Washington DC, and was jovial and outspoken as he explained U.S. national interests in Iran. “There is a hierarchy of American interests at stake, which begins with secure access to energy supplies,” he told me.¹

U.S. oil companies never come pounding on his door demanding that the United States overthrow the Iranian regime or invade Iraq, he explained. They don’t have to. U.S. politicians and military men understand that the country must have secure sources of oil. And the oil companies automatically benefit because they are trusted to develop and market the oil.

Freeman said the United States wants Middle Eastern governments “that are not hostile, countries that are willing to work with American companies to provide energy. It means governments that are sufficiently competent to maintain stability rather than engage in acts that disrupt the flow of energy.”

Iran sits on approximately 10 percent of the world’s proven oil supplies and has the second-largest amount of natural gas.^* Iran also sits between the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, two critical oil regions. The world’s oil tankers slip down Iran’s coast at the Strait of Hormuz, which narrows to thirty-one miles at one point. Control of that strait means control of the whole region. No wonder the British, Russians, Germans, and Americans have all sought to dominate Iran.

Freeman also noted that because the United States buys so much oil from the region, it needs to sell products to keep a favorable balance of trade. “This is a significant market for our products and services. We have to sell things to the people who sell oil in order to buy oil. Dollars that we give them have to be recycled.”

Freeman said U.S. generals and admirals worry about the Strait of Hormuz as well. “The United States is a global power. We have forces both in Europe and Asia. From a military point of view, this is a vital choke point. It’s vital that it stays open.”

Paul Pillar was the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia (2000–5). He is retired from teaching at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program. He told me, “Everyone is quite conscious, not least of all U.S. military planners, about the capability of the Iranians to cause—if they had the motive to do so—a lot of mischief in regard to closing the strait or necessitating considerable military measures on the opposite side to keep it open, that is to say, on the part of the United States.”²

The U.S. ruling elite not only wants to dominate the region but works to prevent any other country from doing so. Since its inception in 1979, the clerical government in Iran has thumbed its nose at U.S. oil companies and military brass. Robert Hunter, U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998, said the U.S. “goal with Iran is not even regime change, but regime change as a means to eliminating Iran as a competitor for power and influence.”³

Please note, dear reader, that none of these “national interests” have much to do with you and me. Sure, we need gasoline to drive cars and natural gas to power electricity plants, although less as renewable energy becomes more widely used, but the United States can buy those energy resources on international markets, as do other countries. In order to maintain a steady supply of oil, Sweden doesn’t unilaterally impose sanctions, prop up dictatorships, or overthrow governments. Apparently, God has given that mandate to the United States of America. In reality, U.S. strategic interests benefit corporations whose profits depend on domination of the region.

“Aha!” some neoconservatives are mumbling to themselves right now. If you oppose U.S. policy, you must be a supporter of the Iranian mullahs. Actually, no. Iran is ruled by a reactionary, dictatorial clique that oppresses its own people. However, that doesn’t make Iran a threat to Americans. As we will see in later chapters, those Iranians fighting hardest to get rid of Iran’s government are also strong opponents of U.S. policy.

The U.S. ruling elite can’t very well tell the American people that we may go to war with Iran to improve the long-term profits for Exxon Mobil and Halliburton. So the United States creates threats, or exaggerates those that do exist.⁴ And that’s one of the reasons we visited Iran.

Sean, Norman, and I visited one of the most highly guarded ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword, by William O. Beeman
• Foreword to The Iran Agenda, by Robert Scheer
• 1 In Tehran with Sean Penn
• 2 United States Tells Iran: Become a Nuclear Power
• 3 The United States, Iran, and the Nuclear Accord
• 4 Iran, Hizbollah, and Israel: The Real Story
• 5 A Brief History of U.S.–Iranian Relations
• 6 Who Rules Iran?
• 7 Iran’s Protest Movements—Part I
• 8 Iran’s Protest Movements—Part II
• 9 The Shah, Monarchists, and TV Pretenders
• 10 Iran’s Ethnic Minorities: Turmoil on the Borders
• 11 What the U.S. Media Didn’t Tell You
• 12 Learning the Lessons of Iraq
• Index