Pondering Persia

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread-and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

--Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
(tr. Edward FitzGerald)

Death to the Great Satan!

--Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Here in the West, we have conflicting images of Iran. We've heard the medieval Persian poets (in translation), singing of food, wine and romance, while simulataneously praising and questioning their God. We've seen the scowling faces of the ayatollahs, denouncing America and its allies, and all their works. And, if we remember our history, we have vague recollections of the Persian Empire in its various forms; of the stout-hearted defense of the Greek city states against Persian invasion at the Battles of Thermopylae and Marathon; and of the much later burning of the great palace at Persepolis by the triumphant Alexander the Great.

These images are all pictures of Iran as viewed from the outside, perspectives given to us by Western historians and story tellers. And, whatever we recall from the past, present day images of Iran are not favorable: bitter rants by President Ahmadinejad, centrifuges spinning as uranium is enriched, street demonstrations denouncing Israel.

In dealing with a foreign culture, it helps to understand it; to understand a foreign culture, it helps to hear from someone whose life crosses the boundaries between our own culture and theirs.

Such a man is Hooman Majd, writer of a helpful little book entitled The Ayatollah Begs to Differ, and subtitled "The Paradox of Modern Iran." Majd is an Iranian by birth, the son of a diplomat under the Shah who grew up and was educated in Europe and the United States. He lives now in New York. He's been able to maintain relatively friendly ties with the post-1979 revolutionary government. His family and the family of Mohammed Khatami (Iran's president from 1996 to 2005) come from the same village, and are linked by a number of marriages. He has had continuing contact with the more moderate wing of the revolutionary government (including Khatami). He has traveled freely throughout Iran.

Majd discusses aspects of Iranian life that were totally unfamiliar to me. One such revelation was the extent to which the Shi'ite branch of Islam, which finds its homeland in Iran, was an adaptation of the Islamic faith to the historical -- and distinctly non-Arab¹ -- context of Iranian, pre-Islamic civilization, and, as a result, the absorption into Shi'ism of various Zoroastian attitudes and beliefs. Shi'ism's sense of martyrdom -- the belief that Ali, the true and deeply venerated heir of Muhammed's mantle (and a half-Persian) was unjustly killed by his rival in the seventh century and supplanted by the Sunni caliphs -- continues to affect profoundly everyday Iranian society. Iranians of every social and economic level contiue to experience a bitter sense of the injustice of all earthly life, an attitude that derives both from this traumatic origin of Shi'ism and from Iran's modern experiences with Western imperialism.

Majd emphasizes that -- apart from a small group of wealthy and primarily apolitical Westernized citizens, nearly all of whom live in suburbs in North Tehran -- Iranians from all walks of life fully accept the result of the 1979 revolution and the formation of the Islamic Republic. They also accept the legitimacy of rule by the ayatollahs and other members of the Islamic clergy, and the ultimate rule by the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at present). Even within the clergy, there is considerable variation in political attitudes, but they agree in general that it's the role of the elected government to govern the country on a day to day basis. The clergy is, in some ways, similar to our Supreme Court -- a moderating influence, preventing the elected government from becoming either too liberal or too conservative, as well as ensuring that the government's actions are not inconsistent with Islamic beliefs.

Such may not be democracy as we understand it. It is a form of government that appears natural and acceptable to most Iranians, however.

The book was written in 2007, before the disputed 2009 election. Majd felt that Ahmadinejad had been fairly elected in 2005, perhaps because of a poor campaign by his more moderate rival, but that he probably would not win re-election in 2009. He reminds us, in 2007, that Ahmadinejad was genuinely popular with many Iranians. He was a man from a lower class background, a man of the people who had not been corrupted by power or wealth. His life remained simple. He understood the common man, and they understood him. Majd believed that Ahmadinejad would lose in 2009, however, because his aggressive policies were seen as having brought Iran into unnecessary conflict with the rest of the world, with disastrous effects on the economy.

In a June 2009 preface to the paperback edition of his book, Majd notes the result of the 2009 election, in which Ahmadinejad was re-elected, and the subsequent nationwide demonstrations. He has no doubt that the election was fraudulent. More importantly, he feels that the great majority of the Iranian people also believe that the election was stolen, and resent that the social contract by which power was distributed under the Islamic Republic has been subverted.

Majd is disappointed, obviously. However, I sense that he has confidence in the common sense of his compatriots, and in the good judgment of the clerical class, the group that will ultimately pull Iranian government back toward a middle road. He remains optimistic about the country of his birth.

Majd, like other scholars of Iranian society, believes that a Western attack upon Iran over the nuclear arms issue would be a disastrous blunder. While Majd can't rule out the possibility that Ahmadinejad is seeking to develop and brandish nuclear weapons, he feels that its leaders more probably are simply seeking "justice" -- the same right to develop nuclear power resources as is possessed by all other nations. In thus seeking "justice" for Iran, Ahmadinejad expresses the deeply held convictions of virtually every level of Iranian society.

Nothing would unite Iranians more firmly behind the present government than even the threat of attack from without.

My post does not do full justice to the book. Although Majd tackles serious topics, he also discusses the peculiarities of Iranian (and American) society and culture with humor and with telling anecdotes of his travels and discussions. The book is both educational and entertaining. It's well worth reading.

And I hope a few members of our own government have taken the time to read it.

---------------------

¹"Iran" comes from the same Indo-European root as "Aryan," meaning Indo-European. The Persians were Indo-European invaders from Central Asia, who conquered and supplanted the indigenous inhabitants of present-day Iran, just as Indo-European invaders also did in Greece, northern India, and most of Europe. Farsi (Persian), like English, is an Indo-European language, in contrast to Arabic, which is Semitic.

Photo: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader