Obama, Ahmadinejad, and the politics of comunication

It seems lately there has been an upsurge of communication between the U.S. and Iran. For example, when President Barack Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iran’s post-election crackdown, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad countered by accusing President Obama of behaving like his predecessor (George W. Bush) and said there was no point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized. How productive these encoded and decoded messages are remains to be seen.

Verbal communication is very important, since it is symbolic interaction between people. It is a determining factor in what one understands and how one reacts. Most important, though, is nonverbal communication or gestures and behaviors performed contextually. Most communication between leaders and nations are actually nonverbal. In other words, nations communicate through actions-past and present, beliefs, cultural norms, and values they practice. While verbal communication can often appear confusing, ambiguous and contradictory, nonverbal communication is usually clear, concise and definite

In his A New Beginning speech on June 4, 2009 in Cairo, President Obama said, “I have made it clear to the Iraq people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own.” (A major 2008 campaign promise to Americans was an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.) To this day, there are over 100 U.S. military bases in Iraq and tens of thousands of troops. President Obama also claimed, “Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military--we seek no military bases there.” The U.S. currently has over 80 military bases and several combat brigades in Afghanistan. Are these brigades and bases temporary or permanent?

In fact, the U.S. has nonverbally militarized much of the Middle East. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and Pakistan hosts anywhere from one to 16 military bases each. (1) Even the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, requiring American combat forces to leave Iraqi cities by the end of July, appears verbally vague at best. New reports claim U.S. troops will be massing along the outskirts of Iraqi cities and encircling them. They will intervene at will, despite the deadline.

Again, President Obama said, and after admitting the U.S. overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government during the Cold war, “Rather than remain in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward.” And yet, the CIA and U.S. nonverbally interfered in Iran’s recent presidential election by manipulating technology and instigating certain groups in Iran to overthrow the Islamic republic. The Obama Administration has also announced it is moving forward with subsidizing Iranian dissident groups worth $20 million, as the Bush Administration did.

(Note: An Iranian official alluded to the CIA or a terrorist organization in the death of Neda, the young Iranian girl that was tragically gunned down. Evidently, the bullet was not the kind normally used in Iran or by Iran’s security forces.)

Keeping this in mind, and when President Obama and president Ahmadinejad speak, listen to America’s and Iran’s historically nonverbal communications and behaviors. Political nonverbal communication is very territorial and can be observed by how nations prioritize their interests and use their resources and money. It can be defensive or offensive in nature too. After World War II, the U.S. was consumed with destroying Communism and in occupying the Middle East for its oil. Because of this, the U.S. toppled Iran’s leader in 1953 and then exploited Iran’s resources and its people. It will take much more than a verbal apology for the U.S. to right the wrongs it has committed against Iran.

When the U.S. was expelled from Iran in 1979, it then fought a war with Iran through its proxy-Iraq. It also preceded to fight over control of the oil-rich regions around the Persian Gulf. It was at this time that U.S. missiles shot down one of Iran’s civilian airliners killing all 290 passengers on board. The U.S. also has militarily invaded and occupied two neighboring countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. (One could argue the case for Pakistan too.)

Most recently, the U.S. has condemned and threatened Iran for wanting to pursue civilian nuclear enrichment, thereby implementing economic sanctions against the country.

One can begin to understand why President Ahmadinejad, a strong nationalist, said, “This is our friendly advice: We don’t want to see the big disgraces of the Bush Era to be repeated in the new U.S. Era.” In response, President Obama hinted at ending direct talks with Iran. He also warned the clock was ticking on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad cautioned the U.S. that the response of the Iranian nation would be crushing and cause remorse. Will nonverbal communication win out once again?

Communication also entails empathetic listening. This type of listening tries to understand and enhance relationships among countries and their leaders. It is the ability to identify with a nation’s concerns, cultures, religions, and histories. (Imagine if Iran had toppled the U.S. Government, exploited its resources, invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, built fortifications in Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, and Cuba, and funded anti-American groups for the purpose of destabilizing the nation.)

With this kind of nonverbal communication that the U.S. and presidential predecessors has shown: violent overthrows, armed interventions and occupations, imposing military bases, and extended bombing campaigns-not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who needs verbal communication?

.