What Iran really wants from the United States, and why they are not an adversary.
The government of Iran strives to achieve independence, a certain overall benevolence about the structure of their society, even when it’s different to many other countries. It should not be an automatic reaction because of that structure, to simply conceive of them as an adversary.
Iran is quite far from an ideal structure, but it doesn’t have to be that all at once either, because it is a structure that works and shapes internally, without any need for interference, or insisting on certain asserted changes, which often assume a lot of wrong things about the country’s own development, culture and aspirations in the first place, coming across as harsh, unnecessary, too quick to last, misguided on principle, or are simply incompatible.
It is very fine to simply leave them be, so they could just exist on the map, without fuss and with even their own peace of mind about security and stability. Because just like any other country, they worry about the economy (hence wanting a deal), they worry about infrastructure and investment (which is why they have complex diplomatic efforts going on to achieve outreach for business industry to come in).
Yet even any protestors, I am sure, they still want to control their own oil and territorial integrity independently, which is why any events in Iran are largely to be understood as an ‘internal affair’, a disagreement, not dissolution. A demand for improvement and modernisation perhaps, but certainly not disintegration, or reallocation of national resources somewhere else than internally, neither a realignment in the principle of national ownership, but surely a greater national participation in that ownership, between sections of society still made up of Iranians themselves.
Why the government of Iran is not to be seen as an adversary.
Because they don’t want to take anything from the United States. They do not want to amend the existing social structure in the United States. They never tried that, and no one is ever required to go there, or to give their opinion, if they don’t want to.
Think about it this way:
A government that already exists in a country, wants to be largely left alone, and they can get simply annoyed at everyone who tells them criticisms all the time. To have a disagreement is not adversarial. It’s just what it says: a disagreement, an annoyance. This is supported by the government’s frequent assertions that events in Iran, be it an election, or protest should first and foremost be understood as a ‘internal affair’, of Iran itself, because it’s happening in Iran and with an Iranian context that only the people who are there can understand and resolve.
Now, my point here is to convey this simple idea to the American, and other so-inclined public:
Being annoyed at the US is not the same as being adversarial. It’s not relentlessly antagonistic. It’s a request, a plea, a demand that should not warrant discussion, because it makes logical sense, to calm down a little and listen to other countries’ views without just talking all the time.
Anyone should empathise with and understand such a position. It is a position that simply asks the US to not do anything special either way in regards to countries like Iran, or even Cuba, Russia and so on. The engagement with those countries does not need to be adversarial as a matter of policy.
These countries have not much on top of the United States. There’s no a manifested antagonism that could be seen day-to-day, nothing that they can really deny the American citizens. Which is what really matters in the end.