Iran: On the Precipice

In the same week that violent protests engulfed Iran following its hotly contested election, W Magazine ran a lengthy spread about the Iranian immigrant community in Los Angeles and the incredible name they have made for themselves. Given all the tragedies and trampling of human rights coming out of Iran, it was a welcome reminder of the astonishing success of one community basking in freedom and is a potent example of how Iran and other countries could likewise flourish.

The central theme of the article was that Iranians who moved to America in the wake of the country’s last revolution in the late 1970s and early 1980s have not only survived in a foreign land, but also thrived. They’ve created unimaginable wealth for themselves, but also serve as role models, given the scope of their philanthropic endeavors, civic and religious participation, and pursuit of elected office.

Of course, the Iranian community in Los Angeles is not alone in standing out. In August 2008, Newsweek ran a story on a group of Iranian students who received the highest scores ever on Stanford’s Ph.D. entrance exam, known to be tremendously difficult. The majority of the students came from a single Iranian university, Sharif University of Science and Technology in Iran, known today to have one of the best undergraduate electrical engineering departments in the world, despite competing with perennial all-stars such as MIT, Caltech, Stanford, Tsingshua (China) and Cambridge. As the article goes on to say, Iranian students from Sharif and other outstanding Iranian schools have been recognized in the International Science Olympics and have won top prizes in physics, math, chemistry and robotics. Unfortunately, up to 90 percent of these students leave the country for graduate school or to work elsewhere around the world.

Shortly after the article was published, another Iranian American also made the news. Professor Maysam Ghovanloo, of Georgia Tech, was singled out by then-President George W. Bush at a White House dinner and described as “one of our nation’s most ingenious biomedical engineers.” Ghovanloo invented a technology that could revolutionize how people with severe disabilities operate their wheelchairs and engage in daily activities simply by moving their tongue.

I am reminded of these anecdotes as I watch the blood spill onto the streets of Tehran. Iranians in my community speak of the rhetoric they used to hear from the mullahs after the Iran-Iraq war, that these kids and young adults who risked certain death by being forced onto minefields were gharemans, or heroes of the Iranian people. It’s plainly evident how Iran is treating its gharemans now. I’m reminded of these stories when I hear about ordinary citizens and journalists in Iran being thrown in secret prisons, violently tortured and beaten, brainwashed and forced to admit to crimes they didn’t commit. I’m reminded of these stories when I hear reports of Iran employing the death penalty more often than nearly every other country, sometimes hanging people from a crane in public for all to witness this ghoulish scene. Why, then, is Iran willing to risk public humiliation, the ire of its citizens and the opprobrium of the Western world?

These are important questions to ask, since today, just as in 1979, Iran stands yet again on the edge of a precipice. For all its chants of “Death to America,” Iran has little to show for itself these last 30 years. With a population that is about 70 percent below the age of 35, there is double-digit unemployment (estimated at 13 percent by the Iranian government), inflation (28 percent in 2008) and discontent among the working class. Thanks to its clerical regime, instead of welcoming Iran into the international fold as a forward-thinking nation, we have Iran to thank as one of the world’s greatest state sponsors of terror, providing financing and weaponry to Hezbollah and numerous other terrorist groups. What will be the legacy of Iran a mere 30 years from now?

These are the questions America, Europe and the Arab world should be asking themselves today. These issues are emblematic of the deep-rooted dichotomy emanating out of the Middle East, not just Iran. It’s convenient to label America, Israel and the West as scapegoats and the root of the world’s problems, but even removing these countries from the equation, what do you have left? To what extent are Iran and its Middle Eastern brethren sufficiently introspective, as the United States and other democracies are, to assess, evaluate and adapt its current ways?

Thomas Jefferson once said, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Unfortunately, Iran’s current leadership seems more focused on instilling fear and hatred into its citizens, rather than inspiring hope and cultivating an environment where legitimate discourse and dialogue allows the government to actually learn from its people. For Iran to emerge from this crisis, the international community must involve itself to a greater degree once the dust settles from this electoral nightmare. Although the United States has rightly stood on the sidelines until a path forward becomes more clear, we cannot assume Iran’s leadership is willing to “unclench its fist” of its own accord. We must offer our assistance to Iran’s innocent civilians and further emphasize the constructive role the United States can play in Middle East developments, as President Obama discussed in his recent speech in Cairo. If America and its partners are not involved now, clearly a role will be thrust upon us in the future in the form of another war in the Middle East or defending one of our allies.

The spectacle on our screens this last week couldn’t have laid out the issue in more stark terms. Either we nurture the Iranians and allow them to contribute to the world at large, or we witness more clerical-style “nurturing” of Iranian dissent and another dismal chapter of the Iranian legacy.

Arash Farin is an investment banker based in Los Angeles.