Generation Gap

Regime change and Iranian-American identity

Share/Save/Bookmark

Generation Gap
by Sasan Seifikar
01-May-2009
 

One of the most interesting debates to emerge in the past month is about whether or not the US should reach out to Iran. This debate encompasses many of the controversial issues that divide the Iranian community outside Iran. But like most debates, this one is full of passion and strong feelings and sometimes the parties involved get personal and nasty with those that they take to be their opponents. In this way the debate becomes murky, confusing and often distorted. I want to clear away some of the confusion and shed some light on the issues involved in this debate and what the different sides are saying.

As a background, I begin by looking closely at Roger Cohen’s views on better relations with Iran and Obama’s recent New Year message to Iranians. I will analyze their ideas and words and I speculate about what is behind them and their significance. I will then focus on regime change and argue against it. Next I will look at how the way Iranian-Americans define themselves in the wake of 9/11 compels them to embrace regime change. I will then plead for civility in politics.

Cohen’s Suggestion

Roger Cohen who is a N.Y. Times journalist recently went to Iran and spoke to many Iranians including Iranian Jews. He has subsequently written about his trip and has started a campaign of urging the US government to engage and have a dialogue with Iran. Cohen argues that despite the regime's provocative rhetoric, those who govern Iran can be very pragmatic when it comes to politics. He gives a few examples of Iran’s actions in the international arena to support this. He points out that Iranians ended the Iraq war, have worked with Israel and the US when it suited them, and they have periodically allowed more freedoms and liberalism, even though later in some cases they have taken some of these back. He then argues that the best way for the West and in particular the US to avert Iran from developing the bomb, is to change its threatening posture towards Iran and to develop relations with Iran and in this way to take away the main justification for having it, i.e., to deter and prevent an attack by the US and the West.

Obama’s Overtures

Cohen’s proposal goes along with U.S. President Obama’s shift in policy towards Iran and his offer of an olive branch to the Iranian government. Recently Obama sent a message of good wishes to the people of the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’ for the Iranian New Year and he called for a peaceful and honest dialogue to resolve outstanding differences between the two nations which have had no diplomatic relations since 1980.

As he had promised in his campaign, Obama offered a ‘new beginning’ and extended a hand of friendship seeking to end decades of mutual suspicion and ill feelings between the US and Iran. Obama referred to Iran’s great and celebrated culture and its contributions to the world civilization and he appealed to our common humanity. He recognized for the first time the Islamic revolution and the current regime. Obama's address also signalled that his administration recognizes Iran as a potential negotiating partner. Obama said that the US wants Iran to take its ‘rightful place’ in the international community.

What was most significant about Obama’s message was that it shows a real and important rethinking and change in US policy towards Iran and in this way Obama made a decisive break with his predecessor George Bush who called Iran a member of the ‘axis of evil’ and led the charges against Iran in the international arena that it wanted to build a nuclear bomb and was sponsoring terrorism. Instead of threatening Iran, talking tough, and saying things like ‘all options are still on the table’, Obama was reconciliatory and he spoke of mutual respect.

Skepticism about Better Relations within the Iranian-American Community

As can be expected, there are those who are sceptical about the wisdom of seeking closer relations with Iran. Some Republicans and Neo-Conservatives who have supported President Bush's disastrously failed policies in Iraq and who are still incapable of even admitting that they were wrong, warn not only that nothing good will come out of being friendly with Iran, but they also argue that there is a great danger in the idea that you can have a dialogue and reason with evil. These are the people who want to bomb and occupy Iran in order to topple the current regime. They are crying wolf and they are convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and they want to stop it.

But there are also many Iranian-Americans who believe that the best way that the US administration can help the people of Iran is to rid them of their current leaders. Some Iranian-Americans fear that normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran will only strengthen the current regime and their hold on power. Some argue that Cohen is whitewashing Iran’s regime and overlooking its repression and brutality. They believe that both Cohen and Obama are at best naïve, ignorant and misguided.

Opposition to a War with Iran

The problem with these various arguments is that they overlook the fact that the main reason the administration and people like Cohen promote closer relations with Iran is that they do not want the US to have a war with Iran. The war with Iraq has cost many lives. It has drained the US economy. It has made the US a villain in the international community and it has not made the Middle East any more secure and stable. A war with Iran would be a big mistake because it would hurt the US standing even more. It would put unbearable constraints on the economy and bring more instability to the region. It would also undoubtedly bring misery and hardship to many Iranians. Arguably, in the aftermath of the war with Iraq, every conscientious American has a responsibility to look closer at the issues surrounding the conflict with Iran and not to let him/her self be lied to, scared, and fooled by the powers to be, yet again.

Cohen is against another war therefore he is trying to humanize the people of Iran and to some extent the Islamic regime. That is also why Obama’s tone is friendly and he is seeking closer ties with Iran. It is important to remember that just as demonization and the rhetoric of cultural difference promote and justify conflict and aggression, the emphasis on commonality and respectful dialogue bring people closer and facilitate peace. Cohen and Obama are certainly in no way champions of the Islamic regime or its founding principles. They are well aware of its repressions and brutality. But they want to change the perception that Iran is a totalitarian evil empire like the Nazi Germany, or the greatest danger to world peace, because on the first look, these caricatures provide good justifications and pave the way for the use of force against Iran.

Cohen is warning us against fear mongering and the view that Iranians are religious nuts with a commitment to acquiring nukes and using them for a holy war. Cohen tries to dispel this by shedding light on the richness of the Iranian culture. He also argues that the Iranian government has not been monolithic for the past 30 years and that when necessary it has been flexible. Cohen argues that Iran has some democratic institutions such as presidential elections which are genuine contests. He points out that there is some political openness in Iran and that there is also a variety of points of view along with serious debates and discussions of important issues. Moreover Cohen argues that Iran is a multi-cultural society where various ethnic and religious groups live in relative peace with each other. The main line of thinking which is behind Cohen’s ideas about Iran is that ‘they are a lot like us, so let’s talk to them’. Instead of a war between Islam and the West, Cohen is promoting a dialogue between civilizations.

Obama’s overtures are aim at giving diplomacy and engagement a chance. Obama knows that conflicts are made worse by hostility, intimidation, disrespect, and a war of words, and that they can only be resolved by talking. Respectful dialogue is not cowardly or naïve. But it is the only way to dissipate tension, build confidence and transform relationships. Talking and discussion are essential to peace building. To speak respectfully and sincerely to one’s opponents is the civilized way to approach differences of opinion. This is more than just talking, it is taking solid action. Obama acknowledges that the US and Iran have serious differences on some issues, but he thinks that some of these can be resolved through closer relations.

Obama invited Iran to re-enter the world community on the condition that it stops military build-up and meddling in the affairs of other countries by appealing to our common humanity and suggesting that there can be a new U.S.-Iranian relationship based on what the two countries and people have in common. Obama’s emphasis on our commonalities and universal connectedness was an attempt to bridge differences and to bring the two nations and their people together. His main goal was to lessen the religious and ideological splits that divide US and Iran, so that the problems of the region can be more effectively dealt with. In this way Obama signaled his desire to find common ground with Iranians and the recognition that the US and Iran need each other in order to establish long term peace in the region.

Regime Change versus Democratic Reform

Another problem with skepticism about closer ties with Iran and advocating regime change is that there is no guarantee that a regime change will bring about a better system of government in Iran. The US and other foreign powers have always first and foremost looked out for their own interest and the multinational corporations, when it comes to the Middle East. There is no reason to think that things will be different this time. Moreover, the bombardment, destruction, and looting of Iran will only strengthen the worst elements of the ruling class, both in the long run and in the short run.

Generally it is undeniable that over the past few years outside threats and intimidation have led to militarization, more security concerns and crackdowns, and a weakening of the reformist camp in Iran. In the past 30 years, the Iranian government has always been less willing to listen and take seriously the concerns and worries of the people and their wishes, and has put these in the back burner, when it is been threatened from outside. The hardliners and other worse parts of the regime such as the security apparatus use these circumstances to seize and hold power.

Another consideration is that while the regime may not be very popular, it has the backing of many Iranians from nearly all segments of society. Toppling the regime may disenfranchise these folks and end the theocracy, but then a restoration of all inclusive democracy will bring them back to fold and having been the subject of foreign enmity, they may well become more popular and win major elections. In any case, no matter how much we may dislike them, we need to admit to ourselves that the religious conservatives will always be part of the political scene in a free Iran, since many Iranians are traditionalists and religiously conservative, just as religious traditionalists are part of the political scene and a force to be reckon with in the US, the Netherlands, and many other democratic societies.

Legitimate political change in Iran can only come from the people of Iran and through supporting the reformists and beating the hardliners who are supported by the revolutionary guards and other militant groups in elections rather than with sticks and stones or by bombing. This requires a lot of work in organizing, conscious raising and winning the hearts and minds of people. This is in part how the civil rights movement in the US succeeded.

Iran is a society in transition. It is an authoritarian and repressive society, but it also has democratic institutions which make reform possible. Iran is a young democracy and much work has to be done for it to transform into a mature and advanced democracy. We ought to remember how restrictive American democracy was in its inception and take the lesson that democratic reforms can only come from within and with much struggle. But change and reform in Iran require peace and stability. They will not come about unless the US ends its threats.

Iranian-American Identity and Regime Change

A violent regime change in Iran led by foreign forces is a murderous and terrible idea, yet it has many adherents among Iranian-Americans. The reasons for this are complex but they have everything to do with the way Iranian-Americans perceive themselves and in particular their American–ness in the wake of 9/11. Reader, just in case you have not noticed because you were not paying attention, the events following 9/11 were devastating and very disturbing for Iranian-Americans.

When President Bush put Iran in the axis of evil and closely connected Islam with 9/11 by saying things like ‘they hate us because of our values’, in doing so he made all Moslems and all Iranians into the enemies within. When many Americans and nearly the entire American media (particularly the comedians) embraced these moves, the pressure on the Iranian-Americans became enormous and impossible to resist. As a result most Iranian-Americans particularly those who had never developed any political values and principles of their own, because of fear and concerns for safety, embraced wholeheartedly the neoconservative agenda, their underlying assumptions about what is happening in the world, and their threat to shut up and go along if you know what is good for you, so that they can blend with the mass and not to stand out. This can best be discribed as asymmetrical aggregation under panic conditions.

Consequently in the aftermath of 9/11 Iranian-Americans in large numbers have embraced the idea of civilization war between Islam and the West, they have distant themselves from Islam or have left it completely and many consider it along with all Moslems (in particular Arabs) as evil, many have also started to embrace the pre-Islamic culture of Iran, the late Shah, and Monarchism which had been largely abandoned as a hopeless and losing cause by most Iranian-Americans before 9/11.

Bush’s plea to American people after 9/11 to just mourn and not to be critical of American foreign policy and blame it in anyway for what happened, allowed him to define what had happened in 9/11 and to set the political agenda for how to respond to it. Then in a very loud and clear way Bush repeatedly told Americans and the world ‘you are either with us or against us’ bullying and intimidating people into submission to his will and supporting the war with Iraq and proving that authoritarian ways of government can exist side by side with democratic ways, if the contradictions between them are masked and overlooked. Bush like a tyrant was clearly signalling that there is no legitimate dissent when it comes to characterizing 9/11 and supporting the Iraq war.

What I found most strange and surprising was the way Iranian-Americans and particularly the Monarchists embraced these authoritarian ideas and ways of governing with ease. They suddenly found their form, i.e., going along with the powerful, mimicking those in authority, and policing those who do not go along. This was because many Iranian-Americans got their political mentality from living under an absolute and repressive monarchy and the only politics that ever existed under the horizon of monarchy was ‘you are either with us or against us’. But democratic politics is about discussions and debates and listening to and taking seriously the concerns and worries of many different people from a variety of different backgrounds and blind loyalty and complete submission to those in authority has no place in it.

Possibly because many Iranian-Americans are actually Iranians in America whose language skills are too poor to seriously engage in democratic politics and handle and sieve through various political opinions, disagreements and differences, they have had little choice in embracing authoritarian dichotomies because it is the only kind of politics they can comprehend and get their head around. However, what was desperately needed at the time to resist these authoritarian overtures was a little critical thinking, some political consciousness rooted in the ideas of enlightenment and the courage to stand apart, risk disapproval, and not to cave into political bullying. Only those who knew other ways of acting, being and perceiving things and doing politics had the option of saying to the president and his administration ‘I am neither with you or them and that respectfully, my ideas of what is best for the US are very different from yours,’ breaking through the narrow options that they put on the table.

The regime change and enmity towards Islam are therefore psychological responses to fear and a kind of posture to ease the concern of our fellow Americans about who we are and what are our motives. They are forms of righteous indignation and those who defend them, often do so with a lot of venom. I know Iranian-Americans who identified themselves as Moslems and did not have any major problems with Mohammad the prophet of Islam before 9/11 but now the moment they hear the name of the prophet they loudly, quickly, and publicly, hurl the most vulgar profanities at him, just to let every one around them know what their new loyalties are and with whom they stand. I know some opportunistic and rootless Iranians-Americans who were sympathetic to the left and called themselves liberals before 9/11 but who took a 180 degree change in their social, political, and cultural views and situated themselves to the right of the most rightwing Americans such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Fox News. They are born again and they are wholly and completely shaped by 9/11 and the ugly, aggressive, and mean politics that emerged from it. They are virtually unrecognizable when compared to who they were before.

I also know some Iranian-Americans who took in Bush’s suggestions about what is happening in the world not only on the political level but also on the religious level, treating the president Bush as a new Christ and a holy prophet ushering in new final truths about what we should believe and how we should perceive ourselves, others, and politics in general. Some of these people because they are so wishy-washy and fickle and always have their finger in the air would now claim that they hate Bush, not recognizing that they have not in any way lost the mindset that they took from him and that they are still in his grip, participating in his performance.

I know a few Iranian-American women who instantly became the victims of Islam after 9/11 and they began to recast any and all conflicts they have had with Iranian-American men in their family as originating in cultural difference and bad Islamic modes of being. This is because the war on Islam is really a war on Moslem men who are viewed as aggressive and mean but Iranian women are perceived as exotic victims and they can get a pass and be embraced by the majority culture in the US if they reinforce the negative perspectives on Islam and cast the men in their lives as evil and turn on them. Truly, one has to have a lot of self-worth and her own ways of finding worth and meaning in order not to succumb to bringing others down and to these self-serving invitations. What has been most disconcerting is that the monarchists then proceeded to bring these authoritarian forms of thinking and intolerance for difference of opinion into the debates among Iranian-Americans about what is best for Iran, and what does it mean to be a good American. Some of them make it their business to crush different opinions and any sign of individuality in the Iranian-American community. They suspect that their own views may well be faulty and empty, they can not bear to look at them closely, and this makes them very cruel and unapproachable. The monarchists regularly and in many different forms label those who do not mirror their view as fundamentalists and as the servant of the regime and attack them most viscously and with no sympathy. Because there are so many of them and they are not committed to a civil debate about the issues, they manage to often create an unpleasant and mean spirited atmosphere which drives away those who think differently.

Civility and Respect for Our Opponents

We Iranian-Americans must learn to respect each other and differences of opinions and we also need to remember and focus on our commonalities and not get carried away with our differences. Reader, I beg you to recall that nearly all expatriates no matter what political camps they come from reject the connecting of religion and politics, theocracy, political repression and brutality, the attack on free press, the Islamic dress codes and the crack down on those who do not pay enough attention to it, the mistreatment of Bahais, and the idea of a Supreme Leader and the Assembly of Experts. But we differ on how to bring about the needed changes. We all want what is best for Iran and we want to see Iran and Iranians to prosper and we want to see Iran become much more democratic, peaceful and stable. But we disagree on how to bring this about.

The Monarchists and the followers of Mujahedin who fought Iran along side Saddam Hussein want regime change. They think that they have legitimate grievances, so when they are confronted with their opponents, they want to use force. They want to get rid of those who rule Iran by using violence, but their views are clouded by the desire for revenge and hate. They both have great enmity towards the Islamic regime. The Monarchists had to leave in a hurry leaving behind their properties, possessions and their former social status. They are very hurt and they want restorations of their former lives. The Mujahedin participated in the revolution but they fell out with the Islamists and Khomeini and were declared to be the enemies of Islamic revolution after bombings which were linked to them. Some of them were murdered in cold blood and while they were under arrest. Others served long sentences and consequently many left Iran afraid for their lives and with the aim of changing the regime from outside. But fighting along side the enemies of Iran has made them very unpopular in Iran.

What is very interesting is that although the Monarchists and the Mujahedin see themselves as antithetical to the Islamic regime, they actually have a lot in common with them and they all embrace a number of pre-modern and backward political ideas. Just as the Islamists think of Khomeini as without any fault and worthy of veneration, the Monarchists deify the Shah and the Mujahedin do the same to Rajavi. But politics has to do with ideas and finding solutions to practical social problems, not personalities and cult-following. This cult following shows that even though the Monarchists and the Mujahedin may want to distance themselves from Islam as a religion and political Islam, they display the same religious instincts and thinking as the fundamentalists.

These instincts also manifest themselves in their attitudes towards their opponents and political differences. Islamists let the Monarchists leave Iran and they tried to get rid of the Mujahedin. They were not interested in the views of their opponents and saw them as enemies and worthless people who are going to hell. Both the Monarchists and the Mujahedin also paint with broad brushes and see themselves as the children of light and see their opponents as in the grip of darkness. When there is no civility and desire for peace, then people can only think of why they must hate their political opponents and their mind just can not access reasons for treating them with a certain amount of respect that is due to every human being.

But we need to learn to be tolerant of difference of opinions and perspectives and to treat the mullahs and their types not as enemies but as our opponents, restrict our enmity to their ideas and political views, and then engage these views, show why they are bad ideas, and beat them at the polls. It is up to us, not to the US. The Monarchists and the Mujahedin seem to think that politics is about sitting in front of mirror and agreeing with yourself. But politics is about debating and discussing the concerns and worries of all the parties involved and hashing out a compromise. This is so even when those who we disagree with have a completely different social, political and cultural background than us and appear very different and even in some way threatening and weird. Politics without discussions and debates between various groups and listening to them is not politics; it is certainly not democratic politics. We also need to be realistic and acknowledge that the clerical regime is here to stay and it is not about to go away. Any change in Iran is going come from within and in this context. But who knows just how far the reforms can go, once they begin in earnest.

The Emerging Generation Gap

One of the problems with seeing one’s Iranian-American identity in terms of distancing ourselves from Iran and Islam is that it does not work very well, it is often ineffective, and it is not convincing. No matter how much you distant yourself from them, you will be seen as one of them and belonging to them, especially when there is conflict and others are thinking badly of you. Moreover think of the psychological and moral damage that denying who you are in order to melt in with others can do to you in the long run, i.e., loss of personal identity and authenticity, and the surrender of personhood.

A better strategy may be not to demonize Iran and Islam but to defend them as not being entirely evil. It should not be difficult to see that this does not mean embracing the regime or Islam. We are likely to be treated better by Americans and feel better about ourselves, if the idea of a civilization war between Islam and the West gives way to a dialogue, exchange, or compromise between civilizations, if the US and Iran have better relations, and there is peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This road is of course much more difficult and challenging than blind submission to the views of the powerful which is too easy. It is about changing the world rather than lazily asking others to do the work for us. We must ask what does this demand of me and learn to make great demands of ourselves, instead of passing the buck and shifting responsibility. We must get involved rather than just be spectators.

I think that with the election of Obama, in this context a new generation gap is starting to emerge between older Iranian-Americans who favour regime change and demonizing the regime and Islam and younger Iranian-Americans who want normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran and removing the sanctions. I am with the later group who are less angry and more open-minded than their parents.

-Rotterdam, Netherlands

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Sasan SeifikarCommentsDate
Half and Half
1
Jul 11, 2010
Black Pelicans
-
Jun 01, 2010
Heaven and Hell
1
May 12, 2010
more from Sasan Seifikar
 
Farah Rusta

Baronnes Afshar is a symbol of Iranian hypocricy

by Farah Rusta on

Watch how a self-confessed Marxist takes an oath of allegiance, using a Quran, to the queen of England as the first Muslim(!!) female peer in the House of Lords.

This is hypocricy at its most vulgar.

FR


Darius Kadivar

FYI/First Iranian Woman named Baroness in House of Lords (bbc)

by Darius Kadivar on

First Iranian Woman named Baroness in House of Lords (bbc) Interview on BBC Persian:
  //www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tv/2008/12/000000_ptv_hardtalk.shtml
 
  Related Article:

default

Get rid of Islam and akhoond

by Rok goo (not verified) on

as long as akhoond and Islam are in Iran and they are in bed with Como,there would be no democracy no human rights,no economy,no pride.
I like to see
1-bombing mecca on haj days
2-bomb Iranian majles ,sepah pasdaran and and seyed Ali khamene home
3-arrest and chain all mullahs.
4-arresting and confiscating their asset of all those who invest in Dubai.
then may be Iranian wake up and do something to rebuild the country.


default

Great Essay!

by GuessWho... (not verified) on

I think you are much smarter and substantially more articulate than your critics. This was one of the most informed perspective I've read on this site. I wish there were more talented people like you in our community.


default

MIXED FEELINGS USA & IRAN...

by THE PERSIAN (not verified) on

I have mixed feelings about the article, which reflects on my true feelings about continuing living here in America. I commend the eloquence manifest in your mature writing style overall, but disdain came over me with regard to the words a 'young democracy' and other references to imply that 'most' Iranian Americans want 'regime change'.
My points are as follows:

America is NOT the "ideal" in general. America is actually now in many ways, an extremist culture itself. Extreme liberalist, sexual-oriented, do as you please, and to hel! with everyone else kind of arrogance. It has for years in the making become one of the RUDEST, MOST SELF CENTERED CULTURES on the planet. It has changed for the worse when it comes to family, such as increasing divorce, fewer marriages, emphasis on pleasure, teen pregnancy, STD's, and is literally one of the most VIOLENT countries in the world. Democracy itself is a wonderful idea, and often has great benefits. But it is not the ONLY form of government. It is not the 'best' form, it is one of many. While the Iranian government has plenty of issues that need to be changed for the better, please do not assume that its goal should be to emulate America, to become like America. Other cultures or forms of government are not failed attempts at being you, as I like to say from a famous cliche. And truly, we could use some 'tarof' here just to make going to public places more pleasant. Americans have plenty to learn from Iranians/ Iranian-Americans. Politeness lubricates social transactions and reflects on character. How often (%) do you see polite people these days in "America, the greatest"?
As an Iranian-American myself, after only living in Iran as a child and visiting Tehran as recently as last autumn, I would have to argue that for me personally, it has become a pivotal point of asking the question: Do I want to be with my own people, despite some suffering, or do I want to be in a land where the majority of people here (not all, but most) react as if I am Osama himself when it is inadvertently discovered that I am Iranian? How much hurt do I take before it is too painful? 100 times? 1,000 times? I once had a lady tell me she was shocked I was Iranian and she said "But you're so nice!" People here give me and my friends dirty looks if anyone wears a headscarf. In Iran, it is a good thing to be Persian/Iranian. In America, they treat you without dignity or respect. These experiences, coupled with the US government basically emphasizing how Iran should do what they are told (ridiculous) as if the US is the 'parent', all make me feel that I am living in enemy territory, where I am not welcome anyway and paying taxes to a military giant that may one day drop a bomb on my family in Tehran and think nothing of it. Am I supposed to feel proud of myself for staying here?
It is good to have 'freedom', and yes, Iran right now has some issues. But so does America. In the USA, for example (my own personal experience), a man can look at graphic pornography of genitals and sex acts at a PUBLIC LIBRARY where there are families a few feet away on the computers/internet. When I complained to the library staff I was told "This is a free country, he has rights to look at whatever he wants". What kind of mentality is that? Some people here would say, 'if you don't like it, don't look at it', but obviously it is too late to turn one's head and the images are forced into the mind. Disgusting.
Many Americans are against war, and many are wonderful human beings. There are good and bad people everywhere, including Iran. But the American military IS THE AGGRESSOR, THE RAPIST, THE INVADER...EVERYONE IS SICK OF IT. The IRI government seriously doubts Obama's words because they know the objective and goal of the American government is to procure OIL due to the upcoming global crisis over it. If you had a neighbor who burglarized your other neighbor, just how much would you trust him if he asked to come over for 'tea'? Can you blame them for being 'paranoid'? And is it really 'paranoia' if it already, actually happened to 2 neighboring countries?
The US government should stop thinking in terms of what it can 'get' from Iran, and ACCEPT that to have TRUE INTEGRITY it must play fair, such as accepting that it needs to be more willing to just 'buy' oil, not STEAL IT. Also, withdraw ALL TROOPS from Iraq, for example. Words are meaningless. Actions mean everything. Actions reveal truth. When it comes down to it, a flag means nothing. A giant piece of land with a name means nothing. What does mean something is PRINCIPLE, and you have to ask yourself, regardless of political lines, who is actually inflicting chaos and who is not.
America has many great things about it, but so does Iran. It is difficult to be from 'both countries', but the weigh scales shift to one side when the people here act cruelly and ignorantly, when the government here also seems to be constantly creating a selection of options that include everything under the sun except for the one that would actually create harmony: Be honorable, be true friends, with Iran. Any deceit will be detected by IRI. If they genuinely address previous injustices, what a beautiful friendship it could be. But why would you become submissive to a bully? Obama needs to be 100% empathic...imagine he is Iranian, how would he be feeling, and act accordingly. Other people and nations have rights, too. People should be treated with respect, if you want them to respond. Is that so difficult?!? And another thing, it is ridiculous how many Americans have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, such as lumping the Taliban with Iran...are they kidding?!? The Taliban hate Iranians, and hate Shias. It's crazy how they have no idea that they literally, have no idea. And if you try to explain anything to them they seem unreceptive to 'real' information. As if they enjoy being ignorant? And why do Europeans call this the 'dumbest country on earth'??? It seems to have 30% intelligent Americans, 70% trashy scum. Honestly, that's what it seems like!
Iranian Americans that have shed their Iranian identity completely, I feel pity for. They sold out for a 'fun' time of free sex, booze, and 'do as you please' mentality here. I don't even count their opinions about Iran if they have no loyalty or love in their hearts for their 70 million cousins in Iran or their families and values. It has nothing to do with Islam either.
Surely my essay is not as organized as I would like it to be, motas'sefam. At this point in my life, I am just tired of wasting energy in a place that rejects Iranians, and I just want to go home to the Motherland. If others are happy here, in this beautiful and pretty theater called America, good for them. But I know of others who, like me, are tired of trying to have family values here. Let them stay or leave, whatever makes you happy.


default

The misconducts of IRI is

by Dariush (not verified) on

The misconducts of IRI is not a credit to Monarchy system which is fundamentally undemocratic.

The good other kings in Iran or any other country have done is no credit to Pahlavis who were nothing more than vegetables. Who were planted in and pulled out whenever, east or west decided to.

The monarchies argument is that shah didn't kill tens of thousands, he just kill 1,300 during the 25 years kingdom. I like to hear the verdict to this defence in a court of law. However, I think they would have killed much more than IRI has, if they knew they might lose the power for ever.

Based on this argument, monarchies think they have the right to rule Iran again. Who they want to be the ruler? The grandson of a dictator and a nokar to the British and son of a dictator and a nokar to America.
One, who himself has been promoting war against Iranians. One, who is an accomplice to billions of dollars stolen by his father and grandfather from Iranians.

What is their slogan? " You get out!, You fight!, You die! so we can rule."


Sasan Seifikar

A response

by Sasan Seifikar on

 I thank you all for your comments.  

Dear Mort Gilani,  

It is easy and convenient to locate evil in a particular religion or nation, but politically this can lend support to civilization wars and provides justification for eradication of evil and perpetual war on Moslem nations. It can also mean not being critical of superpowers and ourselves.  

I think that it is possible to be critical of Islam without thinking that all Moslems are evil. It is also possible to think that the regime is oppressive without assuming that it is the most dangerous nation in the world or supporting regime change. These distinctions are important and they are not contradictions.  

Dear hossein.hosseini, 

In my discussion of Iranian-American identity, I do not assume to be capturing the entire identity of every Iranian-American and all its nuances. I am interested in how Iranian-Americans define themselves after 9/11 and I am pointing to some strong trends which affect many of them, such as, rejecting Islam, accepting the idea of a war between civilizations, embracing the pre-Islamic culture of Iran, supporting regime change, and the resurgence of Monarchism. 

Some of these views belong to the American majority culture, such as seeing cultural and religious differences as the source of global conflict, along with fear and suspicion towards Islam, and proving and displaying our American patriotism by publicly showing our willingness to see Moslem nations bombed. But others are unique to us and hard to miss.    Note that my focus is regime change and this is the context within which I am looking at Iranian-American identity. This is why I focused on the particular groups which have had long standing positions on this issue and not every Iranian-American group and segment of society.  

Note also that I am an Iranian-American who is living abroad. But you seem to want to dismiss my views and conclusions for that reason alone and imply that they come from watching Satellite TV. Why not instead pick through them, pin point some of them, and try to show me why I am wrong and where I have gone wrong? Then maybe we can go back and forth discussing them, until we reach some kind of understanding or perhaps come closer on some issues. What are your views on how our identity has been shaped by 9/11, the way it was perceived, and other mainstream cultural currents?  Finally, and not surprisingly, the very same dynamics exist here in the Netherlands where in some circles Iranians are identified as the ideal minorities for their chameleon like ability to adopt and reflect the views and the fears of the majority culture.  

Dear Raminnoo, 

You write that you stopped as soon as you read this line: "Iran is a young democracy." But you missed the lines immediately preceding it. ‘Iran is a society in transition. It is an authoritarian and repressive society, but it also has democratic institutions which make reform possible’. I think that this contradiction can be resolved, if there are no outside threats and the reformers are allowed to lead the nation.

But you seem to deny that change from within is possible. However I think that most impartial observers of Iran would not deny that there are reformers in Iran or that Iran has not been monolithic in its culture, society and laws in the past 30 years. There are currently certainly more open political discussions and disagreements in Iran than they were during the Shah’s regime.

 You write that my essay is biased and a propaganda piece. I am biased towards peace and civility and those are the values which I am promoting here. I think that if anyone were to start with these values and a commitment to talking to one’s political opponents and not to wanting to get rid of them, then this person would end up reaching some of the conclusions which I have drawn.  

Best to you all, Sasan Seifikar 

 


Darius Kadivar

FYI/May Day Arrests in Tehran

by Darius Kadivar on


Darius Kadivar

FYI/ BOOK ON VEVAK PUBLISHED !

by Darius Kadivar on

New Book in French on the Islamic Republic's Secret Services VEVAK has just been released in France. The Author, Yves Bonnet was head of the DST, France's Secret Services. Editor: Timée-éditions, 453 pages, 19 euros. It is available on Amazon.fr 

More Here:

//iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/vevak-iris-secret-services-denounced-french-book-be-released-april

 


Darius Kadivar

FYI/Ahmadinejad in Khark Island called a Liar by People

by Darius Kadivar on

Ahmadinejad in Khark Island Booed at by People


Darius Kadivar

VOA are Collaborators ? ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

I did not know that JJ was friends with such Traitors ...

//iranian.com/main/albums/deh-e-amrikaie

LOL


default

Islam is for Arabs!

by raminP (not verified) on

Iran is NOT a true muslim country. We're the most fraudulent muslims on the face of the planet, and the phoniest. A great many Iranians drink alcohol, do NOT pray in Arabic like a parrot, we gamble, we eat pork, we sing and dance and love life (as opposed to death = Islam). We are, indeed, muslim only in name, and nothing else.

That's because Islam is nothing more than bedouin balderdash and desert fairytales!

Iran will be rid of this Arab cancer soon enough!


gol-dust

Very thoughtful article! Monarchist,VOA collaborators patriotic?

by gol-dust on

I still don't understand how some people join VOA as it is cool! VOA is only interested in reoccupying Iran! And these people are helping US to do that. Is this patriotic? If US wants to have normal relations with Iran, they dont' need VOA. Mollahs are not going to leave this way! They are staying instead, since you are giving them a reason to stay! 

Most Iranians I met on my last trip, they either liked Ahmadinejad or didn't. However, their problem was not with Islam, it was with those in charge who abuse the religion. Iran is a moslem country whether we like it or not, but ruling in the name of Islam is wrong, since they are trashing islam. Islam and government should be separated. However, this should be achieved through reform, not revolution! There won't be another revolution.


Maryam Hojjat

Ridiculous article!

by Maryam Hojjat on

you are saying 'Iran is  young democracy" Is it?

putting monorchist & mojahedian in same level is absurd.!

IRAN  becomes a free country when Iranians rid themselves and their country from Islam & Akhoonds.

Payandeh IRAN & Iranians


default

Most Truthful

by Dariush (not verified) on

This is probably one of the most truthful observations I have read on this site, With the exception of Iran being a young democrocy. I understand your comparison of a republican system to a monarchy system, but I agree that today, there isn't much difference between the two in Iran.

I hate to say this, but two of Iran's major problems have been "Traitors and Kissers". Naturally, they do not admit to that and use other reasons for their behavior.

Many still do not understand that when a political majority wins, the political minority shouldn't bomb the majority and the majority shouldn't take the minority hostage and take their rights.

War promoters hate Iranians for the revolution. If they get the chance they will execute Iranians in millions. They push for war because the war will do the job for them in mass quantity as they wish and they will have less to execute.

Dear sasan seifikar, I apologize for misbehavior of a few on this site. Please don't cut your writings so short. We love to read more of your analysis and opinion in the future.
Regards,


Darius Kadivar

You Probably Mean Generational CRAP ? ...

by Darius Kadivar on

MKO and Shahis are alike Eh ? 

Where did you see Monarchists Burn themselves For King and Country in Public ?  like the MKO followers who did this precisely in Paris, Berlin etc ...

Living in Netherlands you surely know what we mean by A Constitutional Monarchy as Opposed to an Absolute Monarchy don't you ?

When did you see Iranian Monarchists commit a Terrorist Act in the past 30 years of existence of this terrorist Islamic Republic's existence ? The Most physically violent Action undertook by the Monarchists in the past 30 years in opposition to the IRI was to highjack an Iranian Gunboat Tabarzin in Spain in protest. It was a Boat that was to be delivered by France to Iran due to a contract signed during the Shah's Era. Not only did they free all the passengers but no one was killed and the worst they did was raise the Shiro Khorsheed Flag in honor of the Imperial Era. They finally delivered the boat to French authorities on grounds that they did not intend to hurt the Iranian Army At War with Iraq. In addition this was a military operation against a Military entity. The MKO not only fought their fellow Iranians but also were initially part of the most Staunchest supporters of the REVOLUTION and Born From its Womb.

That was NEVER the Case of Monarchists. The Respect that the Monarchists have for Reza Pahlavi is equivalent to any other monarchist movement in Europe as was with Juan Carlos in Spain or other Royal families in Europe. It is Not Cult Driven in that the respect is for the Institution/Constitution that he is supposed to embody and Not himself. If he dies or something unfortunate happens anyother family member will do. Because that is the nature of all monarchies. They are defined by a family. Otherwise you may well leave the Netherlands to begin with since your nation is also an Oligarchy in shape and form. In A Constitutional Monarchy, the Oligarchic nature is simply symbolic and cannot interfere in the political sphere unlike in an Absolute Monarchy ( which is actually what we have today in Iran but where the King is the Velayeteh Fagih). What drives Constitutional monarchists is the institution in what it symbolizes and not the figurehead. You can think that it is ridiculous or obsolete but then so is any other national Symbol including the Sun and Lion Flag which most Iranians brandish nearly everywhere in the Diaspora as being theirs as opposed to the Forked Arab Emblem on our Tri Color Flag today.

In the end its about what VISION you have for your country and people. I find that the one defended by the Constitutionalists that is equally Secular Republicans and Constitutional Monarchists ( in the European Democratic definition of the Word: King or Queen Reigns But does not Rule) as perfectly respectable.

Funny how your article seems to rally all the Regular Anti Monarchists :

OSTAAD + capt_ayhab + Dear Old Abarmard Jaan ( The Only of the three I respect because he at least speaks with a Real Identity and identifiable face for which he proves to be at least partly accountable for his opinions unlike the other two Bold anonymous Avatars ... ) ;0)

Here is Monsieur KHATAMI's Defintion of  An  ISLAMIC DEMOCRACY ( HE NEVER DELIVERED BY THE WAY). If You Like this IRI Apologist Well what can I say : NOOSHEH JAAN !

I prefer to remain loyal to the Legitimate Heir to the Peacock Throne by Patriotism rather than submit myself to the manipulation of another smily face of the Turbaned Dynasty IRan has become ...

Below NOT EMBEDDED Unlike Your Reformist Hero Khatami So as Not to Shock Your Delicate Eyes  

PRINCE REZA PAHLAVI'S INTERVIEW WITH FRANCE 24 (feb 09, 2009) PART I

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvWq-S1VDQ

PRINCE REZA PAHLAVI'S INTERVIEW WITH FRANCE 24 (feb 09, 2009) PART II

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-mCUdoZQGs&feature=related

If that makes us Fanatics simply because we propose a different vision, democratic Alternative and platform for a country we love and cherish as much as you guys.

Well SO BE IT !

Correct me if I am Wrong but what do you say when your King or Queen Dies in Netherlands ? :

De Koning is Dood LANGE LEEF DE KONING

aka

The King is Dead ! LONG LIVE THE KING !

So do We Iranian Constitutional Monarchists !

Best,

DK

 


capt_ayhab

Nice article

by capt_ayhab on

Although I might not agree with all the points author is making, but I enjoyed reading it nonetheless.

I do  strongly agree with the point you made and stressed by Ostaad. ["What is very interesting is that although the Monarchists and the Mujahedin see themselves as antithetical to the Islamic regime, they actually have a lot in common with them.]

If and when a group of people, under any excuse what so ever, joins the enemy of Iran, and partakes in attacks on their own country are the worst kind of traitors.

Actions like these bring about court marshal in every other country, however OUR Shahollahi's and Mojahedins see it as a nationalistic action when they cause death of their countrymen by joining the aggressors force.

Thanks for your article.

-YT


default

Landanneshin, well said but...

by Ex-LandanNeshin (not verified) on

You are absolutely correct about the majority of Iranians here in the US (well at least in S. CA) Most came here for no good reason. I don't think they even thought of themselves as important, but rather hoped this posture of voluntarily exile would bestow some importance upon their otherwise pathetic lives which they now continue abroad. But as sadly true and disheartening as that may be, the reality is that 30 years later, there is now a first generation of Iranian-Americans...much brighter I am happy to say than those who conceived them. They have the love for the motherland but tend to not give themselves the right to be decision makers any more than they would with regard to any other foreign policy of their homeland, the US. So I guess what I'm saying is that there's hope? Hope that the new generation will play a respectable role in influencing not only the fate of the land of their ancestors but of the world? Let's hope so!
I'm not sure how much more stomach-turning I can take from my Los Angeles-neshin brothers and sisters.
And BTW, that which prevents the ' aabe khosh as galoo payeen raftan' is not guilt. It is the deadly combination of greed and ignorance.


Abarmard

Interesting approach

by Abarmard on

I do agree with most of your points made here. It is true that demonizing Iran will also demonize Iranians in the US regardless of their political views. It is also true that we don't have experience with democracy and perhaps in the infancy stage of socially understanding the concept.

Thank you for taking the time and putting this piece together.


default

Absolute Must Read: Obama's

by lever (not verified) on

Absolute Must Read:

Obama's letter to Iran:
//www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/05/01/...


default

Wise up Irano-Americans

by Landanneshin (not verified) on

It is indeed a puzzle on a grand scale to many people outside the US as to what make the ethnic Iranians living among peoples of many different and diverse backgrounds to act as they do!

My personal view is that it must be in the nostalgic'Chaie' they drink!! otherwise, what would make them within a nation of thousand migrated tribes to,on one hand, rediscover their dignity and personality in having a near orgasmic sensation when waving the Star and Stripes, and on the other, keep on ordering the Iranian people how to think or run their lives?

This perpetual'Foozooli' must be peculiar to the Americo-Iranians! because they just never let go! You won't find this behaviour among Americo- Italians or Chinese or, the largest of them all, the Americo-Irish.

If you believe that you've found your promised land in 'Yengeh Donya' be happy and as the old English proverb goes:"live and let live"

But unless of course, you carry a guilty feeling in you that won't let you even have " a glass of water down your throat in peace".

The author speaks of a generation gap. I have no doubt that many Iranians, now in their old age, who thirty years ago,for no appareant reason but perhaps a touch of self importance or self delusion, dragged their family and children out with them to the US,will have some explaining to do.

No wonder that now that 'their' new political leader says we want to be friends with the Islamic Republic of Iran (the arch enemy until four months ago)they feel like a true 'Farib khordeh va raha shodeh.'

I suspect those who fled Iran for better days but didn't find gold mines in the deserts of California, were hoping that someone like George W Bush could provide them with a 'Aberoomandaneh' one way ticket back to Iran.

But now the prospect looks dim, all they have is those banal and decrepit TVs that- excuse my language, have been masturbating to the same old tune for thirty years, and face their grand children's hard questions.


default

Are you kidding yourself????

by Raminoo (not verified) on

The ONLY good thing about this monstrosity of an article is that it is so ridiculously long that very few people will take the time to read its categorically biased conclusions.

I stopped as soon as I read this line: "Iran is a young democracy." Are you kidding me???? Again, and louder: Are you kidding me?!!! If Iran is a democracy, then so was Iraq under Saddam Hussein (who routinely garnered 99% of the votes in all of his sham elections), and so was the Soviet Union!

Just because people are allowed to cast votes does not mean that you have a democracy. All the REAL decision makers in Iran are UNELECTED!!!!!!!!!!! Today, the presidents in Iran are much like the prime ministers during the monarchy after Mossadegh -- rubber stamps for the King. Now, the presidents are a rubber stamp for the turbaned king, Shah Khamenei.

This article is a SUCH a farce and a SAD joke on the beleaguered people of Iran -- a betrayal of every basic principle of honest and fair journalism. In short, it is a classic (and shameless!!!)propaganda piece!

Grade: F


default

Ostad, Yes

by hossein.hosseini on

Ostad, Yes I do.  I think the main reason for most part is the countless Satellite TV's in LA.  They sure give the impression to an outsiders that all Iranian Americans have nothing better to do than just have a good time and party.  I have yet to see someone do a story of normal, middle of the road people in our community (the majority of us). I remember a few years ago an LA Times reporter wanted to get a wide range of opinions from Iranian Americans.  He told me he had talked to many Persian Media outlets but he wanted to check the feelings of the community-at-large.  I told him we do not have such as thing as a 'community center' but he can go to a few large Iranian Supermarkets and interview the regular people.  Guess what?  He told me afterwards that his story completely changed after talking to common folks.

 


Ostaad

Hossein, do you have a nagging feeling,

by Ostaad on

as I do, that Iranians who live outside the US, and outside Iran, have peculiar ideas about us Iranians who live in the US?  As if we all lived in a big airconditioned tent in the middle of Disneyland!!!

I wonder why that is?


default

Mort: demonizers are finding it hard to stay in the open

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

politics of boogyman demonizing died with Bush. get used to it.

enough said.


default

What?

by hossein.hosseini on

Agha Sasan, I could not get your point after reading this piece.  Was it for a class project? Looks like you want to say something to the Iranian-Americans? I hope you have not watched too much Iranian Sat. TV.  The Iranian Americans I know really do not give a hoot to the groups you identified.


Ostaad

FYI

by Ostaad on

Regarding you comment, "What is very interesting is that although the Monarchists and the
Mujahedin see themselves as antithetical to the Islamic regime, they
actually have a lot in common with them...",  the answer staring your in the face my friend: They are ALL Iranians.


Mort Gilani

I Wasted My Time Reading This Garbage

by Mort Gilani on

Do you know how moronic you sound when you write:

" A better strategy may be not to demonize Iran and Islam but to defend them as not being entirely evil."

Enough said.