Thursday, February 10, 2011

I lost an uncle today.


I don't call my parents often. It is either the time difference or the mood difference. I have never been a talky kid. In the 18 years that I lived with my parents, I spent more time reading and listening (despite the fact that mother wanted and challenged us to be opinionated and expressive kids). I don't like talking about life trivia, and I prefer to write about other things. With my parents we rarely talk about anything serious. I am more of a hug and joke and play backgammon kind of a kid. If we talk, it is in the form of a fight over existentialist matters and politics. And then, we fight like cats and dogs. By "we" I mean mother and I. She is the cat, I am the dog. We talk affectionately though, when someone dies.

He was not my uncle, in a sense that he was not my father's brother in flesh. But he was my uncle in every other sense. I cannot say much about him, out of respect for his children. But his death triggered this memory of growing up during the war, during the sanctions. I am being the dog these days, biting people over Iranium, and over the misplaced activism of some Iranians who think if America bombs Iran (while they are tweeting or facebooking from Los Angeles), then Iran will turn into a heaven!


I refer to him as He.

I was 13. It was the forth year of the war. My parents were both ill, and we didn't know. Seeking better medical care in Tehran, Mother was (falsely) diagnosed with cancer and her body organs were being removed. Father had fallen ill out of that stress, with a correctly and rapidly diagnosed heart attack (thanks to my aunt who had detected his unusual pulse and had rushed him to hospital before it happened). My two young siblings had chicken pox. I was suffering teenagehood and a sibling who was 3 years younger than me but acted 10 years older, controlling me and my promiscuous nature.

It was winter. It was cold, there was not enough oil in our oil-rich country to heat our homes. Fuel was rationed, food was rationed. Food and fuel rations were measures put in place by no one other than Mir Hossein Mousavi, the man who despite all political perils suffered in prisons, kept us fed and schooled when the bombs fell; when the American sanctions aimed to starve and break Iran's military knee; and when food money was used to buy American weapons from the Israeli middlemen!

We lived in a large house. The house was built 30 years before we moved to it. It was built to be an affluent home. My parents had invested all of the earning of their short successful careers to buy it. Their careers were cut short by the revolution. It is only when I was a grownup independent woman that I realized that that affluent home was the only wealth we possessed. It misled us (who kept nagging at mother asking for expensive 'western things'--not barbies of course, but just sneakers or jeans to make us look like Madonna) and others who kept asking father for financial aid and if refused, mistook us for stingy rich. But that's how my mother wanted it: "if people know you are a have-not, they won't help you out; they will just respect you less."

This house had high ceilings and more glass than brick walls! It was a bit of a non-functional architecture. It would have been an ideal summer home, but in fuel-rationed winters, keeping the dry sting of the desert winter from the soft skin of kids aged 13-3, two of which burning in fever and itching in pox, was not an easy feat for the littlest of grandmothers, who in addition to keeping them warm, had to feed and dress and take care of the education of kids, who were likely to be orphaned.

Both grandmother and the kids were shielded from the turmoil that mother and uncles suffered in Tehran. It was only "He" who was suffering agony, because He knew that my father was in critical condition.

Father needed to be operated immediately abroad. Doing a simple angiogram carried an 80% risk of death; it was not only the sanctions but also the fact that many specialists were either in the service of the war or had left the country to their Western homes, running away from the fascists who were making the lives of the rest of us hard. Certainly, my 45 year old parents, whose career was cut by the the revolution, had no money to afford such expensive medical trip. And even if they did, (as mother had considered selling the home and all to take father for treatment), getting visas in those days of American-flag-burning was not easy.

Through all that turmoil, He was keeping an eye on us, and on my father's business, while shielding us and even grandmother from the tragedy that was likely to befall on us. Because of him, things did not look as horrible as they do, as I am writing them 27 years later.

In those days, you had to stand in lineups to buy bread, rice, meat, butter or fuel. Of course, in all sanctions and wars, those who "have", or seem to have, do not suffer the perils of the average people. He was not an average member of the war-struck country. He was well respected, well connected and in food business. He had people to stand in line and get our food ration on coupons; and of course some of those items were not good-enough for us. Which middle-class Iranian would eat Taiwanese rice or drink Iranian tea? No one! he got us the best of Iranian rice and provided us the best of the Indian teas. He came to our house everyday, bringing us a stack of fresh bread, and providing for us all other essentials of life: soap, fuel, cookies, sugar, salt, fruit, meat, beans--all rationed too. Because of He our pseudo-orphanhood was not as horrible as it may have been for people who did not have such connections. But that is something I will never know; because as far as I recall, with the exception of "Taiwanese rice that didn't turn fluffy", I never heard major complaints about food shortage from others. Sanctions did not halt life, nor did fascism of the zealots. Iranians still managed to live and managed to have a little fun here and there.

Today, I learned that He is gone.

Mother said my father was at first inconsolable, but then he couldn't speak to me because he was out helping His family with funeral.

I cannot help my tears. He is walking through the green gate of our house, calls out to my grand mother: "khanom bozorg", he would say, "baratoon noon-e tazeh avordam" (I brought you fresh bread.) What touches me is that he did this mundane chore himself; that he never sent his minions. Respect for "khanom bozorg"s obliges noble men to humbleness. And he was noble.

Today, some British asshole has asked for tougher sanctions on Iran. Saudi Arabian pimps are surely lobbying "the powers" for war with Iran.

I am not worried.

I know my family is not hungry. I know my family will never be hungry. My father has had the operation for which he was urged to rush to the West, in Iran.

27 years later, I still shiver at the thought of what my life would have become if my parents had died then. 27 years later I do all in my power to make sure no 13 year old Iranian girl will have to shiver in cold because war is keeping the oil in the trenches.

But I know, that in Iran, it is not the government, not the king or Imam, and not the Western powers and the Eastern conspirators, but uncles like He that keep the fabric of the society together, when they take care of the sick, cold and hungry kids of their friends.

To "He" ... peace, love, and respect.

His memory eternal.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Iranians fighting to appropriate the Middle Eastern uprisings.

When I saw this [Karoubi and Mousavi asking permit to rally in support of Egyptians and Tunesians], I laughed, loudly; and gave a mental hug to their timely call!

You have certainly heard how Khamenei is trying to hijack the intention of uprisings in Egypt and Tunesia, as a continuation of Iran's Islamic and anti-imperialist revolution, appropriating it into the camp of Islamist reawakening and etc.


And they have signed it together!

...

By the way, in the past week, I have had a chance to read and familiarize myself with what is happening in Egypt, and I have paid particular attention to similarities drawn between Egypt and Iran in 1979, and I have concluded that there is a fundamental difference between the two cases:

Egypt became a republic after a military coup in 1952 when the King was toppled; Iran's king was reinstalled in 1953 after a military coup, which was supported by the Iranian clergy.

The Iranian revolution had adopted a king before toppling the old one (Khomeini), because there is this genetic tendency in Iranians to seek or make a guru whose charisma can overshadow the strength of the multitude of Iranian egos--which often contradict each other in some abstract philosophical, ideological way, but need to work towards one goal.

Unlike Iranians, the Egyptians are not so hung over some 'greater-than-life' ideology, their revolution is a pragmatic one, they wear buckets, plastic bottles and bricks to protect themselves from the police, and laugh at the cameras that capture them in this brilliant self defense. They dance, instead of burning American flags. That their victims have not become iconographic saints, and that they are not so certain about the leadership of their movement, illustrates how fundamentally different from the Imam-making Iranians they are. Moreover, the process of making concessions to choose a leader, El Baradei's cautious, non-romantic presence, and absence of Brothrehood-poetics, [addeing a few hours after I made the post] and the brilliant initiative to sit at negotiation table with the government, while opening their shops and businesses on the one hand, and protecting the few who have remained to hold the lines in Al-Tahrir on the other hand, makes this a hopeful situation.


I wish them success; and may they set an example for the rest of us.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Reflections on "Reflections in Exile"

Tonight, I was in a gathering where passages of this were read. I had totally forgotten it; had swept all those feelings under the rug too. But, that deep heart break I felt, when Iranian election was "stolen", came back to me ... and made me cry ... to remember a proud dream that fell on the floor; shattered.

Tonight, at this gathering, I listened patiently, to some British researcher, running Enduring America, to talk passionately about how "if he doesn't keep the stories of revolutionary blood and passion alive, then "they" (i.e. IRI fascists, or Mubarak) will win"! I listened to him to admit (and I am grateful for his honesty) that if people are not fed enough blood and passion, they get bored and stop caring and then "they will win" (i.e. the IRI fascists, or Mubarak) ... and as I listened to him, my own blood and passion began boiling over: "what the hell is it of your business to fight for a cause half a continent away, when you can in deed be fighting in your OWN nation, contextualizing YOUR country's [United Kingdom] role in supporting despots according to national interests and etc."

It is very noble to side with journalists, lawyers, writer, student activists, women activists, minority activists, unionists, and other groups in Iran and across the world, when they are beaten, jailed, tortured, kidnapped and silenced by coercion and intimidation. But what is missing from the pro-democracy dialogues and monologues about Iran, for example, are the following FACTS:

- that the PARANOIA and megalomania of self-assumed "leaders" such as Khamenehi is a reaction to, and feeds from, the discriminatory, hypocritical, invasive, interventionist and manipulating relations pursued by Western powers in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east.

- that this paranoia is exacerbated by SHAMELESS announcements such as the 'strategy' of carrots and sticks. How dare does the west assume, and treat like a rodent, a nation whose Mullahs and Despots have proven themselves not only resilient but cunning enough to engage America with two of their starkest enemies: Saddam and Taliban, in costly wars that have ensured the safety of Iranian cities.

- does the so called "democratic" West expect Iranian authorities to sit on their hands and allow what they can interpret as Americans and Saudi Arabians pursuit of the well-articulated agenda of destabilizing and toppling their regime?

- How is it that the national security of Americans permits Guantanamo detentions, and water-boarding torture, but the Iranian national security must be relaxed?

- And what about this whole nuclear issue? How is it that a country, with aggressive attitude proven in two wars launched against Lebanon in recent years, is entitled to Atomic bombs, is entitled to threatening a sovereign nation with bombing and destruction; but a non-proliferation signatory nation is pushed to abandon its nuclear research because someone fears it will trigger an arm's race in the region of 'mercurial juveniles?"

I can go on and on ... but the point that I am trying to make is this:

That fascism is always a reaction; is a form of retaliation; is a case of sadomasochism that develops in victims of abuse. Fascism is a reaction to abuse; it is in this way that it recruits its operators. Its functionaries are those whose rational faculties are more strongly damaged through chronic abuse.

I am not denying the militarist and economic agenda of the fascists who are running Iran today. But I believe EVERY despot and dictator has some version of world view that gives them the existentialist justification for the brutality they exercise. Forced to a corner, without air to breath, without flow, without light; this is how and why the IRI has rotten. For a cornered animal, the only way to survive is through violence.

So, I have a proposition, how about Enduring America going back to the initial intention of focusing on US's foreign policy, how about digging 'juicy' stories from Britain's recently opened National Archives, stories that can perhaps better contextualize and explain why the Middle East is unable to overcome its democratic hurdles? I understand that people want quick and dirty doses of heroism, and such web sites need ratings that will secure their revenues. But precisely because of this, I think their method of supporting Iran and Iranians is flawed and counterproductive.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Iran and the West (Part 3)

I had in the past made posts related to part 1 and part 2 of this award-winning BBC4 documentary.

As I am trying to take bird's view of what is happening in Egypt, what is happening in Iran (execution orgy) and about Iran, I started thinking about Part 3 of this documentary.

The first part of this episode is about Iran's collusion with the USA over Afghanistan and Iraq--and the arrogance of Bush administration to accept Khatami's proposal to approach Iraq's problem in consultation with its bordering neighbors plus Egypt.

The second (and larger) part is about Iran's nuclear standoff (starting minute 18).

Khatami speaks bitterly about Mahammad Al-Baradei's backstabbing Iran (minute 27-30), turning back from his initial agreement and definition of suspension terms, and siding with the Europeans--thus undermining Khatami internally, and empowering the Iranian conservatives against the reformists. Yet, when the Israel Lobby calls El-Baradei a stooge of the Iranian government, (while keeping in mind that the current Iranian government HATES Khatami,) you can't help wondering what's going on in the most recent Middle Eastern game. Of course, there is little surprise why Israelis hate El-Baradei. To me, El-Baradei seems like a flip-flopper, at least as far as the Iranian nuclear issue is involved. He has always talked of peace and dialogue but he has a track record of flopping narratives too.

I think the dynamics surrounding the Iranian Nuclear Issue should not be forgotten these days, despite the boiling North African revolutions. As we see in this video, even a conservative hardliners like Larijani, close to Khamenei, has been undermined in making progress on this issue (minutes 54-56). To the great pleasure of Israel, Ahmadinejad has not allowed that to happen.




(Please also watch minute 32-36, to refresh your memories about how American politicians are responsible for the killing of innocent Iranian men and women who die in plane crashes. I laughed over the slip of the tongue: "we had tried regime chan..." in minute 51, by Richard Burns.)

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Masterpieces that are not nominated for Oscar: Women Without Men.

Women Without Men (Shirin Neshat, 2009) deserves a place amongst those cinematic masterpieces that will have remained obscure, perhaps for ever.

Despite winning the Silver Lion of the Venice Film Festival in 2009 (for best director), and despite generating a lot of paparazzi and revolutionary buzz around Shirin Neshat's "green" and "feminist" appearance on the red carpet, the film received little cinematic attention. In fact, it did not make it to many art house cinemas around the world before it was released on DVD.

With my little expertise in how media and film interact, I would have advised Neshat to not publicize this fantastic piece of visual art in the narrow tunes of feminist-Iranist-activist horn. This may be why the film has not reached the greater art and politics audience it deserves. The danger with linking a film to a contemporary 'revolution' (the Green one at this time) is that both the art houses and the big-buck distributors and promoters become hesitant to pick it as a favorite. I think this film deserved an oscar nomination (but I understand the politics that have kept it away, as well.)

And of course, there is the fallacy of the teasers. None of the teasers I saw of the film encouraged me to expect from the film what it actually contained: visual poetry; each frame freezing an instance where pain and beauty intersected. "I don't make pictures to be beautiful, I only make pictures where beauty conveys a pain or a struggle", says Shirin Neshat in the Special Feature chapter of the DVD I just received from Amazon.UK (~ 10$). (I confess that I was so disgruntled by the whole green symbolism around this film that I did not want to see it for a long time; I just dislike artists engaging in explicit propaganda--but this film is NOT propaganda at all, even if the artist says it is, don't believe her.)

The Guardian and the NYT have given it a nod, highlighting the women and the 1953 coup aspect of the film; the LA Times focused on the green on the red carpet part; although there were some LA writers who focused on the poetics of the film; the Variety acknowledge the visual beauty only to bash the narrative difficulties; The London Times was the one to correctly suggest the name misled the audience to expect a feminist rant instead of a human story; although the Feminist review insists on the feminist rant. Perhaps the most justice was delivered by the New York Review of Books, where Sarah Kerr acknowledged and contextualizes this work in relation to Neshat's previous monumentally turbulent [PLEASE WATCH] creations. Kerr talks about the caustic wit of Shahrnoush Parsipour, whose novel Neshat free-adapted; talks about the history of the American coup and the role of women in Iran's 1953 society; but also draws attention to elements of set design; and the details of this wonderful (and rare) period film:

"Neshat’s beautiful images, and also her sounds, remain a clear strength over her plotting. As in Turbulent, she casts a spell portraying musicians at weddings and salons. In another short but fierce scene, women in black sitting cross-legged in a courtyard are swaying as they wail, their voices fused into a buzzing sound like a medieval shawm. The film keeps returning to the image of a walled garden outside Tehran that is also key to the novel, a temporary place of refuge for the women and a thematically loaded idea. The first time we glimpse the garden, it looks like little more than a scrawny ribbon of stream water. But soon enough tall trees come into view, and fog cut by stripes of sunlight. There is an orchard nearby and there are plants, not overly tended by perfecting human hands and gone to seed. Visually the scene has magic in it—a quiet dense with the work of nature, a paradise saturated with the energy of life, cycling toward death and back again."
The troubled production history of the film is remarkable: Neshat's brother dies a day after shooting (although his family keeps it a secret from her); one of her Iranian actresses that cannot get a Visa to the US, gets banned from leaving Iran for Morocco (where the film was shot); the film was produced internationally: The Iranian-American director had to secure funding from German, Austrian and French producers, produce the set in different countries, edit the film by different editors in each country, coordinate different sorts of characters, with the baggages of pain and mental illness and eating disorder, speaking 100 various languages on the set [anecdotes from Shirin Neshat, in the special feature of the DVD] and deal with funding issues.

The set design, the mise en scene cannot be overlooked. Keep in mind that the film is presenting an era of the Iranian history that has suffered censorship both during the Pahlavi regime (because the film revolves around the American coup that overthrew Iran's democraticaly elected prime minister and reinstated the Shah) and during the Mullah regime (because the IRI has propagated its own version of history in those years, highlighting the role of Kashani and obscuring the nationalists and lumping them together with communists as far as the nationalization of Oil concerned. To get the details of set right, Neshat had to read many books and travel to speak to many people: her sets are reconstructed from the collective memory of those who have lived those times.

This is not a realist film; it is an expressionist one where form overwhelms the narrative. While watching, I was compelled to take a picture of each scene, and to write about each frame, about the composition of colors and frame, the camera choreography, about the acting, about the social space compacted in each mise en scene, and about the fact that this is the first feature film of this outstanding artist. Neshat is deliberates her political arguments in beautiful Tableaux. And not only does she show that Iran was not a barbaric land unfamiliar with democracy and modernism, but that it was the British and the Americans who helped ruining it. It so happens that the lives of four women (prostitute, socialite, intellectual and traditional) unfolds in that time told by Parsipour; but the creation of space and light is Neshat's. A marvelous one too.

Alireza Pahlavi, the little prince.

His death shook everyone:

Another kid of "The King of Kings" (the megalomaniac Mohammad Reza Shah, who wanted to restore Iran's monarch glory, who went head to head challenging and threatening the regional ambitions of the Israelis and the pan-Arabists, and who was dragged from the throne by assistance from Americans of whose subordination he was accused) laid in his own cold blood. At the time of his death, he was unknown to most of us who were born around his age, and who remembered him from a faint memory of his brown hair, cute face and the brown air force uniform he was wearing when, instead of Champagne, he splashed a bucket of water on his older brother, the crown prince, who had just landed his first fighter plane. (Couldn't find the image of what is printed in my memory, but found these photos of those days) His older brother, often pisses us off by siding with neo cons or Iran bombers (although he has changed his tone recently), and so the majority of us have cast a blanket of ignorance on the rest of the family, whose grandfather has laid the foundation of modernity [in terms of infrastructure and secularism], and whose mother tried to lay the basis of modernism [in terms of art] in our country (okey I am not being precise, I know). Many of the older generation, however, remain loyal to the royals.

I respect the right of any single, uncommitted person to end their own life. But I felt sorry for his mother most. She is my favorite of the monarch family.

I love her grace, her sense of fashion, her architectural education; and I love her because of many fundamental educational programs she started in the remote villages of Iran, trying to empower the villager women, trying to assist them make an enterprise of their folk art, trying to make them literate (I am happy to find this picture) Her legacy continues today in the form of NGOs ... not all Iranian women are concerned with how much hair they can or cannot show from under a scarf. Many a women are struggling with more fundamental issues, and they are making little progress every day, but I will talk about that elsewhere.

Alireza was the second Pahlavi to commit suicide. His sister overdosed on sleeping pills only 9 years ago. She was a year older than I. Her death made me sad too.

Today, I came across a podcast, a few Iranologists were talking about Alireza's academic past. This radio program, together with the support of those who encouraged me to continue blogging, inspired me to translate the podcast. If I am to revisit my past, this is a good start.

Iranians, please go to the source. This is a report by Amir Mosaddegh Katouzian of Radio Farda, broadcast from Prague.

The suicide of Prince Alireza Pahlavi, 44, on Tuesday Jan 4, in Boston, shocked many. The grief of the suicide of the third child of King Mohammad Reza and Queen Farah Pahlavi, nine years later than 31 year old Princess Leila's suicide, surpassed the family and friends of the monarchy.

Since he had studied Ancient Iranian History, the cultural and academic Iranian community was touched. However, in his academic resume he has but a Masters degree in music, from Princeton (1989), a masters in Ancient Iranian History from Columbia (1992) and continuing in the field of philosophy and ancient Iranian languages towards a doctorate in Harvard.

In this program, Peyk-e Farhang [the Culture Messenger] learns about his academic resume from a fellow Harvard student, a fellow researcher in UCLA and two Columbia professors of History who knew him.

Hamid Dabashi, Columbia's [Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York], began teaching in Columbia at the same time as Alireza Pahlavi was admitted to this university:


Dabashi: I came to Columbia towards the end of the 80s. I think Alireza was in Columbia since 1988. Our encounters were of teacher-student kind, but not in the same classroom. He was interested in, and continued to work (but did not finish) on studying Iran before Islam. Before going to Harvard, he worked with my senior colleague Professor Ehsan Yarshater.

Ehsan YarShater: He attended one of my classes. He was very interested in Iran's ancient history. After going to Harvard, he started working with Oktor Skjærvø on the ancient Persian languages and culture. Unfortunately, however, he did not receive his degree.

Alirza Pahlavi was invited by (then a UCLA PhD student) Touraj Daryayee, the current professor of ancient Persia in UCI, to present his research findings in a symposium in UCLA.

Touraj Daryaee: I got to know him in 1990s. He studied in the same field as I, on the East coast of the US. Few people, especially Iranians, work on ancient Persian history. We were a handful who worked on the Sassanid and Pahlavi scripts, i.e. Middle Persian. Alireza was one of these researchers in Harvard. This is why I invited him and Dr. Rahim Shayegan. We arranged a panel about Sassanid era and he was kind enough to join. His doctoral thesis was research in a Pahlavi text, (مینوی خرد) "meenoo-e kherad" which is about the geography and the climate in which Iran is situated. He talked about that.

Rahim Shayegan, current assistant professor of Near East languages and cultures in UCLA, is a close friend of Alireza and a fellow student for ten years.

Rahim Shaygan: I know him since 1992, we were in the same class in Harvard and started together with professor Skjærvø. We had graduate degrees in Iranian studies and had come to Harvard to complete our doctoral thesis.

Mosaddegh-Katouzian: How far did he advance in Harvard?

Rahim Shaygan: I have to give a brief explanation about how Iranian studies in Harvard works. For a few years, you study ancient Persian languages, ancient Persian history, and old religions like Zoroastrianism. Then after a few years you have a comprehensive exam, consisting of a few themes and a few languages that include all texts related to those themes. This is a relatively difficult exam and take at least a year to prepare for. He passed these exams successfully and in a short time; and since he had a phenomenal memory, he went through it with ease and began working on his dissertation. It progressed well until 2000-2001 and there is little left to complete it for publication.

Mosaddegh_Katouzian: Other than his presentation in UCLA, did he present his later research in any conference?

Rahim Shaygan: naturally, because of his situation, he could not take part in conferences easily. He was sensitive and feared his presence (as a Prince) in Ancient Persian conferences will create a burden; so he refrained from participating.

But I have to talk more about his thesis. He worked on one of the important Pahlavi scripts. Pahlavi is a language written in the Sassanid era, before Islam arrived in Iran. This script, minooye kherad, is an important text about the religious mentality of that time. It is a dialogue between a guru and minooye kherad, the conscience of wisdom. He asks questions and gets answers.

This dialogue has 62 questions and answers. He transcribed this test, phoneticized it, translated it from Pahlavi to Latin and then to English; and produced a detailed annotated report to contextualize the text historically, and in relation to other existing Pahlavi and religious texts in Iran.

Interpretation of this work, which is very heavy, was complete, but he wanted to re-write it. Unfortunately the personal tragedies made him abandon the work. After 2001 (death of his younger sister) he could never go back to finish this 90% complete work. It takes only 6-12 months to finish it off.

Mosaddegh-Katouzian: In a news conference in Thursday, the crown prince, Reza Pahlavi indicated that his brother suffered depression. Did you notice signs of depression to explain his suicide?

Rahim Shayegan: undoubtedly, his family knows the possible cause of his pains best. But it was obvious to all friends and acquaintances that he had a deep and undeniable attachment to Iran and Iran's culture. To be away, and the pain of exile, the nostalgia and all this creates a form of depression that is present in many Iranians of his age, but to a certain degree stronger in him. Perhaps because he was an educated Prince, he felt added responsibility. Perhaps his inability to do something about improving the pain and deficiencies [of his country?] exacerbated his pain.

The pictures his friend portray, indicate that Alireza refrained from aristocratic appearance in academic circles.

Hamid Dabashi: As a student, he mixed in with the rest and did not differ from others. He was a shy and a kind kid. He was a generous lad. Many of my students were his close friends and socialized with him. This is very shocking and disturbing for me. A kid, that I encountered at the peak of his youth in Columbia, who reminds me of my starting years in columbia, who could have been the source of good, both socially and culturally, has had such a tragic ending.

Ehsan Yarshater: He was extremely modest. If you didn't know he was a prince, nothing would have indicated it in his behavior. He was a loyal friend. He called occasionally and asked about me; or came to the Columbia office and updated me about himself. But in recent years I had not heard from him and didn't know what he was doing.

Touraj Daryayee: I am not into politics but in my personal encounters I found him to be a good person. Calm. Never saw aggression or malaise in him. It was interesting to me that he was fascinated by the ancient Iranian history and spent his time on that. It is regrettable.

Rahim Shayegan: After 10 years, all common memories are always present. In his demeanors, there was a form of honor. In friendship, he was consistent and loyal. In manners, very delicate, royal. Both a delicate mind, a remarkable talent, and a delicacy in all functions. I can say he was a remarkable person. Incredibly remarkable.

Prince ALireza Pahlavi, the researcher of the Pahlavi script Minooye Kherad, has willed for his ashes to be scattered on the Caspian Sea.


Alireza(1966-2011) on the right; Leila(1970-2001) in her father's arm
.
P.S. It was a total coincidence that I posted this on the same day that his memorial service was held.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Goodbye? Hello?

Do you still read this blog? Are you an old friend? I feel so disconnected from this blog, from my old friends, from Iran. My life is revolving around other things: science, photography, music, memory, sports, shoes!!

What have I to say? That the IRI's found a solution to population control: executing one convict every eight hours? Yes, some are political too. Often Kurds; those whom the rest of "land-worshipping" Iranians don't really care about; those whom we don't really know, because their language and race, perhaps the 'purest' of the Persians, is hardly ever taught to us, hardly ever promoted --DESPITE THE FACT that they have given us some of our best musicians.

Or, talk about sanctions? What they are doing or not? Sanctions won't do much other than bringing more airplanes down; killing more people in the hospitals; and making some smuggler in Iran, some dealer in Dubai, and some arms-pimp in Israel or Saudi Arabia richer!

No Sanctions won't lead to a "revolution"; Iranians are not the people to risk death because they are hungry; they never have. Iranian uprisings have never been because of economics. Believe me the country HAS seen plenty of hunger .. after all, this is a harsh land, where water is and has always been scarce. There have been and continue to be droughts. People are used to living on little. And people are ashamed to announce their poverty, it is just part of the culture. Generosity is part of the culture. Keeping up the appearance is part of the culture. So, don't hold your breath!

Or should I talk about the Prince who killed himself in cold blood in the solitude of his Harvard education in Boston? The prince, who was much better looking and better educated than the older brother who has been dominating our monarch scenario despite his utter lack of persona and charisma, and his obvious plentitude of stupidity and apathy.

Or maybe I should talk about good things that are happening ... it is irresponsible to portray Iran as a depressed and regressing society, just because its lawyers and human and labour right activists and journalists and filmmakers are in jail! No, like any dictatorship, there are a few who are plucked, the trouble makers. And the rest are given opportunities. If you are willing to pay the price of complicity, you can actually do good things in Iran; for Iran. (I have to dig to give examples, but I don't want to rummage through dirt to find gems.)

So you see, my silence is because I am STUCK! I don't know what to say about my country. In some ways, I have abandoned it. In some ways I am "In Search of the Times Lost" these days; I am tracing my memories back, my old friends, my childhood, I am trying to make sense of them all, make sense of what we were 30 years ago and what we have grown up to become as 40 year old men and women.

Knowing the psych of my fellow Iranians, I have stopped worrying: things will not go terribly bad. What I feared a while back, fear of civil war, is now subsiding as well. But things will not get terribly good either. In other words, Iran will have more of the same, more of the same that it has had in the past 100 years. For a society as Old as Iran, things are not as plastic as one political activist may wish them to be. There are personality and adaptation traits that have become our national haplotype!

What is depleting my blog of material, however, is the emptiness of the cultural scene in Iran these days. The vibrant and creative community that was emerging a couple of years ago is now terribly oppressed or depressed (or sub-pressed, i.e. moved to netherground!). Many artists have exiled themselves; and many who have stayed behind have to put up with the fascists who are the foot-soldiers of the Ahmadinejad camp. In brief, things are turning 'ugly', in an aesthetic sense.

I may have to change the direction of my blog ... I may have to turn it into something more personal, something where I can write "my" story ... after all, I belong to the generation of self-narratives; the author has died and our "reality" may be the most illuminating of political narratives to share.

I have been mesmerized by Marina Abramovic recently ... If she can put herself in flesh on display, and let her spectators DO to her what their (in)humanity is (in)capable of; then why not I put my "virtual" self up for sharing. Perhaps, my neo-resistance must adapt too; must circumvent the boring and annoying scenario that Ahmadinejad's forced upon us?

So I am thinking ... If you read this, say hello. I am terribly lonely these days.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Iranian executioners have gone awry ... But Iran gets a new legend, Ali Saremi!

Ali Saremi, the 62 year old prisoner, is killed.

He was hanged yesterday; abruptly, without due process, when his family was awaiting news--because they had heard rumors of their father's execution, yet they had hope that the rumors were unfounded as the legal procedures that would indicate his execution was imminent were lacking.

Their fears came true when two ambulances stopped in front of the Iranian Bastille, the shameful Evin, when the chants of Hossein Hossein rose, just before the morning prayer, marking the orgy of the blood thirsty executioners of the regime, Ali Saremi and another activist, Reza Sharifi Boukani (whose 'abhorring' crimes allude me and the search engines!!!) were dead.


0) Political opposition!
1) speaking in a memorial ceremony, at the mass-grave of Khavaran, remembering the genocidal execution of thousands of Iranian prisoners (Sorry that I must use this term in a blog about my country, but this is when a lot of Iran's political youth met their death because some "asshole" decided they were blasphemous and did not believe in Islam!)

2) traveling to Camp Ashraf in Iraq, to visit his son, a member of MEK which is the armed resistance group, that is loathed by many Iranians for their violent tactics and the incompetence and selfishness of their leaders, who seem to have imprisoned these runaway kids in Camp Ashraf! (throughout this blog, I have not hid my hatred for the leadership of this group, and have not shied away from criticizing them with all contempt ... but no affiliation, no crime calls for a human to call another human, I LOATH the killers, I loath them ...)

He has been on and off in prison, since 1989 ... recently, he picked on Ahmadinejad, and remained defiant when his execution sentence was announced ...

...

I am incoherent, because I am too upset ... I am upset because I KNOW all these sudden executions are scare-crows ... Ahmadinejad, the fucking Ahmadinejad and that IDIOTIC judiciary system think they are instilling fear in the hearts of the cattle ... the cattle who is to suffer hunger and unemploymengt after their "economic" revolution!!

But they are WRONG!

Saremi's daughter is ironically called Zeynab--and she has written a short moving piece that crystalizes the sentiments of us! I say ironically because Zeynab was the sister of Imam-Hossein. Imam-Hossein is the icon of shiite resistance, the man who chose death over life under shame of complicity with tyranny. Zeynab spoke bravely and passionately on the body of his martyred brothers, when they were killed some 1300 years ago, on "ashura"! Even more ironically, Asura event were commemorate just two weeks ago. And, what more? During, this month, "Moharram", Muslims are prohibited from war and killing!! So much for the champions of Shiism in the world, so much for the Islamic Republic of Iran, so much for the followers of Hossein!!

Zeynab Saremi wrote:

I write this letter, for the noble spirit of my father to hear!

My dear father, I wish I knew if you felt our presence behind the Evin walls! In the cold of the winter we shivered, while the guards had taken refuge in their heated vehicles.

Father, I had come to see your moon face.

Father, I had come to let them punch me, mother and my sisters in the heart, but let you remain to defend my country!

Father, it didn't take more than 20 minutes before two ambulances that were marked "inspectors" pulled over, around the dawn; and before entering the iron door of Evin, the chants of Hossein Hossein Hossein broke the cold silence of evin; the call to prayer rose and merged with the starry moonlit night.

My entire body froze inexplicably, we sensed the goosebumps on our body and faces, and after the prayer-chant the guards left, and we remained ...

Father, I saw you fly away and leaving us behind; but we have not stayed behind, look at your footsteps ... all the world has come to march behind you, even with broken heads ...

Father, I love you from the bottom of my heart, I love you, I love you ...

Zeynab Saremi
Dec 29, 2010

Every decomposing body in the grave fertilizes our Green garden of eden ... these serpents will be driven away ... this is the courageous plea of Saremi's daughter, who breaks my heart to thousand pieces, shrapnel that will defeat these fascist invaders out of Iran, mark my word.

(Translated by Naj.)

Monday, December 27, 2010

Execution, Iranian style!

They have sentenced a Kurdish student activist to death (on the bogus charges of armed encounter with the IRGC). His execution, which was to take place yesterday, got stayed! But, the IRI has arrested all of his family members and no one knows where they are (see this for English) and what is going on! In the meantime, they may have started preparing another execution stand, for another Kurdis student, Reza Sharifi Boukani, in the shadow of the media attention invested in Habibollah Latifi!

Why now?!

Remember the "economic reform of Ahmadinejad"? Well, from what I hear, this economic reform is going to starve and unemploy many of those 58 million Iranians who are already on the beggar's list (and will receive 40$ per month in compensation.) The little militant boys don't want trouble and as always, killing the Kurds and the Balouchis is the best scare-crow. These are the least internationally supported minorities. And the Persian Iranians can easily turn a blind eye on their execution because, well they are advertised as militant secessionists, and god forbid if anyone questions the territorial integrity of Iran ... And these are not women either to get the feminists mobilized, but they are good examples of how fierce and scary the Iranian regime is. People who believe in the fearfulness of their governments are obedient and manageable.

Anyways ... Happy holidays to you too!

Monday, December 13, 2010

On the sacking of Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs:

I didn't like this fellow, although compared to Ahmadinejad he was mellow. But, the haste with which Ahmadinejad fired him (while he was on a diplomatic trip abroad), and his resolve to f%#k up universally, compells me to SCREAM:

I HATE THIS BASTARD AHMADINEJAD.

Really, don't look for any deep meaning into this, and don't expect any analyses. Ahmadinejad doesn't make rational decisions ... the psycho!

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Is Iran's fanatic and corrupt judiciary succeeding in priming Iranians to vengeance? Studying reactions to Shahla Jahed's execution

Last week, the criminal court decided to carry out the punishment of death for a woman (Shahla Jahed) who was accused of killing the wife (Laleh Saharkhizan) of her famour soccer-player lover (Naser Mohammadkhani).

This was Iran's O.J Simpson trial; except that here, there was a woman to prosecute, and evidence for the potential involvement of Mohammadkhani were all slipped under the rug.

Judging from the videos of her court proceedings, this woman, Shahla Jahed, did not seem mentally fit, she seemed to have a dependency complex, a bit of megalomania, and plenty of exhibitionism. In other words, not only the likeliest scapegoat, but also the one who could compromise Mohammadkhani's facade most, with her public outcry of love and devotion to him. (In Iran, men are allowed to marry up to four times and have as many temporary marriages as they wish, but the practice is HIGHLY frowned upon in the stoic Iranian society).

I didn't care about the trial, the gossip, and whether she had actually committed murder or not. I am opposed to death penalty, for ANY reason, so death sentence hanging over her head unsettled me as it does for anyone, anywhere in the world. But, what has been occupying my dreams and nightmares, since her killing, is the fact that according to the Iranian/Islamic law, the family of the victim have the right to pardon the killer. The victims family carried their revenge desire for 9 years, during which, due to doubts about the trial, several execution stops were ordered. In Iran the execution of the first-degree murderers is carried out under the will and by the hands of the victim's family; it is they who pull the chair off. As draconian, even that did not surprise me.

What has been eating me up since, is the fact that it was the teenager son of the victim who was given the "honor" of killing this young woman; in presence of his grandmother--who refused to pardon the crying-begging Shahla on the gallows, and his father--who was the main culprit as far as having married a second woman temporarily and having fueled the fires of jealousy that burned both his wives, when he happily took off to London and to Quatar, living his life as if nothing had happened--and then claiming victory when the judge gave his second wife a death sentence!

That a teenager carried out this execution is unforgivable. I have been getting into all sorts of arguments to insist that this is where personal and political merge, but where the act of the individual can neither be excused, nor explained or blamed on the corruption of the government and inadequacy of the system.

Beside that, many sociologists and lawyers have been discussing this case, and many argue, convincingly, that
  • The somewhat unexpected execution of Jahed was another one of IRI's "threatening" maneuvers, on the eve of Student Day.
  • Since the conservatives have dominated the spheres of power, especially with the appointment of the new head of the judiciary, another one of the Larijani crooks, a notable increase in public and cruel forms of executions has been observed. The sociologists argue that this is by design, and aims to desensitize the population to violence, thus reducing the cost of institutional violence for the government, which has by now a 'good' track record in atrocity.
  • The other concern is fascism, of which the Iranian leaders today do not shy away. Cruel nations are the ones where fascism can root easiest.

But, how cruel are Iranians?

To answer this question for myself, I surveyed reader-reactions to this event on one of the first sites that reported the execution: Jame Jam. Jam-e Jam is a conservative newspaper and an offspring of Iran's notorious broadcasting organization; one of the first internet news sites to launch in Iran. 137 responses were recored. Of these, I included 120. (the rest did not address the issue of death penalty for Jahed, they were mostly complains about comments not posting fast enough). I colourcoded the responses:

15% Red (18 comments): people who were happy about the execution and who thought revenge is the right of the victims, and thought that this execution will set an example for other women to not stray off!

36% Yellow(44): people who thought the main culprit was the soccer player, Mohammadkhani, and wished for his trial, although a handful said they wish it was him hanged and not his concubine!

48% Green (58): people who deplored the act of revenge, some respectfully and some not so respectfully, reminded the victim's family that having a teenager Kill is unacceptable, and that in Islam (citing Imam Ali, the first Imam of the Shiites) forgiveness is emphasized just as much as right to revenge for the killing of a blood relation.

I let the picture do the rest of the talking.


Monday, November 29, 2010

Wikileaks, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia

Update: I have been trying to catch bits and pieces from these 250,000 cabels, and one thing that is becoming increasingly clear to me is the RACIST media spin, which is trying to divert the damaging attention from the US department of foreign affairs and instead scapegoat the "dubious Arabs" and the "dangerous Persians" ... all concerns I expressed a few hours ago before North America woke up are becoming more justified. There seem to be a concerted effort to demonize Muslims (Arabs) and through their eyes, justify a war against Iran, selling it as: "see it is not only Israel who is afraid of Iran; all the neighbors wanted bombed too" ... clever Zionists, huh? Well we are more clever than you!
End of update

Initial reaction
Well well, my facebook world is flooding with angry and nationalistic messages about the recent Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia urging a military attack to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.


And then came concerns of Robert Gibb, that such as these leaks are undermining the plight for democracy and worsen the human rights situation in Iran. This concerns, coming from Robert Gibbs the White house spokes person made my brows hit the ceiling: "what the Eff??" THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAN'S DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT!!!!

To link ANY policy regarding Iran's nuclear program to the Green movement is TOTAL hypocrisy of Mr Gibb, especially in the light of the following leaked piece of information:

¶7. (S/NF) Regarding the recent election in Iran, MBZ (Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan ) cautioned that Mir Hossein Musavi is no different than Ahmedinejad when it comes to their nuclear ambitions, 'same goal, different tactic.' In this respect, he regards Musavi as more dangerous than his competitor, as at least Ahmedinejad was 'an open book.' He reminded Secretary Geithner that Musavi and his advisors are part of the same group that took the U.S. Embassy in 1979.

A few minutes after all these reports, a Saudi Arabian friend of mine sent me a little message. If you are curious what Iranians and Arabs think about this, am copy pasting our little exchange about this issue:

The Iranian Naj:
I WOULD BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THIS, CASHING ON ANTI-ARAB SENTIMENTS OF IRANIANS ... KILLING A FEW BIRDS WITH ONE STONE

The Saudi Arabian friend of Naj:
While I agree with you... and believe that stoking such ethnic tensions could be in part behind this... I hope most people realize that there is a difference between the actions of governments in the middle east and the feelings of people. Most Arabs I know have very little direct contact with Iranians, the exception being Iraqis. Almost all the Arabs I know, which does not represent them all obviously, feel identified with the Iranians as a people and sympathetic to their causes. I am sure that news like this, if they believed it, would anger them about their own governments.
The Iranian Naj:
The problem is that we Iranians know very little about Arabs and have seriously distorted stereotypical notions that can easily get ignited by documents such as this. I think the problem needs to be understood from two angles:

First, that the Arab governments harbor hatred for the Iranian one is not necessarily untrue. Iranians need to understand WHY that is. In my view it s because Iran has a more vocal and more dynamic pro-democracy movement, compared ot other countries of the region and this unsettles the Arab governments.

Second, that which is referred to as "arab street" does aspire to the Iranian model, and this not only unsettles the arab governments, but the scare-crow, Israel. However, reports such as this exacerbate the anger of the pro-democracy Iranian activist, who used to fight shoulder to shoulder for Palestinian rights but are recently let down and dismissed by their fellow Arab activists who have branded their movement as an American interventionism, turning a blind eye to the HORRENDOUS violations of social, civil, and human rights of Iranians.

Reports such as these, therefore also undermine the Iranian green movement, and give the Iranian government extra excuse for putting the screws on all Iranians.

So, the bird flock is killed indirectly:
  1. The Iranian democracy will not get actualized => this relaxes the arab dictaorships.
  2. The anti-arab sentiments of the Iranians are fueled => increases the antagonism between Iran's anti-Israeli government and the Iranian people.
  3. The more unpopular the Iranian government becomes at home, and the further the military attack becomes likely, the more extortionist the armsdealing princes become.
  4. The indignation about the war agenda of the American economy and the Israeli "neediness" gets shifted to fellow muslims, the fellow muslims become further radicalized =>Islamophobia gets further justified.

I think over all, the outcomes of such leakages CAN be positive if people put their nationalistic "reactions" aside, and sit to think of the implications of these and how one can reap benefits from such reports. How one can change the course of history. My fear is that most people don't take time for that, and the cycle of hatred, misunderstanding and retardation will continue."

Of course, I am wondering why no one has mentioned Haaretz piece on the not-leaked, rather by-Pentagon-published documents about the Tipped Kettel Operation: The truth about Israel, Iran and 1980s U.S. arms deals.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Censoring an Iranian Love Story, a self-reflexive satire about the IRI-imposed postmodernism of the contemporary culture

This is a book by a rising figure in Iran's "third-generation" novelists. The 53 year old author is Shahriar Mandanipour, whose books, nine of them, saw a brief window of opportunity during the reformist era of Khatami's presidency (but were banned until then and afterward). Two years after the crowning of Ahmadinejad and his cultural assassins, Mandanipour gave up living in Iran. An American university (Brown) has provided him (and many other international writers) a fellowship to write free of fear of persecution.

I picked Censoring an Iranian Love Story two days ago, because of the riveting reviews (such as this one by James Wood in the New Yorker) and read it with a hawkish scrutiny.

The book is about the struggles of a writer who wants to write a simple love story, but on the one hand the Censor's office limits his literary creativity, and on the other hand the Morality police prevents a realist love story from happening in Tehran. Despite several scenes of magic-realism and surrealism, the book is a mini- documentary/history, and most of its stories and references are real.

The realism of the book is so dominant that I was tempted to give up reading a few times. Not because I didn't think it was interesting, but because it was not new for me as an Iranian. I found it contrived at times. The nagging back-translation (to Persian) in my head annoyed me. The book seemed like a hodgepodge (آش شله قلمکار): pretentious postmodern narrative, with the omniscient voice of the author working constantly to distanciate (borrowing from Brecht) the reader from the "love story" and creating layers and layers of auxiliary stories and explanations of that which constitutes the paradoxes of contemporary Iranian culture. Reading the book, I kept thinking of a conversation I had with a young friend who was curious about Iran and I thought the book should have been called: All you wanted to know about Iran but were afraid to ask.

At times, reading the book felt as being forced to browse through an "Iran for dummies" manual. At other times, I felt forced to float in the stream of his consciousness. Plus, it often seemed to me that the writer is lecturing his wanna-be-writer readers, in a not so humble manner, on the art of narrative. I felt as if I was sitting in a boring never ending workshop or listening to an uncle on opium-high, with a broken tape recorder's zeal asking me: "Ask me, and I tell you why." A few times, I wished I had bought a Kindle version of the book (which would have cost the same 10 dollars) so I could bookmark every time this "dialogue with the reader" was forced; or so that I could count how many of his library-books he was rubbing in the reader's face (actually, it is a good reference for those who don't know what kind of world literature are found in many Iranian households). At times, the book seemed like an inventory of the titles held in a library.

Of course, all this was conducted in experimentation with narrative and even typeset stylization: The letters and words intentionally crossed out, and the reason for each crossing explained, fonts and boldness of letters varying depending which story was interleaved with which.

As much as I could understand the deliberate choices of the "artist" and wanted to empathize with and appreciate the choices, my hostility towards his pompousness (or the pompousness of his translator, Sara Khalili) could not subside, UNTIL I reached page 247 (out of 295) and I read a paragraph from the conversation between the writer (first person) and the censor:

[The Censor]: "But I want you to be able to write an Islamic love story. And if it happens to be postmodern, then all the better. In other words, for everything in it to be muddled and confused and yet for it to criticize modernism, which incites sin. Don't forget, we take no issue with posmodernism. After all it promotes a return to tradition."

It is with this sentence that my ice thawed: Mandanipour was not an eager novice who didn't know the principle of "less is more", and thus hid in postmodernist form because he could not create coherence and clarity. Rather, he was creating the farce of our contemporary culture. And the reason why I was so annoyed by him was because he was doing it so effectively, by holding a clear mirror to things that are so trivial in Iranian lives, that I accused him of resorting to cliche.

In fact, it is not true that he was unable to tell stories straight and classical. His narrative poignancy in page 232 made me fold the page for future readings, when his love-story character (Dara) lashed out at him (the writer) blaming him for his postmodern wishywashy tiptoeing and creating Dara as a sheepish character, who was pathetically deprived of life, education, job and even love because of his political acts and his moral righteousness that prohibited him from raising a shout, lifting a fist, rising to knock down the thieves who were robbing him and his country of wealth. Or on page 217 and 197 he wrote Sara's dreams about the coast of Spain or her wet imagination of a pornographic menage a trois with Dara and her new-rich, IRI-connected suitor, Sinbad as vividly as any romantic best-seller at the airport.

The book is not difficult to read, but it is full of cross-references (which he explains to some extent, to not confuse the reader too much). The core of the story is based on adaptation of characters and themes from three of the most recurrent literary masterpieces of Nizami's Khosrow and Shirin (whose narrative elements are to constitute the love-story to be written), Hedayat's The Blind Owl (whose surrealist "goormagoori" appears as a midget here, who never dies although is always killed, and haunts every single characters of this book), and Kafka's The Trial (whose various prosecutors strangulate the characters of Mandanipour's novel to-not-be-written), there are several auxiliary short stories which document realistic aspects of the life and times of Iranians.

With all this, I have to add that despite my "critiquing" attitude, I had several loud outbursts of laughter. Description of brother Atta, "the basiji who considers himself in charge of all of Iran's sexual organs" (p 284), or the gluttonous ways Persians describe love and love-making (p 28), or description of Oliver Stone's "stupid" depiction of Persian King's chamber with an Egyptian-Arabi-Indian-Iranian-Chinese decor (p 23) and many other graphical and metaphoric depictions made the book fun to read. I also have to add that when I raced to read the last pages, my heart was beating faster. Actually, I spend the entire Sunday glued to it--and only now I remembered I have to prepare for important meetings tomorrow.

Wood writes: "Perhaps we look enviously at those who have the misfortune to live in countries where literature is taken seriously enough to be censored, and writers venerated with imprisonment. What if writing were made a bit more exigent for us? What if we had less of everything? It might make our literary culture more “serious,” certainly more creatively ingenious. Instead of drowning in choice, we would have to be inventive around our thirst. Tyranny is the mother of metaphor, and all that."

I think Wood is right.