About Iran…
When I read Simon Rosenberg\’s
recent blog post I ended up scratching my head. But I haven\’t been to Iran
lately (or ever), though I read a lot on the country and its current machinations on the
Middle East. I also caught Ted Koppel\’s recent piece for the Discovery channel.
But my blog pal Sean-Paul recently returned from Iran, so he has a perspective that few out here in
the blogosphere (or elsewhere), including Simon Rosenberg, just can\’t offer.
So earlier this morning, Sean-Paul of The Agonist took issue with much of Simon
Rosenberg\’s post. Here\’s an excerpt, but you really need to read the whole piece.
To Simon Rosenberg, NDN:
As you know I just returned from Iran a few weeks ago and have a decidedly
different take on the general consensus concerning Iran, and a different take
from your post.I think first, you (and many, many others) overestimate the \’cultural\’ similarities
between Iranian Shi\’a and Arab Shi\’a. I cannot tell you how many times I heard
Iranians \’dis the Arab Shi\’a as uncouth and uncilized and it was the Persians
who brought them real culture. Does the Iranian government support the Shi\’a
in Iraq? Yes, of course. But those ties are not nearly as strong as the media–and
Nasr leads people to believe. (I know Steve Gilliard is going to say, \”but
they can still cut-off our supply lines if they want.\” And he\’s right.
But that\’s a confluence of interests, not culture.)You also say something that I have a real hard time with:
One of the first acts of the revolutionary Iranian government was to end
up in a war with Iraq, a war that lasted 8 years and cost more than a one
million lives. America sided with the Iraqis in the war to help curtail
the expansion of the Iranian, Shiite-led revolution, a revolution that Saddam
Hussein, a Sunni, was very well aware could radicalize his majority Shiite
population. Shiites well remember whose side America was on in this terrible
battle.One of their first acts? Perhaps Nasr spun this in his book, or someone else,
maybe Ken Pollack? The bottom line is this: Saddam Hussein waged aggressive
war against Iran; he invaded the Iranian province of Khuzestan for the oil
at a time when Iran was extremely weak, and it\’s army divided by the revolution.
We, meaning the US, winked when he did so, gave him the chemicals to do it
and the satellite targeting data as well. Iran did not instigate the war in
any way shape or form. Your post makes it sound like they did, but they didn\’t.
Furthermore, the idea that Iran is an hyper-aggressive country needs to be
disabused and clarified because it\’s just not true. Why? Because in general
their is a tendency to see the Iranians as very aggressive people, trying
to invade other lands etc. . . that reinforces the dominant media narrative
(and the neocon narrative). Fact is Iran hasn\’t invaded another country in
over 200 years.
I\’ve never believed Iran was the bogey man Bush makes the country and its leaders out to be, regardless of how despicable they are with regard to Israel. I also emphatically do not buy the fact that they\’re two steps away from a
nuclear Kaboom!, so to speak. Besides, I find it ridiculous that we could stop them if they were close. Going to war with Iran is untenable in the extreme. Everything I know also states that the nationalism
of Iran is far more serious than most Americans appreciate. I also agree 100%
regarding Sean-Paul\’s assessment of the Persian influence in Iran. Whether reading
Bernard Lewis or some other expert on the area, Iranian history is replete with
Persian influence that changed the country\’s culture. Iran is far more complex
than most appreciate.
In fact, I\’d say the only way to truly know the country is to travel inside
its borders. Sean-Paul did that recently. I look forward to hearing more about
his trip in the New Year, as he\’ll be a guest on my radio show. It will be instructive for us all.
Comments are closed.