© by Eric Hooglund, Professor of Politics, Bates College and President, Peace Action Maine.

My recent trip to Iran, a country in which I have lived and have been conducting research for forty years, coincided with the introduction into both the US Senate and US House of Representatives of resolutions authorizing President George W. Bush to set up a naval blockade of Iran. These resolutions received very little media coverage in America, but in Iran they were lead items on TV news and talk programs, and they were covered extensively in the twenty national daily newspapers of Tehran, the capital city of seven million residents, with an additional five million more people in surrounding suburbs. The newspapers, although expressing diverse views on domestic issues, uniformly depicted the US Congressional resolutions as tantamount to a declaration of war against their country, and, consequently, I too often was put in the uncomfortable position of having to explain to my Iranian hosts why I believed these resolutions did not war.

A typical exchange occurred in a village I visit regularly in the summers for follow-up research on my longitudinal study about rural social change. While attending a wedding, I, as the American, became the center of attention for a group of seven local youth, all studying at colleges in nearby towns. These four men and three women were very curious about American culture, and they seemed to be far more familiar with American pop music than was I. Inevitably, our discussion turned to US policy. Jasmine, an articulate 20-year old computer science major who had composed and read her poem for the bride and groom, asked, “Why does America hate Iran and want to attack us?”

My efforts to explain the differences between pending and approved congressional resolutions as well as their non-binding nature were not persuasive. Thus, the students all nodded when Ali, a 19-year old engineering major claimed, “American planes are going to bomb our homes, just like we see them bomb towns and villages in Iraq and Afghanistan on the [television] news. Not just the government station, but the BBC [British Broadcasting] and CNN [international] channels.”

Leila, a 21-year old woman, added what seems to be a widely shared opinion: “Our air force is small and only has helicopters. How can it protect us from American bombers?”

The views these students expressed were similar to those I heard from typical Iranians I met in taxis, buses, on subways, or while shopping in the urban covered markets, or bazaars. While Iranians over 35 and those who are religiously devout tended to be less enthusiastic than the youth about American culture, everyone shared the same concern that the United States would attack their country.

However, my conversations about US-Iran relations with colleagues at the universities and think-tanks focused more on issues of contestation between the two countries, especially Iran’s nuclear energy program, which the Bush administration claims is a cover for a secret nuclear weapons development project. This charge is one that both Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, have denied consistently since 2002. Based on discussions with scores of Iranians who follow the nuclear issue closely, I found three general perspectives. First, there is a group of informed Iranians who believe their government is truthful about not having a secret nuclear weapons program and the US allegations are merely a cover for a hostile policy aimed at weakening Iran or overthrowing its government.

A second group admits uncertainty as to whether Iran may or may not have a covert weapons program but also insists that their country has a right to develop nuclear arms, especially since it is under threat by the United States, which possesses thousands of such weapons. For this group, the US charges are hypocritical or even a racist effort to deny nuclear technology to non-white, non-Christian countries.

A third group perceives all nuclear weapons as dangerous and insists that it would be wrong for their country to develop them. Some in this group blame Washington while others blame their own government for not engaging in serious diplomatic negotiations to resolve the impasse. Despite these different perspectives, all Iranians are concerned, even fearful, about the possibility of US air strikes or an invasion.

The Congressional resolutions, if passed and acted upon by the president, really could put the United States on a path to war with Iran. Unfortunately, genuine diplomatic negotiations to resolve international doubts about Iran’s nuclear program never have been tried. Now is the time for everyone concerned about the dangerous direction of US policy to insist that our congressional representatives and senators withdraw their support for naval blockades and sanctions and instead back substantive talks between Washington and Tehran.