What advanced Iranians? They all left like cowards when the Shah was being tossed out. Now they enjoy themselves in the West off Swiss bank accounts while whispering sweet nonsense into ears such as yours, Fitzy. Appeal to their sense of Persian honor or history? If that ever even existed, it has long been consumed by 1,400 years of Allah and public execution by crane.

The only thing that holds Iran together is Islam and their hatred of the Great Satan and Jews.

Posted by: Bingo at June 22, 2008 8:30 AM

One could also point out that Persia was not conquered by the Ottoman Empire. At its greatest extent in 1603, the Ottomans held the western 20 percent of Persia and lost it that year. That established, roughly, today's Western boundary for Iran/Iraq. The Arab conquest to the east [634-715] covered most of the lands between Mecca and Dehli. While the religion held, the Arabs were genetically subsumed in a century.

Posted by: spinoneone at June 22, 2008 8:46 AM

There are, of course, Iranians and Iranians. There is Hamid Dabashi, who is of the chomsky-said-ward-churchill school, but as a trimmer, eager to please others in a lifetime of careful job-seeking and promotion (his Ode To Edward Said is all about how Said made it possible for the likes of Hamid Dabashi to become a professor at Columbia -- and how right Dabashi was). Although surrounded in the MEALAC (Middle Eastern) Program)at Columbia by assorted khalidis and massads, and having left -- like so many professors nowadays -- dreary old literature for the teaching of exciting brand-new "cinema," in his case "Iranian cinema," which necessarily includes Kierostami, s who if he knew Dabashi's views, his books, his Ode To Said, would despise him even more than you and I, dear reader, do.

On the other hand, there are many more Iranians in exile, not necessarily plutocrats bewailing their lost banknotes, as Nabokov in "Speak Memory" describes the view in the West of Russian emigres, but Iranians who left when they realized what the Khoneini regime was all about, and now, in London and Paris, in New York and Los Angeles, think -- if they choose to think -- now this way and now that. Some, of the Left, will pretend to themselves that the whole problem would never have happened if only the beastly British had not inveigled the dumb dutiful Dulles brothers to do their bidding and overturn "weepy Mossadegh" (as he was always described in Time magazine) -- that, in their mythology (the stuff credulously swallowed and then regurgitated by, for example, Stephen Kinzer in his "All the Shah's Men"). Others will tell themselves that if only the Shah had been smarter, or less vainglorious, or Savak less brutal, or the ancien regime less corrupt...things would have been different, for the primitive Muslim masses who rallied to Khomeini, who listened to his videocassettes registered in Neauphle-le-chateau, who burned down the cinema Rex with hundreds inside, who marched in the cities against the Shah, and against the Shah's "favoring" of non-Muslims and the non-Muslim behavior of his courtiers...

But others will not be consoled with such alternative pasts, and will begin to see, as Ataturk saw with the dying Ottoman Empire, that the problem was, and is, Islam. Iranians not only have an alternative identity to emphasize, or to elevate, that which predates Islam, but they also have a narrative that makes the "gift of the Arabs" a foreign gift, one that can be now looked at askance, for whatever else has happened in Iran, the contempt for the "desert Arabs" remains , and the same insistence that can be found in Turkey, by those eager to explain to surprised -- filled with some confusion, some consternation, at the vehemence with which Turks assure them that "we are not Arabs, we hate the Arabs" can be found in Iran.

A poster above takes me to task becausee he thinks among Irnanian exiles there are many more like Hamid Dabashi. I think there are more, or potentially more, Madame Nafisis. And in Iran itself, among the (always-small) thinking classe, or rather, among those who think, and who have remainied to endure the misery and the monstrousness, many must by now be re-thinking, not the "perversion of Islam" or the "distortion of Islam" that some in the West think is represented by the Islamic Republic of Iran, but rather the whole history of Iran, and what might have become of it, what could still become of it, if Islam is constrained as a political force, or even, by a mass movement, abandoned altogether for something -- Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, anything anything at all to escape, Houdini-like, the mind-forged manacles of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at June 22, 2008 9:19 AM

We've been told by the pundits for almost 3 decades that the mullah-ocracy in Iran is on its last legs.

Remember the demonstrations of the Mujahadin-el-Kalk in central Tehran in the early 80s - a group whose members were originally the shock-troops of the Islamic revolution but who then quickly realized the fascistic nature of the new regime - when thousands of demonstrators were not only fired upon by Revolutionary Guards, but were followed as they scattered and repeatedly fired upon in a deliberate attempt to kill as many as possible. Shortly after this atrocity, the pundits began their predictions of the impending collapse of Khomeini's regime.

Of course, it never happened.

Today, we're hearing the warning being repeated that an attack on Iran's nuke facilities would only strengthen the mullahs by galvanizing an alienated and dispossessed (but strongly nationalistic) populace into supporting a regime they otherwise detest. Keep to the diplomatic track - say the pundits - and the masses of Iran will surely rise up and eventually overthrow the mullahs.

Bunk.

There are several valid reasons for opposing a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, the improbability of success being the most cogent, but let us not buy into this spurious argument being expressed by so many...that the mullahs are (forever) teetering on the brink of an overthrow (that never comes), if only we keep our hands off Iran.

Hugh has never been more right than here.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 22, 2008 10:42 AM

Iranians who left when they realized what the Khoneini regime was all about, and now, in London and Paris, in New York and Los Angeles, think -- if they choose to think -- now this way and now that.
-by Hugh

Of course this was AFTER they themselves (not all but many) promoted Khomeini and supported his return and thought he was the answer to the Shah. Then they ran away when things got tough, rather than face the mess they helped to create.
Now, they have the nerve to call on America (which they condemned when it suited them) to rescue Iran from the mullahs.

As for Iranian history, it consists of three parts: pre-Islam, approximately eight centuries of Sunni Islam and the remainder (to the current day) of Shia Islam. Where might Iran be today were it not for Ismail Shah, who converted the country to Shia Islam, effectively separating it from the rest of the Muslim world and putting it on a path at odds with its Sunni neighbors?

Posted by: PMK at June 22, 2008 10:46 AM

Hugh, shouldn't your argument also hold true for Egypt, where there are even more reminders of ancient, pre-Islamic, glory?

Posted by: ebonystone at June 22, 2008 10:56 AM

That's Mary Boyce, not Boyd.

Posted by: pravasi at June 22, 2008 11:14 AM

I don't buy Hugh's optimism about an Iranian counter-revolution.

Iran is now breeding the 3rd generation of Islamic 'revolutionaries', they are brainwashed zombies with few exceptions. The 'moderates' we hope for will not rise up and the radicals will not go down without a fight.

This breeding ground for Islamic 'martyrs' has become a greater threat to the free world than the Nazis or the commies ever were. If I'm not all wrong this Iranian revolution has already lasted longer than the Nazis. On top of that, they're isolated, indoctrinated and fanatical.

There is no way of getting through to them...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 22, 2008 11:43 AM

"That's Mary Boyce, not Boyd."
-- from a corrigending poster above

Yes, Boyce not Boyd. The mistake annoys because all I had to do was google my own previous mentions of Mary Boyce, the historian of Zoroastrianism -- and though I had an uneasy feeling, when I first wrote the name, that it didn't souund quite right, and I should at that point have checked, I was simply too damn lazy, in this case, to do so. Sorry.

Posted by: Hugh at June 22, 2008 11:50 AM

Hugh is quite right; what is needed as a prerequisite of real reform is a raising of consciousness among the peoples in the territories conquered by Arabs and their Turkish or Mogul successors which would lead them to embrace with pride the buried and suppressed achievements of their pre-Islamic ancestors. It may be necessary for Muslims to recognize and mourn for the oppression, enslavement, rape and indignities that one fraction of their ancestors imposed on the greater part, often the overwhelmingly greater part, of their ancestral lineage. Secularism and the political disestablishment of Islam would necessarily follow.

The promoters of change have often recognized that a return to pre-Islamic roots is an essential condition for removing the debilitating effects of Islam. Ataturk and less palatable secularizers like Saddam or Nasser have attempted to undermine Islam by returning to an older pre-Islamic substrate as the basis of a new nationalism. So Ataturk emphasized the Hittite ancestry of the Anatolian Turks; of course he conveniently ignored the more important Greek ancestry because the Greeks were regarded as the current enemy. The Shah held a massive party to celebrate the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. Nasser decorated Cairo with replicas of colossal Egyptian statuary. Saddam fancied himself the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar who will, literally, rebuild Babylon. These attempts to uproot and minimize the effects of Islam have, for a number of reasons, seen rather mixed results.

One of the problems with such attempts at reform is that the reformers have always held back from fully acknowledging their history and have been unwilling to confront Islamic attitudes that are firmly rooted in rural villages or urban souks. Thus, the Turks have embraced and mythologized the quite remote history of the Hittites, even claiming against all evidence that the latter were an offshoot of the Central Asian Turkish “sun” people. At the same time, they reject their much more recent Greco-Roman, Byzantine and Armenian heritage. They even refuse to acknowledge their recent history of genocide against Armenian Christians, or their ethnic cleansing of the numerous Greek speaking population of Anatolia which occurred shortly thereafter.

Thus, a true hope for Islamic reforms must wait for actions such as the following throughout most of the Muslim world. One such action might be for a future Iranian regime to resume the secular reforms begun by the Shahs, albeit under more democratic auspices. Another would be for Turkey to acknowledge its Greek and Armenian cultural and genetic heritage. Only by accepting the Hellenic heritage common to western civilization can the Turkish elite truly reach their long desired goal of becoming modern Europeans. The Turks would also do well to acknowledge their past history of jihad, persecution and genocide, and integrate these into their modern national consciousness. Still another such action would be for Egyptians to truly embrace their great past and reject the parochial calls of fanatical Muslim scholars. At the same time they would do well to recognize the Coptic minority as the purest embodiment of that past and cease the persecution to which that group is still subjected. Similarly, true reform can only be achieved in Iraq when all persecution of the Assyrian and Chaldean Christians ceases. Also, reform in Pakistan can only come about with the recognition of their past as part of Indian civilization and an end to discrimination against Hindus and other minorities.

Posted by: RBLA at June 22, 2008 12:04 PM

"Iranians, fed up with corruption and constraints that they rightly connect to the mullahs who represent a mental underclass, will begin to see, or are seeing, Islam in a new light"

- I'm not convinced that there are sufficient numbers, nor will ever be sufficient numbers of Iranians, who will stand up and reclaim their Persian heritage.

I just don't think it's a good idea to underestimate Islam's stranglehold on Iran, since Islam is anything but weak, right now.

Posted by: Rogster at June 22, 2008 12:16 PM

"I don't buy Hugh's optimism about an Iranian counter-revolution."
-- from a poster above

What "optimism"? I was not, ledeen-style, confidently predicting that the Iranian regime was on its last legs. I was doing something else: pointing out that Iranians are quite different from Arabs (whose 'Uruba, or Arabness, is so indissolubly linked, alas, with Islam), and from Pakistanis, who have neglected the history of the subcontinent (Mohenjo-Daro is not exactly a site of interest and pilgrimate), and of pre-Islamic or non-Islamic India. Indeed, if you look steadily and whole at a Pakistani, and ask him if he has ever thought about the conditions that caused his Hindu (or possibly Jain or Buddhist) ancestors to convert to Islam, he becomes distinctly not merely uneasy, but enraged -- the very idea offends.

What I noted is that educated and intelligent Iranians, in exile and in Iran -- always a minority, but sometimes a minority that can affect others -- did have the possibility of that other, pre-Islamic identity to cling to, to resurrect, and that part of that identity might include a return to Zoroastrianism, not because of any particular appeal of that faith, but because it can supply that "identity" that so many people, especially in the Muslim world, think they must possess, to place themselves, and others, in the universe.

Western man, or some Western men, not quite so unhappy with not making a fetish of that kind of thing, and recognizing different kinds of identity, and different tugs -- identites handed down, identities rejected, identities newly accepted or accepted, after rejection, anew -- all of this is possible for Western men. All of this is likely impossible for Arabs. But it is potentially different for Iranians.

That was what I was saying. I was not predicting the imminent collapse of the Iranian regime. I don't approve of those who have done so, in attempts to inveigle the Western powers into the kinds of military action that do not make sense. A land invasion of Iran would be silly. An attack, from the air, on Iran's nuclear project makes all kinds of sense. And if the American government is unwilling to do it itself, then it should certainly collaborate to the fullest with those who may be called upon, yet again, to do the work that rightly should be done by all the Infidels in concert.

At least, this time, there will one hopes be none of that nauseating scolding and outrage that went on when the Osirak reactor was successfully put out of commission --- and permanently.

As for the Sunni Arabs who are also fearful of Iran, their howls of outrage will be the loudest. You can be sure of that.

"'Iranians who left when they realized what the Khomeini regime was all about, and now, in London and Paris, in New York and Los Angeles, think -- if they choose to think -- now this way and now that.'
-by Hugh

Of course this was AFTER they themselves (not all but many) promoted Khomeini and supported his return and thought he was the answer to the Shah. Then they ran away when things got tough, rather than face the mess they helped to create."
-- from another poster aboove

I assume you are referrring to those who thought that they could use Khomeini and his supporters, especially in rural Iran, in order to overwhelm the Shah, and then assumed that they, and not Khomeini, would inherit Iran -- but Khomeini, and the True Believers in Islam had other ideas. This group did not consist, does not consist, only of those whom you describe as having "run away" -- would you use the same terms for those who fled the Nazis or the Communists? -- but while the majority of those who left were the supporters of the ancien regime, some of them not monarchists but sad realists who realized that for a country like Iran, with the need for a strong ruler, a semi-enlightened despot, which is what the Shah was, was and is the very best thing one can expect, or hope for, until such time as Islam itself is sufficiently constrained (see Turkey, see Ataturk, for an example of both the possibilities, and the constraints, on such a policy).

The goony-looking -- his face looked like a Halloween mask -- Bani-Sadr did indeed make it out of Iran, and I believe attempts, possibly successful, were made on his life in Paris, and the other Iranian leftist star of American television back then, Mr. Ghotbzadeh, one more of those the Mossadegh-coup-explains-everything boys, was I think put to death right there in Iran, by Khomeini or his hanging judge Khalkhali, or possibly some other group clearing the decks of all those sentimental leftists they had so cleverly exploited.

It is maddening, of course, to hear from those Iranians abroad who remain unreconstructed in their views and in their blaming of others -- chiefly arch-conspirator England, and its dumb collaborator America -- for the woes of Iran. But those woes come from Islam. Eventually some of those in exile, those hoveydas and tabatabais and suchlike, carefully naming their children Darius and Cyrus, will just have to face up to what Islam, especially in Islam in the modern world, where its failures become to non-Muslims ever more obvious, while -- failing and as they see it foiled at every turn, many Muslims instead of recognizing this,cling ever more keenly to the very source, the fons et origo, of their own political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral distress -- that is, to Islam itself.

Posted by: Hugh at June 22, 2008 12:21 PM

An Iran or Persia not ruled by Muslims is not likely and if it happens, they will face the same torment that Israel faces. Iran is nearly surrounded by Muslim countries which will not tolerate any loss of Islamic territory. Iran would be in for unending warfare against them until they revert back to Muslim control.

Posted by: norman at June 22, 2008 1:48 PM

I believe that Persia changed its name to Iran in the late 1930s.

Does anyone know why the change?

Posted by: rational at June 22, 2008 2:53 PM

The strength of an Islamic regime comes from the practice of Zakat (the tithe that goes to support the "poor", Islamic students, imams, jihadis, and zakat-collectors).

The underclass will always be ready to fight for their zakat-welfare, and for the mullahs who provide the reason for its collection.

The only people who count are those who are willing and able to fight for what they want

Posted by: PapaBear at June 22, 2008 3:27 PM

J-DAM the place for a Month or Two and then let us see what the Population really wants.

Hitting their Nuclear Facilities is but a Quarter solution. It leaves the Government and Population untouched.

Iran's Nuclear program needs Electricity to operate. Getting rid of it neutralise's the program, leaving it for inspection at a later date.

It would also give the fine Citizens of Iran a taste of Where their Leadership has lead them.

Add a little Petrol problem along with it. Like Icing on a Cake.

These Targets are likely less well defended and would require Iran to disperse their defenses from other High profile targets.

Cylons and Standoff weapons. Peel Iran like an Onion untill their Eyes Burn.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 22, 2008 3:53 PM

"We've been told by the pundits for almost 3 decades that the mullah-ocracy in Iran is on its last legs."

And every few weeks, another article appears about rock bands in Iranian basements, or about women defying the dress code in tiny ways, or protests at soccer games, or this thing or that thing that shows Iranians supposedly really, really want to free themselves of Sharia. Exiles safely ensconced in Western countries assure us of the noble Persian heritage and how any moment now it will reassert itself against Islam and the mullahs.

Meanwhile, during all this happy talk, the Iranians actually bulldoze the remnants of that noble Persian history, women are beaten like dogs in the street, huge crowds howl approval of their leaders' death threats against Israel, the word "women" is eradicated from governmental agencies, rape victims and young men are hung from cranes, and all this time the body politic votes over and over again for more Islam.

Some time ago, there was an article in the New York Times explaining the Iranian habit of consistent, compulsive lying in all spheres of life, both public and private. They're apparently quite good at it, considering how often they fool Westerners of good will into believing, despite all obvious evidence, that Iranians are "fed up," want change, and that some long-dead "heritage" will supply the motivation.

What they're fed up about is the price of tomatoes. Islam might have failed the Iranians, but only in that it inevitably creates a disastrous economy, and that seems to be the limit of their peevishness.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at June 22, 2008 4:29 PM

Marwan'sDaughter,

I think you hit the nail on the head. We've been hearing this same bull for years.

Iranians are Muslims, and no matter how frustrated they might be with their government's internal policies, they're still Muslims, and they're going to stay Muslims.

They're waiting around for a new leader, not a new religion.

Posted by: rational at June 22, 2008 4:58 PM

"I believe that Persia changed its name to Iran in the late 1930s. Does anyone know why the change?
Posted by: rational at June 22, 2008 14:53:53

The Nazi's had a real thing for Persia -- Hegel believed it to be the cradle of Aryan civilization, and it's said during the 30's, bolstered by incredible German propaganda (if you've ever seen German movies from that time...they're magnificent) , the Pahlavi dynasty wanted a name that emulated their newest anti-semitic adulators:

Aryan is to Iran as FutureBigballofFire is to Tehran.

Iran=Aryan...get it?

-osgo

Posted by: -osgo- at June 22, 2008 6:57 PM

JUST RAN INTO THIS ON THE WEB
FROM 'THE TEHRAN TIMES' WEB SITE
Monday, June 23, 2008 | Volume: 10347

View Rate : 46 # News Code : TTime- 171405 Print Date : Monday, June 23, 2008

Call for closer ties between Iran, Arab world

QOM (IRNA) -- A Sudanese journalist called on Iranian officials and statesmen to come closer to the Arab world with an aim of foiling plots of the global arrogance.

Political columnist of Alwan daily Jamal Ali Hassan made the remark during his visit to the Islamic Sciences Computerized Research Center in Qom. He added that as a result of conspiracies hatched by the global arrogance and ignorance of certain regional leaders, there are walls between Iran and Arab countries.

He further said that lack of interaction and communication between Arab governments and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is forerunner of promoting Islamic culture and tenets, has caused restrictions for numerous Muslims of Arab world to get acquainted with the rich Iranian culture.

“I as well as many individuals from Arab Muslim nations call on Iranian statesmen to remove the wall of distrust, created by the global arrogance,” he added.

The Sudanese journalist and political activist also said that world nations are keen to embrace enlightening religion of Islam because of seditious policies of their leaders, thus, Iran can play a key role in this regard.

He also underlined that the Islamic Republic of Iran and its active role in international arena can resolve many problems of Islamic societies.

Posted by: CHOI at June 22, 2008 7:09 PM

"Global Arrogance". Is this Skunk trying to spray behind our back?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at June 22, 2008 7:28 PM

There is no time for reformation by osmosis. It is way too late for that and that is very unfortunate for a lot of folks including Iranians.

Posted by: pismopal at June 22, 2008 9:48 PM

I don't think I saw this mentioned in the comments but I seem to remember a TV documentary segment about the Zoroastrians and how their future looks grim because they (at least the religious leaders) do not believe that a person can "become" a Zoroastrian. It is a completely hereditary religion. That, combined with the natural out-marriage of children means that Iranians will not turn to that religion without some major reformation - assuming that the documentary was correct.

The tension in all Muslim societies but Iran in particular, between those who are fed up with the religion and those (moderates and extremists alike if those terms have any real meaning) who are terrified about what would happen if the dissatisfied were actually allowed to leave the religion will continue to build. How long it can build and how it will be resolved are up for bets. Long-term, I am optimistic. Near and mid-term, it could get really frightening.

Posted by: Saul Wall at June 22, 2008 10:19 PM

Marwan's daughter - you mentioned a NYT article about "the Iranian habit of consistent, compulsive lying in all spheres of life, both public and private."

It's not a Persian thing (even if it was Shiite Persian Muslims who made a special study of taqiyya). It's a Muslim thing, period.

A long time ago, someone here gave a link to an article written by an American who had spent an incredibly frustrating time trying to build things and fix things in Iraq. He came to the conclusion that every last damned one of the population lied, always and everywhere.

I've had occasion to repost it once or twice, as it is absolutely classic. Here it is, yet again, for the benefit of new readers at this site.

The people he is describing are Arab/ Arabised Muslims, yet the phrase in that NYT article used to describe Iranian Muslim society 'consistent, compulsive lying in all spheres of life' applies exactly.
http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2006/04/life-in-iraq-part-ii-civilization-of.html

Nonie Darwish said the same in her speech at Berkeley in October 2007:

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17069DA6-6C04-4E06-81C7-010C9F29AD55

"On Arab TV, I once saw a Muslim preacher telling little children that lying is not allowed except under three conditions 1- Lying to non-Muslims when it is in the best interest of Islam. 2- Lying to Muslims if it will end conflict between them. And 3rd: Lying to one’s wife to improve the relationship.

"Lying thus has become an obligation in international relationships, Muslim relationships and family relationships.

:Any wonder why Muslims were silent after 9/11? Those who expose the lying game are considered traitors.

"By allowing lying, Muslims have created a culture unable to distinguish between lies from truth; truth has become a convoluted game of saving face for the best interest of Islam."

There are non-Muslim Asian cultures with a strong 'shame/ honour' component - for example the Chinese, the Japanese, and Australian indigenous groups - for whom 'saving face' matters a lot; but none of these, I think, is quite as obsessive in a total refusal to ever acknowledge responsibility for personal or group wrongdoing, and none is so completely detached from any real conception of objective truth, as Islam is.

Someone at this very site, a long time ago (I am afraid I can't give a link) summed up cultural differences thus, as experienced by British businessmen: the 'Christian' or secular Brits would generally pay their bills on time; the Hindus and Chinese might delay and drag their feet, but they, too, would eventually pay up; while the Muslims...well, you could expect most of them to do their level best to rip you off.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 22, 2008 11:35 PM

In the West, Christian missions have been making inroads into the Iranian diaspora; but they've also gotten response from Arabs, Berbers, and Turks as well.

As for an Iranian counter-revolution, I'll believe it when I see it. One big problem is that the Iranian opposition is so badly splintered among everyone from Pahlavi partisans to the Mojaheddin-e-Khalq (who drive me to sputtering rage every time I see them soliciting signatures for their petitions on the Washington Mall--those donkeys have no business being in the USA, period.)

Also, I am against widening the war on terror to include Iran, for I can see us making the same mistake in Iran that the Japanese made in China during the 1930's. We've seen how many enemies we've made across the Islamic world in the wake of the Afghan and Iraq interventions, so we can be pretty sure that any attempt to "liberate" Iran from the mad mullahs will backfire.

Posted by: Kepha at June 23, 2008 12:53 AM

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.ht

From Table 1-1 you can see that while Muslims claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world (2.13), the statistics say that Baha'is are growing at a faster rate (2.28) and faster still are Zoroastrians (2.65).

Posted by: Dsinc at June 23, 2008 2:05 AM

Agree with Marwin's Daughter in the post above.

Please stop planting articles claiming that a silent majority will somehow rise up out of Iran to overthrow the nutcases, if only we showed them a sign.

Posted by: Bingo at June 23, 2008 5:34 AM

"Please stop planting articles claiming that a silent majority will somehow rise up out of Iran to overthrow the nutcases, if only we showed them a sign."
-- from a posting above, representative of quite a few of the postings at this thread

The Lords of Misreading seem to have quite a few people in thrall. Either they did not read what I wrote, or they failed to understand what I wrote, either out of an inability or out of some conviction so strong that it blinded them to what they were actually reading.

Nowhere in that original article -- what others chose to crazily make of it, or misrepresent it to themselves and to others -- was there a claim that some "silent majority will somehow rise up out of Iran." Many things were pointed out in that piece. To wit: that Iranians both in exile, and in Iran itself, among those who think (always a small group) could, because of the misery and wretchedness of the Islamic Republic, begin to question Islam itself, for unlike Arabs, whose sense of themselves is so wedded to Islam that there is even the by-now well-known (because now named) phenomenon of the Arab Islamochristian.

It is worth pondering why non-Arabs who are raised as Muslims and become Christians, or who were born Christians in Muslim but non-Arab societies -- such as Iranian Christians, Indonesian Christians, even Pakistani Christians -- seldom or never promote an Islamic political or geopolitical line, whereas Arab Christians, especially if they do not belong to one of the coherent, numerous, and self-assured groups (mainly the Maronites, but also, especially when outside Egypt, the Copts), frequently offer the naim-ateek spectacle of the islamochristian (especially evident in the "
Palestinian" Arabs).

The apparent indignation expressed by some at my article seems to be based not on what I wrote, but on a different thing, on what some imagined that I wrote, as if I had claimed there would or could be a "rising up" in Iran tomorrow or next year, or -- another misconception -- that I thought the Americans should "invade" Iran to help the "unworthy" Iranians. I have repeatedly noted the difference between bombing the nuclear project from the air (else what are planes and missiles for?) and never made any leedenesque predictions of the "faster, please" variety, nor have I ever passed on credulously the soothing words that might have been uttered by this or that Iranian hoping, chalabi-like, to inveigle the Americans into "freeing Iran" for their own power-and-pocketbook purposes. No, Muslim lands will have to mentally free themselves, if they possibly can. Iran, unlike the Arab states, because of the alternative, non-Islamic identity that its past presents, can possibly do so, were an Iranian Ataturk or a council of ataturks, to appear.

Meanwhile, non-Muslim lands need to make sure that all Muslim countries, and especially at this point Iran, never acquire the wherewithal, or where they have been negligently allowed to acquire the wherewithal, to acquire effective means of delivery, to produce, and then to produce, weapons of mass destruction. That goes for Iran and for any other country where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule. And since that latter category could someday include a nuclear power in Europe, the members of NATO have to start worrying now about the transformation, through demographic conquest, of this or that NATO member.

Posted by: Hugh at June 23, 2008 7:48 AM

Hugh, shouldn't your argument also hold true for Egypt, where there are even more reminders of ancient, pre-Islamic, glory?

Posted by: ebonystone at June 22, 2008 10:56 AM

Aside from the Copts, the people of Egypt, unlike Iran, are Arabs, and would therefore have the same attitudes as those in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, et al. So don't expect them to flock to the Coptic church ever. While the Copts have the same parallels with the Zoroastrians, their country was conquered and occupied by Arabs, unlike Iran, which was merely converted to Islam.

As Hugh pointed out, the contrast with Pakistan is interesting. If one takes Islam out of the equation, Pakistan (and Bangladesh) have no reasons for being countries separate from India. It's a bit like East Germany was in the late 80s when the Comecon countries were throwing off Communism. Poland and Hungary could do it without worrying about their national identity. For East Germany, OTOH, doing so meant (as ultimately happened) losing their single reason to be a country separate from West Germany. Same logic would apply to North Korea, should that day ever arrive.

Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, et al OTOH have nothing to lose in terms of a national identity by discarding Islam. Unlike Pakistan, Indonesia, even if it reverted to Hinduism, wouldn't be a quasi India the way Pakistan would.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 23, 2008 1:44 PM

I got you Hugh...your original point was that bombing the nuke sites, far from galvanizing public support for the mullah's regime the way all the pundits predict, might instead discredit that regime even further in the eyes of the people.

You might be right...I think it could go either way, but ultimately, the point is irrelevant. The West should pursue its own security interests vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear program...regardless of the potential political repercussions inside Iran.

One other point...

HUGH: "Meanwhile, non-Muslim lands need to make sure that all Muslim countries, and especially at this point Iran, never acquire the wherewithal, or where they have been negligently allowed to acquire the wherewithal, to acquire effective means of delivery, to produce, and then to produce, weapons of mass destruction."

RESPONSE: Iran already has IRBMs. An ICBM capability is a stone's throw away. In short, the delivery vehicle HAS been acquired...the only thing left to stop are the nuclear weapons themselves.

Time is short.

Posted by: Cornelius at June 23, 2008 3:15 PM

Marwan'sDaughter, that the Palestinians voted overwhelmingly Hamas is telling. No sense watering the seeds of liberalism from that crowd.

Similar to the last Bush - Kerry election, when Iranians vote do the contending parties split the population fifty-fifty? Or do ninety-five percent or more of voting Iranians continue to keep the mullahs in power?

Hugh, if the Iranians vote for the mullahs en masse each election, this is an interesting psychological profile.

Posted by: k24anson at June 23, 2008 8:02 PM

Infidel Pride

I rather think that the Egyptians are largely the descendants of the Copts. Egypt was one of the major population centers of the ancient world. Its population could scarcely have been displaced by the comparatively small Arab invasion force. Rather they became Arabized and Islamized over centuries of arab-Islamic rule, to escape the burden of dhimmitude. Present-day Egyptians are just as much the inheritors of their antique heritage as present-day Iranians are of ancient Persia. And Egypt had been a unitary nation for millenia.
Persia, on the other hand, was less densely populated. The Persian Empire was just that, a multi-national empire, extending from the Mediterranean to the Indus and Central Asia, and its ruler was the king of kings. Many of his subjects probably had little love for their overlord. The same is likely true today; only a little over 1/2 the population is ethnic Persian. Islam is a unifying force.
India (i.e. Greater India -- India plus Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Indonesia and Malaysia are all artefacts of European colonial rule. There never was an Indonesian "nation"; there were competing small kingdoms and statelets on the various islands. By the time of the arrival of the Europeans, a Javanese kingdom had become the most powerful and was extending its rule to the other islands. The Portuguese and Dutch derailed this empire-building, but substituted their own. When the Dutch pulled out, they left their empire as a single entity, largely under the control of the Javanese. Many peoples of the other islands felt betrayed by this, and there have been various separatist movements. Again, Islam is a unifying force.
Likewise, there was no country called Malaysia until the British pulled out of SE Asia in the late '50's; there was merely a group of territories, acquired by the British at different times, that they grouped together for administrative convenience and then conferred independence on as a single state (altho Singapore successfully escaped). Here, too, Islam is a unifying force.
Possibly a better candidate for reducing the Islamic preponderance in a country's culture would be Bosnia: the Bosnians are ethnic Serbo-Croats who converted to escape dhimmitude, they still speak the same language as their Christian cousins, and they've been Moslems for a much shorter time than the Persians or Egyptians or Indonesians.

Posted by: ebonystone at June 24, 2008 2:22 AM

I actually read somewhere that only 45% of the Iranian population still identifies themselves as Muslim, and unlike in most Muslim countries, it's actually the older generation who do so, not the younger one. The younger generation in Iran has, by and large, failed to be radicalized. And as most of us know, it's today's younger Muslims we have to look out for, the 15-to-39-year-old males in particular. The older generation still sees nothing wrong with looking to the West as an example of progress, and older Muslim immigrants to the West were far more inclined to assimilate, adopt the Judeo-Christian work ethic, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The younger immigrants, by contrast, almost without exception ghettoize, isolate themselves from civilization even in urban settings, and end up either on welfare or in prison. And most of those older, more moderate Muslims in Iran are 50+, illiterate, uneducated, and are generally looked down upon by the younger generation as being the Arabs' bitches.

Hugh's observation regarding which Muslim countries have hope of throwing off the shackles of Islam was quite astute. Iranians also have less 0f a tribal mentality, are far less inbred, and are actually capable of seeing themselves as part of a social structure larger than their overgrown, incestuous family. This is not the case with the Arabs, and this is also the reason why the Iranians had a revolution less than 30 years ago. The way many of them see it, Persia is bleeding, and they are looking Westward for new ways of governing themselves. They know they are inherently better than the society in which they currently live. And the younger generation is the offspring of those revolutionaries, who also happened to be the more educated, intelligent, respected members of their age group. I also believe that there is hope for Eastern Europe, Malaysia, Indonesia, and possibly even Afghanistan. They just need access to what they're missing and a heavy dose of deprogramming. I believe that the majority of Iranians, Eastern Europeans, Malaysians, Indonesians, and even Afghans were once good people, are still born good people, and could be good people once again. Look what a good dose of of Uncle Sam did for Japan. Granted, the Shintos were always a very competitive society which valued highly education, honest hard work, personal responsibility, and had a sense of themselves as belonging to a social structure larger than their family/tribe/clan. But they were also a nihilistic, Nazi, colonialist, totalitarian death-cult who envisioned the world as being entirely Japanese one day. They also thought that they were God's chosen people and that God protected their island until we nuked and invaded it, after which their faith was destroyed. I don't think it will ever come to that with the Iranians. They never saw the world that way. Whether or not they hate Israel, I honestly can't say.

Posted by: jdamn at June 24, 2008 8:38 PM

Also, I really don't think that any comparison between Egypt and Iran is at all valid. First, Egypt was somewhat westernized by the British, and today we're seeing a radical backlash against that, while, at the same time, Egypt remains the most westward-looking nation in the Middle East. Egypt considers itself Arab and it hates the West in a way the Iranians never will. Whether or not Egyptians admit it, they do. Sure, they love our technology and they claim to want our freedom, but put an Egyptian in the West and they want to censor free speech just like the Iranian mullahs, they detest the freedom of women, they hate Christians, Jews, and Hindus, and they still believe that people who have sex independently of institutionalized prostitution should be hanged or stoned. They even kill dogs. Their hatred for Israel is also far more ingrained. That rumor about Jews bombing the World Trade Center was first printed in an Egyptian newspaper. Egyptian newspapers are also notorious for printing antisemitic cartoons which are almost identical to Nazi propaganda of the '30's and '40's, and they do so with more frequency and prolificity than even the Palestinian press. And Egyptians are also more inclined to belive everything they read than the Iranians. The Egyptians hate their government, but they also believe everything it tells them. Iranians are simply smarter. Egyptians also blame everything, in typical Arab fashion, on the government and the West, while they never actually do anything about it. Iran hated their government, so they assumed some personal responsibility for their fate, which is the ultimate anti-submissive (i.e., anti-Islamic), anti-Arab thing to do, and they staged a revolution.

And while the Egyptians harken back to the days of Ancient Egypt, they do so in a patently narcissistic (patently Arab) way, since they regard every other pre-Islamic culture as 'jahiliya.' WHAT THEY EMBRACE ABOUT THEIR PRE-ISLAMIC CULTURE IS ITS ENSLAVEMENT AND BANISHMENT OF THE JEWS. Not the literacy, not the technology, not the progress, but rather the antisemitism and the enslavement (dhimmitude) of the Jews. That's why the British were never able to civilize them: because the British were decent, moral, progressive people. Egyptians do not identify with the ancient Egyptians, but with the Arabs. They only glorify their antisemitic past. The rest is jahiliya. And warring with Israel cemented this identity. That's why Ahmedinejad keeps talking trash. If Iran strikes Israel, it will then be legitimately "Muslim." There's hope for the Iranians. There is no hope for the Egyptians. They've kicked out everyone who refused to be Arabized, and they're actively working every Friday afternoon to kill off the last 15 Copts. They are completely Arabized and have become completely inbred to prove it. That only happens in Arabized cultures. Pakistanis were already inbred before they were Islamized. The Turks are kidding themselves. You don't see Eastern Europeans, Malaysians, and Indonesians marrying their half-siblings.

Nonie Darwish was educated in a British Catholic school in Egypt which was left over from British rule, which is how she attained her unique perspective on Islam and Egypt. She was never a Muslim in her heart. She ran around with Copts as a kid, deeply ashamed of the hate speech which blared from louspeakers 5 times a day. Not even she thinks there's any hope for the Egyptians. I have to agree.

I attend grad school with Egyptian students who say things in the classroom like "separate but equal [apartheid] constitutes an ideal to which all societies should aspire," and "women are genetically inferior," and "nothing in the Koran conflicts with science." So they honestly believe that the Earth is flat, that the stars are arrows being shot at Satan, that menstruation is a disease, that sperm are produced all throughout the human body (both male and female) and stored in the kidneys, that 340 + 0 = 360, that camel urine and fly wings have have lots of proven medicinal benefits, and, of course, that women are genetically inferior, inherently immoral, filthy creatures, literally dirtier than dirt, who are beneath camels on the food chain, who must not be allowed to exist except as the outright property of some man, and who are designed for sex, breeding, cooking, and absolutely nothing else.  Holding any of these beliefs would unequivocally preclude admission into any private kindergarten in the free world, but these students are so miseducated as the result of growing up in a country which did everything they could to throw off the British 'jahiliya' as fast as possible. They say these things in the classroom bcause they are not only so ignorant as to believe that they are right, but also because they are so uneducated, having never taken a psych class (or a history, government, poli sci, or bio class) that they have no idea how transparent they are, and, even though they're men from a shame culture, they do not even understand, like any educated 9th-grader does, that when they say these things they are telling us just how weak, stupid, genetically inferior (as the result of millenia of inbreeding), and ignorant they are.

This has never been my experience with Iranians. I have never met an Iranian who refused to treat me like a human being because I'm a woman or who ever operated from behind that characteristic wall of narcissism that all Muslims (being necessarily malignant narcissists), and all Egyptian non-Copts I have ever met, with the exception of Nonie Darwish, operate from behind, which precludes any sort of genuine interaction with other people. This even applies to cab drivers and people with whom I have only had passing conversations. The Iranians are humanized. The Egyptians are hopelessly Arabized.

And just to shame my department for so hopelessly ghettoizing what was otherwise one of the most respected schools for linguistics in the world, I'm talking about the Indiana University Bloomington Department of Linguistics, whose Chair is a shameless, uncommonly deluded Egyptophile who admitted these students based on 3rd-world academic standards. Sorry for the rant, but F Egypt. They are beyond hope, just like they are beyond reproach, and we as reasonable, decent, thinking, moral people must write them off the way civilization, decency, progress, and literacy did. I'm not even for continuing to try to ban fgm in Egypt anymore, since they only practice Type II and Type III, which cause a 32% and 52% increase, respectively, in infant mortality. Sadly, that's good news for the rest of us.

Posted by: jdamn at June 24, 2008 9:38 PM

jdamn

To Nonie Darwish, you must also add the following: Magdi Cristiano Allam, recently famously baptised by the Pope at Easter, and author of 'Viva Israele!' (long live Israel!) which he wrote while still identifying as a Muslim; and Mohammed Hegazy, his wife and his little girl, wherever they are currently hiding.

Mr Hegazy was a poet; Mr Hegazy was interested in un-Islamic ideas, such as love; Mr Hegazy discovered the Bible, and converted to Christianity, and has so far refused to return to Islam even when tortured in an Egyptian police station. His wife also converted. He chose to try to get his religion changed, on his ID card, from 'Muslim' to Christian...and then the s**t hit the fan. His story was covered to that point in a number of postings here at jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch.

You might also look up someone called 'Mark Gabriel' who studied at Al-Azhar, but eventually dumped Islam and became a Christian. Like a lot of apostates from Islam, almost his first action upon defecting was to write a book to warn the kafir about the Jihad.

I suspect that if Western countries had enough guts to really put the screws on Egypt, a LOT more apostates (whether choosing Christianity or straight enlightenment rationalism Ayaan-style), would suddenly appear. The Christians could latch onto the Coptic faith or delve into the recorded pre-islamic Christian texts and rediscover their history and spirituality.

One of the most moving books I have ever read is Samuel Zwemer's "The Law of Apostasy in Islam". The roll of Christian martyrs who have come out of Islam is long and illustrious and can be traced to every century and every country.

There is hope, if we kafir can muster the energy to do two things: resolutely mark out and defend an Islam-free zone, pushing back and gaining ground where possible; and use every possible media at our disposal to flood the dar al Islam with persuasively presented alternatives.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 25, 2008 8:23 AM

For what can happen when a Persian sees through Islam: google Daniel and Mary Shayesteh.

Daniel converted to Christianity after fleeing from Persia into Turkey where he encountered some Christians. His wife converted after him.

According to my Christian sources, in 2001 it was estimated/ guesstimated that there might have been 500 apostates from Islam to Christianity within Iran in 1979; but that by 2001 there could be tens of thousands of Persian converts to Christianity, half of that within Persia itself, half among the Persian diaspora.

My source mentions 'several networks' of 'over 70 Iranian diaspora churches'. Those Persian Christian churches, outside Iran, may well be forging a new Persian non-Islamic identity.

Within Persia itself - we had a spate of stories lately about arrests of Christians, and none of them were from the old dhimmi churches, they were ALL apostates from Islam, and not silly teenagers, but grown men and women, usually married couples.

A new Persian NT translation was completed in 2001; a full Bible version was due out in 2006. There are Christian radio programs that go into Persia - and they get 'thousands of response letters'.

The Christian motto, at least, is: With God [YHWH] nothing is impossible".

That does NOT mean we do nothing and wait for miracles. It means, rather, that as we do what we can to resist the Jihad - including trying to persuade our governments that crushing the mullahs' nuclear project would be a VERY good idea - we refuse to despair.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 25, 2008 9:06 AM

@ dumbledoresarmy, I completely agree with you that must be tons of other apostates from Islam, even within Egypt. The difference with regard to Nonie Darwish is that was NEVER a Muslim. She's not an apostate because she always found Islam disgusting. It was never her experience that all the horrible things that Islam teaches about Christians and Jews were ever true. That was not her experience with Copts in Egypt and it was not her experience with Jews in Israel. In fact, she was astounded that night when the Israeli army came for her father and then left her, her siblings, and her mother when they found that he was not home. She knew her own people would have slaughtered any Israeli women and children they came across in a heartbeat, regardless of whom the man of the house happened to be. She watched Christian weddings in movies and marvelled at the fact that in the Judeo-Christian tradition marriage is based on partership, love, and mutual loyalty and respect, whereas Muslim marriages are disgustingly inequal legal contacts between two male slave owners, not a man and his bride-to-be, based on sex, money, and oppression, degradation, and objectification of women and nothing else. What scares me is that Christians and Jews are increasingly vilified and pushed out of Muslim countries like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, etc., so that Muslims will not only never have the opportunity to even conceive of them as human beings, but they will never realize how much better their own countries were when they were more pluralistic. Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes about how she was in such disbelief when she actually came into contact with Jews and found that they were, decent, kind, funny, far more human than the Muslims with whom she grew up, and that they did not all know each and weren't conspiring to take over the world, as she had always been taught. I find it horrifying the way that Islam vilifies Jews and Christians. I come from a half-Jewish, half-Catholic family in which almost all the Jews marry Christians and all the Catholics marry Jews, so I can't even conceive of that kind of thinking. Increasingly, Muslims will live in the dark the way Ayaan Hirsi Ali did prior to moving to Denmark. ANd when they come to the West, they attend mosques which not only fill their heads with terrorist propaganda, but which teach them that it is not ok to make friends with anybody who is mot a Muslim, and Muslims don't intermingle with the rest of society, so that, even in the West, they still live in the dark and regard all non-Muslims as kaffirs wo are evil, corrupt, and must be raped, enslaved, of killed. They still think, even when faced wih nothing but the truth all day long, that Muslims are victims of the West, not of themselves and the societies they have created, that we would all be better off under Sharia. And they never study history, government, poli sci, biology, or psychology, let alone other religions, which only further propagates this shameless ignorance. Like I said, even educated Egyptians with Master's degrees believe all kinds of things that are so unbelievably ignorant so as to unequivocally preclude admission into any private kindergarten in the free world. That was never the case with Nonie Darwish. My point is that this is a different generation of Egyptians, and so long as they're beholden unto the Saudis for their money, they will continue to become increasingly Wahhab-ized and will continue to kill off and push out the Copts, so that someday there will be no more Hegazys because there will be no more Bibles in Egypt. They will become increasingly inbred and increasingly unable to even conceive of themselves as a nation, but will rather continue to revert into the kind of tribal, clannish, Wahhabi thinking that has only continued to propagate itself throughout Egypt over the last 70 years.

Posted by: jdamn at June 25, 2008 2:49 PM

As Naipaul wrote in Beyond Belief:

The cruelty of Islamic fundamentalism is that it allows only to one people -- the Arabs, the original people of the prophet -- a past, and sacred pilgrimages, and earth reverences. These sacred Arab places have to be the sacred places of all the converted peoples. Converted peoples have to strip themselves of their past; of converted peoples nothing is required but the purest faith (if such a thing can be arrived at), Islam, submission. It is the most uncompromising kind of imperialism.

The issue is thus the extent to which non-Arab Muslims Arabize themselves. Are they de-Arabizing themselves in Iran? No? Enough said.

Posted by: pravasi at June 25, 2008 2:54 PM

As for Muslim countries acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them wherever they want, the question is not "if" but "when".

It will happen, have no doubt. And after that, the problem will be that Cold War Think can't apply. Concepts such as MAD worked back then because, to quote Sting, the Russians loved their children too.

But such ideas and assurances will not work here. Quran 9:111 tells us that true Muslims would want, indeed should want, nothing more than to slay and be slain.

So the issue is not bloodshed, but how much.

Posted by: pravasi at June 25, 2008 3:07 PM