Related Resources

Summarizing themes found in his book, Dr. Ansari discussed how the view of US-Iran relations depends on historical framework. In the American mindset, US history with Iran usually starts with the 1979 revolution, while Iranians believe that their history of interaction with the US goes as far back as its relations with Europe. He clarified that foreign policy is irrelevant, as the US has no diplomats in the country; therefore, Iranian domestic policy must be the focus of US-Iran relations. Dr. Ansari also spoke on the presence and influence of mass media in both Iran and the US. In Iran, the media is responsible for broadcasting President Ahmedinejad’s speeches, while in the US, the media shapes assumptions and stereotypes of Iran formed in the minds of the American people.

The structure of relations between the US and Iran is imbedded in confrontations, which Western bureaucracies have not handled well. Dr. Ansari brought up the example of the nuclear crisis of 2002-2003 and compared America’s confrontational stance with the European laissez-faire approach to negotiations after the Iraq invasion. He stated that there is potential for negotiations, though obstacles exist, like frustrations regarding the Iraq war and the challenge of restraining neo-conservative behavior in Iran and the US alike. Ultimately, ideological biases on both the part of the US and Iran exist and need to be deconstructed and inspected. As Dr. Ansari stated, the two countries were friends in the past, and one cannot have betrayal without first being friends.

Commenting on Dr. Ansari’s remarks, Najmeh Bozorgmehr affirmed the importance of setting a historical framework in both countries. She posed the question of why there have not been serious direct talks over issues of mutual concern to both Iran and the US. Bozorgmehr mentioned Iran’s condemnation of the September 11th attacks, which showed Iranian support for the US and recognition of a mutual concern being terrorism. She also cited President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush as a symbolic gesture that Iran is ready to compromise.

Bozorgmehr acknowledged the problem that there has never been a long-term policy on both sides. Additionally, there is a perceived imbalance of power. The US did not pursue negotiations before, when Iran was in a “weak position” yet is not pursuing them now when Iran is in a stronger position either. Iran holds deep mistrust of the Americans that will not disappear soon. Citing statements made by the Iranian Ambassador to France and the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran refuses a US overthrow of the Iranian regime that uses the current nuclear issue as a pretext. It is difficult to see the direction of US-Iran relations, since there is a lack of understanding about each other’s psychology. “Iran plays chess, while the US plays soccer,” stated Bozorgmehr, to demonstrate the two different games being played to resolve the same issue. Despite these difficulties, she believes there are areas for potential cooperation, particularly regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and the peace process in Israel and Palestine.

After the prepared remarks, Dr. Ansari and Ms. Bozorgmehr answered questions on the current Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah conflict, Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, and the reform movement in Iran. Regarding the reform movement, Dr. Ansari asked what exactly “regime change” in Iran meant and stated that the US must equip itself with the tools to achieve whatever it wants to achieve. Bozorgmehr also asserted that Iran wants peace and the reform movement in Iran has weakened since the US and Europe, lacking an economic incentive, have not supported it. When asked whom the US government should support in Iran, Dr. Ansari suggested that the US and the West should have an alliance with Iranian liberalists, nationalists and reformists.