The further outside of Tehran I was the less political and less critical of the government people were, although not completely without regard. They did not like the situation but were less inclined to openly complain about it.
When I was riding in cars in Shiraz with my friend Ali many of the people had questions for me. They often wanted to know what I thought about their country. They were very proud and they were concerned that I would think less of Iran, and them, since it was not as modern as America and economic conditions were not as good.
I sensed a strong identity with America from many of the people. I think this is because of the success and power of America, and also because of the feeling that in America anyone who wants to work hard can be personally successful, which is a value that they respect. I think many people in Iran feel that their country could and would achieve the same success if not for the leadership of the clerics.
This insight into the way the Iranian people think gave me a new perspective on the foreign policy of the USA. Think about it like this. Let's say that over 50% of the people in Iran would like to get rid of their government of mullahs (I believe the number would really be over 90%). In a democratic system, with over 50% wanting something they would get it. So if an outside influence (USA) helped them get what they want, isn't the outside influence doing the democratic thing?
Of course I realize that this issue is not so simplistic and the opportunity for abuse by the outside influence is huge, but at any time is it ok for an outside influence to help shape another country if it is the desire of the majority in that country? I have never been to Iraq, but I wonder what the majority of people there want?
