by J. Daryl Byler
"My picture of the American people is that they are nice, compassionate, and ready to help their neighbors," Hasein Sharif, a 23-year-old reporter with Iran Press TV, told me during a recent trip to Iran with a delegation of 13 U.S. religious leaders trying to pave the way for mutual respect and peaceful relations at a time of increased tension between the two countries.
"What I don't understand," he added, "is why your country always seems to be going to war." Hasein's views grabbed my attention because he is part of Iran's large youthful demographic. Some two-thirds of the Iranian population have been born since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and tend to be sympathetic to Western ideas. Still, they struggle to square American democratic values with current American foreign policy.
The U.S. delegation met with Christian and Muslim leaders, government officials, and ordinary Iranian people. Our final day in Iran included meetings with former President Mohammad Khatami and current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the first time an American delegation had met with an Iranian president in Iran since 1979.
The trip grew out of relationships that the Mennonite Central Committee -- a relief, development, and peace-building agency of North American Mennonites and related church bodies -- has carefully developed while working in Iran the past 17 years.Hasein's comment was only one of many that reminded us just how little Iranians and Americans understand about each other today. In our conversations it quickly became clear that we operate based on two different narratives.
The American story begins in 1979, the year Iranian students took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held them for 444 days. The Iranian story begins in 1953, when the CIA joined the British to support a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadeq. In his place they installed Shah Reza Pahlevi, who grew increasingly repressive and jailed and tortured his opponents.
During the last three decades, both nations have let their respective traumas guide their policies and have added to a growing list of grievances against the other. In our meetings we talked about the role of religion in transforming the trauma that undergirds the U.S.-Iranian conflict. We also talked about nuclear proliferation, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the role of women in Iranian society.
Role of religion
Our conversations in Iran confirmed our premise that religious leaders can help defuse tension between the United States and Iran. Islam and Christianity share concerns for justice, compassion, and the dignity of all human beings. These common values provided a significant bridge for dialogue between our delegation and our Iranian hosts.
"There will be no peace among nations unless there is peace and dialogue between religious leaders," said Armenian Orthodox Archbishop Sebu Sarkissian, head of the largest Christian body in Iran, with some 150,000 members. "The goals of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the same."
"The main obstacles to dialogue are accusing each other of being nonbelievers, the radicalism of religion, and failing to take time to study each other's understandings of faith," lamented Ayatollah M.A. Taskhiri, a close friend of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. "Most of the religions are for peace," said Taskhiri.
Another Muslim scholar encouraged Christians to spend as much time reading the Qu'ran as Muslim leaders spend studying the Bible.
Even President Ahmadinejad -- known in the West for his strident rhetoric -- spoke in measured tones about the importance of religion in bridging the gap between Iran and the United States.Our delegation arrived in Iran at the beginning of the Christian season of Lent. Ahmadinejad expressed interest in this tradition and immediately connected it to the Islamic practices of Ramadan and praying five times daily, which prepares Muslims to work for justice. "Man has not been created for war, but to love," he said. "It is the duty of all of us to work hard to secure the welfare for all members of the human race."
We asked Ahmadinejad about the pitfalls of mixing religion and state. "The problem is not mixing religion and state," he responded, "but that pious people are not in high office." In short, Amadinejad believes that if only the right religious people were in office, the world would be a more just and peaceful place. He said, for example, if Jesus Christ were the American president the world would be a better place. This seemed consistent with his May 2006 letter to President Bush, in which he challenged Bush to more closely align American policy with the teachings of Jesus.
Although we found many of our religious conversations heartening, our hosts found it difficult to engage questions about religious freedom in Iran. One Muslim student told me privately he thinks there is growing room in Iran for people to practice their respective faiths. In our conversations with some Christians, however, it was clear that they would welcome a broader space than currently exists.
Nuclear proliferation
Iranians spoke with almost unanimous support for Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. At the same time, many said that developing nuclear weapons is against the tenants of the Islamic faith.
As a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is allowed to develop nuclear energy. While Iran has not violated the treaty, it has failed to disclose all of its nuclear activities as required by an additional safeguards agreement. As a result, the U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran and demanded that it stop enriching uranium.
"We want to exercise our rights under the NPT, not more, not less," said Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Jalili. "Weapons of mass destruction are inhuman, immoral, and illegitimate."
Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani, a popular Friday prayers leader in Iran, told us that there is an Islamic religious declaration or "fatwa" banning the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. "All Grand Ayatollahs agree about this," said Kashani.
President Ahmadinejad said that Iran now has the capability of producing nuclear fuel. Still, he offered both religious and strategic reasons why Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. "Our beliefs are against weapons of mass destruction," he said. "Such weapons are no longer effective," he asserted, citing the failure of such weapons to save the Soviet Union or to produce an American victory in Iraq.
We heard an openness to negotiate about Iran's nuclear program, but not with the precondition that Iran first suspend its enrichment activities. "How can you call it negotiations when outcomes are dictated in advance," asked Jalili.
Former President Khatami suggested one way forward might be to create a consortium of nations to produce fuel for NPT signers like Iran, under the watchful inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
What does one make of all these benign assertions about Iran's nuclear program? Is it simply gullible to believe that Iran only wants nuclear energy?
As recently as late October 2006, Mohamed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, said that he is not convinced that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Even U.S. intelligence analysts differ on Iran's intentions and on how soon Iran could produce a nuclear weapon if it wanted to. Still, because Iran has not fully complied with reporting required by the safeguards agreement, the IAEA supports ongoing sanctions against Iran.
NEW YORK TIMES columnist Tom Friedman has written recently that in Iran "women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students, and are fully integrated in the workforce." Our delegation found all this to be true and yet, for whatever reason, it was difficult to schedule meetings with women's groups. On the last day of our visit, the women in our delegation finally met with a prominent Iranian female professor. 
