The last paragraph of Barack Obama's statement to Iran is off in a weird way:
Iran must choose. We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for. The American people have great respect for the people of Iran and their rich history. The world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice, and their courageous pursuit of universal rights. It is time for the Iranian government to decide whether it wants to focus on the past, or whether it will make the choices that will open the door to greater opportunity, prosperity, and justice for its people.We've heard for thirty years what Iran's government is for just as much, if not more than we've heard what it is against. (And most Iranians support the Iranian government. We can just say Iran.)
Americans do not have a good way to conceptualize Iran, and it should be easy. Imagine Iran as a Christian fundamentalist state. Founded by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren or any of them. Then imagine that most of the Palestinians are Christians - that Christians were moved from their homes against their will to make way for a Jewish (non-Christian) state and are in the position the Muslim Palestinians are in today.
That's it. That's all an American needs to fully understand Iran.
A country like that passes a lot of laws that Americans disagree with, but you'd never say they only stand against things. They stand for the Bible. Disagree or agree, but they stand for peace and equality of all men before God, and mercy, decency and morality. They stand for people living their lives, and countries conducting their affairs making a constant honest effort to do so according to the rules set down by God. They only make mistakes because they as humans fail, despite their profound longing, to reach the perfection represented by God. At least that's how they see themselves, and what they'll tell you over and over and over for as long as you can tolerate being an audience for them.
The Iranian government is not that mysterious, but no supporter of Iran or its government would ever think to define Iran as being opposed to, for example, the United States. They see the United States as acting against the rules set by God, while they are for God. Every speech we hear from any member of the Iranian government, if we listen to it reasonably, is less about opposing anyone than about working to achieve justice as God desires his servants to do.
Of course most Americans have a different conception of justice and will disagree with Iran's government on a whole lot of issues, as most Americans disagree with American religious fundamentalists on a whole lot of issues. Still Americans have a large store of experience that they can use to understand Iran's government as they disagree. No American would say that they only hear what Jerry Falwell is against, never what he is for. Americans know exactly what Jerry Falwell is for.
All Americans have to understand is that is the same thing the government of Iran is for.
I hope this makes understanding Iran a little easier for Westerners, especially Americans. Most Americans have had some exposure to very religious people who believe politics should be guided by religion. Just imagine them in control of their whole own country, then make them identify with the Palestinians more than the project of Zionism and you're left with Iran.
8 comments:
Good post, Arnold.
My sister is a convert to the Christian far-right. She's also an Iranian government basher. I finally got fed up of her Fox News brainwashing and informed her that in Iran abortion is illegal, there is prayer in school and the entire social emphasis is on family values.
Now she no longer does her Iran bashing in my presence.
-Pirouz
As a matter of fact Iran IS for family planning.
Now, I believe Arnold forgot a VERY important detail. Iran is not simply religious state - it is not-imperialist one, and even could be seen as anti-imperialist. USA and Israel, on the other hand, are imperialist, and the majority of their religious right are imperialist as well. So, the difference between them and Iran is a serious one. Not mentioning, that Obama, speaking about "30 years" made it clear that Shah was OK, very nice for such democracy-loving guy, I suppose. In short, Iran is a victim of imperialism, and Obama is an imperialist and should stop his selfrighteous cermons...
I am sorry, but I doubt that the mass of Americans (esp. "whites") could understand Iran at all. They are better off by NOT understanding the Third World and simply living off it.
@Arnold
I think the comparison is compelling, but somewhat skewed,
Iran's government is religious, and perhaps fanatic in its insistence on applying Islamic law on everyone, but it would not be the same as "a Christian fundamentalist state. Founded by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren or any of them." for the simple reason: it's not racist, or imperialistic (as lidia mentioned), and Iran's foreign policy has primarily been one of independence, from the West as well as the East.
I believe that it is this desire for independence that sincerely differentiates Iranian government, Islamic or otherwise, from let’s say a government run by the “Christians” you refer to.
Let’s take the mirror of Zionists and Palestinians as you put forward as an example, whether one likes the current Iranian government or not, they Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has not, as far as I know, threatened to invade any country for the last 200 years or so (well, there was that case with Afghanistan were they supposedly considered military action against the Taliban after the Taliban killed a couple of Iranian diplomats).
IRI’s grievance with Israel is about the treatment of the Palestinians, and as they have stated many times, they are for a public and free referendum for the fate of conflict. This is a huge difference from “fundamentalist Christians and Zionists”, where the support for Zionist (and this would be true for both your “hypothetical fundamentalist government” as well as the real last couple of US governments), is basically the invasion, terror, occupation and ethnical cleansing of the indigenous people. Compare this to the “Fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran”, their stand is no more different than someone invoking “human rights” and criticizing the behavior of one group of people against another, but instead of basing such criticism on some western ideal of what human right is or not, it is rather based on the teachings of Islam.
Of course, it would be prudent to keep in mind that the stands from different governments could be political theater, but this discussion was mainly pointing out the fallacy with comparing “apples” and “oranges”. Yes, they are both “roundish” (Religious), but that is all. And I think this is one of the basic problems with the West, your experiences with fanatical Christians are not the same as, in this discussion, “fanatical Islam of the branch Shia”. Maybe this is why Islam has a considerable support amongst people in the region? Two examples that comes in mind are the high education of women in Iran made possible by the “fanatical government” (while true that at the same time women rights are debated, point being: not all evil not all good, just like any society), and the developments in sciences like stem cell research (God is cool with that according to Shia Islam).
Besides for that, like your blog, very insightful most of the time.
@lidia
What is the “third world”? How about “the West and the rest”? ;)
Iran's foreign policy dispute with the US strikes me as less broad than anti-imperialist.
Iran is fundamentally anti-imperialist. My example is that Khomeini said that there were only two nations that Iran would not talk to, Israel and Apartheid South Africa.
Israel was because of Iran's identification with the Palestinians, but South Africa was just a general anti-imperialist position. I don't see that as a strong driver of Iran's dispute with the United States though, and now post-Apartheid the issue that makes Iran's foreign policy unique, in a deeper dispute with the US than other countries is Israel.
American Christian fundamentalists identify with Zionism. I guess it is hard to imagine what they would be like if they identified just as strongly with the opposite side.
But if instead of driving out Muslims, a Zionist state had been founded by driving Christians from their homes, Christian fundamentalists would see that as an expression of evil. A Christian government would consider itself duty-bound to assist in correcting that evil.
I would, on that matter, agree with that Christian state, and consider that Christian Iranian state anti-imperialist. Especially compared to an imaginary Egypt that has a Christian population but where the US had successfully imposed relatively pro-Zionist rulership.
So my point is that Iran's anti-imperialism, in practical terms, stems in an important way from Iran's religious identification with the Palestinians.
Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a world where Iran is still Muslim, but the Palestinians are Christian. Iran would certainly oppose Zionism in that case - just on anti-imperialist grounds. But supporting the Palestinians would likely be a lower priority for the Iranian government.
"What is the “third world”? How about “the West and the rest”? ;)"
Agree
Arnold, part of Palestinans, on whose land Israel was founded Israel WERE (and still are Christians). Some of them even are Anglicans.
"Imagine a world where Iran is still Muslim, but the Palestinians are Christian. Iran would certainly oppose Zionism in that case - just on anti-imperialist grounds. But supporting the Palestinians would likely be a lower priority for the Iranian government."
Good example! And from that it would be reasonable to assume that “…Iran's anti-imperialism, in practical terms, stems in an important way from Iran's religious identification with the Palestinians”.
On the other hand I think one must also note that the existence of Israel, in its current form – a state, which other states in the nearby region must submit to – leaves Iran, if it wants to keep its independence (as I am arguing), a little if any choice but to oppose Israel, regardless if the Palestinians are Christian or what have you. Thus religion is a factor, but not the outweighing one.
Although I agree with you that their support for the Palestinians is "easier" because they are mostly Muslims (although Sunni mind you; and as lidia correctly points out, they are not all Muslims, and when we are at it, as I have understood it, Hamas is more secular than religious), I would say more importantly, because they are in the same region.
For example: Iran has been rather pragmatic towards Russia’s invasion/occupation of a Muslim country and China’s dealings with their local Muslim population (I am not so up to date on these issues).
This however only points out the fallacy in claiming Iran is driving by an independent and anti-imperialist foreign policy, when it is, by the arguments made, driven by a mostly pragmatic one. At least regarding to its support for other states. I do [have to] concede to that.
Now Israel is unique in remaining countries in the fact that the populations of the surrounding countries feel duty-bound to overthrow it.
The last similar country was, of course, South Africa and being in that position creates unique security requirements.
Israel does have a need to be dominant over its neighbors (as Apartheid South Africa did) and Iran is one of the nations Israel must be dominant over. I argue that this comes from Israel being considered essentially illegitimate in Iran.
Where this gets interesting, among other places, is Turkey. Turkey's foreign policy had until Erdogan been insulated from any democratic process but now Turkey is making a transition into a strategic threat to Israel rivaling Iran.
But before Israel did not have to dominate Turkey because Turkey was reliably, in matters that counted to Israel, tolerant of Israel as a Jewish state. (Despite the consensus of the people of Turkey - thanks to foreign policy decisions that were not made democratically.)
Israel also did not, and did not perceive a need to, dominate the Shah's Iran. (Which was openly moving towards nuclear capability - with US acquiescence at least, if not support.)
This goes to my argument that while Iran is on the right side of moral arguments when it can be, its relationship with the US is dictated more by Iran being one of the nations that does not accept the creation and maintenance of Israel as a Jewish state than by its general anti-imperialist stance.
“I argue that this comes from Israel being considered essentially illegitimate in Iran.”
It is on religious ground Iran opposes Israel, Israel responds, and any further reaction from Iran could be interpreted as a stance against Israel’s attempts to subdue Iran; whereas this situation flows from religious reasons (not by Israel being a threat to Iran)...
“This goes to my argument that while Iran is on the right side of moral arguments when it can be, its relationship with the US is dictated more by Iran being one of the nations that does not accept the creation and maintenance of Israel as a Jewish state than by its general anti-imperialist stance.”
Indeed, I think I now understand you emphasize on the religious factor. And I cannot currently think about anything to counter with.
Good arguments.
Post a Comment