Iran plays the Azerbaijan card
By Dmitry Shlapentokh
One might assume that studying US society and revealing its problems is easy
because of the lack of censorship. This is absolutely wrong: often one cannot
truly understand the US experience without having lived in Maoist China or
Soviet Russia.
Indeed, with all the intensity of the conflict between the left and right, they
try to preserve decorum in their polemic. This is especially the case with the
right; movies that openly attack the left and its sacred shibboleths do not
exist. As in Maoist and Imperial China and Soviet Russia, historical allusions
are
employed. The recent movie 300 could serve as an example.
Iranians, outraged by the images, declared that the movie was specifically
designed to denigrate them; reputable critics stated that what was on the
screen had nothing to do with Greeks and Persians of 500 BC. They both missed
the mark: the goal of the movie was to attack not Iranians but Americans on the
left with a Democratic majority in Congress.
Xerxes, the Persian king, was shown decorated with piercings and rings, shaved,
and with bizarre attire. He bore no resemblance to the real Persian king but
could well be a parody of a leftist punk from New York or California. His
sexual ambivalence clearly referred to students in women's and gay and lesbian
studies, who proclaim that gender is just a "discursive construct".
Today you are a boy, tomorrow a girl. And deformed Ephialtes, the traitor
go-between, could be an allusion to leftists such as the flamboyant academic
Ward Churchill, who proposed that some of those who perished on September 11,
2001, were in some way Nazis. A barb against the left could be seen even in the
Persian messenger, the negative figure whom Leonidas pushes into the well. The
messenger is black, a travesty for the left, for in most US movies today blacks
are positive figures; there may be one negative black character, surrounded by
positive black characters.
Against these leftist traitors who worked for the enemy, the hardcore
neo-conservatives, the patriotic Spartans of the White House, surrounded
themselves with shields and fought desperately to save the ungrateful American hoi
polloi from themselves. They fought hard, but as their positions
deteriorated their approach changed. For the victorious leaders in previous
movies on the West's confrontation with East, the brain is a luxury.
Agile Achilles or indomitable Alexander could crush enemies by might or superb
handling of weapons. Yet it became painfully clear with the approach of enemies
from the rear (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Ephialtes -
Professor Churchill - the enemy helpers' "fifth column") that muscle in itself
might not be sufficient. So the hard-pressed Spartans in the White House
started to engage in sophisticated political games to unsettle the major enemy
- Iran.
It is well known that the divided nations formerly within the USSR and
Yugoslavia can create permanent stress, as is the case with Nagorno-Karabakh,
an Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan, the cause of a long war (1988-94) and
ongoing tension. Much less known is Azerbaijan's split between Russia and Iran,
which has created a potentially explosive situation in the event of conflict
between Iran and the United States.
Northern Azerbaijan was incorporated into the Russian Empire at the beginning
of the 19th century after Iran was defeated by Russia. For Russians, that war
was mostly about acquiring new territory - a rather small and at the time
unimportant place. If average Russians remember it, that is because of
literature, not geopolitics.
The man sent to Tehran after the peace treaty was Aleksandr Griboyedov, a
classical Russian writer whose play Woe from Wit was included in the
high-school curriculum. His death in Tehran at the hands of a mob resulted in
the Iranian government giving the Shah Diamond to Czar Nicholas I as
appeasement. The diamond is still in the Kremlin, one of the most important
state treasures.
Azerbaijan had not played much of a role in Russian history except as a source
of oil and the violent clashes between Azeris and Armenians. After the Russian
Revolution and Civil War (1917-21), Azerbaijan was incorporated into the USSR
as a Soviet republic. It emerged as an important player after World War II when
part of Iran was occupied by the Soviet army.
The army did not leave, and Soviet leader Josef Stalin inspired the Iranian
Azeris to rise against Tehran, planning to unify it with Soviet Azerbaijan as
had been done with the parts of Poland populated by ethnic Ukrainians and
Belorussians. There was a strong US response, and Stalin ended the attempt.
After the collapse of the USSR, Azerbaijan engaged in a prolonged war with
Armenia and a period of internal turmoil. It maneuvered between its much larger
neighbors Russia and Iran, and, of course, among world players such as the US,
to which it gravitated more and more - at least until recently. The US tried to
use this connection to stir up ethnic Azeris in Iran, emboldening them to dream
about unification with their brethren in the north.
Their assertiveness became clear last year, when some delegates at the
International Congress of Azerbaijan proposed that Azerbaijan constituted a
divided people who should be united. This spring a leading Azerbaijani
newspaper, Mirror, published an article with a strong anti-Iranian statement
and the platform of the Party for National Independence of Azerbaijan, which
attacks Iran for alleged mistreatment of Iranian Azeris.
The statements led to a strong response by Iranian officials, who reminded Baku
that it once belonged to Iran and could be returned. Iran also re-emphasized
its good relationship with Armenia, which Azerbaijan regards as its historical
enemy.
Then suddenly the Iran-Azerbaijan relationship dramatically improved. Last
month it was announced that the Iranian minister of transportation would visit
Azerbaijan. Baku deported activists of the Movement for National Awakening of
Southern Azerbaijan, and there are discussions about ending visa requirements
for citizens of Azerbaijan and Iran who visit each other's country. At the same
time, Azerbaijan unexpectedly lodged an official protest over the US approach
to Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan regards as occupied by Armenia.
One might wonder about the reason for these changes. Perhaps not only Americans
but also some Azeri elite watch 300 Spartans and compare present-day Americans
with 5th-century-BC Greeks. They might compare the poorly paid and treated
American soldiers not to Spartans but to Athenians. In fact, influential New
York Times columnist David Brooks suggested that shrewd Themistocles, not
courageous but rather simple-minded Leonidas, is needed to save the country.
Other columnists have suggested that Americans should compare themselves to
democratic Athenians. In fact, the Spartans seem to them more like a bunch of
Nazis. This comparison was quite possibly noted by the Azeri elite, who
certainly recall the fate of Themistocles, who saved Athens. Ostracized and
fearing for his life, he asked for asylum from the Persians against whom he had
fought, and was treated well by them. And this was possibly why the Azeri elite
- understanding that the Americans would easily sell them out over even minor
problems - decided not to irritate Tehran, spoiling the US chance to use the
Azebaijan card in the standoff with Iran.
Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of
East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles (2005).
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
