If this person were you, you would want democracy and freedom, wouldn't you?
What a coincidence! Iranians think the same thing as you do!
Iran, an ancient civilization with a history of 4,000 to 5,000 years, is called Persia in history, which is the full name of the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you have seen the new moon and roses, you will know that Iran has been brilliant for thousands of years, leaving behind countless civilizations.
In modern history, Iran still has a very important position and sense of existence, which can be seen from the subtle relationship between the United States and Iran.
The relationship between the United States and Iran, which has both cooperation and confrontation, is a typical epitome of the big country game.
Flint Leverett, one of the founders of the School of International Relations at Pennsylvania State University and a visiting scholar at the School of International Relations in Peking University, believes that the United States must reconcile with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Why must the United States reconcile with the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Mr. and Mrs. Lefferts gave the answer in their book "Going to Teheran".
Mr. and Mrs. freire believed that they objectively recorded how the Islamic Republic of Iran viewed itself and its position in the world, how it took actions to defend its own interests, and how it established legitimacy among the Iranian people.
Why is the 40-year-old contradiction between the United States and Iran still unresolved?
This is determined by the fundamental difference between America's understanding of Iran and Iran's understanding of itself.
From the international news and this book, we can know the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is an independent actor who undertakes the destiny of the country, and the author calls it a "rational actor".
This rational actor has been coveted by western countries, including the United States, because of his rich underground energy.
The reason why the United States adopts the current attitude is that they have unfairly labeled the Islamic Republic of Iran from their own perspective and interests:
1. The Islamic Republic of Iran tried to export its revolution to the whole Middle East by force;
2. The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to destroy Israel;
3. Rely too much on anti-Americanism to maintain its domestic legitimacy, so as not to consider improving relations with the United States.
The fairness of these labels is obviously in doubt: how can there be no internal contradictions in a country with so many people when there is still a wall between brothers?
The United States rashly interferes in other countries' internal affairs. Is it reasonable? !
Obviously, the United States is willing to self-destruct its image for the sake of huge potential benefits. After all, the image is like that, and the interests are important!
This book tells the complicated international situation and provides a lot of comments in time when analyzing the factors that have an impact on the relations between the two countries. If there are numbers at the end of the sentence, you can find the corresponding explanation at the bottom of the current page, which is very friendly to international relations. You can see why by reading the comments.
For example, when explaining why western powers seek to exert influence on Iran, Iran's oil and gas reserves are explained at the bottom of the page. Iran estimates that its conventional crude oil reserves rank among the top three in the world, and its natural gas reserves are second only to Russia.
From the perspective of interests, this strongly illustrates the true intention of the United States to seek interests.
Everything is for the benefit and conforms to the values of capitalist society.
Going to Tehran analyzes the current situation of the relationship between the United States and Iran from an objective perspective, and thoroughly answers the following questions for readers:
What lies behind the sharp deterioration of US-Iran relations?
Why must the United States reconcile with the Islamic Republic of Iran?
In the practice of dealing with Iran, Mr. and Mrs. Lefferts observed that Iran is not only not an enemy, but also an indispensable helper for the United States to gain a foothold in the Middle East and get rid of difficulties. Only when the United States unties the knot of its relations with Iran can other contradictions in the Middle East be resolved.
In their book, they called on American leaders to show the courage of President Nixon's visit to China and go to Tehran to make peace with Iran.
Personally, I think the Lefevers' analysis is very reasonable. They jumped out of the interests of the United States and analyzed the political and economic characteristics and international relations of the two countries from the perspective of bystanders, which was very clear.
Its meticulous analytical logic, sufficient arguments collected and powerful arguments all provide strong support for the view that "the United States must reconcile with the Islamic Republic of Iran".
I was too young to understand the fanaticism of Iran's "sea of people" attack on Iraq by underage soldiers, but then one day I suddenly understood:
Why would anyone use underage soldiers? Because adult soldiers are already "understaffed"!
The truth behind this is estimated to be "tragic".
This book is a weak voice of the American left against Iran and a wake-up call to American rulers.
After reading this book, readers can understand the tactics of great power diplomacy and the subtle nodes of balancing international relations.
I recommend people of insight to read this book, which can not only broaden our horizons and help us understand the social laws behind current politics, but also urge people to rethink and understand the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Look at the diplomacy of great powers from an objective perspective and interpret the contingency and inevitability of the tension between the United States and Iran. Increase your knowledge!