A trip to the Persian Gulf and East Africa last week provided me some perspective on what is happening there, particularly with regard to U.S.-Iranian relations.

Looking at U.S. media coverage of the events in Iran subsequent to its June 12 elections, compared to what I learned during my trip, convinced me pretty thoroughly that Americans are being bamboozled on the subject.

This is a predictable outcome of the fact that there are few representatives of the U.S. media present in Iran, partly because of the hostility of the environment, partly because the government kicked out most foreign reporters and partly because U.S. media are currently strapped for money to send correspondents overseas -- even to the sites of important, breaking events. Thus, the information upon which the American public is informed of developments in Iran is scanty or, worse, badly tilted.

The media's main sources of information are Iranians, some of whom have a dog in the fight.

There are at least three groups who have a reason to try to influence U.S. policy, not inform Americans of what is happening in Iran and allow them to form their own opinions on the situation.

One of these is Iranian exiles living in the United States. Some are Iranians who left when the shah was overthrown in 1979. For some of them, the best outcome of the current situation would be for the United States to intervene in Iran militarily and effect "regime change," reversing the outcome of the 1979 Islamist revolution and putting them back on top.

Their figurehead leader is the son of the late shah, Reza Pahlavi, who lives in Bethesda, Md. a suburb of Washington, D.C. All Iranians recall that in 1953 the United States and the United Kingdom intervened in Iran to overthrow the democratic government of Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh to put into power Mr. Pahlavi's father, the shah, who then ruled Iran as a glittering kleptocrat for the next quarter of a century.

The second group with the motivation to influence, rather than inform, Americans and the United States government is the Iranian government. It takes a rather doughty stance that what is happening in Iran now with respect to the elections and their aftermath is none of the United States' business. What is happening, it maintains, is fully consistent with democratic principles, or at least an Islamic version of them.

Among Iranians who are adherents of the current government and system, some would see political advantage in the United States actually taking a position on who should come out on top of their elections. There is probably no more solid gold position for an Iranian politician than to be able to argue, based on even a shred of evidence, that his rival (or rivals) is supported by America, a veritable kiss of death.

The third group with an axe to grind are the Israelis. Some of them, including probably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would like to attack Iran. Their ostensible reason is to set back Iran's nuclear program, which could develop into a threat to Israel, or at least take away from Israel its current advantage of being the only state in the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

The truly unfortunate fact is that a war with Iran, waged by Israel and supported by the United States, would so demand the attention and resources of the administration of President Barack Obama that it would no longer be able to put pressure on Israel to reach a settlement of the central, 61-year-old problem of achieving a state for the Palestinians. At war with Iran, Israel would be free to consolidate its occupation of the West Bank through settlements, checkpoints and its wall, without the Americans bothering it about achieving a sustainable Middle East peace through a two-state agreement.

With these three hearty groups laboring to see that the American public does not have an objective picture of what is happening in Iran, it is not surprising that American media are providing a murky picture of the situation. Absent an American embassy in Tehran for the past 30 years, the Obama administration also does not have access to clear, unbiased information. Prior to 1979 there was an active embassy and trade office in Tehran and consulates (branch offices of the embassy) in three other Iranian cities, Isfahan, Shiraz and Tabriz.

Now, what is going on in Iran, according to me?

What I find remarkable is the amount of political vigor that still exists there in spite of 30 years of Islamic rule, ramrodded by a range of intrusive security forces and led by a bewildering array of unrepresentative institutions, most of which are headed in part by undistinguished, older Islamic clergy. That is the story, particularly in what it promises for the future.

Unless the current regime in Tehran finds some means of easing the rigidity of the formal political process to make room for more democratic, younger political figures and forces, the next round of elections there will make the explosiveness of the protests this time seem like Pittsburgh City Council elections by comparison.

The ayatollahs are not going to let the results of the just-past elections be reversed in the streets. They cannot do that and maintain their authority. Put another way, the Iranians and the world are almost certainly stuck with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for another term.

But we all have to hope that the clerics are not stupid and that they realize it will be the fire next time if they don't open up the system to change, slowly but surely.

For the United States, what we need to do now is stop responding to the various stimuli from the various groups trying to get our ear -- the Iranian exiles, the Iranian government, the Israelis -- and, as soon as the dust has settled, establish frank, useful and mutually informative dialog with the Iranians. It will be necessary to ignore the stupid argument that to talk with them is to validate them.