Iranian Magazine: Persianesque.com

Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S. - By: Dr. Trita Parsi

By: Sanaz Khalaj-Santos

Washington, DC – The last time, which was years ago, we interviewed Trita Parsi, author of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relation’s Arthur Ross Silver Medallion award-winning book ‘Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.‘ - which unravels what he felt was an ”understudied” and “sensitive” troika of nations - and  HuffingtonPost contributor, we found him to be a considerate, focused, and hard-working visionary.

Last week, as we sat down to have lunch with now Dr. Trita Parsi, we realized not much has changed… except for the fact that the world now knows his name.  

“The times when war led to peace, are long gone.” Says Dr. Trita Parsi. Referring to his time in Israel as ”easy” and approaching elite decision-makers with a mere, “Do you have time to chat?”, Parsi’s quick-wit and grounded worldly-charm has surely had a helping hand in his ability to accomplish what wanna-be-politicos hope to do in a lifetime: administering the largest Iranian-American community-based non-profit organization in the US; the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), tackling the delicate undertaking of interviewing high-ranking state-officials in Iran, Israel, and America, and/or holding joint conferences with Hans Blix - in fractions of the time.

Dr. Parsi’s ability to motivate, inspire, and connect with people can easily be compared to that of presidential-candidate, Barack Obama. Inviting and open to suggestions, is the feeling one gets when communicating or working with him (the basic qualities of a great leader).

However, as every job has its ups and downs, Dr. Parsi’s occupational hazard has shown up in the form of Iranian-American compatriots whose baseless accusatory punches are ceaselessly thrown at the seasoned professional. (We doubt they’ve even read his book.) And as we tend to opt for solidarity and facts, not  conflict and haphazard image-tarnishing, without proof, we’ve been hesitant to follow the  outrageous labeling the Iranian-American “media” has gifted Dr. Parsi with. Read his investigative study and make your own decision.

To set the record straight in regards to some of the unwarrented speculation about Dr. Parsi’s position on some major issues of concern for certain sects of the Iranian-American community, and more, we’ve gone straight to the source for some answers.

Enjoy our exclusive one-on-one Q & A with possibly, the most notable character in Iranian-American civil affairs, today. Or ever.

Dr. Parsi: Born in Ahvaz, Iran and raised in Uppsala, Sweden

 
SKS: Where did you go to school?
TP: Sweden mostly. Have a MA in Political Science from Uppsala University, Sweden’s oldest University, an MSc in Economics from Stockholm School of Economics, and a PhD in International relations from Johns Hopkins SAIS.

When was the last time you were in Iran?
2004, I was doing interviews for my dissertation that later became a book.

What led you to write this book?
I started doing my PhD at SAIS in late August 2001. I wanted to write about Afghanistan. I had worked on Afghanistan in the Security Council in 1998, and wanted to write about this much neglected country. But about two or three weeks later, 9/11 happened and all eyes turned towards Afghanistan – overnight, everyone in Washington had become an Afghan expert. So I decided to predict what the next likely conflict the in region would be and write about that instead. And Israel and Iran stood out. Almost nothing had been written about their relationship, very few people had dared to address this issue. So I decided to give it a try.

What was the biggest challenge in writing your book, ‘Treacherous Alliance‘?
There was so little written about this subject, the two countries were so secretive so it was difficult to piece everything together for such a long period. I had to do more than 130 interviews, many of them more than 2 hours long.

What similarities/commonalities amongst the 3 nations you’ve dissected, stood out for you? Did you find any?
There are tremendous similarities, yet sharp differences as well. The most striking one is the sense of loneliness that both Israelis and Iranian[s] have, as well as their deep suspicions and distrust of the outside world. Israelis have it due to the experience of the Jewish people, particularly the Holocaust. Iranians have it due to decennia of foreign intervention as well as a sense of betrayal by the international community during the Iraq-Iran war.

How did you manage to secure such high-profile interviews?
It was quite difficult, but I had a lot of help from my professors at SAIS. And a lot of tenacity I guess. I spent more than a year identifying the people to interview, tracking them down and securing a “yes” from them.

What will happen if we continue on without engaging one another? Who will benefit?
No one benefits in the long run from the absence of dialogue and communication. We are reaching a geopolitical climax in the region, fueled by geopolitical tensions at the global level due to a sharp decline in US power and maneuverability. This climax will likely not be peaceful unless there is some communication.

What would the aftermath of an American strike on Iran look like?
I wrote a piece with Israel’s former foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, for the Christian Science Monitor recently. There we pointed out that the military option almost certainly will not destroy Iran’s nuclear program, but that the first victim of a strike would be the pro-democracy and human rights movement in Iran. It was a critique of the current mentality in Washington which treats the consequences of a military operation with the greatest amount of optimism, and the challenges of a diplomatic approach with the greatest amount of skepticism.

What would the other scenario then look like? The diplomatic approach? Would that mean that the regime would remain exactly as it is for the Iranian people?
I believe that diplomacy would significantly reduce the risk of war. This would, in my opinion, also greatly benefit the pro-democracy movement in Iran who have screamed that the tensions between the US and Iran have rendered their work all the more difficult. People like Shirin Ebadi and others have argued over and over again that the tensions benefit hardliners in the Iranian government and undermine the pro-democracy movement. The idea that improved relations between the US and Iran would guarantee the regime’s survival is misplaced, in my assessment. The faith of Iran and its regime is not in the hands of the United States, it’s in the hands of the Iranian people. Remember, the Shah of Iran had excellent relations with Washington, yet he was unseated through a popular revolution. Friendship with Washington is by no means a guarantee for political survival. On the contrary, many argue that reduced tensions will give pro-democracy activists greater maneuverability to push for human rights and democracy in Iran.

Is it the people or the governments that are suffering the most from a lack of dialogue?
Everyone suffers from the lack of dialogue. But if the lack of dialogue leads to war, the ordinary people in Iran will be the greatest victims.

Do you think the fact that most people in the US making decisions about Iran are unqualified – for the sole reason that they haven’t even traveled there?
It is extremely sad to see the lack of expertise on Iran in the United States. It’s partly a result of the lack of dialogue, and it has hurt both sides. It has hurt the US in the sense that it often times miscalculates and misreads Iran, which complicates the process of securing US interests. It has hurt Iran too because it is more difficult for Tehran to declare its intentions.

How can the Iranian-American community help their own and Iran’s future?
We have to contribute to our democracy here in America. The more we participate, the more we can internalize democratic values and help reform our own culture in a democratic direction. Long-term, it can [be] a situation in which the democratization of the Iranian-American community can be helpful in assisting, but not leading, democratization in Iran. But as long as we do not participate and contribute to the American democracy, we miss this opportunity to adopt democratic values, and that hinders us from assisting in Iran’s democratization. You can’t be an agent of democracy unless you’re democratic yourself.

How do you feel about the negative press you’ve been receiving from some Iranian-American media-outlets?
I feel it’s a sign of desperation, as well as a fundamental lack of understanding and appreciation for what democracy means. I can understand that some pro-confrontation and pro-war elements are upset that NIAC has become a strong force, [but] if they oppose us, they should do it in a democratic process and not through defamation, slander, and character assassination. They should debate, not curse.
 

*To learn more about Dr. Parsi, please visit: TritaParsi.com