Gordon and Takeyh speak on the topic of Iran-U.S. reconciliation, distinguish between political and public Iran

In print | Published April 10, 2008

Phoenix reporter Hannah Purkey sat down for an exclusive interview with Dr. Philip H. Gordon of the Brookings Institute prior to the Iran Panel. Gordon’s policy specialty is in analyzing U.S. strategies for tackling issues of terrorism as they relate to interactions between European and Middle Eastern states. In addition, Gordon is former director for European Affairs at the National Security Council and has recently written “Winning the Right War: The Path to Security for America and the World.”

Hannah Purkey: If the U.S. were to find common interests to come together with Iran on, what would those be?

Philip Gordon: The first thing to say is it depends on what you mean by Iran, because you have the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people. With the Iranian people we may share a lot of interests, like stability in the region, a stable peaceful Iraq next door, a stable and peaceful Afghanistan next door and a prosperous Iran with which we could trade. In all those ways, American interests and Iranian interests are very similar. The Iranian government has its own particular interests, which include denying the U.S. influence in the region. That gives them an interest in maintaining some instability in Iraq and Afghanistan. In that sense, the U.S. and Iran interests are in conflict, or at least the government interests are in conflict

HP: The American government has been anti-Iran for such a long time, have we pushed Iran away?

PG: There is a mutual pushing away process. For almost 30 years now, both sides have mutually reinforced the gap between the two countries and we just haven’t been able to get over that. The hostage crises and U.S. interventions in Iran going back to 1951 and then after the revolution in 1979 has lead to a lot of Iranian resentment that makes it hard for them to reconcile. And the U.S. is rarely willing to reconcile because Americans remember hostage taking, Iranian support for Hezbollah and Iranian nuclear programs. Each time one side has made some efforts to bridge the gap there are always those on the other side who render that impossible.

HP: Is there any hope that we will bridge that gap?

PG: We are not there yet, but I think that in another generation maybe. The next generation of leaders which really won’t have any recollection at all of these difficult and trying times might have a better chance of doing that. That’s why among younger people today there is less of a gap. Even when you see Barack Obama running for president, he doesn’t have the same historical memory of Iran that John McCain would have, because he just wasn’t a leader during the most difficult times. So we are definitely not there yet. Maybe in the next generation it will be different.

That same day, The Phoenix also spoke with Dr. Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. According to the Council’s web site, Takeyh’s expertise lies in Iran and in Persian Gulf & U.S. foreign policy. Takeyh is also a contributing editor for “National Interest” and is in the process of publishing his book “The Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World.”

Hannah Purkey: A new public opinion poll came out that says that two out of three Iranians think that the U.S. and Iran will be able to come together on common ground. Do you think that’s an accurate depiction of Iranian public opinion?

Ray Takeyh: That conforms with other public opinion surveys that have taken place, so I would say that’s accurate.

HP: If there is a growing support for some sort of reconciliation, why hasn’t it happened?

RT: It has to do with the fact that within the leadership of the country, there are a lot of objections and concerns about the United States, objections about, strange enough, about cultural subversion. There is this idea that the Islamic republic is this pristine order and that American culture can contaminate it and so forth. So within the leadership there is a strong aversion to that sort of interaction between the two societies.

HP: Do you think that this will keep them apart indefinitely?

RT: I don’t know about indefinitely, but in the short term those political decisions are going to obstruct the social pressures.

HP: What will have to happen to change the situation?

RT: It has to be some sort of political agreement between the two countries; that’s how you trigger a better relationship. At this point they are fairly far apart on a lot of these things, so in absence of some sort of diplomatic break through, I don’t see that normalization taking place.