STASZAK: Coming Soon: A Nuclear Threat?

"Everybody's favorite quagmire" is a phrase I once read about the Middle East that I think resonates with every reader of this paper. We've heard it all before, but have we actually been listening? My opinion as of late is that Iran is a viable threat to Israel and the United States of America. But is it? And with the changing face of our executive branch and its administration, what will that bring for us as a foreign power? I went on a search to figure out a few of these questions.

I spoke with Dr. Robert Kramer, associate professor of history, about communicating with the Middle Eastern world, particularly Iranians. I've taken a few classes on the Middle East, and it seems crucial to be familiar with a little bit of history in order to understand our foreign relations with Iran today. In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency overthrew Iran's recently (1951) and democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, because he nationalized the Iranian oil industry and was seen as an international power threat. In a coup d'etat, the United States enthroned a tyrant, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, complete with his own secret (and U.S. trained) police called the Savak. In 1979, the world saw the Iranian Revolution and the taking of United States hostages, along with the implementing of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini over the Islamic Republic. If the United States feels threatened, is this justifiable defense? I'm not sure.

Along with these events, we see diminishing relations between the United States and Iran. Considering this, we can move toward an understanding of relations by looking at the differences in cultural communication efforts. In a recent New York Times article entitled "The Fine Art of Hiding What You Mean to Say" under the heading of Iranian 101: A Lesson for Americans, Michael Slackman shows us a principle called taarof. This principle outlines the necessity of being insincere as a point of manners. Americans should appreciate this-we do it all the time. For example, both Americans and Iranians will invite people over for dinner who are not really welcomed company. It's polite, right? Iranians do not just use taarof within their social mannerisms, but also within their political sphere.

Iranians think that the Western style of speech-the direct, up front, in-your-face confrontation-is crude and offensive. Taking this into consideration, better communication with Iran would mean a better chance at reaching negotiations about nuclear weapons, say, a disbanding of any nuclear weapons program or a stopping of enriching uranium. These negotiations seem to be the United States' only option for minimizing the threat of nuclear war. Thus, we need to emphasize the importance of good communication.

Speaking of negotiations, President-Elect Barack Obama seems to be looking at applying a diplomatic approach with Iran. This practice would conflict with the current policy of the Bush Administration and marginalize Iran by surrounding it with opposition from countries that would normally aid Iran.

President-Elect Obama would prefer discussion. This seems preferable, more reasonable, and an easier plan to put into action. However, an article from the Washington Post by Thomas Erdbrink says differently. He quotes Hossein Taeb, the deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, as saying, "People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous." Americans are left confused. Do Iranians hate our direct method of speech and preconditions, or do they love that we are concise? Is better communication really the solution? Will it lead to an agreement on nuclear weapons policy?

Our new President-Elect will need to consider all of his options, including marginalization. Does Iran's response to our new leadership frighten me? Yes, because the United States of America is running out of options in response to an impending nuclear program of a world power that is mysterious and stubborn.

The more I research, the deeper I get into the quagmire. Is it worth it? Definitely. Am I still afraid of nuclear war and a nuclear-powered Iran? Yes. Let's find them a new energy source, let's be diplomatic and marginalizing, whatever it takes.