As an Iranian American, who left Iran as a child, Haleh Tavakol ‘84, Hackley’s Director of Alumni Affairs & Alumni Giving, has a unique perspective on the recently announced, hotly debated tentative deal between Iran and the US, China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany (collectively, the P5+1), regarding Iran’s nuclear energy and nuclear weapons capabilities, as well as sanctions on Iran by the P5+1.

According to the US State Department, the deal announced on April 2 would halt the expansion of Iran’s nuclear program for ten years and roll back some elements of this program. It also would put in place extensive, rigorous inspections and supervision of Iran’s nuclear facilities and lifts some of the sanctions placed on Iran once Iran abides by its commitments in the deal.

However, on April 8, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei demanded that, in the final deal, all economic sanctions on Iran be lifted immediately and military sites be placed off limits to nuclear inspectors.

Ms. Tavakol strongly supports this deal. She believes that it “can really open the path for change within Iran.” She said that the deal will most benefit Iran’s young adults, teenagers, and children, who comprise 43% of the population and are “engaged… educated, [and] aware” and “want change.” Ms. Tavakol emphasized that “the circle around [Ayatollah] Khamenei, [Iran’s religious Supreme Leader,]  and around the right-wingers in Iran” is “getting smaller and smaller because the population is very much in support of having a treaty and finding a road, not only to peace, but a path to removing sanctions.”

Ms. Tavakol sees the treaty as an opportunity to open Iran to the world, and allow people from the US and other nations, which have been in conflict with Iran, to experience its rich history, culture, and traditions.

Ms. Tavakol also believes that, although the deal is not perfect, “it makes no sense not to try [it],” and “even if it doesn’t open the path for change, we’re still better off having it.” In response to critics of the deal, who believe that the US should abandon it for its shortcomings, she asked, “Why would you stick with a status quo that’s not working without trying something that could possibly work?… Why not give it a shot?”

What is your opinion, as an Iranian American, on the recent nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran regarding nuclear power and nuclear weapons in Iran?

It’s interesting because I wear two hats. I have my Iranian background and then I have my American background, so I definitely see both points of view and the complexities in it. The first thing I would advise everyone to do is not to look at this as a black and white thing, right or wrong, it’s very gray, it’s complex…. on a number of levels. The situation in Iran is a complex one within Iran. The situation in the Middle East geopolitically, religiously, economically, is a complex one, so that’s another level. The US’s relationship with Iran has been strained, obviously, for a number of decades, and the US’s relationship with Israel as being its number ally in the region, and Israel’s number one ally in the world being the US. These are all just different players that feed into the complexity.

The Iranian Revolution happened 36 years ago. The vast, vast majority of the Iranian population is age 50 and under, so the majority of Iranians don’t have a bone to pick with the Shah, they don’t have a bone to pick with the monarchy. They do, however, have a bone to pick with the current administration. The Iranian population is highly educated; UNICEF has statistics on health and education that say that 99% of the 18 to 24 year old population in Iran, which is the largest bulk, pro rata, of the population, is literate. Twenty-six percent of the entire population of the country are internet users. The unemployment rate for the youth of Iran, under 30, is over 25%. One out of every four young people, they’re educated, they’re on the internet, they know what’s out there, they want more freedom, guys and girls want to hold hands, girls don’t want to be covering themselves like crazy. Khamenei and the right-wingers in Iran were anti-nuclear treaty, because they can just hold power if they have the “common enemy.” But the circle around these extremists is getting smaller and smaller because the population is very much in support of having a treaty and finding a road, not only to peace, but a path to removing sanctions, which are really making this situation tough. The people who are paying the biggest price for the sanctions are the same people who are the ones who want more freedom, the same ones who are unemployed, who are young, who are educated.

Within Iran, all Iranians, no matter what they believe, believe that Iran has the right to some kind of nuclear power. The difference between them is what it’s for. If you talk to people in Iran, they say that Pakistan has nuclear power, and that is not a very stable government. India is a very stable government, and India is has nuclear power. Why do these countries around us get to have nuclear power and we don’t?

Another argument you hear [within Iran] is we need nuclear power for alternative energy. The majority of population concentration in Iran is in Tehran. The population of Tehran, now, is 7.8 million. Tehran is over 6,000 feet above sea level, surrounded on three sides by the Alborz Mountains, so smog sits in there, the cars are old the cars are bad, pollution is a huge problem, asthma rate is very high, so there is definitely, philosophically, a good argument there for alternative energy, no doubt about it. So that’s something the extremists have capitalized on with the young people, who truly want peaceful alternative energy, saying, “see, they want nuclear power too, we all want nuclear power.” So it’s interesting that they all believe that they all deserve the right to have nuclear power, but to what extent is where the differences come. Do you want nuclear arms or not, that’s where you see the split within Iran.

Outside of Iran, in the US, we don’t want a nuclear armed Iran. It’s just too dangerous, and, given the relationship between Iran and the US, given the relationship between Iran and Israel, that’s obviously a dangerous situation, we don’t want that. So from my point of view as an American, the way I look at this nuclear treaty is we’re much better off. We’re never going to have a perfect situation handed to us on a silver platter. We’re much better off engaging them in conversation, having the right to go in there and inspect very often, having provisions for what happens if we can’t inspect, provisions for what happens if we inspect and something happens. This agreement puts a full stop on their development of nuclear arms for 10 years. That’s 10 years of time we can buy to let diplomacy work. So I don’t understand, personally, the argument of saying, we shouldn’t try this because it’s not perfect. Look at what’s happened in North Korea, by isolating the country. They are getting armed, they are dangerous, and there is no conversation going on.

This nuclear treaty, I believe, if it’s done right — it’s very preliminary at this point so I can’t tell — can really open the path for change in Iran. Having said that, I would say that even if it doesn’t open the path for change, we’re still better off having it. Just because we disagree with the regime and their philosophies, doesn’t mean we’re not better of having a treaty that allows us to keep nuclear arms away from Iran. It just doesn’t make sense not to try that. Sanctions aren’t working. Sanctions are working against the very people who want peace with America. Sanctions are not working with the people who don’t want peace with America because they hold the purse strings. In Iran, you have a “popularly elected” (in air quotes) leader, but anyone who runs for office has to be vetted by the Supreme Leader, who is the religious fanatic. So the “popularly elected leader,” the most moderate one who was able to run, won. It was very high voter turnout, higher than we’ve ever had in the US. It’s an engaged, young, educated, aware country of people who want change. The fact that they voted for him, that doesn’t mean that he has the power he needs. His hands are tied behind him to a large degree as well. But that sends a message to countries like us that that’s what they want in there. So if we want stability there and we want a sea change for the better within Iran, we have to do the things, we should do the things that will bring about that change without our going in there. If you looked at celebrations in Iran when this was announced, people were taking selfies of themselves and their TV’s when Obama was speaking.

I haven’t been to Iran in a long time, but I did go back a bunch of years ago, and [Mohammad] Khatami was President, and I was in the bazaar, the hub of the religious strength — it’s always been the religious center of Tehran. I’m walking the bazaars, and this kid came to sell gum, and I only had some big bills with me, I didn’t have anything small. I said “listen, I’m going into this store, I’m going to break this bill, and then I’m going to come. I’d love to buy gum from you.” But he said “but ma’am ma’am, please, please, will you buy some gum from me, and I will pray to God that you get a visa to go to America.” So to him, like the ultimate existence was to be able to get a visa and come here. It’s really important for you, as the youth in this country, as the future leaders, to understand that, just like you have your dreams, and you want your things, that the youth in Iran are like that. The youth in Iran are not trying to bear arms and come kill Americans. They would love to get a visa, and come here, and get an education, and work here. Backgammon, polo, red wine, domestication of goats, geometry, check writing, these things came from Iran. It’s an old culture. It’s a culture where wine would flow freely, with poetry, and art, and music. It’s not a warmongering culture in any way, shape, or form. I think it’s important, before making decisions on how people feel about Iranians and what’s going on in there; I think it’s important to learn a little bit about the culture as well.

Do you think that the deal will actually block the nuclear weapons ambitions of the religious extreme right?

That’s where the complexity of it comes in. I can’t say, unequivocally, that it will block it. But I can say that, from what I’ve read so far, it will certainly delay it by at least ten years, and it certainly puts us on the right path. It isn’t going to make the situation worse. It’s going to give us more access, more inspections. We reduce their plutonium storage. I can’t say it’s going to stop it, but I can say that I would prefer seeing massive slowing down than nothing. Are we saying that all we’re willing to do is have it continue as is, or absolutely stop it? In that case, we would never have peace treaties. These are about compromise.

When the deal was announced, were you surprised that Iran and the Western nations were able to come to an agreement on this issue?

I can’t say I was surprised. I think for me, my first reaction was a very nervous reaction, because I really, truly believe in following diplomatic routes as much as possible. So I think at first, and even now, I’m very cautiously optimistic. So I wasn’t surprised, but it’s like I want this peace so badly, I want to see Iran open up to the West, and the West towards Iran. It’s such a beautiful culture, such a great population, good people, good food, good tourism, amazing ancient sites. You can go from the deserts in Central Iran, to the North, where it’s lush and green, where there’s the Caspian Sea and caviar, and there’s skiing. There’s no reason for Iran not to be engaged with the rest of the world. So for me, I want that so badly, that I have to really keep myself in check, and keep myself from getting really excited about a peace treaty happening. What I worry about the most is that people go for rhetoric. I worry a lot about people hearing some commentator on TV who hasn’t even really read through an analysis of the agreement making some kind of blanket comment and believing it. So my hope is that, just like the youth there are going beyond the rhetoric they’re being fed and getting information online, my hope is that the younger generation here would do the same. Don’t just look at US media, which does have a more skewed view than you see elsewhere, so maybe look at what BBC is saying, what the Guardian is saying, what Al Jazeera is saying. It’s just interesting to look at the angles from different countries.

Some Iranian Americans have been very critical of this deal and have been protesting against it. What would your response to one of them be?

I haven’t even thought about that. My response to that would be that you’re missing an empathy chip as an Iranian American for all of the young Iranians in Iran. For the fact that there’s a 25% unemployment rate. For the fact that the majority of the population was born after the revolution and don’t have a bone to pick with the former government. The fact that they are willing to see something as important as a nuclear treaty, a peace treaty fail because of their hatred for the government — don’t get me wrong, I do not believe in church and state, government and state mixing in Iran or here — it’s shocking to me that any Iranian American would say that [they don’t support the deal], that they wouldn’t want to try it. Why would you stick with a status quo that’s not working without trying something that could possibly work? At the very least, we know if [the deal] goes [through] on the path that we’re being told, [Iran’s nuclear weapons program] cannot advance for 10 years. So why not give that a shot? It just doesn’t make sense. So I would definitely tell them to get in touch with their empathy chip.