Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Washington D.C. | 20 November 2009

Dr. Trita Parsi, one of America’s foremost experts on Iran, is the author of Treacherous Alliance – the Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (2007) which won the Council on Foreign Relations’ Arthur Polk Award. Dr. Parsi has a PhD from Johns Hopkins/SAIS. He is now the President of the National Iranian American Council, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Insitute and a regular writer and sought-after commentator on Iran. He will speak on the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian decision making process, the Iran dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and prospects for a resolving the crisis.

This event is sponsored by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, Americans for Peace Now, Churches for Middle East Peace and the Middle East Institute.

EVENT DETAILS:

Friday November 20, 3-4:30pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, DC

RSVP: Foundation for Middle East Peace, info@…, 202-835-3650

(Roger Cohen | New York Times OpEd | 5 November 2009) — In his last month as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei finds himself at the explosive crux of the world’s nuclear politics, ferrying messages between the Obama administration and Tehran. “They are talking through me,” he says.

Talking is something, even through a mediator, given all the poisonous U.S.-Iranian history, but time is short. President Obama’s Iran outreach is on the line in the days before ElBaradei departs on Nov. 30. It’s critical that Obama succeed or a futile confrontation-sanctions scenario will be locked in. Any vestigial hopes for a more peaceful Middle East will recede.

Protesters, Iran’s brave campaigners for a freer and more open country, are chanting, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us.” That must hurt in the Oval Office. The window is narrowing for the president to show that outreach can normalize the psychotic U.S.-Iranian relationship where confrontation only comforts it. I still believe normalization is the last best hope for Iranian reform.

So Obama is right to persist, right to favor the head over the heart. But he needs an interlocutor. And right now he’s got a foreign-policy vacuum in Tehran.

Last month, it seemed there was a deal: Iran ships out most of its known low-enriched uranium — about 1,200 kilograms — and eventually gets fuel rods for a reactor producing medical isotopes. The agreement buys time. It slows the noisy, fast-ticking Israeli clocks by removing the stuff Iran could use to make a bomb.

But, as ElBaradei told me in an interview, “there’s total distrust on the part of Iran.” This has now expressed itself in a demand for “guarantees.” Iran has not balked by demanding that its uranium be sent out in phases — as some reports suggested — but by seeking cast-iron assurances that the fuel will come back.

“Whether it’s one shipment is not the issue,” ElBaradei said. “The issue is timing: whether the uranium goes out and then some time later they get the fuel, as was agreed in Geneva, or whether it only goes at the same time as the fuel is delivered.” He added: “If it is simultaneous it would not defuse the crisis, and the whole idea is to defuse the crisis.”

Compromise ideas are being explored. ElBaradei has talked to Obama, who is driving Iran policy, several times. He has talked to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, weakened by the disputed June 12 election, has emerged as a proponent of what would be an immensely popular opening to America.

“There are a lot of ideas,” ElBaradei told me. “One is to send the material” — Iran’s uranium — “to a third country, which could be a friendly country to Iran, and it stays there. Park it in another state, then later bring in the fuel. The issue is to get it out, and so create the time and space to start building trust.”

It’s essential to secure “something like a year” between the uranium’s exit and the fuel’s arrival. This would open the way for “direct engagement between Iran and the U.S. There is no other way. Six-party talks can continue but the heavy lifting can only be done by the U.S.”

ElBaradei’s message to Tehran: “This is an opportunity I have not seen before and it will not happen again.” His message to Washington: “Be patient.”

The problem is the disarray in Tehran. It is payback time for Ahmadinejad. Everyone he’s slighted — like Ali Larijani, the powerful speaker of the Majlis — is gunning for him. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, went along with the outline of the Geneva deal but has begun to equivocate.

The Islamic Republic needs to move on. It has sullied and weakened itself in recent months. It needs to put an end to the paralyzing behind-the-scenes fight over who would claim credit for any rapprochement with America. It must recognize, as ElBaradei put it, that “Obama is really sticking his neck out.”

Diplomacy is most useful between enemies. There is no alternative. ElBaradei said: “Sanctions are an expression of frustration,” adding that “in the long run they will not resolve the issue.” That’s right.

A stick exists. It is the volatile state of post-June-12 Iranian society. Protest was not quashed but went underground. Every now and then it flares; that will not stop. Obama’s outreach has unsettled Iran, produced this new fluidity.

Now it’s overwhelmingly in Iran’s interest, and America’s, to do the deal. For Iran, it’s a way out of debilitating isolation; for Washington it’s a first step in Obama’s bold quest for a new Middle Eastern order.

“I hope Iran will not miss this opportunity and will take a very small risk for peace. Otherwise everybody will lose.” ElBaradei said.

He also said inspectors had found “nothing to be worried about” in the underground facility at Qum built in secret by Iran. “The idea was to use it as a bunker under the mountain to protect things. It’s a hole in a mountain.”

Bunkers or breakthrough? A Nobel laureate who has the trust of both sides will be gone in a few weeks. Use him or lose.

Featuring Robert Naiman, National Coordinator of Just Foreign Policy and Kaveh Ehsani, editorial committee member Middle East Report and Professor of International Studies, DePaul University.

The present moment is pivotal on two levels: In the aftermath of its June presidential election, Iran has seen the largest political upheaval in the three decades since the revolution. And, just last week, the US and Iran engaged in breakthrough discussions on Iran’s nuclear program.

Are these two historic developments related?

How should the peace movement make sense of them?

This dialogue will explore these questions and many more, shedding much-needed light on the critical issues at stake.

Event Details: Friday, October 16 at 7 PM – School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Columbus Auditorium, 280 S. Columbus Dr., Chicago

Upcoming discussions with Iran should address its nuclear program and its awful human rights record.

(LA Times | Editorial | 19 September 2009) – The Obama administration has agreed to direct talks with the government of Iran, along with the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, at a meeting scheduled for Oct. 1. Now the question is: What will they talk about?

The United States and its allies want to discuss the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, of course; that’s why they’re meeting. Tehran has proposed a sweeping agenda of global affairs that seems to include everything but its uranium enrichment activities. Human rights activists, meanwhile, are pressing for the group to address Iranian political repression in the aftermath of the contested presidential election, presenting the Obama administration with a potential conflict between U.S. strategic goals of nonproliferation and regional stability, and its interest in promoting democracy and civil rights.

Iran’s postelection human rights record is awful. The country’s political opposition says 72 people were killed in violence following the June reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — twice the government’s count. Of the approximately 4,000 people imprisoned for protests against alleged vote fraud, an estimated 300 to 400 opposition leaders, journalists and student activists remain in jail, accused of trying to launch a “velvet revolution” to topple the government. About 100 detainees have faced mass trials on myriad charges ranging from acting against national security to spreading propaganda and destroying public property. Some prisoners have been held incommunicado and in solitary confinement, and some were beaten, according to international human rights groups; opposition leaders maintain that they have documented a few cases of rape, although a government judicial committee has rejected the allegations. Freedom of speech has been quashed.

Although the central issue of the upcoming talks is and should be nuclear weapons, it is important that the world powers also register their concern about Iran’s human rights record, as silence would amount to condoning it. The United States must reject torture and the denial of free speech, the right of assembly and due process — ever more so after our own lapses in recent years.

There is often a conflict between realpolitik and idealist politics. In this case, the United States must carefully balance its overriding goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon with its moral imperative to speak out against human rights violations. But this has been made easier by the fact that, in seeking to divert talks from its nuclear program, Iran offered a five-page proposal for dialogue on security, economic and political issues, including “principles of democracy and the right of people to have free elections.” Iran may hope to use thatto bring up Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and even Bush vs. Gore, but to us, it seems to offer an opening to discuss Iran’s elections in the framework of international justice and law. Just as the world looks to Iran to live up to its nonproliferation commitments, so it expects the Islamic Republic to honor international principles and signed conventions on civil rights. Both topics should be addressed.

The Islamic Republic’s revolution may be at a crossroads. It’s a possible opening for the U.S.

(Robin Wright and Robert Litwak | Los Angeles Times | 13 September 2009) - Three decades of assumptions about Iran — including the premises behind Washington’s recent outreach to Tehran — have been transformed by its stunning uprising. It’s time for a policy rethink.

The Obama administration’s offer to engage was the right idea. But the theocracy’s brutal crackdown on the opposition since the June 12 presidential election, followed by the purge of senior politicians in show trials and an alarming increase in general executions, marks a turning point for Iran’s revolution. U.S. policy now needs a broader approach. Recent history offers relevant guidelines.

The three most important revolutions of the 20th century — for their political innovation and impact — happened in the Soviet Union, China and Iran. At the peak of revolutionary paranoia, the Soviet Union and China witnessed turmoil similar to what is happening today in Iran. Soon afterward, however, Moscow and Beijing altered course. Both began the move from defiant revolutionary regime to a normal state willing to work within the international order and mended relations with the United States.

The shift in both the Soviet Union and China was partly tied to the maturation of revolutions, as Crane Brinton outlined in “The Anatomy of Revolution,” which leads to the final stage of “convalescence” that plays out over years, even decades. The Islamic Republic is on the same trajectory. Its current uprising pits those trying to transform Iran into a normal state against unrelenting revolutionaries. The men and women now on trial have made the transition, in varying degrees, in their political thinking.

In their civil disobedience since June, millions of Iranians also have indicated that they’re ready for normalcy. The U.S. should now factor them into policy.

The pattern of revolutions suggests, however, that a catalyst is required to trigger the critical transition. The spark has traditionally been one of three factors: a geo-strategic challenge, economic necessity or political exigency. In other words, a revolution needing to convert an enemy into an ally to survive.

In the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin launched show trials of Communist Party officials from 1936 to 1938, when vast numbers were dispatched to gulags or executed. Yet pressure from the Nazi threat combined with the costs of war spawned a U.S.-Soviet alliance and Stalin’s meeting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Stalin was succeeded by Nikita Khrushchev, who started de-Stalinization. The revolution’s later undoing began after Mikhail Gorbachev concluded that the Soviet system of political control was no longer viable in the information-based global economy and that basic changes were essential to survive.

In the 1960s, China had all the trappings of a rogue state. It defied the international order. It detonated an atomic bomb in 1964. And in 1966, it launched the Cultural Revolution, a period of chaotic political and social upheaval when Mao Tse-tung ruthlessly purged alleged “bourgeois liberals” in the Communist Party. Yet in 1969, the collapse of the Sino-Soviet alliance followed by troop buildups along their mutual border led Mao to consider the realpolitik of normalizing relations with Washington. Henry Kissinger’s secret 1971 trip led to President Nixon’s historic visit in 1972.

Neither Stalin nor Mao became America’s friends. But those encounters — under conditions of strategic need — did pave the way for meaningful engagement.

Iran’s three most specific overtures to the U.S. fit the same pattern. In 1986, at a desperate juncture in its war with Iraq, Tehran was willing to deal secretly with both the United States and Israel to acquire weaponry, namely TOW anti-tank missiles. Even after this arms-for-hostages swap was revealed, the regime still sent a secret emissary to the White House to probe further potential.

In the early 1990s, Iran offered the most lucrative petroleum deal in its history to Conoco, to develop offshore oil and gas fields to help pay for postwar reconstruction and modernization demanded by a war-weary population.

In 2001, after the U.S. toppled Afghanistan’s Taliban, Iran cooperated with Washington in crafting a new government. After the U.S. invasion toppled Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003, Tehran put out feelers, prodded partly by the Swiss, about resolving differences with Washington. Flanked by U.S. troops on key borders, Tehran wanted to ensure it was not next.

Three U.S. administrations did not exploit opportunities when Iran needed to play and reached out. The challenge now is to create a confluence of factors that will make Tehran again feel that a real deal with Washington is in its interest. Then engagement has a real shot.

Under the current circumstances, it doesn’t.

Diplomacy centered primarily on Iran’s nuclear program is unlikely to work. The regime as well as many protesters view pressure to end uranium enrichment — a process to provide fuel for peaceful nuclear energy that can be subverted to develop a nuclear weapon — as a challenge to Iran’s sovereignty and a denial of its economic development. Under the current circumstances, the regime is more likely to engage in a process — largely to get the world off its back — that would not produce enduring substance or real resolution.

And if that diplomatic tactic doesn’t work, simply slapping on more international sanctions (given stonewalling by Russia and China on anything tough) also seems unlikely to alone squeeze Iran into cooperation.

Yet a military strike is also likely to backfire, instead rallying Persian nationalism around the regime, just as Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion mobilized support for the revolution at a time it was running out of steam.

The Obama administration would be well-advised to step back and recalculate what conditions would lead Iran to feel that the benefits of beginning the transition to a normal state outweigh the costs of sticking to the revolutionary zealotry increasingly rejected by its own people.

Robin Wright, author of “Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East,” has covered Iran since 1973. Robert Litwak is the former director for nonproliferation at the National Security Council. Both are at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

(Dafna Linzer | ProPublica | 10 September 2009) - The Iranian government has told the Obama administration and its Western allies that it is ready to hold “comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive” negotiations on a range of security issues, including global nuclear disarmament. But the new proposal is silent on Iran’s own nuclear program. U.S. officials have said Iran is stockpiling uranium at an alarming rate and needs to account for unanswered questions about the program. The five-page Iranian proposal, hand-delivered to foreign diplomats in Tehran on Wednesday, has not been made public, but a copy was obtained by ProPublica and is available here.

In the document, titled “Cooperation for Peace, Justice and Progress,” Iran reiterated many of its previous ideas for talks while scaling back specific requests made in previous proposals (PDF). Among other things, Tehran called for an end to hostilities and for talks on issues of specific concern to Iran, such as drug trafficking and security in the Middle East. Unlike previous Iranian proposals, this one does not contain a litany of past grievances with the United States and does not assert an Iranian commitment to advancing its nuclear efforts.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that “the offer is still being evaluated” by the United States and its allies. “I will say Iran’s proposals have, time and again, failed to live up to its international obligations.” Iran’s offer is in response to coordinated efforts by the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s proposal comes as President Obama is facing pressure from Congress to take a harder line with Tehran, and it will likely test his high-profile efforts to engage a country his predecessor once described as a member of an “axis of evil.”

A willingness on the part of Tehran to talk with the United States, 30 years after diplomatic relations came to a halt, could be a boon to Obama’s commitment to diplomacy and his efforts to improve conditions in the Middle East. But the Obama administration worries — as the Bush administration did — that Iran could orchestrate go-slow negotiations to fend off international sanctions long enough to produce the necessary components for a nuclear weapon.

If Obama rejects Iran’s proposals, he is left with few attractive options. He can try to improve the terms of the Iranian proposal, or seek other ways to pressure the Iranians to halt their nuclear program. One option is a new round of tough international sanctions imposed through the U.N. Security Council. Former President Bush pushed for economic sanctions and left open the threat of military action — neither of which convinced the Iranians to halt its program, come to the negotiating table or to level with international inspectors about the genesis and intent of its nuclear efforts.

One European diplomat said that no strategy seems to be having an effect on Iran at the moment. Still, the diplomat said it would be a mistake to proceed with talks based on the current Iranian offer.

“We have to hold firm to our ideals. Now, above all, is not the time to give the Iranians a chance to discuss every issue under the sun. We have to keep focused on the goal, which is to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the diplomat said. The diplomat said European countries were seeking clarifications on the offer but didn’t say whether they were considering a counterproposal.

One U.S. government official who agreed to discuss the Iranian offer on the condition of anonymity lamented that its lack of detail meant “one could read either very much or very little into” the terms.

The official described it as “a very Persian opening gambit to offer such a big picture,” just as a new round of sanctions was being considered. The official also noted that the Iranians had refrained from taking a critical or angry tone in the proposal but said that the Obama administration doesn’t want to waste time pushing for talks that won’t yield results.

The official said the administration would now need to decide whether “there is enough here to justify meeting the Iranians face to face.”

Until now, the United States has refused to do so, saying it will not discuss the issue until Iran suspends its nuclear work. Iran has rejected that condition and continued to push ahead, enriching uranium that could be used either for a bomb or to fuel a nuclear energy reactor.

Iran has long maintained that its large-scale efforts to enrich uranium, begun two decades ago in secret and with illicit help from Pakistan, were intended to provide the oil-rich nation with an alternate energy source.

A seven-year investigation by U.N. nuclear inspectors has unearthed reams of evidence that point to Iranian efforts to conceal the nature of the program. Iran has refused to answer some of the inspection agency’s most pressing questions and has denied inspectors access to key individuals who could shed light on the program’s roots.

U.S. intelligence estimates cite evidence that Iran was working on a covert nuclear weapons program until 2003 and note that any peaceful nuclear program of the size and scale Iran is constructing could be diverted for weapons use if the country makes that decision.

In past talks with the Europeans, Iran sought to negotiate the terms of its enrichment capabilities, but once it faced international sanctions, it abandoned that approach and declared that it would move ahead with a full-scale nuclear energy program.

Iran’s latest offer does not depart from that strategy. It is also similar to past proposals in that it begins with a flowery recitation of Iran’s view of the world and its place in it. One half of the proposal is a preamble that borrows, in part, from themes included in Obama’s April speeches on nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace. It also emphasizes Iranian national sovereignty and takes a veiled swipe at critics of Iran’s contested June presidential election.

The second half of the proposal outlines three broad areas for discussion, including political and security issues, international issues and economic issues.

While there is no mention of Israel, the political security section wades into the prospects for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal welcomes efforts “to draw a comprehensive, democratic and equitable plan to help the people of Palestine to achieve all-embracing peace.” Iran’s long-stated policy has been to reject Israel’s right to exist.

The Iranian offer also seeks talks on issues that have become increasingly problematic for Iran’s national security, such as drug trafficking, illegal migration and organized crime. Iran has long struggled to stem the flow of drugs and people entering its borders from Afghanistan and now from Iraq.

The Iranian proposal includes seven items for discussion under the theme of international issues, including “putting into action real and fundamental programs toward complete disarmament and preventing development and proliferation of nuclear, chemical” and biological weapons.

Iran, and many other developing nations, sees a double standard when Western countries, chiefly the United States, demand a halt to nuclear programs while maintaining large weapons stockpiles. Obama sought to address those concerns in his April speech when he pledged to work toward universal disarmament and a nuclear-free world.

Many observers see Iran’s new proposal package as a way to freeze the clock on further sanctions. Will Tehran in the end bow to growing international pressure? Would sanctions work? And will the proposal help end Iran’s isolation?

(Al Jazeera English | Inside Edition | 10 September 2009) - Manouchehr Mottakir, Iran’s foreign minister, has submitted his government’s latest proposals to the envoys of the six countries involved in nuclear talks. The proposal comes as Tehran has been threatened with harsher sanctions over its nuclear ambitions. Diplomats will be studying the Iranian message for signs that Tehran is really interested in taking up the offer of economic and political concessions in return for a halt to its uranium enrichment programme.  The proposal is not expected to lead to a breakthrough in the nuclear dispute.  Many observers see Iran’s new proposal package as a way to freeze the clock on further sanctions. Will Tehran in the end bow to growing international pressure? Would sanctions work? And will the proposal help end Iran’s isolation?

This episode of Inside Story airs from Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 1730GMT and 2230GMT, with repeats on Friday at 0430GMT and 1030GMT.

A June 15, 2009, file photo shows Iranian riot policemen standing guard outside the British embassy in Tehran during a protest by supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against European interference in the Islamic Republic's election results. (Photo Atta Kenare AFP/Getty Images)

By ALAN COWELL and STEPHEN CASTLE
Published July 3, 2009 in the New York Times

PARIS — Brushing aside British and European efforts to seek the release of local British Embassy staff members held in Tehran, the Iranian authorities indicated Friday that they planned to put some of them on trial — a move that deepened a diplomatic crisis and could provoke the withdrawal of ambassadors.

In London, the Foreign Office said it was urgently checking reports that the Iranian authorities planned to put two of its local employees on trial. Nine staff members were seized after the unrest sparked by Iran’s disputed presidential elections on June 12.

Hours after the Iranian threat, the European Union seemed to hold back from an out-and-out showdown, resolving to summon Iranian ambassadors in all 27 countries to send “a strong message of protest against the detention of British Embassy local staff and to demand their immediate release,” said a European diplomat who, following European Union rules, spoke on condition of anonymity.

Other measures — such as a ban on issuing visas to Iranian travelers and a pullout of European ambassadors — would be considered depending on how the crisis unfolded, the diplomat said.

The Iranian authorities accused the local employees of fomenting and orchestrating protests, but pro-democracy Iranians ascribed the violence on the streets to a widespread crackdown by government security forces.

In London, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Office, speaking in return for customary anonymity under civil service rules, said: “We are very concerned by these reports and are investigating. Allegations that our staff are involved in fomenting unrest are wholly without foundation. We will be seeking an urgent explanation from the Iranians.”

Britain has been pressing the European Union to withdraw all its ambassadors from Tehran in protest of the detention of its officials. But other European countries, led by Germany, argued that a withdrawal of envoys would leave them with few diplomatic options if the crisis deteriorated further.

Other possibilities such as a visa ban or withdrawal of ambassadors “are on the table, but there’s agreement on a gradual approach,” the European diplomat said.

The new slump in relations came when Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the influential Guardian Council and an ally of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told worshipers at Friday Prayers in Tehran that the local employees would be tried after they “made confessions.”

Ayatollah Jannati did not say how many of the British detainees would be tried or what charges they would face, news reports said.

But, in unofficial translations provided by news agencies, he said that the British Embassy had a “presence” in the post-election unrest and that some people had been arrested. It was “inevitable” that they would face trial, he said.

The Guardian Council is an influential panel of 12 clerics whose responsibilities including vetting elections. On Monday it certified the disputed presidential vote that returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power, despite opposition claims of electoral fraud and huge protests on the streets.

The Iranian authorities have frequently blamed foreigners for the turmoil but have singled out the British as instigators.

At the same time, Tehran has sent mixed signals about the likely fate of the British Embassy employees.

Hassan Qashqavi, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, said on Monday — the day after the employees were arrested — that Iran was keen to maintain normal diplomatic relations with the European Union, its biggest trading partner. “Reduction of ties is not on our agenda with any European country, including Britain,” he said.

But on Wednesday, the semiofficial Fars news agency said one of the employees, who was not identified by name, “had a remarkable role during the recent unrest in managing it behind the scenes.” Iran has also claimed to have unspecified evidence linking British Embassy personnel to the unrest.

The idea of British Embassy staff members on trial recalled some of the images in 2007 when Iranian television paraded some of 15 captured British sailors making what were called confessions that they had entered Iranian territorial waters illegally.

While Ayatollah Jannati is not a member of the government or the judiciary, his words as the head of the Guardian Council and a close associate of the supreme leader carry some weight.

At Friday Prayers — a forum Iran has often used to convey significant political messages — he accused Britain of trying to provoke a “velvet revolution.” As long ago as March, he said, the British Foreign Office had said streets riots were possible during the June elections. “These are signs, revealed by themselves,” he said.

Ayatollah Jannati also said protesters “need to repent and ask God to forgive them.”

Many of the protesters have expressed loyalty to Mir Hussein Moussavi, a former prime minister who placed second to Mr. Ahmadinejad in the election, with the official count giving him around a third of the vote.

While challenges on the streets have gradually been suppressed, Mr. Moussavi has maintained his insistence that the outcome of the vote was illegitimate and that the authorities seem determined to maintain pressure on him.

While he did not mention Mr. Moussavi by name, Ayatollah Jannati inferred on Friday that the authorities considered him a traitor. According to The Associated Press, he pointed out that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution whom Mr. Moussavi served as prime minister, once said that “anyone who disrupts unity has not only committed a sin but also has committed treason against the Islamic republic and the system.”

Alan Cowell reported from Paris, and Stephen Castle from Brussels.

Related:

Britain Asks Allies for Help on Employees Held in Iran (July 3, 2009 in the New York Times)

The “axis of evil” has no relevance for me when I think of Iran, a country I’ve found to have a human, loving, hospitable face throughout 40 years of encounters. I lived in Iran between 1968 and 1978, and started returning again, this time with peace delegations, in 2005. It is one of the great joys of my life to see the layers of misunderstanding and fear gradually fall away from those who visit Iran today for the first time.

One delegate recently said, “I met a mullah on the street and he was so sweet! Who would think of a mullah being sweet?” Another delegate, well-traveled in the Middle East, said, “Iranians are the most hospitable people I have ever met.”

A Jewish delegate said he had been told to be careful: “They might shoot you if they find out you’re Jewish.” He was amazed to see Jews worshiping openly and walking down a street in Tehran wearing their yarmulkes. He wasn’t shot, but was mobbed by the worshipers at a synagogue who were delighted to find a Jew among us.

The younger people on our delegations have been surprised to see the variety of fashions on the street, as well as learn that young Iranians find ways to meet and to date. The artists in our delegation were thrilled to see the throngs of Iranians gathered at the tombs of the famous poets, Hafez and Sa’adi, and we witnessed Iran’s great love for music. In Isfahan, one young man with a shopping bag stopped to sing a love song below a pedestrian bridge. He sang as though the mournful and exquisite song was not performance but just a normal part of everyday life.

These images contrasted vividly with the Western media’s portrayals of Iran, often showing only a sea of black and waving fists.

When Iranians learn that we are from the United States, the consistent response is: “We really like American people, we just don’t like your government.” This is usually followed by the question, “Why does Bush want to bomb us?” Some ask why there are sanctions against Iran, and why the United States wants to change their government. “If there’s to be any change,” they say, “we want to do it ourselves.”

We also know that life in Iran can be difficult, especially in the political sphere. Reform candidates are often vetoed before the elections, and still there are hundreds of candidates who run for a very few slots. The parliamentary elections were looming when we went. Some people said they would not bother to vote; one woman said she would rely on her studious father for his own analysis of the candidates. The official religious minorities (Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians), on the other hand, were proud to tell us they have their own representatives in the Majlis, the Iranian parliament.

A few days before the election, we met with former President Khatami, and it was easy to sense his continued commitment to the reform movement, as well as his deep disappointment that he had been unable to do more during his term in office. He said that peace is what’s most needed in the world today, yet it is rare to find in international relations. He noted that war has been glorified in our cultures and histories, by everyone from Homer to the revered Persian poet, Ferdowsi.

Iranians have a deep and persistent memory of history: they remember the 1953 coup and removal of Prime Minister Mossadegh by the CIA, while Americans recall the photos of the U.S. embassy officials in blindfolds. We have two distinct historical memories and have not had diplomatic relations for 30 years, leaving no opportunity to get reacquainted and work towards reconciliation.

Iran is not perfect, and there continue to be human rights abuses and curtailment of freedom of speech. But based on my experiences, I believe there is absolutely no justification or rational cause for military intervention or sanctions against Iran. External efforts toward “regime change” are counterproductive for building trust and for reform.

I believe that Iran is ready to enter diplomatic negotiations, on the condition that all parties be respectful and sincere in their efforts to bring about reconciliation and thus start building a more peaceful world.

Ellen Francis is an Episcopal priest and sister of the Order of St. Helena. She lived in Iran in the 1960s and 1970s and since 2005 has co-led several delegations to Iran sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).