Joking About Killing Iranians with Bombs and Cigarettes

Joking About Killing Iranians with Bombs and Cigarettes

    Monday, August 11, 2008   No comments

What Qualifies "Them" for the Death Sentence?

By FATEMEH KESHAVARZ

Discussing the rising U.S. exports of cigarettes to Iran recently, Senator McCain joked, "Maybe that's a way of killing them." We have seen the unfortunate impact that Iran has on the Senator’s sense of humor before (the famous “Bomb, bomb, bomb” song). But this essay is not about Mr. McCain or the election. It is about the circumstances that make it possible for him to voice the death wish: “our” deep ambivalence toward “them,” the Iranians.

The Americans who travel to Iran, an average of 300 a year, find the country full of surprises. Before they arrive in Tehran, they know a thing or two about the country. They know that a religiously oriented government is in place and the constitution extends its tentacle deep into personal lives. They know that many young Iranians long for living in a more western society. Not an unrealistic assessment. But there is a lot they don’t know. Iran has a constellation of highly developed urban centers. Literacy is pretty high (over 90% among 15 to 25 year olds). Universities are filled with women students. The infant mortality and population growth rates are under control. And the country is at the forefront of stem cell research. If these are not enough, there is a bigger shocker: Iranians like Americans.

Why is it then that, here in the U.S., Senator McCain can safely issue Iranians a collective, supposedly humorous, death sentence? After all, if he did that to the Poles, or the Senegalese, he’d be jeopardizing his political career.

Interestingly enough, the legitimacy of Mr. McCain’s comment is rooted in a handful of stories. In the past year or so, as we have gone about our daily lives, these stories have floated in the background developing – gradually but surely – into “facts.” In truth, they are neither facts nor fabrications. They are a selective arrangement of truth with important parts missing. And they all have one message: Iran is dangerous.

Take the story of the “clandestine” nuclear program which Iran is said to have kept secret for twenty years. It refers to the nuclear facilities at Natanz outside the historic city of Isfahan. The building of this center was not announced until about three months before nuclear materials were introduced into it. The missing detail here is that the None Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, allows its members to do exactly that: announce a facility three months before it becomes operational.

Then there is the story of the Iranian “sabotage” of our success in Iraq and Afghanistan. Few Americans know that Hamed Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki both consider Iran a valued ally of their respective government. Few know that Iran is building a dental college in Kabul and supplying Baghdad with electricity. Even fewer know that the lethal roadside bombs killing the American troops are made in Iraqi factories not in Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3862435.stm

Occasionally, there is news that could debunk one of these stories completely. In May, L.A. Times reported an unprecedented confession by the US military: the weapons they had recently found in Iraq did not include a single item made in Iran. The news should have grabbed the attention of all major papers. If it did, their reporting did not show it. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19908.htm

But all is not lost. Like Iran, America has its surprises. While presidential hopefuls find it easy, even funny, to construct scenarios of mass killing, many ordinary Americans dedicate their lives to understanding situations of crisis and preventing wars.

On Tuesday, July 8, Andrew Wimmer, and fourteen other members of the Center for Theology and Social Analysis in the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood of St. Louis, visited the office of William Lacy Clay, Jr. of Missouri's 1st District and spoke with him via teleconference. The purpose of the visit was to discuss with him the House Concurrent Resolution 362 "expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.”

Four days later, in these very columns Andrew wrote: “House Concurrent Resolution 362 and its companion, Senate Resolution 580, pave the way for open war with Iran. It is that simple, and we must be equally clear and bold in our opposition.”

When Representative Clay observed: "Look, I'm sure that we all agree that we need to send a clear message to Iran that they cannot continue building nuclear weapons and killing our soldiers in Iraq. "No," responded the group: "that is precisely what we do not agree on because neither of those claims has been substantiated and repeating them only propagandizes for war." In Andrew’s words, the group speaking to the Senator “included young and old, veterans and veteran activists, teachers and students.”

On Wednesday, July 9, William Lacy Clay became the first member of the House to withdraw his sponsorship of Resolution 362. It appears that Iranians are not naïve in their liking the Americans. They realize that for each Senator McCain, there are many Andrew Wimmers – and one would hope – Lacy Clays.

Fatemeh Keshavarz is Chair of the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Washington University and the author of Jasmine and Stars: Reading more than Lolita in Tehran.

Islamobamaphobia

Islamobamaphobia

    Wednesday, August 06, 2008   No comments

By RANNIE AMIRI

After verifying that a Google search yielded no results, I decided to take the liberty myself and inject the term Islamobamaphobia into the language and discourse of the 2008 United States presidential campaign.

Before proposing a definition though, it is first important to understand its origin and derivation from the more familiar word, ‘Islamophobia’.

Islamophobia was actually coined well before Sept. 11, 2001, and is simply defined as the fear of, or aversion to, Islam and/or Muslims. A formal analysis of it was undertaken in 1996 by the Runnymede Trust, a United Kingdom think tank promoting multiculturalism and diversity. Authored by the Commission of British Muslims and Islamophobia on their behalf, Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All was published in 1997 (1).

The report laid out eight features characteristic of Islamophobia. Included among them is the perception that Muslims are the “separate and other – not having any aims or values in common with other cultures” and, exhibiting a “hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.”

So what then is Islamobamaphobia?

It is the fear that Barack Obama is, or might be, sympathetic to the issues and concerns of Muslims. Importantly, it also describes Obama’s subsequent (and misguided) attempts to dispel that notion.

Initially of course, the fear was that Obama himself was Muslim. The idea was promulgated by the Hillary Clinton campaign in a variety of ways. He was portrayed as the “separate and other” articulated by Runnymede. The confusing juxtaposition of this anxiety with overt Islamophobia managed to find its way onto the July 21st cover of The New Yorker (2).

Although a small but not insignificant portion of the U.S. population still harbors suspicions he is Muslim, it is now far outweighed by the terror that Obama may be inclined to deal with Muslims, or the Muslim world, in a fair and even-handed manner.

Obama has done his utmost to shatter any such illusions quickly, whether it was in his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in promising all of Jerusalem to Israel as its undivided capital, or by his vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill giving retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies complicit with the Bush administration’s policy of warrantless wiretapping.

Indeed, evidence of the veracity of Islamobamaphobia’s corollary—that Obama himself has become a perpetrator of Islamophobia in order to distance himself from suspicions that he may treat Muslims equitably—is overwhelming.

“Fight the Smears”

In the “Fight the Smears” section of his website, Obama disparagingly refers to the belief that he is Muslim as a “smear” rather than a mischaracterization, implicitly demonizing those who do adhere to the faith. Despite objections voiced about such terminology, the word ‘smear’ has not been removed.

Not in my picture

At a June campaign rally in Detroit, two women wearing the hijab, or Islamic headscarf, were barred from sitting behind Obama’s podium and therefore appearing in full view of the cameras covering the event (3). The campaign denied there was a specific policy prohibiting Muslims from being seen with Obama. This is belied by the fact, however, that two different campaign volunteers—in two separate incidents—prevented each of the women from being seated in the backdrop of a major and televised event.

“The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters,” said one of the women.

Again, according to Runnymede report, one of the hallmarks of Islamophobia is “…discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.”

Obama did call to extend his apologies to them, but only after he was confronted by an irate Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first American Muslim congressman, in a closed door session of the Congressional Black Caucus (4).

Thanks, but no thanks Rep. Ellison

Ellison himself had already been rebuffed by Obama when he offered to speak on his behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (5). According to Ellison, an Obama aide showed up at his Washington office to explain that the reason they did not want him was because they had “…a very tightly wrapped message.” He was also forced to cancel stops for the senator in “conservative” North Carolina.

Despite many engagements held with both Christian and Jewish groups in churches and synagogues, Obama has yet to hold a single public event in a mosque or speak to Muslims in any venue for that matter. The strategy of ignoring the American Muslim community could very well backfire in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all of which have significant Arab and Muslim constituencies and are keys to winning the November election. Realizing this, it appears that he has just appointed a “national coordinator” for Muslim and Arab-American affairs.

No green ties allowed

In a bizarre story reported by Politico, Obama apparently banned anyone from wearing green clothing during his recent trip to Jordan, Israel and Ramallah, fearing it may be associated with Hamas (6).

The story quotes Mohamad Bazzi, professor of journalism at New York University and former Middle East bureau chief for Newsday as saying “I guess green is the ‘Hamas color’— but it's also the color of Islam! That's one way for the Obama campaign to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide.”

Richard Bulliet, professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University, described the order as being “…overcautious to a ridiculous degree.”

Such extreme, misplaced and irrational behavior on the part of Obama goes well beyond acknowledging the proverbial political climate of the day. It is manifest discrimination which negates the “hope” and “change” he purports to bring to the White House should he become president.

When it comes to Islamophobia—or now more aptly named Islamobamaphobia—Barack Obama has been both its victim, and ever increasingly, its villain.

Rannie Amiri is an independent commentator on the Arab and Islamic worlds. He may be reached at: rbamiri (at) yahoo.com.

Notes:

1. "Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All" (summary). Runnymede Trust, 1997.

2. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/covers/slideshow_blittcovers>

3. “Muslims barred from picture at Obama event.” Ben Smith for Politico.com, 16 June 2008.

4. “Muslim Lawmaker Confronted Obama Behind Closed Doors on Head Scarf Gaffe.” The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, 23 June 2008.

5. “Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama.” The New York Times, 24 June 2008.

6. “Obama ban: What not to wear where?” Carrie Budoff Brown and Ben Smith for Politico.com, 21 July 2008.

A 21st-century warning from a 13th-century poet

A 21st-century warning from a 13th-century poet

    Wednesday, August 06, 2008   No comments

By Fatemeh Keshavarz

Sa'di of Shiraz, a 13th-century Iranian poet, was a man for all seasons. Distinct among his peers for a rare poetic talent and a sharp humor, he was a traveler, teacher and master ghazal writer all in one. But, above all, he loved to tease and to question. In a most serious love poem, he warned the beloved: "I was ruined by your love. I will not go to others to get well." And lest the beloved get all the credit for uniqueness, he added: "Broken gold vessels cannot be repaired with glue."

In real life, Sa'di offered his own glue for fixing broken lives and social relations: a set of compassionate and pragmatic ethical teachings published in his two celebrated books, "The Orchard" and "The Rose Garden." Despite hailing from 13th-century Iran, what Sa'di has to offer is relevant to our lives in 21st-century America.

Reading "The Orchard" last week, I found what I took to be allusions to "enhanced" interrogation techniques — the politically correct term for "torture" — and to House Resolution 362: "Children of Adam are limbs in a single body," Sa'di concluded an anecdote. "If one is hurt, none will be able to rest."

Let me elaborate:

Physicians for Human Rights, the Massachusetts-based group that shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to ban landmines, recently published an important report. Prepared by physicians and other health care professionals, it evaluates accounts of torture inflicted by the United States during interrogations of prisoners at U.S. detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In an introduction to the report, retired U.S. Army Gen. Antonio Taguba describes the report as "the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture." He goes on to say "This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual's lives on their bodies and minds."

The report is fraught with gory details pointing to physical violence, psychological abuse and sexual humiliation. However, as you read further, if you can stomach the details, something unexpected happens: You start to feel sympathy not only for those subjected to these "enhanced" interrogation techniques but also for those who applied them. This is not because it is easy to overlook the responsibility of the torturers. It is because you know deep down that no one can injure someone else to this degree without injuring himself or herself in the process.

You don't have to struggle to understand why you get this feeling; Sa'di already has done so: If one limb is injured, the whole body suffers.

The so-called enhanced interrogation techniques may leave minimal evidence on the tortured body, but nothing can protect the torturer from the knowledge of what he or she has done. The universal human connection to which Sa'di refers is written into our being.

Almost at the same time that the physicians group's report was released, U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., co-sponsored House Resolution 362, which calls for intensifying sanctions on Iran and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or leaving that country. Some analysts have said that this could require a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategically crucial sea passage between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Such a blockade could be viewed, analysts contended, as an act of war.

Are we talking, then, about more wars, more prisons and more "enhanced" interrogation techniques? How many more of our limbs can we damage before our whole body is plunged into a state of shock?

Even Sa'di refrained from pushing the metaphor that far. Perhaps he hoped we would be wiser.

Fatemeh Keshavarz chairs the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Washington University. She is the author, most recently, of "Jasmine and Stars: Reading More Than Lolita in Tehran" and is working on a monograph on Sa'di of Shiraz, a medieval Persian poet.