Monday, April 24, 2006

Hafez at Stanford

The hot-headed outbursts that Iran’s leaders hope CNN will carry to a worldwide audience are often attempts to direct US foreign policy towards a more informed approach in the region. Last night, however, a group of Iranian-Americans held a joyful event at the Stanford Faculty Club that will one day dwarf the gesticulations of Iran’s leaders in its impact on US foreign as well as domestic policy. Here too there were cameras but this time operated by amateurs--proud parents of scholarship awardees videotaping their children. As a parade of high achieving Iranian college students spoke their zeal and drive into the microphone, it became more and more obvious that these young scholars will soon join the ranks of American decision makers. These Iranians will earn their influence on America by contributing to her civilization.

And when they do become Surgeons General, Supreme Court judges, Cabinet members, senators, and CEOs of corporations with clout, they will take with them their love for the culture that gave the world Hafez and Khayyam. This is real human history, not the manufactured kind that comes in dramatic events. The influence accumulated is the slow result of dedicated work by foresighted people. And the price is not billions of dollars spent on weapons of deterrence, or the moral cost of supporting violent groups to maintain leverage on the US. In comparison the price is insignificant. The Iranian Scholarship Fund is the smartest money Iranians have ever invested in the advancement of their culture. And the moral factor is a huge payoff, not a cost.

As with most fundraiser galas the speakers were often drowned out by the sound of forks on plates and sociable party chatter. Hafez, however ran chills up our spines when he spoke through one of the students reciting a verse. Characteristically, it wasn’t what Hafez said that gave us that famous Hafez moment; it was how he uses sound to reveal meaning. The master let it be known last night that his words shine with fresh beauty when spoken in a slightly Americanized Persian accent.

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Iran's lesson for Nepal

The protests against king Gyanendra of Nepal are reminiscent of the 1979 protests in Iran when Iranians of all political persuasions banded together to oust the Shah. The powerful Islamic faction led by Ayatollah Khomeini promised that once the Shah was gone political power would be shared democratically. Today in Nepal the powerful Maoist faction is making similar promises. The Ayatollah didn't keep his promise and it is unlikely that the Maoists will either. Like the Iranian intellectuals in 1979, The Nepalese intellectuals are fooling themselves if they think they are leading this revolt; they are simply useful at the moment and will be discarded once the palace has fallen.

With Iran's lesson in mind, is there anything the pro-democracy Nepalese intellectuals can do to avoid the fate of their Iranian counterparts? Yes, they should stay focused on their goal of achieving democracy and dismantle the throne one piece at a time. If they indulge their emotions--and in the midst of batons, riots, and teargas it is easy to do--and take the monarchy off the board, they will have removed an important chess piece in their upcoming power game with the Maoist's.

There's nothing wrong with Maoism or Islam that can't also go wrong with a democracy, so I am not attached to any particular outcome. But the way things are going in Nepal, I don't see democracy in her future, I see Maoism.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Zacarias Moussaoui’s testimony an act of terrorism.

“You wake up everyday to destroy America don’t you?”

“To the best of my ability.” Moussaoui asserted.

Judge and jury listened stoically to the prosecutor’s exchange with the terror suspect. Like Vulcans on Star Trek, emotion was not allowed to interfere with rational judgment. When Moussaoui declared that his only regret is that more Americans weren’t killed during 9-11, equanimity ruled the courtroom. When he taunted the grieving families of 9-11 victims, reporters noted his comments with professional detachment. What does Moussaoui, who has been declared sane, have to gain by such callousness? The answer is that he doesn’t see America as we like to see her, an admirable civilization ruled by law and rationality. He believes in an America that will respond to his inhuman remarks by bringing death upon thousands of innocent people in the Middle East. In the blood feud which will follow, Western civilization will be harmed. Moussaoui did not participate in the 9-11 acts of terror, his mission was carried out in that courtroom. His weapon: the mass media.

We watch in horror as chat rooms fill with contempt for Islam, and talk shows ring louder with shrill cries to war. Emails are in circulation declaring that Muslim-American is an oxymoron. The number of people I personally know who believe that Iranian cities should be nuked is growing. It doesn't matter that virtually all Iranians favor mutually respectful relations with the United States. A part of America sanctions the extermination of Islam because to them Moussaoui speaks for all Muslims. Yet these Americans are themselves terror victims and don't even know it. They must be extricated from the anger the Moussaoui trial has made them feel. Pastors, priests, rabbis, teachers, therapists, these victims need your help.

Western Muslims must also act. We should not allow worldwide Jihad to become a fait-accompli. Once the issue is handed to us in a polarized us-or-them format, it will be impossible to refuse. We would be faced either with fighting for extremist causes or suffering the humiliation of surrendering all our legitimate positions. Here is a situation where being moderate means speaking up. I welcome your comments on this site as to ways Muslims living in the West can help control the damage of the Moussaoui trial.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Constitutional method to Iranian President’s madness

President Ahmadinejad of Iran had lashed out again at Israel, and an American colleague at the office was demanding an explanation from me. “You wrote a book on Iran, you explain this to me,” he said slapping the morning paper down on my desk. If he was angry enough to break the American taboo against talking politics at work, he was angry enough to misconstrue any explanation as an excuse. So I used the trick America uses when politics threatens to disturb her peace: appeal to the constitution. The Iranian constitution in this case.
“You see,” I began nervously. “President Ahmadinejad can’t try to wipe Israel or any other nation off the map because, unlike the president of the United States, he is not the commander in chief of his country’s armed forces.”

We went on the internet on company time, where I showed my skeptical friend that the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran gives meager power to the president. Here is the scope of Ahmadinejad’s powers as written in that document :

After obtaining the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the President has the authority to sign treaties, protocols, contracts, and agreements concluded by the Iranian government with other governments, as well as agreements pertaining to international organizations. The President is responsible for national planning , budget, and state employment affairs.

“He used to be the mayor of Tehran,” I argued. “Now he is the mayor of the whole country with a few international bells and whistles added. ”

To show my colleague where the real power lies, I scrolled down to where Iran’s constitution spells out the duties of the highest ranking cleric, the Supreme Leader. His duties include:

1. Assuming supreme command of the armed forces.
2. Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces.


“So only the Supreme Leader can credibly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. And he’s been quiet,” I said.

We could hear the boss’s voice across the cubicles, so we lowered our voices as we went on to where it says The supreme leader is responsible for:

Dismissal of the' President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country…

“The Supreme Leader can fire Ahamadinejad’s butt?” my friend realized in hushed tones. Right! In Iran certain duly elected mistakes can be undone without an impeachment process. But why is the Supreme Leader allowed to thumb his nose at We The People? Because, according to Iran’s constitution, he is sitting in for the Messiah. The exact words of the constitution translated into simple English are this:

During the temporary absence of the Messiah, may God hasten his reappearance, the guardianship and leadership of the public are passed to the just and pious jurist, who is fully aware of the circumstances of his age; courageous, resourceful, and possessed of administrative ability, [he] will assume the responsibilities of this office…

The messiah language also sheds light on Ahamadinejad's claim to divine inspiration. I was about to theorize as to how, when the boss walked in on us. Scrambling to close the web page would have acknowledged more authority to him than I was prepared to yield. Ignoring him would have been rude, so I just included him in the conversation. Turns out he too had freaked when he found out Iran's president had an aura around him during a U.N. speech. But this politician's claim to having a halo wasn't so much messianic radicalism as internal jockeying for power. Now that Ahmadinejad has a halo, every Iranian knows the Supreme Leader isn't the only one who is golf buddies with the Messiah. Constitutional checks and balance, Iranian style.
By the time my presentation on Iran’s constitution got to the country’s nuclear standoff with the West, a few people had gathered. I estimated that at their rate of pay the company was losing quite a bit of money, not including the number of widgets that weren’t being made. Iran’s constitution has something important to say about widgets, including atomic ones. The document mandates:

The attainment of self-sufficiency in scientific, technological, industrial, agricultural, and military domains, and other similar spheres...

This is why Iran has to have its own uranium enrichment industry. Nuclear self sufficiency is in the constitution, and Ahmadinejad couldn’t do anything about that even if he wanted to.
Later in a more somber discussion my American colleague and I sorted out how Iran’s constitution weighs in on Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust. Here’s a relevant excerpt from the document :

… while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, [Iran] supports the just struggles of the weak and persecuted against the powerful and arrogant in every corner of the globe.

The document borrows the words for “weak and persecuted” and “powerful and arrogant” directly from the Arabic of the Koran where the words are used in the context of the persecution of early Muslims. These terms have strong spiritual and emotional content for Ahmadinejad’s branch of Shiism which divides the world into pure good and pure evil. The Holocaust muddies this clean dualism in that the purportedly powerful and arrogant Zionist Jews are also the weak and persecuted Jews of the Nazi era. By denying the premise of the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad hopes to cast the issue back into its original black and white simplicity.
As with the Constitution of the United States, the Iranian constitution does not determine the specific actions of the nation’s politicians, but it is a reasonable guide in making sense of their overall behavior.

BBC Persian language interview on Iran nukes

A recent program on the Persian language service of BBC includes comments (in Farsi) by British academic analyst Elahe Mohtasham regarding past attempts by nuclear club members to discourage new memberships. What I found particulary interesting is the resistance France met with during her early attempts to join the nuclear club. To listen to this interview Scroll down to the 12th link on the page where it says Sohbate ahle Nazar.


Last year Ms. Mohtasham accepted an invitation by the Iranian government to visit Isfahan’s nuclear uranium conversion facility. Below is the article she wrote for the Sunday Times last May.
Sunday Times: May 1, 2005 (World News: page 1.21)

Revealed: Iran's nuclear factory

Elahe Mohtasham was given unique access to a plant that brought her face to face with Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

RENOWNED for its towering Emam mosque and magnificent 11th century bridge over the Zayandeh Rud river, the city of Esfahan is a peaceful place, even at the peak of the tourist season. But on the edge of the eastern outskirts is a cluster of modern buildings that has become the focus of growing international friction. Visitors here are few and far between.

Esfahan's Uranium Conversion Facility, one of the most sensitive parts of Iran's nuclear programme, is surrounded by anti-aircraft guns, razor wire and armed soldiers. Although I had seen satellite images, it was not until I arrived with my companion from the Centre for Strategic Studies, which advises President Muhammad Khatami on nuclear, defence and security issues, that I grasped the scale of the plant, built around a hill. The facility was completed in 1998. In March last year it made uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas for the first time. UF6 is needed to enrich uranium in gas centrifuges in another plant at Natanz, 90 miles to the northeast. It is Iran's recently acquired ability to enrich uranium ‹ which could then be used for either nuclear power or an atomic weapon ‹ that has caused so much tension. Last week I became the first independent western academic analyst to gain access to the building where the UF6 is produced.

My visit was the culmination of a journey that began last September when, as a representative of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, I went to several other institutions involved in Iran's nuclear programme. Iranian-born and fluent in Farsi, I accepted an invitation to return independently with the aim of seeing inside the Esfahan plant. This provided a unique opportunity to assess what was happening at the heart of the nuclear programme as officials from Iran, Britain, France and Germany were preparing for talks in London to resolve a looming diplomatic crisis.

What I found was that thoughts of nuclear warheads appear to be far from the minds of the energetic young scientists. However, work at Esfahan has advanced further than published reports suggest.

OUR 250-mile drive from Tehran, the Iranian capital, was hastened by a recently opened motorway and enlivened by dramatic vistas. Once we had passed the holy city of Qom, the sun glinted off rock faces rising sheer from the desert floor. In the valleys, the blue-tiled domes of abandoned mosques winked like tiny jewels.

After an overnight stay in Esfahan, we boarded an official minibus to the plant. Despite the armed patrols, we were waved through the security barrier without any checks ‹ not even a search of our bags. The director of the Esfahan centre greeted us warmly. At 35 years old, he seemed to typify the youth and vitality of his country's nuclear industry. Over tea and pulak, a local sweet, in his office, I explained my hopes for the visit: to obtain answers to technical, political and organisational questions that have perplexed outside observers. He responded eagerly.

Two hours later I was introduced to a group of his scientists. Most were young ‹ about 25 ‹ with a few over 55. Among them were several young women scientists. Although the plant has no formal policy of preventing women from working in radioactive areas, they are generally assigned in practice to posts related to safety and support. Nevertheless, it was pointed out that one of the women was primarily responsible for the development of electrical connections at the UF6 facility at a critical time when it was first being produced. The women scientists I met wore the traditional hijab, as required in any workplace in Iran. But it was fashionably pulled back over their hair and they wore make-up. These were modern women with an outlook to match.

All the scientists spoke in an open and transparent manner, replying to detailed technical questions without any reservations and discussing security and supply lines. They used a large map and a model of the whole site to explain the equipment used for the production of UF6. There was even a film in which several of the scientists with me were proudly shown generating supercooled liquid UF6. Iran is only the ninth country in the world to accomplish the conversion process after the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan ‹ all nuclear powers ‹ and Brazil.

At the end I asked how much UF6 had been made at Esfahan. The latest information published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose inspectors visit every three to four weeks, showed that 40-45kg had been produced by last June. "The IAEA has been informed that in October three tonnes of UF6 were made," said one of the scientists. The information was highly significant: it proved that Iran has the capacity to produce UF6 on an industrial scale. Would it be able to make enough to feed 50,000 centrifuges planned for the Natanz enrichment plant, I asked? "Yes," came the reply.

Iran says it would need enriched uranium from 50,000 centrifuges to sustain a domestic nuclear power industry and sell nuclear fuel commercially abroad. It has so far abided by a decision announced in October 2003 to suspend uranium enrichment at Natanz while negotiations over its programme continue with British, French and German officials. But having achieved the capability, it seems highly unlikely from what I heard that Iran will be prepared to give up its nuclear fuel cycle in exchange for the technological or economic benefits being offered.

Europeans and Americans alike fear the capability will be used by Iran to develop atomic weapons. Experts estimate that between 1,500 and 2,000 centrifuges could produce enough highly enriched uranium for one atomic device a year. According to IAEA reports, Iran had 1,140 centrifuge rotors by the spring of last year. By October the number had risen to 1,274. In a television broadcast in Farsi on February 8, Hassan Rohani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, suggested that further progress had been made since. "Last year when we were going through the suspension period, we did not have enough centrifuges," he said. "During the period of one year and several months we built and assembled all the centrifuges we needed." Other experts believe that if Iran decides to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and make atomic weapons, it would take at least a year for different sections of the centrifuges to be tested and assembled for enrichment. An extra few months would be needed to produce enough UF6 at Esfahan and transfer it to Natanz as the feed material for the enrichment process. For the moment, however, the production lines are idle as talks aimed at preventing Iran from enriching uranium go on.

Over lunch in the refectory ‹ a traditional ghormeh sabzi of lamb, herbs and red beans with rice ‹ the plant director told me sadly of scientists being laid off while there was no work for them to do. "Counselling sessions are being arranged for those in danger of losing their jobs," he said. "Others are taking up offers in the oil industry." Several scientists round the table were determined to stick it out. All appeared convinced that Esfahan would be up and running again soon. "What about the possibility of withdrawal from the NPT?" I asked tentatively, wondering how much the scientists knew about their obligation not to develop nuclear weapons. They were fully aware of the treaty's requirements and of Iran's obligations to the IAEA inspectors, they said. At the same time, they were prepared to accept any decision by their government, including a possible withdrawal from the treaty.

The subject turned to the threat of a military attack on the site. It had been evident from my discussions with Iranian officials and analysts in Tehran that a Sunday Times report in March disclosing Israeli preparations for possible airstrikes on sites such as Esfahan and Natanz had been widely read. The scientists said that although they had standard safety measures to guard against radiation leaks, they did not have protection against a military attack. Analysts believe airstrikes would destabilise the region. Iran would probably withdraw from the NPT and initiate a nuclear weapons programme. "How far would any radioactive material spread in the event of an attack?" I asked. The scientists estimated that an area of more than a mile around the plant would be contaminated. Some workers could escape through underground tunnels leading from sensitive to safe areas, according to one scientist. But the tunnels were small, he added. "Only one or two people could use them at a time."

THE diplomacy of the coming weeks and months could determine whether the dispute between Iran and the countries most suspicious of its intentions ‹ notably Israel and the United States ‹ will escalate to the point of armed conflict. Iran wants to resume uranium enrichment under an IAEA inspection regime that it says would reassure the world. It is also seeking guarantees that other countries will never attack it with nuclear weapons. The British and Germans are trying to secure Iran's agreement to abandon enrichment in return for benefits including a light water reactor for nuclear energy. France may be willing to support limited uranium enrichment ‹ a compromise that at the present time would be unacceptable to America. Should the tangled talks collapse, Europe will come under strong pressure to back the Americans in referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. Iran might well start up its enrichment programme again. British diplomats hope that such a polarisation ‹ and the risk of military action that may follow ‹ can be averted by keeping the talks going until Iran's presidential elections on June 17. They believe a pragmatic victor could open the way for an agreement. At Esfahan, the scientists' hope is for a deal that would prevent the dismantling of the Uranium Conversion Facility.

Our lunch resulted in permission for me to see the object of so much attention with my own eyes. In a changing area at the entrance to the facility, I was handed a green protective suit, along with mask and gloves. Tanks and pipes stretched to the ceiling 20ft above. Metal walkways and ladders offered views over the vast room where the UF6 gas is made. It is stored in tanks and could be moved to Natanz if the government defies the concerns of its negotiating partners.


I concluded my discussions with Iranian scientists, diplomats and government officials by pointing out that the worries of western governments could not be ignored. Anxieties associated with a clash of ideologies and civilisations could not be alleviated by objective guarantees or IAEA inspections, I emphasised. Not only would Iran have to demonstrate the transparency of any continuing programme; it would also have to address systematically and conscientiously concerns about Iran's associations with groups classified as terrorists in western Europe and America.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

V for Vendetta

I liked this movie because it expresses my political frustrations. All its fighting, exploding, and Shakespearean repartee build up to a grand, convulsive, left-wing orgasm. For those of us who have had it up to our frontal lobes with the Right, no sex scene would have substituted.

The masked freedom fighter, V, exists in a future where America has collapsed under its own arrogance. The center of power for the English speaking world has shifted to London, where the action takes place. The I-told-you-so catharsis in this premise alone makes this movie very attractive to the liberal viewer.

Rather than learn from America’s demise and avoid the dangers of propaganda-reinforced authoritarianism, the England of the future has forfeited her power to a tyrannical clique led by a man named Adam Sutler. John Hurt, the actor who plays Sutler, borrows his bark from Hitler, but he gets his bite from Cheney’s cold, threatening postures and Rumsfeld’s malicious intransigence. Sadly, George Bush has contributed little to Sutler’s character. Perhaps this is because Hurt trained in the British dramatic tradition where the words of the script appear to originate from the actor’s own brain. George Bush’s amiable cluelessness, vacant searching eyes, and teleprompter-induced phrasing are not in Hurt’s repertoire.

The hero, V, insightfully recognizes that the public cannot be moved to rebel against this despotic lot as long as their junta appears invincible. To expose the soft belly of the system, V vows to destroy a public building on a specific date. That date is not September 11, but merely associating an act of terrorism with a specific date is more than enough for the viewer to make the connection.

Tense action follows as the calendar flips towards the deadline. We expect V to outsmart his opponents. But he is only one man against the system. Everyone else is waiting to see if V can really blow up the British Houses of Parliament as he promised. A very clever and sympathetic Irish detective with basset hound eyes is close on V’s heels. Spies, thugs and troopers are everywhere. The child molesting Bishop and the Sean Hannity type TV personality that we wish V would assassinate are not easy targets. To add to this already crowded schedule of violence, V has fallen in love with a woman, Evey, and feels compelled to release the inner radical in this uncooperative beauty.

When I say “V has fallen in love with a woman,” I am not being redundant. It is becoming more and more negligent to assume that the object of a hero’s love is the opposite sex. The plot of V for Vendetta devotes a lot of time telling us that a society that persecutes gays and lesbians cannot be considered free. It is the sad story of a lesbian love that finally jolts some courage into Evey. There is also an eclectic gay TV producer, Dietrich, who comes to a bad end partly because he is gay and partly because he owns a copy of the Koran. To an American Muslim, this brief extension of an olive branch from a gay direction is pleasantly puzzling.

To me, Dietrich’s story is the most politically relevant part of this comic book plot. Dietrich is carried off to be tortured after he lampoons the junta’s leader in one of his TV shows. The Wachowski brothers, who wrote and produced V for Vendetta, have not been arrested for making their movie. This reminds us that thankfully we are not living in V’s universe. Stepping out of Dietrich’s story for a while, we see the good news and the bad news. The bad news is that V is a fictitious character. There never was and never will be a liberator. The good news is, there is still time for democratic action so that we won’t need to make heroes out of terrorists like V.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

One reason Iran should not be wiped off the map

Historian Peter Green in his book The Greco-Persian wars says, “Those with a naturally authoritarian cast of mind tend to be fascinated by the Achaemenid empire for just the reasons which induced the Greeks to hold out against it: monolithic administration, theocratic absolutism, lack of political opposition….” Never reluctant to imply modern comparisons, Green continues, “Achaemenid Persia... perpetuated a fundamentally static structure, geared to the maintenance of a status quo and hostile to original creativity in any form.”

This analysis of ancient Iran’s Achaemenid empire, serves the opinion that the political scene in Iran hasn’t changed much since 25 centuries ago. Sadly-- after some scholarly exertion and selective assumptions--Green’s confrontational position can be made defensible. Then why, in our modern, democracy-worshipping, world is Iran’s civilization worth preserving?

The answer lies in Iran’s historical tenacity. To Western historians such as Green, the defeat of the mighty Persian Empire by the clever Greeks showcases the triumph of the creative Western mind over the passive and submissive mindset of the East. After the brilliant defense of Greece and the amazing conquests of Alexander the Great, the curtain falls to riotous applause from the Western audience. The Iranian audience however stays around for the next act of the play. Soon after Alexander died, Greece ceased to be a player in world affairs. Though Greek intellectual achievements continue to enrich our lives even today, politically Greece ceased to be a world player back in the 4th century BCE. The supposedly defeated Persians with their “fundamentally static structure...hostile to original creativity in any form” survived as a world power to take on the next great Western empire, Rome.

Though typecast as an imperialistic power, there is little doubt that Rome owed its success to the strong elements of popular participation that characterized its early institutions. The decay of the Roman empire began only after Imperial authoritarianism robbed it of its democratic vitality. Iranians however have never had trouble surviving dictatorships. Like anaerobic life, Iranian societies seem to thrive without the oxygen of democracy. While Rome fell to the barbarian hordes, Iran recovered from the Arab invasion of its borders in less than a century. During this time, not only did Iranians evolve a new identity and language separate from their Arab conquerors, they instigated political manipulations that eventually led to the rise of the Abbasid dynasty. Several historians have argued that the Abbasid caliphate, the period that saw the rise of Islam as a world civilization, represented the shift in Islam from Arab to Iranian culture. The Abbasids relocated the capital of Islam from Damascus to Baghdad --only twenty miles from Ctisphon, the capital of the supposedly extinct Persian Empire.

Then late in the twentieth century, long after Western civilization seemed to have obsolesced rival paths to the evolution of socieites, Iran shocked the world with a revolution that challenged modernism, outmoding the universal appeal of the Western theme. Economically backward, socially disarrayed, and militarily obsolete, Iranians nevertheless found a way to jump back into the fray of History. It is reasonable to ponder whether Islam was merely the ideological vehicle used to accomplish this deliverance. Any other vehicle may have served the creative political psyche of the Iranian people just as well.

As Iran’s confrontation with the West intensifies, we should stay open to the possibility that Iran’s global restlessness may not stem from radical Islam but from the Iranian desire to contribute alternatives on a world scale. In the past these alternatives have not been democratic, but they have been adaptive in their own way, or Iran would not have survived this long as a nation. Let’s keep in mind that we don’t know why democracy ended in Greece and Rome, and we don’t know why it is showing signs of ebbing in the United States. The social conditions for democracy are still a mystery. Iran’s demonstrated ability to preserve civilization in the absence of democracy is one reason why it is wise to keep it on the map.

Friday, April 07, 2006

No god but God

By Reza Aslan, Random House

When I discuss Islam with American friends, they often say, “Someday when I have time, I’ll have to read the Koran.” I usually discourage them. It’s not because, as they like to joke, “it isn’t the kind of book a Muslim wants to find in a friend’s bathroom.” It’s because I don’t think it will help them understand Islam. Unlike the Bible, the Koran is not a self explanatory collection of stories in chronological order. The organizing principle of the Koran is not the order of revelation, but the length of the chapter, the shortest ones appearing at the end of the book. Even within one chapter the subject can skip from analysis of a battle to moral injunctions against usury. Without the context, the content is mostly opaque. For example, when the Koran says “When two parties from among you thought of showing cowardice, and Allah was the Guardian of them both,” It helps to know which battle and which two parties are being discussed. The Koran is a book that you learn, not a book you can just read. So to the Islam enthusiasts in the West, I recommend they save the Koran for later, and read instead Reza Aslan’s No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam.

This book has received enough praise from virtually all major reviews and all relevant academic institutions, so here I will just emphasize that its organizing principle is the antithesis of the Koran. It is highly linear and readily understandable to the Western mind. In keeping with its clarity I will list what you will learn by reading this book:

1. An overview of the politics, economy, and sociology of Arabia just before the appearance of Islam.

2. A functional but not excessively detailed biography of Mohammad.

3. A familiarity with the basic story of early Islam and its first battles under Mohammad’s leadership. You will know the major players, whether they were friend or foe, and how they were dealt with.

4. The early post-Mohammad era and the emerging politics, including how Shiites broke away from the Sunnis.

5. The story of the rise of Islamic civilization, including the origins and evolution of Islamic law. Here you will meet some major Islamic scholars and gain insight into Sufis like Rumi and Omar Khayyam.

6. A beginners skill in how to make sense of the attitudes and behavior of modern Islamic nations like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Reza Aslan is a not only a scholar, he is a writer who is easy to read. All his meticulously researched and documented statements are framed inside stories, anecdotes, and personal experiences. The pages of No God but God go by so quickly and painlessly you will wish your dentist was that good. There’s even a love story.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

The Incredibles

Directed by Brad Bird

Many chuckles into Disney’s amusing assault on political correctness, a line in this superhero cartoon yanks the viewer out of his suspension of disbelief. In the heat of battle with the forces of evil, the flexible Elastigirl scares her already frightened children by telling them, “Remember the bad guys on those shows you used to watch Saturday mornings? Well, these guys are not like those guys. They won’t exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get a chance.” Since this is a cartoon show, Elastimom’s sobering out-of-bounds statement spoils the sense of immersion in this otherwise totally Disney plot. How did this blooper get past the director? In the light of the post 9-11 effort to align public opinion with the Bush administration policy, and the morally dubious invasion of Iraq, this intrusion into the viewer’s reality no longer looks like a slip. It is an artistic sacrifice in order to hit the viewer on the head with the movie’s message: As a superpower America has a moral obligation to destroy evil in the world.

After this revelation, the movie’s lampooning of political correctness seems like a cover for its war rallying. But it is a humorous and witty camouflage with strong metaphorical connections with the movie’s deeper anger-rousing purpose. The super tough Mr. Incredible, his wife Elastigirl and other super heroes fighting for justice have been forced into retirement by a litigious public. The very people whose lives were saved by Mr. Incredible file suit against him for the minor injuries they suffered during their rescue. Despite hurt feelings, the gentle giant still has room in his heart for patience and forgiveness. But to the viewer there is frustration in seeing someone as powerful as Mr. Incredible subjecting himself to the laws of ungrateful mortals. He must find a way to break loose.

To our delight the world hasn't quite succeeded in shackling Mr. Incredible. On “bowling nights” he and a friend from the superhero days sneak away on incognito rescue missions. The CIA’s overthrow of Iran’s democracy, the agency’s actions in Chile, Southeast Asia and Afghanistan are real-life examples of covert actions reflecting America’s desire to flex its underutilized muscle. Unfortunately, sneak rescues don’t quite satisfy. Heroes must fight evil in the open

Mr. Incredible’s moral destiny is fulfilled by his defeat of the villain, Syndrome. This annoying and immature character is merely a superhero wannabe. Unlike Mr. Incredible and family, the evil Syndrome was not born with superpowers. He is a threat by virtue of his obsession with gadgets, not because Fate has privileged him with any special capacities. Destiny has made him a loser. In contrast, our hero’s God given powers, his moral rectitude and emotional maturity, symbolically assert the American Empire's divine right to supremacy. The understated humility of this astonishing claim delivered through the gentle Mr. Incredible is far more effective than any grandstanding proclamations. Projecting power through humility is a uniquely American contribution to political craftsmanship. Nations that boast openly against America are made to look like fools in comparison.

Encouraging America's return to action on a World War II scale, The Incredibles enumerates the rewards: youth, beauty, wealth, and a sense of being special, the core incentives of any advertising campaign. Before he got sued out of his superhero career, Mr. Incredible was a dapper youth who drove a stylish James Bond quality car. After his fall, he grew a beer belly and drove an economy car he couldn’t fit in. Once he resolved that his talents were too valuable to waste, he pumped iron and reclaimed his handsome and youthful figure. The scenes with the pathetic car are replaced with action scenes where the hero's wife and kids fly to his rescue in a private jet. To the viewer who is slowly losing the advantages of his American Dollar, the Incredibles promises a better life in the New Empire.

And for those of us who still shrink from our manifest destiny there is Violet Incredible’s testimonial. She is the shy, shrinking super-daughter with confidence issues that keep her from flowering. Violet’s journey of self discovery opens to a new vista when during a crucial battle she unwittingly activates her amazing force field, protecting her family. If there are still Violets in the audience who don’t like war, director Brad Bird lets them know that the least they can do is support and protect those who do.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

A more ambitious nuclear ambition for Iran

On the news, we watch a glacier piece collapse into the ocean with a sad groan, Godzilla brought to its knees by the clever humans. These and other images of global warming have reopened the case worldwide for nuclear power generation. The glow of the Chernobyl incident fading in our minds, the world no longer looks upon nuclear energy as a pariah technology, particularly since new generations of reactor designs promise to remedy the problem of long lived radioactive wastes, the atom’s most serious offense. As forward looking nations plan their economies to bypass fossil fuels, shifting more of their research efforts towards nuclear technology, countries that do not follow the trend are in danger of obsolescence. Having once learned the lessons of technological backwardness, the Iranian public does not wish to repeat the same mistake. This is why even the most moderate, pro-Western Iranians view limitations on Iran’s nuclear research as a cheating attempt to keep Iranians in the dark ages. Unfortunately Iran’s hurry-up-and-catch-up nuclear program does repeat the same mistake. Iran should augment its current effort to reconstruct the nuclear technologies of the previous century by beginning a leap frog endeavor to research and implement twenty first century reactor designs.

France, Japan, Russia and South Korea, for example, are working on advanced burner reactors that yields many times more energy per pound of nuclear fuel than conventional reactors. More importantly, the waste from these reactors drops to safe levels of radioactivity in a few hundred years instead of the tens of thousands of years for conventional reactor designs. Due to their extreme efficiency, advanced burner reactors will dramatically reduce the need for nuclear fuel. So if Iran is really planning on becoming a nuclear fuel exporter, as she claims when explaining her uranium enrichment program, she should keep in mind that such fuel is unlikely to command a high price on the future market. In fact, as long-lived nuclear waste from its obsolete reactors builds up, Iran may have to pay countries with more advanced nuclear technologies to ‘burn’ this waste into less hazardous materials.

Does this mean that Iran should abandon its uranium enrichment plans? Quite the contrary. Advanced nuclear research requires this step. But with a clear and logically spelled out economic plan justifying the research, it is much easier to convince the world that the enrichment is for peaceful purposes. The current Iranian effort, which from the outside looks like a beeline towards obtaining weapons grade uranium is vulnerable to pressure from Western powers. But in the context of state-of-the-art research, the burden of proof falls on the West to demonstrate that it’s objections are not part of a conspiracy to impede the technological and scientific progress of the poorer nations.

A shift in emphasis from obsolete to newer reactor designs will introduce tough challenges for Iranian scientists and engineers, slowing the uranium enrichment aspect of the project. This is a highly desirable outcome for everyone. To the Iranian, the slowdown will no longer appear as bending under Western pressure. It is an inevitable part of Iran’s contribution towards advanced nuclear technology. To the rest of the world it demonstrates that the country is serious about all aspects of nuclear power, not just uranium enrichment. And, it is important to reassure some factions in Iran, that serious scientific work in nuclear power generation does not take away Iran’s option of developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent. In fact, an Iran that is seen to be contributing to the overall welfare of humanity can take responsible measures to protect itself without alarming the world community. There is everything to gain and nothing to lose in launching a program to develop next-generation nuclear reactors in Iran.