The pot’s still brewing over in Iran:
An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult.
The Khomeinist principle of political activism – indeed, mullahcratic political supremacy – is something of a recent innovation in Shia Islam. It was, quite literally, “revolutionary.” Ayatollah Khamenie extends Khomeinism as the supreme power holder and political arbiter in Iran, but his claim to supremacy rests on fragile theological basis in the Shia tradition.
As the spiritual center of Shia Islamic scholarship in Iran, Qom has largely remained on the political sidelines, fully in line with Shia quietest principles that keep the ulema transcendentally above temporal matters, viewing politics as inherently corrupting and tyrannical. For them to take a stand at this point has the potential at least to gravely undermine the regime’s claims to combined spiritual and temporal authority.
It’s an interesting fix Khamenie finds himself in: Having gone to the mattresses in support of Ahmadinejad – who was, really, no better or worse as a candidate from a Western perspective than his regime-approved opponents – he has cast aside whatever religious legitimacy was built into the Islamic Republic of Iran’s constitution. And having previously tried and failed to wrest control of the other main site of Shia learning in Ali al-Sitani’s Shia seminary of Najaf, Iraq he finds himself now pinned both philosophically and geographically between his lust for control and the traditional interpretations of his faithful, leaving him isolated behind his guns and his bureaucracy.
He would not be the first Iranian potentate to find himself in such a fix.
This could be an interesting year.
Lex, it surely looks like we have all the makings of a multi-tiered circular firing squad. with extra clips for everybody in the squad. -Grumpy
A number of years ago, Reuel Marc Gerecht was a Persian language specialist with the CIA, and was stationed in Turkey. He smuggled himself into Iran, and wrote a book about it called “Know Thine Enemy,” although he wrote it under the pseudnym of Edward Shirley (his grandparents). I’d say he was off in his prediction by about 10 years. Still worth a read, though. He now writes for the Weekly Standard.
There was also a story in the Times of London that Saudi Arabia and Israel are conducting below the radar discussions, and the Saudis would allow the Israelis to use their air space to knock out Iran’s nukes. VP Biden opened up his mouth and said the Israelis would be justified.
Maybe the attack won’t have to come off if the regime collapses under its own weight. Let’s pray.
Everything becomes a mite more clear if you replace “Iran” with “Persia”. The rest of the middle east, and much of what was the ancient world and southern Europe, has a long memory. In every nightmare, in every bad dream, in every memory of a slight, no matter the size, the Persians play some part.
Arabs make no bones about their displeasure towards the Persians. If Persia ceased to exist I doubt that many, if any, would shed a tear over the loss.
As much as the Islamic Arab world screams and carries on about “teh juice”, they are more than happy to stand aside while the sons of Isaac take on the Persians.
respects,
AW1Tim/
How does that old Arab saying go?:
“The Three things God should not have created are Persians, Jews and flies.”
The Arabs always bow to Mecca, but keep one eye on Persia…..
It would be best if the religious tyranny in Iran were to succumb to its own internal inconsistencies, with no direct action from either the “Great Satan” or the “Small Satan”.
I would hope that during the turmoil, for some accidents to take place in their nuke weapons manufactories and storage facilities. It would not hurt for those areas to be off-limits for the next 10,000 years or so due to heavy contamination.
AW1 Tim … Love a guy who knows his history, in this case, about the Persians, who have been quite a scourge themselves over the centuries. I think I can see a cloud, no larger than a man’s hand, looming over Iran’s future. And a beautiful,lethal group of aircraft being readied by the Israelis, to protect their homeland and their very existence in the near future. Since Mr. Hopey/Changey is not going to extend our protection over our great good friends, the Israelis, they may have to go it alone this time. I’ll be praying for them. And chalking up another black mark against our current President.
Marianne
Yup..
I find it telling that few remember who led the Moors into the Andalusia, who led the Ottomans to the gates of Vienna, or who led the Mamelukes against Napoleon.
Yet there are still quite a few who know who Darius and Xerxes were. Those Persians cut quite a wide swath through the centuries…..
Respects,
Question: What Persian dynasties/warlords exactly let the
- Moors into Andalusia,
- Ottomans to the gates of Vienna,
- Mamelukes against Napoleon?
According to my limited knowledge, the Abbasid court had many Persian scholars and administrators, but none of the above are Persian conquest.
My good friend, you have misread my statement, or I have worded it poorly..
I never suggested for a minute that Persians led those assaults. It was an example of which great leaders who led important actions have been relegated to history’s dustbin, whilst 2 Persian Kings were still remember, though they had been dead for centuries before those other great captains.
Respects,
Your’re right, it occurred to me afterwards what you were after.
It misread the scope of “those Persians”. Yet still I haven’t got it fully. Are “those Persians” only Darius and Xerxes or the Persians in general? In the last case, I would quote for the wide swath they cut through the centuries:
“20And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:
21To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.
22Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,
23Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.”
2 Chronicles 36, King James version
“… who led the mamelukes against Napoloen …”
Actually, Napoleon employed the Mamelukes as foreign mercenaries and let them under French command against the christian Empires of Russia and Austria (the last formally the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation).
My dear friend,
You are correct, inthat Napoleon employed a unit of Mamelukes within his Imperial Guard. However, by the time of the Grande Armee’s invasion of Russia, most were Frenchmen wearing traditional Mameluke clothing.
BUT, before Napoleon employed them he fought them in Egypt, most notably at the “Battle of the Pyramids”, where entire squadrons of them were cut down trying to attack French infantry in Squares, supported by artillery.
A short synopsis here:
http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_pyramids.htm
Respects,
@Marianne Mathews and @AW1 Tim, it has been interesting read your views on Mesopotamia, Persia, and the greater Arabian Peninsula, including most of what we call the Middle East, including Israel. It is time for me to become the student and learn. Have the Israelis asked for assistance? About the rest of the region, what has history taught us about the region that is useful, for our people in the region, today?
Thank you, for your insights.
Grumpy
Actually, Virgil, Three things that… isn’t an Arab saying, but was the title of a book written by Saddam Hussein. Regarding the current situation, there is another saying that the Arabs have: Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. Me, my brother, and my cousin against the starnger.
When Israel bombed the Syrian reactor, there was very little criticism from the Arabic countries. Iran was a mjor backer of the Syrian reactor project. It looks as if the Arabs have decided that the Israelis are the cousins in this fight, and the Persians are the stranger.
I think our modern day perceptions of the Iranian regime unfairly color our understanding of ancient Persia, an ancient civilization that had much to commend it. As proud as we are of Hellenistic traditions in the West, Athenian slaves still wandered the marketplaces and Spartan Helots would have gladly dined on their warlord masters at a time when the followers of Zoaraster preached human rights, the equality of men and the end of slavery. The Achaemenid empire was imposed by force – as was typical of the time – but was remarkably benevolent for its era, and brought civilizational benefits to southern Europe and Anatolia that otherwise might have gone missing.
The culturally Greek Parthians held their own against the fierce Roman legions for centuries, and the Sassanids struck fear into their hearts. It was only with the Arab conquest and subsequent, strained Islamization of Persia that the modern country began to emerge, one that, although Islamic, was never truly Arabized. Even then, Persians made great contributions in the arts, letters, science and medicine.
Araby has been wise to fear Persia. I wonder whether we have always been wise exploiting that fear.
I have a sense that we Americans, at least, are quick to take the sides of the Greeks against the Persians, for we see ourselves in a similar light.
The Persians were the “evil empire” and the majestic horde conquering all in stride. We Americans have seen ourselves as the Greeks saw themselves, a small lot defending their ideals of Freedom and Independence, (however they considered it) against the tyranny of Empire, in our case Britain in particular, and monarchy and theocracy in general.
The small band of Spartans at the Hot Gates is no different, to our minds, than the small band of Colonists at Breed’s Hill, or Valley Forge (or, for our Australian friends, the rebels at Vinegar Hill against the Lobsterbacks).
Persia contributed much to science and civilization, I fully concur, but it was also at the expense of oppressive taxation through both national treasure and levies of men and animals for her armies.
Persian enlightenment was still under a tyrant, and Greek independence was also not quite what we would envision liberty representing.
But the stories we remember are those of the valiant stand by Leonidas and his men (and allies), and the depredations of the Persians against Greek cities and colonies. We remember Alexander, (himself a Monarch) repaying Persia in kind, and we remember Xerxes and Darius as the Persian leaders who caused all those problems to begin with.
As modern hordes descend upon western civilization, and our supposed allies submit to more and more of those same Persian demands, it becomes more clear with each passing year, that we will be much like those ancient Greeks, a small remnant left to defend the rights of man against tyranny, slavery, and a forced theocracy.
Other’s mileage may vary, of course..
[...] View post: Schism | Neptunus Lex [...]
Lex has pretty much resolved the discussion, I would just like to add a few points for thought:
1. AW1Tim is perfectly right that we identify with the Greek against the Persians, and we do so rightly. The ancient Greek city states of that time were the first civil states, built on the the liberty and participation of their citizens, no matter how much limited, imperfect and sometimes even inhuman they were. The Persian Empire was built on the divine rule of a king and its feudal elite.
2. I have strong reservations against constructing a national identity across several centuries, or even millennia. Well, English and Frenchman might say that they are still the same as Sir Francis Drake or cardinal Richelieu. Yet, for Persia we have two and a half millennia, at least some (if only partial) immigrations (Parthians), the islamic conquest, the formation of shiitic Islam, some other conquests (e.g. Mongolians) and several dynasties in between. If Persia as such has an ever recurring influence on the Middle East, I would rather more ascribe it to its geographical position.
hajo-hi,
I agree with you completely. I also have some reservations about the entire construct. Persia probably gets it’s hits from it’s geographical point set. The modern Iranian government has taken pains to eradicate the old Persia, to include not only the history but the Zoroastrian baseline of it’s culture.
Ancient Persia, for all it’s faults, accepted the various religions of the conquered peoples, even to include the various Jews and Pagan cults it absorbed into the whole, much like the Sci-Fi Borg.
Whether it is right that we identify with the Greeks over the Persians is, to my mind, at this point immaterial. It is sufficient unto the day that we do so, and so we find ourselves at a juncture.
Our problem at the moment is both one of national identity and of political will. Either we summon up the will to replicate the Spartans, or we bare our necks to the Persians. I believe that it really is that simple a chice.
Respects,
I tend to disagree. When I was young and browsed the parental bookshelves I found The Rubaiyat of Omar Kayyam alongside Saki and a hundred other books of many cultures. The problem that I have these days with Islam is that they would burn all of those books.
I think Persia is well and truly gone along with the Spanish, Dutch and Austrian Empires. It failed to survive the diminishment of the end of empire. Sadly, Great Britain went with them into the dark.
Somebody here ventured that Greece was a civilization. May I draw their attention to Thucydides? It was no civilization and what the Greeks did to each other rivaled what the SS did to the Jews. But I am writing of history and there is a steady progression leading to the rights of man and if they had not perfected it, they at least put our foot on the true path.
Objection.
The ancient Greeks had two faces.
On the one side they were brutal slave-holders, deriving human dignity from the blessing of a communal or tribal god. When that was gone (the city burned down), then human dignity was lost. (I am referring to a 19th century treatise on ancient civilisation “Cite Antique” by Fustel de Coulange). No wonder, that the SS claimed it wanted to re-erect an ancient slave-holder society (Eugen Kogon, “The SS-state”)
On the other side, their societies where build on participation of full-citizens, think of the two equals isonomia (equal vote) and isegoria (equal law). Then, and that is now my very personal opinion, in Sophokles’s Antigone I see the first enlightening of individual conscience (as opposed to adherence to the rules of the gods and elders) as both duty and right in human history.