October 16, 2001

* Nothing better

Mr. Sajjadi's article ["Nefrine Budha"] does not seem to know where it wants to go. On the positive side it does serve adequately as a rather pedestrian and unoriginal guide to the rise of Islamist politics in the Middle East, at the level of a first-year undergraduate paper. And this is precisely what is wrong with this paper. For someone who prefaces his article by belittling those he deems unfamiliar with the complexities of world politics, Mr. Sajjadi's article betrays very little insight.

First let me start with the articles factual shortcomings. Mr. Sajjadi apparently believes that the coup against Allende in Chile was a model for the coup that overthrew Mossadeq's government. The problem here is that Allende was overthrown in 1973, twenty years after the anti-Mossadeq coup d'etat. Maybe the Americans have a time machine somewhere.

Another assertion made in the article is that the 1953 coup in Iran is the most significant event in the Middle East in the past sixty years. this may be true, as long as you ignore the establishment of Israel and the Islamic Revolution in Iran, both of which heralded a new era in the modern history of the region. The 1953 coup was simply a bid to preserve the status quo.

The above may be considered mere details compared to the articles more substantial problems. Mr. Sajjadi seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand he implies that the events of September 11th were perpetrated by unspecified anti-Islamic/anti-American actors. On the other hand his whole article is a de facto rationalization of why the rage caused because of American policies in the region may explain the terrorist acts. Never mind that the prime suspects have all but taken responsibility for the murder of the thousands of people. Never mind that they have followed up by advising Muslims to avoid planes and tall buildings. Perhaps this is one of those cases of the complexities hidden in international politics that people like me just cannot understand.

Most of all though I object to the article's conclusion: That America should retire from the international scene and let more experienced hands run world politics. Not that this isn't a mind-bogglingly brilliant directive. My problem is that Mr. Sajjadi has left us hanging. Who precisely does he have in mind? The "old hands" (The British) do not qualify since they seem to be suffering from the inadequacies of Tony Blair who is merely parroting the Americans. And what if the Americans prove to be a bit reluctant to leave international politics? Or worse what if they take Mr. Sajjadi's advice to heart and just give up and retreat into their own fortress, closing their market to oil from the Middle East and goods from Europe and Japan?

America has made a great many mistakes. That is what great powers do. Problem is I haven't seen a practical model that would offer the world anything better.

A. Shahmolki

* Standing united for ONCE

Choghok,

Salaam arz meekonam.

I saw your letter "Super-human leaders" and I was blown away by what you said. Mostly because you worded PERFECTLY everything I had been thinking! I attempted to put into words the same message, but I felt I came across way to critical and somewhat negative.

I must admit, I too am guilty of this trait. I am very heavily in the camp you describe as "nationalists" and much like you describe, I feel that others who do not share my strong belief are very misguided. As I've grown up, I may not feel that sentiment as passionately as I used to. But to a lesser degree, I do still feel it.

Maybe if we as a people were to stop hoping for a miracle like Cyrus to rise up and save us again, we wounldn't be as disappointed as we have been for the past several hundred years. Maybe if we instead looked to ourselves, and for ONCE stood united in trying to work together, we'd get much farther much faster than any leader from any of the camps you mentioned could ever dream of taking us.

Here's to hoping.

Regards,

Shervin Amoukhteh

* Eradicate Arab influences? Nonsense

I always get an itch when I see supra-nationalistic pieces of writing as the one written by Mr IR ["Eradication of Arab cultural influences"]. I understand the frustrations. They are deep, due to the Islamic inquisition under which Iran is living for more than 23 years despite the fact that Iranians are fighting to preserve and enhance their culture and identity. But in no way can we advocate an eradication of Arab cultural influences. What is this bullshit?!

Which country can live without spirituality. There has been a perversion in the conduct of religious clerics who took over political power in Iran. We cannot advocate the eradication of Islam or Arabic influence which goes back to more than a 1000 years. You know very well that Iran has not lost its identity and has managed to conserve its Iranian identity and language. We may not like the mollas, even if some are quite open-minded and not bloodthirsty fanatics as Khomeini or Khalkhali were.

We have to look back at our pre-Islamic past with pride, like Europeans like to refer to ancient Greece in which they quite justifiably see the sources of modern democracy, or in Rome for the foundations of republican laws. However those who advocate a purification of the language from any Arab influences are fighting in vain. Kasravi tried to do so, in a period when Iran was under Western influence and wanted to establish an extremely pure Persian language. This is an interesting literary approach but in no way a reference. Latin influences are recognized in European languages, and we have to acknowledge that Islam, be it through imperialistic means did contribute to Persian literature and science and vice-versa. That doesn't mean hey guys we are all a wonderful lot lets embrace each other and refuse polemics on our cultural heritage.

Fanatics, be them Islamic or other, advocate a culture which is autocratic. No culture can enhance, and prosper on those lines. We all know what the Nazi's advocated. They were wrong and lost. What we can challenge is to try to understand the roots of fanaticism in the practice of Islam. The notion of "Jihad" for example as the crusades among Christians. Fortunately Europe and the U.S. seem to want to avoid the "Clash of civilizations" as some extremists wanted to spread. The danger is clear and present but it is not the case yet and hopefully won't be in the future but that is another debate.

On a final note be proud of your cultural heritage, and critical, but don't advocate eradication. What is this nonsense? I don't know you Mr. IR but your staunch views can only lead to more divisions among Iranians and must be disregarded because they are contrary to the democratic values inherited since the times of Cyrus the Great but also the 1906 constitutional revolution.

Regards,

Darius Kadivar

* Beats me!

There is a rather interesting report on political "ballet" between the USA and Iran in NY Times titled "Iran Said to Agree to Help U.S. With Rescues. Word for word it underlines the lack of principle and "politics as usual" that has earned the United States a reputation as a Machiavellian superpower.

Perhaps this whole affair is "discreet" in order to save face for the Iranian mollas. Dealing with the "Great Satan" is one issue where the ruling mollas do not wish to invoke Imam Khomeini's jargon on "drinking the jar of poison"!!

According to this report U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asks: "How did it happen that we are on the opposite side of both Iran and Iraq?" Beats me! I would have thought that maybe the democratic and humanistic principles championed by the USA would have something to do with it.

Given the secrecy and "discreetness" of this "dance", I don't know if "political ballet" is the proper analogy. I think closeted political cross-dressing for an anonymous midnight "cruise in the park" is more like it!

This article appears in the very same issue of The New York Times where Rudolf Giuliani is praised for rejecting a $10 million charitrable gift from a Saudi because it had came with a cover letter! It all leads me to believe that if Guiliani were assigned to forign policy and Rumsfeld were in charge of accepting gifts, New York City would be wealthier and the USA would have more integrity.

Omid Parsi
New York

* Numb and intimidated

This is an answer to those letters asking why "we" aren't writing about the terrors and sufferings in Afghanistan. No, you are wrong.We did write in the Iranian press about the plight of Afghan people ["Limbs of nobody"], long before the horror of Sept 11. Take a look at Iranian dailies and you will find many related articles there.

We did hold photo exhibitions about the humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan in our small galleries in Tehran. We published collections of poems by Afghan women in our censor-stricken system. We made a wonderful movie about it -- "Safare Kandehar" by Mohsen Makhmalbaf (also see Moji Agha's article,"Mohsen and Bono").

And of course, we didn't commit hate crimes against Afghan refugees when the Taliban executed Iranian diplomats.We avoided getting caught in a bloody absurd war against Afghanistan at that time...We did achieve a lot...We Iranians with our crippled economy and worse democracy.

But you are right at the same time. We didn't care about Afghan people here in the U.S. as much as we did in Iran. We didn't dare to voice our sympathy as easily as we could in Iran. We even might just not know about the facts as much as we would in Iran.

You know why? Because we Iranians here out of Iran have become much more intimidated and numb towards what is going on in the world and also in our own lives, than what we would be in Iran. And it's not that we are just unable to write about Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, we are unable to write about many other issues as well, those issues that are even closer to us than the sufferings of neighboring Afghan people.

If you are in need of a lecture on modern democratic rhetoric, parallel to President Bush's daily announcements, you can easily find several lines among the articles posted to Iranian.com just on any given day. But if you are curious to know about the everyday dilemmas of Iranians (especially young immigrants and refugees) starting a strange new life in totally different cultures all over the world, their confusion, their dislocated minds and bodies, their day-to-day struggle for physical and moral survival, you wouldn't find much artistic or academic works, not even many written personal accounts (hence my marhaba to Leila Farjami for the painful awareness expressed in her poem "Shekaf").

I have been in U.S. for less than two years and I've already lived through and also seen so many strange, sometimes sad, often unique stories of being an Iranian in U.S. I am just thinking how much more there is out there and how much we prefer not to talk about -- until someday it would fall out of that Great Wall of Silence, as in the story of Leila Pahlavi.

We are not able to write, describe, express, or put into words and action our protest, disagreement and disillusionment with the ongoing demagogy. We try to be indifferent or even jealous and hateful of what other Iranians write, act, or just simply express in Iran. We don't read Iranian newspapers, we don't follow or discuss so many books and articles written or translated each year in Iran.

We don't watch movies made in Iran, and even if we do it is just to degrade, accuse and debase those directors, journalists, painters, artists, and almost anyone having anything serious to say in Iran. We accuse them of being supporters of the regime (just take a look at articles written here about Iranian cinema, Parviz Sayad's is an example). Not that we don't have the right to say those things. Sure we emigrated to the U.S. just to do that! But then when it comes to comparing what we do to protest against in Iran and what we the same people try to keep silent about here out of Iran.

I just want to quote Sartre who said, "We had more freedom during German occupation than after liberation of France."

Khashayar Beigi

* That should be admired

Dear Marry, ["Just not right"]

No one could disagree with your point that Iranian women are discriminated against in all levels of our society. Women's sport in Iran, like many other things, is a bad joke. No one should dispute the fact that Iranian women live in a male dominated society. However in my humble opinion, one should not blame women's situations on Iranian athletes.

Bodybuilding ["Ironian men"] has nothing to do with male bonding since it's not a social sport. Bodybuilding is one person's crusade against obstacles such as pain, injury, and long hours of training, exhaustion, frequent failures and disappointments.

While many Western bodybuilders are indorsed by the multimillion-dollar supplement industry and their country's sports federations financially support many European bodybuilders, Iranian bodybuilders have absolutely no financial support. Some have to hold two or three jobs to support themselves and their families.

While Western bodybuilders enjoy some of the most advanced equipment, state of the art scientific training regiments, and sports nutrition, Iranian bodybuilders train in some of the worst conditions you can imagine. As you can see in these pictures, one of the bodybuilders is getting ready for competition while training next to a clogged up and filthy toilet.

But at the same time you should not condemn Iranian male athletes who in spite of all odds still manage to surpass in their fields of athletics. While Iranian sports federation spends just about all it's budget on football, other Iranian great such as Tavakkoli, Rezazadeh, or the bodybuilding national team train in dismal and humiliating conditions and still manage to be the best in the world. These are individuals who are fuelled by the power of big hearts and strive simply for the love of the sport. That should be admired not put down.

Siamack Baniameri

* All points of view

Thank you for this unique and enlightening site. It is so important to get news from all points of view and you have been a breath of fresh air (and humor) in the dizzying race for me to understand the world's political situation.

Thank you very much.

Kaiva Dahrian

Comment for The Iranian letters section