An interesting piece in the NY Times today. Although Iran is theocracy, and intolerant one at that, the interviewee brings up interesting and salient points about Iran under the Shah, whom the US, propped up until the Iranian Revolution in 1979, which was in response to the Shah's hardball tactics like the ones that he describes. I worked with an Iranian in Texas during this turbulent time, and the Shah had executed my Iranian friend's father. He was itching to get back to Tehran and participate in the overthrow of the Shah's government--who could blame him? But for many Iranians, the revolution didn't turn out like they planned: it was taken over by hardliner Islamists who eventually took the US embassy staff hostage for more than a year. Thus began our long and painful "coldwar" with Iran. We actually helped Saddam Hussein in the early eighties by supplying him with weapons because he was fighting Iran over disputed territory. Wars make for strange bedfellows.
Now we are concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran states that it wants to use uranium enrichment for nuclear power stations, not weapons. The US and much of Europe does not believe this. There is talk of sanctions against Iran, but China and Russia will not support this as Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Also if sanctions go through, we can expect to see oil hit over $100 a barrel--about 4 or 5 dollars a gallon at the pump. The president of Iran, whom another blogger described aptly as a "millenarian moonbat" has written an 18 page letter to President Bush and is now offering to "debate President Bush" on national TV to prove "to the American people" that he wants peace and good relations. Obviously this "debate" is not going to happen, and there was no official response to the letter. The Iranian president has made absolutely hideous remarks about Israel, saying that "the Zionists should be wiped off the map." When Mike Wallace, in a 60 Minutes (TV program) interview confronted him on this remark, he demurred--stating that he "just wanted the Palestinians to be treated fairly." But he had also said in the past that Israel should be relocated to Europe or Canada or Texas. Obviously the man is a loose and vicious cannon.
Bush, in response to today's announcement that Iran wouldn't stop enrichment of uranium, stated that if the security council, which includes China and Russia, wouldn't vote for sanctions, we, the US, along with "like-minded countries" (unnamed) may pursue "other methods." Most military experts and political/military think tanks read this as military intervention. So we would have three fronts: Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Should we attempt better diplomacy with Iran? Should we ignore the President of Iran (who a lot of Iranians despise) and negotiate with those who may be a bit more reasonable and less rabid in their rhetoric? Obviously Iran wants to talk to us, but our diplomacy has been limited and mostly done through European proxies. What do you think? Can the US afford another war? Or cannot it not afford not to have a war?
NOTE: the highlighted words, except for the NY Times article, are definitions of words and world events--mostly for my students' sakes. And if you, as a student, participate in discussion on this blog, you receive "participation credit."
Now we are concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran states that it wants to use uranium enrichment for nuclear power stations, not weapons. The US and much of Europe does not believe this. There is talk of sanctions against Iran, but China and Russia will not support this as Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Also if sanctions go through, we can expect to see oil hit over $100 a barrel--about 4 or 5 dollars a gallon at the pump. The president of Iran, whom another blogger described aptly as a "millenarian moonbat" has written an 18 page letter to President Bush and is now offering to "debate President Bush" on national TV to prove "to the American people" that he wants peace and good relations. Obviously this "debate" is not going to happen, and there was no official response to the letter. The Iranian president has made absolutely hideous remarks about Israel, saying that "the Zionists should be wiped off the map." When Mike Wallace, in a 60 Minutes (TV program) interview confronted him on this remark, he demurred--stating that he "just wanted the Palestinians to be treated fairly." But he had also said in the past that Israel should be relocated to Europe or Canada or Texas. Obviously the man is a loose and vicious cannon.
Bush, in response to today's announcement that Iran wouldn't stop enrichment of uranium, stated that if the security council, which includes China and Russia, wouldn't vote for sanctions, we, the US, along with "like-minded countries" (unnamed) may pursue "other methods." Most military experts and political/military think tanks read this as military intervention. So we would have three fronts: Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Should we attempt better diplomacy with Iran? Should we ignore the President of Iran (who a lot of Iranians despise) and negotiate with those who may be a bit more reasonable and less rabid in their rhetoric? Obviously Iran wants to talk to us, but our diplomacy has been limited and mostly done through European proxies. What do you think? Can the US afford another war? Or cannot it not afford not to have a war?
NOTE: the highlighted words, except for the NY Times article, are definitions of words and world events--mostly for my students' sakes. And if you, as a student, participate in discussion on this blog, you receive "participation credit."
posted by mariestaad at 10:06 AM
4 Comments:
Mariestaad,
There is one very important point that I feel should be pointed out that is in fact being completely ignored in the western media, in favor of portraying Mahmood Ahwellhissurnameistohardtospell as "the next Adolf Hitler."
I've gone into great detail about the "suspension of Uranium Enrichment" as being a manufactured issue on my blog, so here I will merely point out that the wording of the original documents, upon which the recent Security Council resolution was based, call for suspension as "a confidence building measure." Now, as a professor of english, I'm sure your are well aware that something that is a "measure" is seldom the crux of the issue. However, this has been seized upon in the western media.
More importantly, perhaps, is the portrayal of the Iranian president as Hitler, much the same as Saddam was hitler in 91 and 2003, even though in 1982 he was in charge of the only country to have ever been taken off the US State Sponsors of Terror list (and that was done by those who have been recycled from the Reagan/Bush I administrations into the current administration).
The phrase that has been seized upon is that "Israel should be wiped off the map." (or, the Zionists should be wiped off the map)
However, it has recently been pointed out to me (and in fairness, I should have thought of this myself) that the Iranian president was speaking to an assembly in Iran, and as such was speaking Persian, not english.
There is no Persian phrase for "wiped off the map" as it was MIStranslated into english. If I may direct your attention to a Wikipedia Article on the subject which also provides links to the original sources.
""Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]
On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said."
Perhaps, with your university contacts, you might be able to get in touch with Dr. Juan Cole for more information that you could share with the rest of us?
I just thought it important to point out this aspect of the discussion. Your post was brilliant, however, so thank you.
misneach, thank you for your post! It was most illuminating. As a translator of poetry (Swedish), I know how translations can be bungled (although I don't take much comfort in "vanishing from the page of time." remark, it isn't as militant as "wiping from the face of the map." Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their Farsi in either the media or State Department. The Hitler comparison is absurd--the man is a Theocrat, not a Facist, and some would argue that there are theocrats in the US government.
I thought it was interesting that the State Department gave the former (and moderate) President of Iran, Katami, a unrestricted visa, which means he can travel anywhere in the U.S. This is the first time an Iranian official has been given a visa since 1979. But the State Department is increasingly at odds with the Vice President and Rumsfeld, as Condi Rice would rather try honey than vinegar when dealing with Iran. I'm afraid she will be be in the same position that Colin Powell was two years ago.
Again, misneach, thanks for your great post.
I'm collecting letters from bloggers from around the world,and in the U.S., openly addresssed to my students. The purpose of the "letter" is to inform my students about one thing you think they most desperately need to know about current affairs in the middle east. You would send it as an email, and I will post it on my blog--my students will respond to your letter, and I will post their best letters on the blog as well. Your letter does not have a required length--it can be as short or long as you want. If you can't do this, I totally understand.
Meanwhile, I'll try to contact Dr. Juan Cole, as I teach in Michigan as well.
Trevor, I will take that into consideration as well. Actually, I think I will try to reach one of my former students who speaks Farsi and ask him to translate the passage.
I know nothing of Juan Cole, but I doubt that he is the full-blown lunatic that Coulter is. U of M has a reputation for being liberal, but you cannot teach at UM without serious scholarly credentials and peer-reviewed publications (and your peers may not be liberal. Contrary to popular opinion, there are many, many conservatives in academe--many in my own department, for example). He might be a flaming liberal, but if his translations are altered to meet a political agenda, his academic career is over at U of M. Believe me, as someone who taught for 6 years as a Doctoral Associate and the next 7 as a professor, he risks his credibility as a scholar if he distorts this and goes public with his distortion. Academe is brutal, brutal, brutal. I will keep tabs on any fall-out from his translation--if he is accused by a known Farsi speaker of slanting the translation. Like I said to misneach, I really don't find any comfort in Cole's translation, but it isn't as blatantly militant as the way the western media portrayed it.
Oh, and I agree, any country should be allowed to pursue nuclear power. There's this absurd notion being advanced by many that if Iran has so much oil, why do they need nuclear power. 1) They are forward looking. 2) we could use more nuclear power ourselves. 3) They are reserving their oil for exporting/income, not for domestic use. BUT, this peaceful use can only be verifed if Iran agrees to let the IAC monitor the enrichment and use. If they don't agree to this, I'm baffled by the assertion they have nothing to hide. I'm sure there is some paranoia about the IAC being "pawns of the west," but the high stakes game Iran is playing now is not helpful in convincing those in the west and the middle east (Sunnis) that the enrichment is for power demands only. Although, even if they started enrichment, they don't presently have the technology to weaponize--but like Pakistan, who virtually built the bomb under the noses of everyone, it would not take Iran long to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home