An Iranian Diplomat Agrees with Me but not with Thomas Friedman
Friedman's Advice to America vis a vis Israel and Iran is wrong, all wrong.
Some people castigate me for not having cancelled my subscription to the New York Times, as they all did long ago. Wearily, I explain that I'm an "on duty" reader of their coverage of the Middle East from Israel to Iran and Afghanistan. What I don't say is that I routinely read the Times' book reviews--even though they are often not as good as those in the Wall Street Journal's Saturdary edition but still... I also read their obituaries, wedding announcements, and love story snippets, and I do so regularly, almost religiously.
However, for all those who still view their opinion pieces (often masquerading as news) as gospel, fact-based truth, please allow me to share the following.
I just wrote two pieces about Thomas Friedman's take on America's taking the lead vis a vis Israel and Iran, views with which I strongly disagreed. But really, what do I know?
Well, someone just passed me a letter ostensibly written by an Iranian diplomat, which took strong issue with Thomas (forever banging on) Friedman's recent article titled "It's Time for America To Get Real With Iran and Israel" (10/16/24).
Confirmation! Vindication! He's saying what I said, and I lack any and all official, foreign service experience.
The letter was sent to Friedman at the Times directly. Unlike the letter-writer, I do not view Israel as a "colonial" or "imperialist" enterprise and certainly do not view American policy as one that has had Israel's back, or the United Nations as having created Israel, or Israel as an "occupier," --but, after all, he is an Iranian. Nevertheless, his other main points about Iran's theocratic and totalitarian nature are right on target. Here they are. I hope that Friedman reads his words.
.
Dear Mr. Friedman,
I would like to comment on your article in the New York Times of Wednesday 16th October entitled IT'S TIME FOR AMERICA TO GET REAL WITH IRAN AND ISRAEL.
Much as I respect your significant contributions to a better understanding and insight into current domestic and foreign affairs, I would like to take serious exception to your analysis and conclusions with regard to the above essay.
1. You have initially suggested that to mitigate the incendiary relations between the US and Iran that the US should propose a meeting between the CIA Director and his Iranian counterpart. For the Iranian regime to accept such a meeting is fanciful, highly unlikely and improbable as the Iranian Islamic regime would hardly countenance meeting the Great Satan's provocateur in charge of destabilizing the Iranian regime.
2. You opine that Israel has infiltrated every segment of Iranian society and thus Iran is NAKED and unable to deter or neutralize Israel's power to inflict indiscriminate damage on the Islamic regime. Though regretfully and inexcusably the IR has wasted precious human and economic resources to bolster proxies and its military, Israel and the West should not underestimate the asymmetrical capabilities of the IR, based on its technological and inventive capabilities to retaliate.
3. Mr. Friedman suggests that unless the IR changes its behavior implying that IR needs to pursue a more moderate and peaceful code of behavior that it will inevitably risk collapsing. I beg to differ. History has proven on countless occasions that despots and absolutists regimes survival is based on tight control and manipulation of its population and the constant readiness to combat a real or manufactured enemy.
4. You further suggest that the IR should abandon its imperialist, existentialist policy in return for the West's commitment to live in comity and peace with the Islamic Iranian regime. You claim that the West does not wish or intend to humiliate the IR...Again if I may remind Mr. Friedman, power politics and morality are mutually exclusive. Nations pursue policies that ensure their survival and continuity. The IR raison d'etre is religious rule at home and hegemony abroad without either of which, the regime would disintegrate.
5. You claim that the US or the world can persuade Israel to withdraw from Gaza, Southern Lebanon and occupied territories and limit its retaliation against the IR. Let's be honest Mr. Friedman when has Israel listened to anyone when its vital interests are at stake. You further intimate that America is running short of interceptors and defensive missiles and thus Israel security may fall into jeopardy unless a rapprochement is sought with the IR. Mr. Friedman knows better than anyone that Israel's security and territorial integrity is America's overwhelming priority and Israel need never fear that America will fall short of its unconditional and unwavering support for its country.
6. You point out that IR is very unpopular among the Arab countries. Do you think the IR is actively engaged in winning a popularity contest in the ME. Its sole high state agenda is to project and impose its fundamentalist anti Israel and Western philosophy throughout the region. In this context, you visualise the establishment of a lethal Lebanese army to replace Hezbollah and its affiliates. The history of Lebanon since its founding has not shown that the country is able to have a strong, responsible and authoritative military to ensure its security.
7. Karim Sadjapour poignantly and accurately reminded you that the IR predicates its policy and survivability on enmity with the US and Israel. You assume that if the West displays steadfastness and strength that IR will succumb or retreat in the face of overwhelming power. To this date, the world has not witnessed IR retreating and recoiling anywhere from the ME to Europe or Latin America in the face of Western threats or intimidation.
8. You propose that with conciliation and compromise, we can reach an accommodation with IR and that regime change is the job of the Iranian people. Let me remind you sir, that conciliation and compromise never worked with the Axis powers during WWII and the Communist regimes in the aftermath during the past half century. As to regime change, you are absolutely right. In the final analysis it is for the Iranians as a proud people to demonstrate, as they have, their determination to finally uproot and overthrow their current diabolical regime. But, as in most revolutions, the citizens of the country expect and need financial, moral, and muscular support to realize their ultimate dream of regime change and freedom from despotic theocracy and terror..
9. You have advised the IR that they should get out of Islamic Imperial business. Rather presumptuous and pretentious to assume that you can dictate to another regime what is in its best interest when it has thrived and survived against all odds for the past 45 years.
10. Finally, you propose that creative and coercive diplomacy will put an end to IR and Israel's colonial projects.
Since 1948 and the establishment by the UN of the State of Israel, not one Israeli government has heeded any of the dozens of UN resolutions calling for Israel to return occupied territories. Likewise, since 1979 and the Iranian revolution, not once has the IR heeded the international plea to respect the sovereignty of neighboring States and the basic human rights of its own people. So your plea to and expectations from these two countries are grounded on false expectations and illusory hopes.
I hope my comments will shed light on some of the issues which you have raised.
Respectfully,
X
October 17th 2024