Iranian women writers on KQED

This Thursday KQED’s live call-in program, Forum, hosted some of the contributors to the book Let Me Tell You Where I’ve Been, New Writing By Women of the Iranian Diaspora. From their comments it was clear that these Iranian-American women writers were careful not to fan the anti-Iran flames that have facilitated the Bush administration's plan to invade Iran. For example, one of the guests mentioned that Americans should not judge living conditions in Iran by what they see in Iranian movies. These films are dramatizations of Iran’s social issues, not literal reenactments. I saw her point immediately. Would we take the bleak and gut wrenching Oscar winner “Monster” as a snapshot of American life? Another guest mentioned that while her work does not paint a rosy picture of Iran, she does not wish to leave out what rosiness there is. One guest hinted at similarities between Iran and the United States regarding the erosion of civil rights and its connection to religious fundamentalism.

In response to this careful land-mine treading, American callers phoned in with attacks. Do you not lose credibility when you compare Iran’s theocracy with the influence of religion in American life? Where is the morality police in America? Where are the veiled women in America? Another caller phoned in his support. Michael Krasny, the host of Forum tried to shield his guests by correctly mentioning that these writers and poets are not experts on the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet that did not stop the next caller from asking the panel to comment on Iran’s appointing Saiid Mortazavi to lead her delegation to the UN Human Rights Council. With this request the caller, Judy Stone, shelled with devastating accuracy an already hard to defend position. Among other human rights crimes Mortezavi is accused of complicity in the murder of Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian journalist who died while in Iranian police custody. It was a moment of great tension in the show.

Judy Stone is an author and former film reviewer for the San Francisco Chronicle. And she is no Iran hater. On the contrary I consider her to be an Iranophile, because her recent book Not Quite a Memoir devotes many pages to Iranian filmmakers. The philanthropic outlook of this book leaves no doubt that its author wishes to see Iranian artists thrive in a country that is worthy of their talent. She does not however seem to have caught on to the concern of the show’s guests: we live in a political environment where too much negative publicity on Iran could lead to the deaths of thousands of Iranians—millions in case of a nuclear attack-- and the destruction of this country’s heritage and infrastructure. How then to respond to the Judy Stones of America?

The best policy is to follow Iranian Noble Laureate Shirin Ebadi’s lead. Go ahead and say what you believe. Yes, Iran’s government must be held accountable for the death of Zahra Kazemi and for countless other human rights violations, but this does not in any way mean that the United States should invade Iran.

Like the baby’s real mother seeking Solomon’s justice we must make it clear that we do not support a regime change that may cost more lives than it saves. The pillars of human rights rest on the solid ground that life should not be sacrificed to principle. Confronted with rights abuse questions about Iran, our first human rights obligation is to make the questioner clarify his/her position on the subject of military intervention in Iran. “Before I answer that, I would like to know where you stand on the subject of the military invasion of Iran by the United States.” This is not an out of place request under the current circumstances. If the questioner approves of such an invasion then clearly his/her human rights concerns need further maturing. If however the questioner takes a clear stand against war with Iran we have succeeded in distinguishing a person of conscience from a warmonger masquerading as one.

We Are Here: a San Francisco Bay Area Exhibit

The subdued gallery chatter is in Persian. The young women crowding the Iranian Yellow Pages collage hush each other genially, their giggles like Chihuahuas on dainty leashes. I have found my own display of pages to stare at, these ones yellowed with age. Khosro Golsorkhi stares back from a 1975 poster. “He had courage,” I used to say of the leftist poet who chose execution rather than ask clemency from the Shah. “Our death is eternal life,” the martyr said. “We leave this world so that our tradition of resistance remains.” He had a wife and a young son as I recall, and the Shah permitted a last visit before the execution. As a young college student I couldn’t understand why Golsorkhi turned down the offer. As a father with children I finally understand. His son would beg him to live, and the father’s resolve would not hold.

There’s another giggle, this one coming from a little girl prancing from display to display. She probably doesn't realize it but she’s making funny faces underneath a picture of an old Newsweek photo of Khomeini. “Iran thumbs her nose at grief,” is the title of this brief work of art. I named it that. The creators of this living exhibit, artist Taraneh Hemami and scholar Persis Karim would have been pleased to see it flicker to life then annihilate itself with the call of a harried mother. “I am here,” said the little girl.

Three older looking women have been inching their way towards me and Golsorkhi. Finally I can make out what they are saying.

“They were working for the Russians, right?”

“Nah baba, they were great minds.”

“What a waste, they were so young and handsome.”

Yes, Golsorkhi was handsome. It was very stupid of the Shah to hold a public trial for a man of such poise, eloquence and naughty bright eyes. Killing him was the beginning of the end for the despot. Golsorkhi's sacrifice hasn't yet become worth it. I wonder where his son lives now. Under the Islamic regime, or has he fled to freedom?

Some laughter. The young women are following a happier trail in this jungle of memorabilia collected from Bay Area Iranians and laid out in a garage-sale format. There’s a poster of the Iranian theater group, Darvag-I almost ask "how much for this one." No one in Tehran calls a frog “darvag” anymore but in the Gilan province they still use this ancient word from the extinct Pahlavi language. “Dar” meaning tree in Pahlavi and “Wag” meaning frog, tree frog. “O darvag, messenger of cloudy days, when will the rains arrive?” asks the beloved Gilani poet Nima Yooshij (1897-1959). Golsorkhi wants to know the same thing. The dry season for freedom in Iran has lasted far too long.

There’s also a photo of the Bay Area Dance troop, Beshkan. Beshkan, the rhythmic snapping of the finger to dance music, the Iranian answer to flamenco’s palmas. Unlike the quaint darvag, Tehranis still use the word beshkan. It is from the Pahlavi root skastan, to break. The same root as for the word shekast, defeat. How Iranian to use the same root word in both joy and sorrow. Why am I thinking of etymology in a gallery, I wonder. A frivolous drift? Improbable, I am in the presence of art, in fact I am immersed in it. More likely I’m trying to tell myself something. Yes of course, a large part of Iran is missing in this collection. A part of us that does not have its roots in Pahlavi.

Some of Taraneh Hemami’s other works are keenly aware of Iran’s Islamic culture, but in this oeuvre she has surrendered the canvas to the Bay Area Iranian community to put on it whatever they have been saving in the attics of their homes and their minds. And no one it seems wishes to acknowledge Islam as part of their clutter of experiences. Well, not as Iranians anyway. The Islam in this exhibit is the Islam of America. A horrific collage, made even more ghastly because it is made up of children’s drawings, remembers a day of tragedy in America. Stick figures fall out as boxy looking airplanes crash into two towers. The word “Sorry,” is scribbled over and over again in clumsy letters. All over this wall of sorrow Iranian and American flags wave in sympathy and solidarity.

I detach myself from the content and look for evidence of talent in the drawings. Most pictures have the airplanes in them, but one of them shows the towers standing by themselves leaning towards each other and touching as though in friendship or love. This was how the world seemed before the towers were destroyed. This student’s drawing reminded me of Michelangelo’s masterpiece, David. Many other Renaissance depictions of the youth show the hero exuberant after his victory over Goliath. Michelangelo’s David however has yet to put the rock in the sling. It takes genius to look for drama in the time before the event, when things could have gone either way.

I wonder what this Iranian-American Michelangelo will paint when he/she grows up to put 9-11 in an adult context. Will the question arise as to why American students were not asked to create a wall of sorrow for the 290 Iranian passengers of the Airbus that was shot down by the USS Vincennes? In what artful way will the cognitive dissonance express itself when this young artist begins to suspect that the event was not an accident but a murder to leave no witnesses to the accepted fact that the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters trying to provoke a fight? Swimming inside this volume of art created by Hemami I have experienced the range of emotions from nostalgia, to realization, to amusement, to sadness, horror, irony and now anger and guilt. Though his image is nowhere to be seen, I imagine President Ahmadinejad shouting slogans at me. ‘Where were you when we were dying by the hundreds of thousands? And you call yourself Iranian?” I try to move away but he follows me, Nima and Golsorkhi pleading with him to take it easy on me. “Where were you?” he keeps shouting.

I try to remember where I was when the Iran-Iraq war was at its peak. I flash back to that glass of Merlot by the poolside, the smell of suntan lotion on my shoulders, and women noisily waving me over to their game of nude water polo. The Ayatollahs had promised Iranian youth that if they died in the war, they would get to join me where I was in Santa Rosa, California. Enough young Iranians died to fill seven Santa Rosas, yet I never met any of them.

“Where were you?”

“I was here,” I mumble.

On my way out I see the mom helping her little girl write her name on a black board by the exit. The black board is a symbolic opportunity for Bay Area Iranians to say “We are here.” The little girl is intimidated by all the names written neatly in Persian script.

“You can write your name in English if you want, dear,” says Mom.

Write your name in Persian, I say to the girl in my mind. Then throw that chalk away and pick up a can of spray paint.

Islam and the da Vinci code craze

The Christian displeasure over the premise that Jesus was an ordinary mortal reminded me at first of the annoyance we Muslims felt when newspapers published derogatory cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. Yet after careful scrutiny The da Vinci Code can be seen as a deeply religious attempt to actually salvage Christianity. Americans who can no longer maintain their Christian faith while immersed in a scientific culture, showed with mega-dollar enthusiasm that they delight in the intimation that we don’t need miracles to have faith. In celebrating such an idea secular fans of The da Vinci Code have reached an essentially Islamic viewpoint.

Muslims have been saying for centuries that their prophet was just a man. He was born of the union of a man and a woman. He married, had children, got sick, and died. Yet even though Mohammad didn’t walk on water or raise the dead he inspired a major religion equal in spiritual energy to any other.

In proposing a miracle-free version of Christianity The da Vinci Code brings to mind the same challenges we Muslims faced early in our history. Fourteen hundred years ago Islam pried our psyches away from belief in miracles. Even then some new Moslems immediately grabbed onto a surrogate: the belief that the bloodline of the Prophet is special. The da Vinci Code offers the same shelter to a Christianity orphaned by modern rationalism. The allure of Code is the thrill of discovering that Jesus may have left descendents, and that they may still be among us. Shiite Muslims understand this sentiment well. Even though Mohammad was mortal, Shiites believe he and his descendents are unique in a way that you and I aren’t. Muslim Sunnis on the other hand scratch their heads at the thought that God would play favorites with bloodlines. I was raised Shiite, but I can appreciate the Sunni insistence that God looks upon all of us as equals. Yet the popularity of Code demonstrates that the Shiite point of view also has a powerful aesthetic rightness.

To illustrate, the late Harvard scholar, Stephen Jay Gould, relates the story of the Spirit of St. Louis display at the Smithsonian. A scale model of the historic airplane was to be placed low enough it could be touched. When the advocacy group for the visually impaired was contacted for feedback, they commented that the model should be placed underneath and as close to the original as possible. In this anecdote Gould observes how essential it is for humans to feel the presence of the real thing even if we have no way of ascertaining that presence. The Shiite claim that genetic proximity to the Prophet’s blood is meaningful expresses the universal human preference for touch over abstractions. The idea that there are special people among us who physically carry Jesus’ blood will have mass appeal in the Christian West. The biological resurrection of Jesus is a message of hope for many who are culturally Christian, but whose rational minds can no longer accommodate a religion of miracles.

The parallel between Islam’s Shiism and The da Vinci Code version of Christianity extends to the emphasis on the female as a divine vessel . In The da Vinci Code Mary Magdalene is this vessel, the Holy Grail. The heroine of the story is her direct modern day descendant. In Shiism the lineage of Mohammad is carried through his daughter Fatemeh. The wife of the first Shiite Imam, Ali, and the female ancestor of all subsequent imams. Fatemeh is described in these terms by Ayatollah Khomeini: “Fatemeh is the full truth of humanity. She is a being from the realm of the angels that has appeared in the shape of a human with the face of a woman.” Of course Islam and The da Vinci Code part ways as to how to honor the female connection with the divine. In Islam the tendency has been to venerate through extreme segregation, whereas The da Vinci Code continues the modern Western penchant to venerate through extreme sexuality.

Are there historical lessons from Shiism that modern “da Vinci Code Christians” could learn from? Yes, we Shiites were ultimately unable to accept a miracle-free spiritual diet. Many of us still wait for our last Imam to reappear like a messiah to reestablish justice in the world. So if you are culturally Christian and were fascinated by the book or the movie, whether Jesus was God or mortal is ultimately irrelevant to your experience. If you were drawn in by a sense of deep mystery over Jesus’ biological descendents, then The da Vinci Code has succeeded in putting religion back into you.

The Prisoner

Decades after the British television series “The Prisoner” has aired its last episode, Ramin Jahanbegloo, Iranian political philosopher, now Iranian political prisoner, is in the same surreal predicament as the BBC protagonist. As Jahanbegloo sits in Tehran’s Tehin prison, he is probably asking himself, who are they? why are they keeping me here? And what do they want from me? The difference is that in the BBC series the hero, "Number Six," really was a secret agent, whereas Jahanbegloo is simply accused of spying for Western powers.

Our man Jahanbegloo is not in Her Majesty’s Secret Service or in the CIA or a member of the Mission Impossible Team. He is a member of a private cultural research department in Tehran. For the suspicious Iranian reader, this job has no similarities to the embassy cultural attaché post which we usually suspect of being a cover for spies. The Cultural Research Bureau, where Jahanbegloo works, figures out how to encourage volunteerism in urban areas, or how to increase the number of cinemas in Iran. The agency contracts to provide statistics and demography, does youth studies, explores drug related social issues, and such. It is also a think tank for foreign relations. For instance this group translated into Persian Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilization and the New World Order (where it is argued that the future global conflicts will occur along the fault lines separating civilizations such as Islam and the West).

Of course you can’t do all this without possessing formidable scholarship, intelligence and insight. Number Six was never a post-doc at Harvard like Jahanbegloo, but it was still a thrill to watch his intelligence and insight pitted against the nightmarish mind-control technology of his mysterious captors. He always outmaneuvered his nemesis, "Number Two," in witty dialogue and brisk action. Yet episode after episode he would wake up in the same prison village, and try to figure out all over again, who or perhaps what was "Number One," which ideology governed the villagers, and where on the map was this place anyway? Puzzles that intellectuals have been trying to figure out about post-revolutionary Iran for more than two decades.

Jahanbegloo was perhaps too intellectual as a youth to have watched spy movies on TV. His metaphor for his present predicament comes from his reflections on a Bertolucci film:

This retreat of intellectuals in the Middle East reminds me of Bertolucci’s film, The Conformist. I could not get this picture out of my mind for a long time. I did not immediately understand it. [I] was constantly reflecting on what in fact was happening. What was it that hypnotically bound me to that film? What was the tragedy? What was the hero’s drama? For me The Conformist is an example of the theme of “the intellectual and power”. The intellectual opts to compromise with power because of the force of circumstances and becomes a conformist figure. This state of affairs is wrapped in tragedy for the intellectual; he/she is sacrificed, whereas the conquering side is power. On one hand, the intellectual cannot avoid power in one form or another, but on the other hand, he/she cannot subjugate himself/herself to it, as those who hold power would desire. It seems to me that the problem here is that of the conflict between the spirit and power.

To riddle the mystery of his captivity Jahanbegloo has gone where Number Six never thought to look. The conflict between spirit and power.

United 93

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Along with the strong documentary feel--the hand held camera, the annoying passersby that block the view--there is an eerie absence of editorializing in this movie. The film plays like a security video of a 7-11 murder, with the effect that the viewer doesn’t have the comfort of knowing this is someone else’s point of view. Director Paul Greengrass knows that messages and morals would only dilute the brutal realism of his work. Through the innovative use of detachment, Greengrass has solved the problem of keeping the events of 9-11 perpetually fresh in the American psyche. Grandstanders and warmongers can now continue with their work, their zeal undiminished, their material replenished.

The information in the plane’s flight data recorder has not been made available to the public, so we don’t know why this passenger plane, hijacked by terrorists on 9-11, crashed before it reached its target. The film’s storyline follows the popular theory that the passengers mutinied against their captors and brought the plane down. But in keeping with its policy of objective reporting, the film makes no attempt to create heroes out of the passengers. Even the famous line, “Let’s roll,” which I had imagined as a heroic battle cry just before the passengers stormed the cockpit, was delivered in a huddled hush by one of the mutineers. The line was whispered so softly, I wondered how Greengrass expects us to believe that a telephone was able to accidentally pick it up.

There is also no attempt to make villains out of the terrorists beyond the obvious destructiveness of their act. They are guerrillas on a mission, improvising as the field conditions dictate. Not making villains out of the terrorists has the effect of closing the door to rebuttal. An apologist can’t argue that the terrorists are just doing what we would do under similar circumstances. The movie doesn't allow the debate to go there. “Of course they are like us,” the film seems to declare,” but things have gone beyond negotiation, understanding, or figuring out who is right and who is wrong. What we must do to protect ourselves has nothing to do with who’s the bad guy here.” This frightneningly pragmatic point of view should alarm even our friends. Once the world finds out we have disengaged from the moral debate, once it knows we would fumigate or vaporize other people out of existence while fully recognizing their humanity, it will look upon us as a global Macbeth in need of curtailment.

The movie's suspense begins when the terrorists make a mistake by failing to monitor passengers on telephones. Once everyone learns over the air-phones that the plane is on a suicide mission, the four terrorists lose control of the crowd. The passengers conspire against their captors and even begin to improvise weapons out of heavy luggage and boiling water.

Here, the greatest irony of United 93 comes out. The airplane itself is an improvised weapon. Despite all Greengrass' efforts towards gut-level rawness, the astute viewer will pause for introspection and wonder what desperate thoughts prompted the terrorists to improvise this weapon. Did they believe they were passengers in a world that was being piloted on a suicide mission by Western excess? Was the World Trade Center a metaphorical cockpit being stormed by desperate global passengers?

I would guess that this irony was unintentional, but intention is not the substance of art. Like an embarrassing child, art speaks her own mind, heedless of what her red-faced parents told her not to say. On a less artistic level there is an allegory which probably is intended. Since in this version of the story the passengers of flight 93 crashed the plane before it could destroy the Capitol building, their action may be considered pre-emptive. The invasion of Iraq was said to be pre-emptive, and now the possible invasion of Iran is also being touted as pre-emptive. United 93 suggests that in the long run such an attack would be worth the sacrifice of a few American lives.

Besides unintended irony, this work of art also has unintended lessons. The most important lesson questions why Islamic and Western civilizations have to clash in the first place. For example, the movie opens with the most moving recitation of the Koran I have ever heard. This is because the calming and yet deeply emotional quality of the words were enhanced by a soothing sustenato of strings in the background. Musical instruments are forbidden in Koran recitations, and if someone wanted to make a fuss about it, this fusion of violins and Koran could fuel street demonstrations. There was no protest because the innovation was not intended to offend, but to convey to a Western audience the sense of calm that a Koran recitation can bring. Yet even to a Muslim this fusion of cultures was astonishingly artful.

United 93 deviates from the Hollywood airport-movie genre in that the audience knows the story will end in tragedy. But there are those of us who still believe in a happy ending to the Islam vs. West conflict. To help this ship land safely we will create and support art and literature that intermingles the sublime aspects of these two cultures, rather than catalogue and memorialize the atrocities we have each committed. We happy-ending fans recommend the audience walk out on United 93 after enjoying the first scene with the amazing aria 'sung' in Koranic lilt.

How will the Iran nuclear showdown end?

Last month on this website I recommended Iran augment its current hurry-up-and-catch-up research on the obsolete nuclear technologies of the mid twentieth century, and focus on newer reactor designs. These newer reactor designs are being considered by nations who are serious about the use of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. The reactors of the future will be far more efficient and safer in the sense that their waste falls to tolerable levels of radioactivity in a few centuries rather than the tens of thousands of years for current reactors.

For a few days last week it seemed the Europeans were offering Iran “the most advanced nuclear technologies available” in return for Iran’s abandoning its uranium enrichment program. Though equivocations began to later appear in the news, if there is the smallest chance that this hint of an offer can be made real, the enterprise would be worth the efforts of any foresighted Iranian administration. Iran has vast hydrocarbon resources, but it is to her economic advantage to export this resource than to burn it for domestic use.

However, abandoning her uranium enrichment program is not an option for Iran. Technological self sufficiency is written into the Iranian constitution. The constitution has as one of its pillars, “The attainment of self-sufficiency in scientific, technological, industrial, agricultural, and military domains, and other similar spheres.” For the Iranians who are still paying the humiliating price of technological backwardness, this article of the constitution is more important than any of the declarations of loyalty to the Islamic way of life. This is why more people in Iran are united behind her nuclear program than support the Islamic regime. Any European offer of technology must respect Iran’s constitution on this point or the deal is off. Any regime interested in staying in power in Iran must respect Iran’s constitution on this point, or its time is up.

The Europeans know this and the Islamic regime knows this. The solution will be to satisfy the self sufficiency clause of Iran’s constitution by simply limiting her uranium enrichment efforts to pure research. This way Iran will not have nuclear strike capability but if by some chance Western security guarantees fail, Iran has the option of producing a weapon as a deterrence.

There is no other logical way this deadlock can be resolved, and if there were no hidden agendas, events would be proceeding in this direction. The fact that the world is still arguing about what to do with Iran has to do with the agenda of the United States to maintain superpower control over the economies of developing countries. However, the military failure of the United States in Iraq, the waning of manufacturing in this country, and the slow erosion of faith in the legitimacy of America as a global financial authority are likely to make the US agenda less and less important to the rest of the world. Once the global perception of US power is on a par with reality, the Iran nuclear issue will be resolved peacefully and logically.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

About this Site

This is Ari Siletz’s media watch on the Middle East, with an emphasis on Iran. It contains:

•  Reviews of books relating to the Middle East.
•  Reviews of movies relating to the Middle East.
•  Commentaries on current events reportage in the media.

Also included are samples of literary works by the author.

The Deserted Station

Directed by Alireza Raisian
from a story by Abbas Kiarostami

Like many Iranian films, The Deserted Station is vulnerable to absurd interpretations by Western reviewers because of its metaphoric nature. Writing for the BBC, Jamie Russell begins his analysis of this spiritually transcendent film with, “The sexual politics of the veil make for haunting viewing in Deserted Station.” This film, signposted with clear religious references for the Iranian viewer, is no more about sexual politics than Casablanca is about nightclub ownership. The film is actually a statement about the connection between social consciousness and worship.

The film begins with a well-to-do couple driving to the famous shrine city of Mashhad to supplicate for a child. The husband is a nonbeliever in such superstitions. He has agreed to the journey because he loves his beautiful wife and wishes to make her happy. As they debate the reality of miracles, suddenly the wife sees a deer jump across the road. She screams and the startled husband swerves the car into a ditch. As Iranians know, the deer is the symbol of Imam Reza, the saint that is buried at Mashhad, the couple’s destination. On seeing the deer the Iranian viewer is reminded of the following story:

A hunter has trapped a deer and is about to slay it when Imam Reza shows up to intercede. The deer whispers something in Imam Reza’s ear and he interprets for the hunter. “This deer is a mother,” says Imam Reza to the skeptical hunter. “Its fawns will starve if you kill her. She promises that if you release her she will return after she feeds her young and submit to be slaughtered.” The hunter is hesitant, but Imam Reza vouches for the deer and the hunter dubiously lets her go. But when the deer returns with fawns in tow, the hunter is so amazed that he forfeits his claim to her life. This is why Imam Reza is known as Imam-e-Zamen—the saint who vouches for the weak.

The viewer has been previously prepared for this pivotal metaphor with a humorous man-and-wife argument over how dense men can be when it comes to subtlety, or seen from his point of view, how paranoid women appear when they see hidden meaning in everything. Again, this is interpreted by Western reviewers as sexual politics because they are unaware of the context. Similarly these reviewers misinterpret the opening scene of the movie where it does not become apparent until later that the wife is also in the car. They see this invisibility as an allegory for a woman’s lack of importance in Iranian society. But to the Iranian viewer, the hidden presence and surprising appearance is a brilliant telegraphing of the miracle that is about to occur.

Having seen Imam Reza’s sign, we are now ready to meet him—or his avatar—in person. He comes to the rescue of the stranded couple in the form of a jack-of-all-trades mobile mechanic. His name is Faizollah (God’s generosity) and he is also the only barber, farmer, politician, vet, and school teacher in this patch of desert land. Seeing that the damaged car part needs to be taken to a town for straightening, Faizollah asks the wife to substitute at his makeshift village school.

While the men are away, the wife becomes acquainted with the inhabitants of this strange village, located in an abandoned rock-and-mud fortress built eons ago. The only connection with the outside world is the train that passes on its way to the shrine city. With one or two exceptions, the denizens are old women and children. The men go away for long periods to work, and the young women move away as soon as they are married. The children are effectively orphans. Here we encounter every form of human suffering—poverty, abandonment, illiteracy, sickness--all the ills against which an Imam is supplicated. We learn that Faizollah comes every day to teach school, farm the land, attend to the kids’ sanitation, keep the itinerant vendors from taking advantage of them, whatever he can.

Soon the wife and the children become emotionally entangled. As she and the viewer feel the depth of their sorrow, we begin to dread the inevitable disappointment when it comes time for her to leave.

The more we learn about each child, the more exhausting the tension becomes. This is not plot tension, but the much more difficult to achieve character tension. For example, among the children there’s one who has unsuccessfully tried to hop the train to see where the end of the line is. Once her car is fixed, the heroine can easily take him to the shrine city and show him, but the enormous burden of the child’s needs works against such happy resolutions. On a metaphorical level we identify with this child because we too want to know where the train goes. A nightmarish sequence in the film shows us a deserted boneyard of trains that no longer go to the shrine city. Time is a one way trip to death and dust for those of us who no longer strive for spiritual attainment.

Here, sitting in a dead train watching a live one whiz towards its destination, the heroine experiences a moment of revelation. The revelation is not played out until it is time for her and her husband to drive away. The children want her to stay, so she makes a food offering to appease them. When that doesn’t work, she offers gifts. When that also fails, she is confronted with the task of accepting her revelation or abandoning it. As a child puts his hands on her car the way a supplicant puts his hands on the shrine of Imam Reza, the message of the movie comes rushing through this single still image. Nearly 90 minutes of film have prepared us for its impact.

To be sure, among the many injustices this film supplicates the Iranian viewer to remedy, the treatment of women is not forgotten. For instance, in one scene Imam Reza’s avatar, Faizollah, cannot see a truckload of women being transported by insidious looking men. It is as though this benefactor of humanity has a blind spot. But this criticism of the Islamic regime, reproaching it in its own language of piety, is a far more relevant rebuke than the obligatory Western censure of solemn Islamic clothing. The heroine, played by the beautiful Leila Hatami, wears her outfit with all the dignity of a Supreme Court justice. Her poise and beauty absolutely stun, even though we see only her face.

Writer Abbas Kiarostami and director Alireza Raisian are not renegade artists as Western movie reviewers like to tell us. In a world that is being flattened by uniformity, they are geniuses with the imagination to create masterpieces within the framework of their own unique culture and religion.

Funny in Farsi

Funny in Farsi:
By Firoozeh Dumas, Random House.

In this bright and humorous thank-you note to America, Iranian émigrée Firoozeh Dumas demonstrates mastery of a traditional Persian art form, flattery. Highly developed by Iranian court poets, this skillful expression of praise, humility and gratitude is known as madh. Loosely translated as ‘panegyric,’ these flowery words came in handy when an enraged and egomaniacal sultan was about to do something rash. Dumas renders her madh of America in memoir form instead of in verse, but her techniques of appeasement are akin to those used by court poets whose wit sometimes decided between prosperity or ruin for the nation.

To make the sultan America feel warm inside, Dumas begins her tale in the upscale town of Whittier, California, where her family settled in the seventies. Tension builds when soon after their arrival she and her mother get lost in this opulent suburban setting. The tension is relieved when a resident generously invites them in to use the telephone and later drives them home. Dumas tells us, “After spending an entire day in America, surrounded by Americans I realized….the people were very, very kind.” What follows are peanut butter cookies, summer camp, Thanksgiving, Bob Hope, Disneyland, Halloween, and The Brady Bunch.

In her carefully crafted effort not to offend, Dumas recreates the cotton candy America that existed only in Hollywood in the fifties. She resurrects the uncomplicated America of The Andy Griffith Show and Father Knows Best. One can almost hear the knowing laugh track when Dumas replaces the word “hell” with the euphemism “a very bad place.” Eyeballs would roll if such material came from a contemporary American writer, but Dumas insightfully recognizes that, channeled through fresh immigrant eyes, this hackneyed treatment of America still has plenty of play.

Another technique of madh is paying homage to mundane attributes taken for granted by the sultan, revealing their deeper significance. Dumas reminds us of American affluence during a romp through Price Club. Her father and uncle ate enough free samples to feel like they had a full lunch. “In Iran people who taste something before they buy it are called shoplifters,” says Dumas. “Here a person can taste something, not buy it and still have the clerk wish him a nice day." In a wealthy consumer society where advertising budgets are huge, the giving away of food to un-needy strangers is indeed a remarkable consequence, something to boast about.

Pressing her ego boosting charm on the reader, Dumas stuffs America with opportunities. She mentions that her father was a Fulbright scholar. He even got to meet Albert Einstein and was consulted on the subject of Persian cats by the great genius. Her own education at UC Berkeley was financed through scholarships. In a very funny chapter, reminiscent of fifties era sitcoms, her father botches the opportunity to win a fortune in Bowling for Dollars. He comes home with only a pittance, the wiser for his ordeal.

Dumas is an Iranian-American Norman Rockwell. Death and tragedy are not on her palette. Everyone is wonderful--the exception being her intolerant French mother-in-law, which I assume was allowed in the book to please the freedom fries crowd.

Though politics is unwelcome in polite company, when it comes to Iran even Dumas can’t sidestep it. However, she keeps pouring on the syrup until the reader can’t tell a stack of pancakes from a cow pie. Here’s how she describes the abusive British oil policy towards Iran: “In a perfect world, the kindergarten teacher would have stood up before any documents were signed and said, ‘time out for Britain. We’ll renegotiate after a nap.’” When it comes time to confront the CIA engineered demolition of Iran’s home-made democracy, she is too genteel to use the word “America,” opting for “foreign powers” instead. The reader will have to guess for himself who this ‘foreign powers’ was that so bereaved Iranians that they are still shouting “Death to America” in the streets.

In return for her courteous flattery, Dumas invites America to see the positive side of Iranians. For instance, her memoir is soaked in paternal love, obliterating the notion that Iranian fathers do not value their daughters. As a moving example, her father’s inept swimming lessons are hilarious, particularly in the light of his irritation at the girl’s abysmal progress.

Funny in Farsi delivers exactly what the title promises, but there’s also an unfunny side to this memoir. The author’s eagerness to please and be accepted causes her to slip on a crucial point. Too often she takes the opportunity to distance herself from her ruder, more politically outspoken compatriots. This creates the impression that Iranians come in two varieties, gentle America lovers and violent America haters. Her partitioning strategy relieves the stigma on most Iranian-Americans--a great service to the community--but frankly they are not the ones who need her help. It is the other group--those living in Iran—who are threatened with a U.S. invasion. It is this other group whose essential infrastructure and national heritage are menaced by this enraged and egomaniacal sultan, America. Those Iranians are now perhaps in even greater danger because Funny in Farsi is telling Americans their country can do no wrong.