Stephen Kinzer was a long time correspondent for the New York Times and its bureau chief in Istanbul before he left the Times. As an outstanding reporter, he has covered many wars and written several books. He became known to Iranians for his book, “All the Shah’s Men” which has been translated into Persian, in three different versions. His other book “Overthrow” covers 100 years of US involvement and regime change in 14 countries. He currently teaches journalism at Northwestern University in Illinois and is a columnist for the Guardian.
ROOZ: You were on your way to Iran for the Iranian Presidential elections, what stopped you?
KINZER: I was actually not going to cover the election, but to conduct interviews for my forthcoming book, which will deal with the future of the Middle East and, specifically, the US role in that region. My goal was to have extended, substantive discussions with scholars and strategic thinkers about the long-term prospects for US-Iran relations. With the country in upheaval, I realized that no one would be in a mood for this kind of discussion. Besides, journalists were being confined to their hotel rooms. It wasn't the right time for me to conduct this kind of research.
ROOZ: What do you think of the aftermath? Do you believe that the elections were rigged?
The speed with which the results were announced naturally leads to suspicion.
It isn't fair for anyone, and especially not for outsiders, to demand or expect a particular result from any election. But it is reasonable to expect a measure of transparency and openness. There was not enough in Iran.
ROOZ: Do you think this was a “Velvet Revolution” as the regime in Tehran claims?
KINZER: People who were protesting on the streets after the election were a mixed group including some who may have wanted to end religious rule and others who simply wanted to make the Islamic Republic more responsive to people's will. Until this episode, most Iranians were willing to wait for change to come peacefully, through the system, rather than risk another uprising. Now some may be losing hope that the system can allow peaceful change. That makes the future more uncertain than it has been.
ROOZ: Like most Americans, especially those in the media, I am sure you follow the news, what do you think of the recent trials of journalists, civil right activists and former members of Khatami’s government? Many people compare these trials to the trials of Stalin. Do you agree?
KINZER: These trials disturb anyone who believes in justice. Trying people in large groups and broadcasting “confessions” on television is not the sign of a sound judicial system, especially if the people confessing have had no access to outsiders and may have been mistreated. If these trials lead to stigmatizing all dissenting views as criminal, that closes the avenue of peaceful change and pushes Iran closer to the abyss of instability.
ROOZ: You are writing a book now on Turkey and Iran, comparing Ataturk and Reza Shah, what can you tell us? What prompted you to write a book on this subject?
KINZER: Turkey is by far the most democratic country in the Muslim Middle East. The only other country that has a long democratic tradition is Iran. Many outsiders don't realize this. Once they do, they may conclude that in the long run, these countries could be good partners for the United States. Turkey, Iran and the US share strategic goals, but just as important, their people share a long experience with, and admiration for, democratic government. That makes them potential partners in a new “power triangle” that could have a highly positive effect on the region.
ROOZ: Do you think there is any hope for better relations between the US and Iran? Obama has sent a second letter to the Iranians; do you think they will respond positively?
KINZER: The US needs to keep two points in mind. The first is that no matter what happens or has happened inside Iran, the strategic logic of improved relations does not change. Second, as the US pursues those better relations, it has to be sure it does nothing that will weaken or undermine the democratic movement in Iran. It is significant that no dissident or protest leader has asked the US to isolate and punish the Iranian government. As long as that is the case, the US should pursue normalized relations. Engagement is always better than shouting, threatening and issuing demands.
A positive response from Tehran depends on whether the US is willing to recognize that Iran has legitimate concerns, including security concerns, of its own.
ROOZ: You were in Bosnia, Nicaragua, and in many war torn countries, what do you think will happen in Iran as someone who has done first hand reporting?
KINZER: Tensions rise in any society when people become frustrated and conclude that there is no prospect for peaceful change. Turkey is a fine counter-example. In recent decades, a new class emerged there that wanted to see some deep changes in the way their country is governed.
They found a leader, rallied behind a new political party, and won a national election. That is why there will never be a revolution in Turkey; change can come through the ballot box. If
Iranians conclude that his is impossible in their country, frustration will increase and tensions will grow. I doubt that the political evolution of Iran is over.
ROOZ: What should the role of a good journalist/reporter be in reporting events from Iran? Do you believe the American media’s coverage of Iran is fair and balanced?
KINZER: I would like to see more coverage of Iran in the United States that is not focused on Ahmadinejad, political tensions, and the nuclear program. Americans don't have a clear idea of what Iranian society is like. They assume Iran is no different from Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Syria. Good foreign correspondents leave the capital and immerse themselves in people's daily lives. That allows them to see and report what is happening beneath the surface of daily life. Americans are eager for that kind of reporting.
