American and Iranian Public Opinion
RAND reprint from the Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Spring 07:
American and Iranian Public Opinion: The Quest for Common Grounds
Quote:
The emergent and ever-deepening conflict between Iran and the United States is often framed in the rhetoric of “clash of civilizations.” Iran’s religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, alleges, “The bitter and venomous taste of Western liberal democracy, which the United States has hypocritically tried to portray through its propaganda as a healing remedy, has hurt the body and soul of the Islamic Ummah and burned the hearts of Muslims". The U.S. President, George W. Bush, for his part contends “the greatest obstacle to th[e] future [of] Iran that [its] rulers have chosen to deny [the people of Iran] liberty and to use [their] nation’s resources to fund terrorism, and fuel extremism, and pursue nuclear weapons". While sharp differences persist at the level of U.S. and Iranian official rhetoric about the value of democracy and the nature of the influence exerted by both states, diminished personal contacts between Iranian and American peoples frustrate efforts to discern whether such sharp differences in values and worldviews exist among Iranian and American polities.
Conveniently, data exist that allow analysts to explore both the shared and differing values of the Iranian and American peoples, namely the World Values Survey (WVS). The WVS is a multi-country social survey designed to assess values and attitudes across nations and among peoples of varying economic, educational, and cultural backgrounds. The survey includes questions on personal values of respondents as well as their opinions on broad issues of politics, work, family life, and religion. The surveys use a stratified, multistage random sample of persons at least 18 years of age.
We analyze data from Wave 3 of the survey, which is the only available wave of data for both Iran and the United States. In the United States, Wave 3 was conducted in 2000 and includes data for 1,200 respondents. In Iran, this wave was fielded in 2003 and contains data for 2,532 respondents. Though now somewhat dated, Wave 3 of the World Values Survey, particularly for the questions of more enduring values that we examine, still offers numerous policy-relevant insights. Indeed, Wave 3 datasets comprise the only source for such insights for recent years on the values of the peoples of both nations. A fourth wave is currently being fielded in Iran but the data have not been publicly released and the fourth wave of data collection has not yet begun in the United States. Significantly, despite the fact that tensions between Iran and the United States have continued to intensify in recent years, such analysis has not been executed.....
It's the same there. The legends of Darius and
Cyrus are alive and well.
You'll also find that calling them 'Arab' is a grave insult. That favor is returned. All why I pay little attention to "Iran is the big winner in this" rhetoric. Everyone from Juan Cole upward saying that is ignoring 5,000 years of history. The folks who live there will cooperate when it suits but they aren't climbing in bed together...
The ME doesn't do short term - we're stuck on it.
China Signs US$2 Billion Oil Dev Deal with Iran
CNN reports:
"China Petroleum and Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, and Iran have signed a long awaited agreement for development of the Yadavaran oilfield, the official Xinhua News Agency and Iranian reports said Monday."
"The initial estimation of the project's cost is about $2 billion," Xinhua quoted Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari as telling reporters at the signing ceremony in Tehran.
"Zhou Baixiu, head of Sinopec's International Exploration and Production Unit, and Hossein Noqreka-Shirazi, head of international affairs for the Iranian Petroleum Ministry, signed the agreement, which completes a memorandum of understanding signed in 2004, the Iranian Republic News Agency reported."
"Beijing has balked at new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, arguing for diplomatic solutions to the standoff. A new U.S. intelligence report that Iran stopped atomic weapons development in 2003, contrary to U.S. suspicions, may have cleared the way for Sinopec to move ahead on Yadavaran, although Washington is still arguing in favor of sanctions."
Iran Cited In Iraq's Decline in Violence
Iran Cited In Iraq's Decline in Violence
Order From Tehran Reined In Militias, U.S. Official Says
Washington Post
Sunday, December 23, 2007; Page A01
Quote:
The Iranian government has decided "at the most senior levels" to rein in the violent Shiite militias it supports in Iraq, a move reflected in a sharp decrease in sophisticated roadside bomb attacks over the past several months, according to the State Department's top official on Iraq.
Tehran's decision does not necessarily mean the flow of those weapons from Iran has stopped, but the decline in their use and in overall attacks "has to be attributed to an Iranian policy decision," David M. Satterfield, Iraq coordinator and senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said in an interview.
Although this could be construed the wrong way
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
I suspect that it is due to a variety of factors--Sadr's operational freeze/reorganization, the surge, waiting out the surge, slightly modified Iranian policy, Iraqi pressure on Tehran, and a few others beside.
If one were to use the analogy of children playing on a playground, this kind of makes sense.
If one of the kids is acting up and not playing nice you correct them, tell them what's expected of them and then you have to give them a chance to show that they are following that advice.
The key will be what you do if you find that they are still doing the same things just working hard at hiding it from you. How you react then will determine the long term conditions on the playground.
I realize some may not like analogies such as this, but for me it has always followed with the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle. Thereby allowing for debate with more clarity in points of contention.