It has been thirty years since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and has anything of substance changed. In today's headlines, most major corporate newspapers write-chime- about a Green Revolution, but was Mousavi not the same leader that maintained the reigns during the theocratic movement and the Iran-Iraq War, which was waged for eight years, 1981-1989?
The theocratic government's tools of repression and oppression have been evident with the present " Green Revolution's" campaign to protest the election results. However, is it more than just a political protest, or is it a revolution to overthrow the present theocracy and their paramilitary wings, such as the Banjis which terrorise citizens after 22h?
How has the new Green Revolution affected the the rights of women in Iran? Are women members of this theocratic hierarchy?
How and where do they find the will to support the Sharia law- in Afghanistan, the American supported regime of Hamed Karzai, has legalized rape in the institution of marriage- and all its horrible consequences? Is it right to apply a Western lens to Oriental culture, traditions, and values. Is postmodernity the catalyst for this new desire for Persian women to ascertain their identity? There has been evidence of modernity in Iran prior to this Green Revolution: women have entered a myriad of professions: medicine, law, academia... . Is a Western criticism just? Should the West facilitate a revolution in Iran? Will it change the status of women in this religious state? Will it liberate women and men?
Saaed Kamali Dehghan has authored an essay for the Guardian newspaper and he narrates the abuse of female and male university students during the resent election protests. What is the ethos in Iran? This police state does not discriminate against gender when its paramilitray apparatuses quash peaceful protests. Are the imams responsible for the repression and oppression of women? Will the mullahs relinquish their dominance of women? Michael Slackman's recent essay, " Hard-Line Force Extends Grip Over a Splintered Iran", in the New York Times, reports that an expert for the RAND Corporation- an intelligence think tank- affirms that Iran is no longer a theocracy but a military state. Thus, it is not only women that experience repression, but men as well.
Furthermore, it was under Mousavi's reign-under the theocratic lense of Khomeini- that thousands of dissidents were executed during the 1979 Persian Revolution. Why is the Western media not highlighting this salient detail of his authoritarian rule? A recent article, Sunday, July 26, in The New York Times, co-authored by Robert Worth and Nahzila Fahti," Iran's Opposition Calls Crackdown Immoral", neglects to explicate the criminal complicity of Mr Mousavi. Why do these reporters disregard this salient fact from the 1980s? Why is there an implicit support for this venal leader? What liaisons does Moussavi have with current American oil lobby? Is there a new Iranian elite that is propitious to the Obama administration? Will the Moussavi camp engage in a rapprochement~ detente~ with an American corporate sector? Why do they imply that one member of this theocracy, Moussavi, will engage in a modern and original praxis?
Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, is a liberal academic, an artist, yet she supports the traditional female Shia attire, the burqa;on the other hand, she is resolute to promote a modern Iranian culture. Nevertheless, she is a woman who is also complicit. Is she cognizant of the tragic turmoil during the 1980s? Did she criticize her husband's alleged crimes during the Iranian Revolution?
How can this offer a new voice to women if Mrs. Rahnavard remains silent? She has recently stated the democracy that is needed for women is a religious one. Yet these freedoms are not included in any official government legislation. This same theocratic-totalitarian government- which her husband, Mr. Mousavi, was a member of in the early 1980s- has oppressed peaceful protesters that solicit answers about the alleged fraudulent election results-the Green Revolution protesters claim that Mr Mousavi was the actual winner during the summer 2009 national vote. How does a woman with political affiliations reconcile this paradoxical dilemma? Does a change in president wholly offer new ethical principles of democracy? Does the Iranian theocracy not permeate every atom of this nation-state? How can real change emerge in this totalitarian state?
Contradictions, hypocrisies and ambiguities are also evident in the USA; in addition, during the most recent week-end, June 20- it succeeded the violent suppression of peaceful protesters in Iran- John McCain has been critical of the Obama Adm's soft critique of Iran's repression and oppression, yet there has been a silent voice by the American media on the USA Adm's support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, as well as supplying Mr Hussein with chemical weapons to kill countless Persians.
Are human rights a valid concern by these Republicans and Democrats alike to wage, or is it a hypocritical praxis? The international community has focused on Iran's potential development of an atomic weapon, and it has has been receiving more exposure than the issue of women's rights. Is the Western corporate media neglecting to report on the rights of Iranian women?
Is the Green Revolution in Iran a new cause "celebre" for the American corporate media? There is nuanced difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad; thus, why is there so much clamour around the fradulent elections? The real power emanates form the Ayatollahs and the spiritual councils; thus, Persian elections are pseudo-tokens of participatory democracy. Why does the Western corporate media support Mousavi? Why have Persian women accepted their new role in this twenty-first theocratic- military state?
A grass-roots revolution is required, one that has no affiliations~past or present~ with imams or ayatollahs and that is germane to the Persian population that is wholly disenfranchised today. This measure solicits the assistance of the intelligentsia to unravel and reveal the CIA's role in its support for Mousavi. A new voice, a fresh secular voice, is required for the marginalised of Iran.
stop30billion
10 years ago
Micah Kanchan
ReplyDeleteMr. Naccarato
ENG4UA-01
27 July 2009
Total Control through Fear
Through a comparison on the violence against Iraqi women, the theocratic totalitarian government of Iran, and the fictional novel “The Handmaids Tale” by Margaret Atwood, the one reoccurrence that is the same, is the use of fear by fundamentalist groups to pervade society into an oppressive and repressive state of chaos. Reasons for this are varied but the hypocrisy that goes on throughout this privileged elite are certainly not.
The theocratic totalitarian government of Iran has been firmly established since 1979, now under the supreme rule of Ali Khamenei. The hypocritical electoral system of Iran was established at this time also allowing their people to vote to hopefully change Iran. How can one vote but at the same time know that in the end your supreme ruler mandates everything resulting in only minor changes in your country? Analyzing the history of Iran reveals that this establishment from a monarchy occurred primarily because of the outbreaks towards the Shah due to a falling economy. The new constitution via the Iranian Revolution was employed based on the fear of its citizens and unfortunately even with the Iranian revolution little changed for the better and even more changed for the worse. Rights were minimal, and most women; who ironically supported the revolution because of its power to change for the better ended up being oppressed by the hierarchical state because of the removal of many of their fundamental rights. Also, women in Iran argue that if Hussein Moussavi were elected women’s rights would be regained and the Morality police would eventually be extinguished. But this is not necessarily so as looking back to the early stages of the Iranian government Moussavi executed many who did not conform to the new constitution legislated in 1979. (Iran: A Renewed Revolution).
The war on Iraq as described by the United States government was supposed to bring the country into a state of democracy with the removal of the dictator Saddam Hussein. But, again the question that lies within all this reveals the falsity of the United States purported goals. If the purpose was to free Iraq and its people from a dictatorship government then why are women being tortured and oppressed? Due to this, it is obvious that the freeing of Iraqi people was just a cover up for some other unknown, ulterior motives.
Comparing these two examples to that of Margaret Atwood’s novel “The Handmaids Tale” reveals a stark relationship, as even Atwood herself stated that ‘all aspects of her novel were or are events that actually took place during the course of the human race.’ In a post United States government; the state of Gilead was formed because of an unknown (possibly nuclear or environmental) catastrophe that led to the indictment and overthrow of congress via a revolution. Promising change, this fundamental group abolished freedom and instigated purported change just like in Iraq and Iran but in the end managed to oppress and repress society instead of making it a more habitable place. Much like Iran the government formed was a theocratic totalitarianism fundamentalist one relying on God as the justification for every action.
These are all revolutions that took place involving a fundamentalist group which eventually changes society into a state of chaos. What is known and what needs to be done in order for society to succeed is the elimination of a hierarchical system where only a certain privileged elite rules, and the establishment of a constitution which includes all members of society.