Our group of eight Americans had been traveling in Iran for a week in April when our Iranian guide smiled slyly and said I looked like John Bolton. While I do have a gray mustache, it pales in comparison to the walrus-like growth dominating Bolton’s face. My fellow travelers assured me that I bore no physical resemblance to Trump’s national security adviser and Iranian hardliner.

At the Nagesh-e Jahan Square, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the beautiful city of Isfahan, a retired Iranian air traffic controller engaged me in a good-natured, enthusiastic discussion of American politics. Upon learning that our group was from Minnesota, he launched into his analysis of the politics surrounding U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar. His overriding message, echoed repeatedly by the words and actions of our Iranian hosts, was one of mutual respect and kinship among people, with our respective governments being the main source of our problems.

Everywhere we went in Iran we were treated as welcomed guests. In addition to viewing the iconic mosques, gardens and historic architectural sites, we visited a small synagogue, had dinner with a Christian Armenian family, hiked in the mountains outside Shiraz with an Iranian hiking club and spent the evening with a Muslim family whose son attends graduate school at the University of Minnesota. In addition to these more formal gatherings, we visited with Iranians on the streets of Tehran and other cities, in restaurants, coffee shops and bazaars. Picture taking was often the order of the day.

Article continues after advertisement

‘Thank you for coming’

Upon learning we were Americans, the reaction was usually a mixture of surprise, excitement and curiosity. An occasional joke, a few good natured political comments, but for the most part it was “welcome to Iran,“ “thank you for coming,” “we like Americans.” One particularly outgoing female member of our group collected many Iranian women friends along the way, often garnering impromptu invitations to lunch or tea and many shopping tips.

Before going to Iran, like most Americans, my impression of the country was largely based upon the negative picture painted by our government, historic clips of the 1979 occupation and hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy and chants of “Death to America.” The U.S. State Department and well-meaning friends advised against travel to Iran. “They hate us,” I was told.

Americans can only travel to Iran as part of a tour conducted by a licensed Iranian guide, an itinerary approved by the Iranian Foreign Ministry and a visa administratively issued by what’s called the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C. Iran has no formal diplomatic relations with the United States. As with many rules of personal conduct in Iran, there was a certain degree of flexibility in our touring arrangements and no overt overseeing of our activities.

I certainly realize that our contacts were not with individuals representing all components of Iranian society. We were a group of tourists. We had no contact with government officials, and extremely limited contact with mullahs or other members of the religious establishment. We were in urban areas, interacting with people generally younger and more secular then the overall population, who spoke at least some English. While not universally representative of the population, these are, however, the demographics of the Iranians upon whom regime-change advocates seem to pin their hopes.

So what are my impressions of Iranians and their relationship with their government? The religious authorities, in conjunction with the Revolutionary Guard, seem to be in firm control of the government and many aspects of the economy, constituting a religious, military, industrial complex. The government is relatively tolerant of how Iranians lead their private lives, so long as women wear the hijab in public and Islam is respected. Iranians run the gamut from observant to secular, all seemingly tolerant of each other’s approach to Islam. While the overwhelming majority of Iranians are Shia, a fairly small percentage of the population attends Friday mosque, not that dissimilar to religious identity and observance in the U.S. Many Iranians seem to focus their subtle criticism of the government on the lack of economic opportunity, along with mismanagement and corruption, rather then religious restrictions, which can be nominally adhered to and discreetly worked around in private. Many young Iranians quietly speak of immigrating to Canada or Western Europe.

A longstanding multicultural society

Unlike their Arab neighbors, who for the most part live in countries with boundaries and leadership elites arbitrarily created largely by Britain and France after World War I, Iran is a longstanding multicultural society steeped in its Persian culture and geography. Its Persian language, also called Farsi, is part of the Indo-European language group, and in many ways Iran’s culture seems to be a blend of European and Middle Eastern. While many Iranians may be dissatisfied with their government, they are nationalistic, proud of their heritage and very suspicious of foreign interference. Respect and acknowledgement of wrongdoing are culturally important.

All of which brings us to the question of U.S. policy toward Iran and what our government hopes to accomplish. The Obama administration entered into the 2015 nuclear agreement in an effort to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief. The policy was to deal with the nuclear issue first and foremost, address other issues involving Iran outside the agreement and hopefully through the lifting of sanctions integrate Iran more closely into the world economy, causing it to act, using the current administration’s rhetoric, like “a normal country,” seeing no benefit in a nuclear weapons program. While certainly subject to debate, at least it was a coherent, long-term plan.

The Trump administration approach of maximizing sanctions and war mongering, rather than respectful engagement, hoping that the Iranian government will eventually capitulate (or somehow be replaced), renegotiate the terms of the nuclear agreement and in all other things conform with the American, Israeli and Saudi Arabia version of how a normal Iranian nation should conduct itself is simply not going to work. The Iranian government will not capitulate to these demands. It is not a realistic plan.

While the sanctions obviously impact the international exchange of oil and other commodities, there was little or no evidence of the sanctions on the streets of Tehran and the other major cities we visited. The grocery stores, bazaars, shops and restaurants were seemingly all well stocked with Iranian-made goods and shoppers. Iranians have suffered through sanctions for a long time. They have also not forgotten the British and Americans’ involvement in the 1953 coup that reinstalled the Shah and the lack of any American acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Ordinary Iranians are not going to take to the streets and risk their lives in an effort to force either regime change at the behest of the Americans or their government’s capitulation to the demands of the U.S. and Iran’s arch rival, Saudi Arabia.

Article continues after advertisement

It is indeed depressing to hear our president and his echo chamber repeat uninformed talking points, with little interest in educated, respectful, not bullying, engagement with Iran. Having walked the streets of Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz and Hamadān, and engaged with so many friendly, respectful Iranians, the thought of missiles possibly targeting these cities seems absolutely abhorrent and surreal.

One can only hope that our president, having created this crisis (or allowed others in the administration to create it), will, consistent with past conduct, declare it resolved at some point and move on to some other domestic, cultural controversy with potentially less dire consequences. But then again, it is said that World War I started because of a wrong turn by Austro-Hungarian Archduke Ferdinand’s driver, which placed him squarely in the path of the assassin’s gun. And the rest is history as they say, which hopefully in this case will not repeat itself.

Thomas Scott a retired lawyer who lives in St. Paul.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)