Author and journalist Christopher de Bellaigue shares insights into Iranian politics, society

There are few Western analysts with a greater first-hand understanding of 
Iran than writer and broadcaster Christopher de Bellaigue, who covered Iran as an Economist correspondent for almost two decades. Mr. de Bellaigue was in residence as a spring 2013 Fisher Family Fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project.  In an open-ended discussion moderated by the Project’s Faculty Director, Professor Nicholas Burns, de Bellaigue—who is also the author of two books on Iranian history—offered insights into the coup against Muhammad Mossadegh and the role of history in shaping both the modern Iranian state and its outlook on relations with the West.

According to de Bellaigue, narratives of the region's twentieth century 
encounters with Britain and the United States – even pre-1979 – are a legitimate cause for historical resentment, as well as being manipulated by the Iranian side for political ends. "Rhetorically, [the history with Mossadegh] is trotted out quite a lot," he argued, "and it is deliberately perpetuated—this sense of injustice and grievance."

This history is but one important item among many that comprise the list of 
grievances that have helped to lock both the West and Iran in a spiral of mutual 
antagonism.  Burns noted that, while on the Iranian side, these include the 1953 
coup and the US support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, Americans just as distinctly 
remember the 1979 Iran hostage crisis as a pivotal moment of Iranian wrongdoing. 
They key for both sides, according to de Bellaigue, "to get past these lists is to make 
the future," rather than passively hope for relations to improve. The veteran 
observer expressed confidence that "with sufficient political will, all of these 
grievances and recriminations can be resolved in time."

De Bellaigue also sounded a note of caution in his remarks. In particular, he 
expressed doubts that the existence of common adversaries-such as the Taliban in 
Afghanistan-held much real potential for relationship building. "Friendship based 
on shared enmities is rarely long-lasting," he warned. Instead of grand hopes, de 
Bellaigue offered a view of a highly limited "ideal" future of US- Iranian relations. "If I 
was planning for the next thirty years of US foreign policy," he speculated, "I would 
not plan for an intensely close relationship with Iran ... [but rather] for a respectful 
relationship between a superpower and a regional power."