Iran–U.S. Relations: Imagining
a New Paradigm

PANEL III: Planning for Change

Ambassador John Limbert, the panel moderator, opened by suggesting that the most difficult challenge in the U.S.–Iranian impasse is to identify changes to which both sides will agree.

Ambassador William Luers, the first panelist, discussed his experience participating in cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the first cultural exchange agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1963, universities and private groups began interacting under the umbrella of both governments. Reflecting on the evolution of these programs until the 1990s, Luers surmised that they helped spur internal change and reform within the Soviet Union.

This policy of cultural exchange, Luers suggested, offers lessons for the current situation with Iran. Funding oppositional elements to undermine the Iranian regime can only damage possibilities for bilateral communication. However, cultural exchanges require trust, long–term perspective, and a mutual willingness on both sides. The Soviet Union developed centers for cultural exchanges, which allowed those involved to cultivate individual relationships and speak to each other in ways that state officials could not.

The problem today, Luers continued, is that U.S. officials approach their Iranian counterparts with a list of grievances. However, successful track two dialogues require not only that negotiators know the contentious history of the conflict, but also that they enter into discussions with an open mind, and without an ideological point of view.

Luers concluded that any institutional relationship between NGOs, universities, etc. in both countries depends ultimately on authorization from the political leaders.

The second panelist, Professor Fatemeh Keshavarz, spoke about the importance of culture as a tool for building bridges. She highlighted the role that universities can play, but expressed concern that academia has been stuck in area studies models that create discrete spheres of intellectual inquiry and contact. Academics must develop an integrated and global agenda for intellectual inquiry, especially in the humanities. Persian scholars, for instance, can be incorporated into classics and literary studies, rather than remain isolated as Persian area specialists.

The U.S. public sphere needs a new vocabulary and visual imagery to represent Iran. For many Americans, Iran conjures images of extremism, gender oppression, nuclear weapons, and crisis. Without trivializing the importance of these concerns, Keshavarz appealed for more diverse representations of Iran. Blogging, nanotechnology, and culture are but a few areas of Iranian achievement that deserve more publicity in the United States. This new vocabulary and imagery, which can have a transformative impact on the public debate, will come from art, literature, and academia.

Keshavarz concluded by stressing that respect and interface — through cultural exchanges, sister city programs, and other initiatives — are the cornerstone of good relations.

The third panelist, Shabnam Rezaei, brought an entrepreneurial perspective to the discussion. She spoke about her experience founding and managing persianmirror.com, a website dedicated to Iranian culture and community affairs. She emphasized the website’s role in bringing together ordinary people from Iran and the United States on the basis of shared cultural interests. Forty percent of the hits on her site come from Iran –– even though the site is in English — suggesting that people there seek information and dialogue.

Rezaei shared her experience in producing an animated DVD film called Babak and Friends, which tells the story of Babak, a young boy growing up in the United States who tries to reconcile his American and Iranian cultural experiences. The cartoon was screened around the world and translated into Persian. The most striking aspect of this project, according the Rezaei, has been its successful reception among American kids.

Rezaei presented a list of statistics highlighting Iran’s growing youth population, high literacy rates, and strong economic performance. She also raised the issue of Iranian “brain drain,” as increasing numbers of educated people are leaving the country. These concerns underlined the themes of earlier panelists — and in particular the importance of trust, respect, and education for a successful relationship. Both countries need to invest more in educating their people.

Limbert opened the floor for questions. He began by asking the panel for further information about Iran’s demographic composition. Another audience member later inquired about the estimated population of Iranian–Americans in the United States.

Keshavarz responded that young people in Iran, who make up the majority of the population, are highly educated, with a literacy rate of 92%. This high literacy rate is roughly equivalent along gender lines. Rezaei estimated the Iranian–American population to be 1.4 million, although official estimates are lower and suggest only 600,000. Official estimates are based on census statistics, which are inaccurate because Iranians choose to identify themselves in multiple ways on census forms.

Responding to this focus on Iranian–Americans, Barbara Slavin asked about the role of Iranian–Americans in improving relations with the West.

Keshavarz prefaced her response by acknowledging the Iranian–American community’s religious and political diversity, but noted that the younger generation of Iranian–Americans has a special role to play. Rezaei added that hyphenated Iranians have a responsibility to promote dialogue because of their unique ability to translate between both worlds. She also affirmed that the younger generation is becoming less reluctant to engage in politics and bridge–building.

A number of questions addressed Iranian and American attitudes and their perceptions of each other. One audience member asked how U.S. diplomats perceived their Iranian counterparts and another asked about American ambassadors’ familiarity with Iranian history and culture.

In response to the first question, Luers said that American diplomats, from the viewpoint of past American Presidents like Truman and Kennedy, have tended to identify too much with the countries in which they represent the United States. For example, many U.S. diplomats stationed in the Arab world are seen as empathizing with the Arab position on Palestine. With regard to Iran, diplomats are more careful, but most of them do favor dialogue.

On the second question, Keshavarz explained that during the 1979 revolution there were few Americans in the embassy who spoke Persian. Ambassador Luers added that one positive impact of the current situation is the U.S.’s heightened effort to train its diplomats in Persian language skills. Referring to the George Kennan model of training State Department officials in Russian history and language, Luers raised the possibility of a similar initiative with Iran.

Several audience members asked about the election of Obama and its impact on U.S.–Iranian relations. A student from NYU asked about Iran’s reaction to Obama’s presidential victory, while another asked how international and domestic opposition to war with Iran will impact Obama’s policies.

Rezaei affirmed the popularity of the new President–elect in Iran, especially among young people. Ambassador Luers also expressed hope that many people working with Obama have “gotten the message” about Iran.

Rezaei and Keshavarz closed the discussion by emphasizing the power of the Internet and alternative media in breaking down corporate monopolies over information, noting that these can be effective means of disseminating information about Iranian culture and society.

8 of 9 (next)>

Back to the top.