Page 2 of 2 Iran's practical
nationalism By Dmitry Shlapentokh
political and intellectual
discourse could be seen in China, whose revolution
was directly inspired by the Russian example.
The early Chinese communist regime had a
quite skeptical view of the past and its rulers.
During the Cultural Revolution, with its slogan
"bombardment of headquarters", countless priceless
artifacts were destroyed, and spreading the
revolutionary wave
was
seen as the major goal of the regime.
Mao
Zedong encouraged the populace, mostly students,
to attack party bureaucracy but give absolute
obedience to authorities. But by the end of Mao's
rule, the political and intellectual climate had
changed completely. The state and its power were
once again the focus of attention. So it was not
surprising that the great emperors again became
objects of respect. This included the first Qin
emperor, who, while unifying China after a long
period of disorder, wasted perhaps millions of
lives building the Great Wall and buried Confucian
scholars alive.
Applying the same model to
the Iranian revolution, we can easily understand
why the Achaemenids have re-emerged in official
discourse not as a curse but as objects of
veneration.
Persian national
Bolshevism Like the protagonists of the
Chinese and, especially, Russian revolutions, the
participants in the Iranian revolution discarded
nationalism and the historical legacy of the
pre-Islamic past.
During the Iran-Iraq
War, the Basij shock troops were inspired by
Shi'ite Islam, not nationalistic animus. But as
the new Iranian state solidified its position, its
ideology started to change, especially after
Mahmud Ahmadinejad took power. It was discovered
that the Iranian revolution was launched not so
much to promote a Shi'ite revolution all over the
globe as to speed Iran's transformation into a
mighty power.
Modernization and the
striving to master nuclear power were nothing but
a continuation of the shah's policy.
Rehabilitating the last shah was out of the
question, as no Soviet ideologist would dare cast
a positive light on Nicholas II, the last czar,
but the glory of all previous rulers was
reinforced, especially the Achaemenids.
The Achaemenids, cast by Khomeini in a way
quite similar to the images in the movie
300, re-emerged as the founders of a great
state. The ancient Persian Empire did not just
surpass all others in its military, economic and
cultural achievements; it was the first to invent
the "Iranian/Persian idea", so similar to the
"Russian idea" as the model for humanity to
follow. Indeed, an Iranian observer stated that it
was the Iranians who put forward and implemented
the idea of the brotherhood of all. This, the
observer noted, could be clearly seen in the
Iranian tradition in dealing with the Jews.
Responding to Western critics of President
Ahmadinejad's reported statement that Israel
should be destroyed and that the Holocaust did not
occur, Iranian pundits noted that Western
observers not only misinterpreted his statements
but also demonstrated an absolute inability to
understand Iran's approach to the Jews.
One observer noted that Cyrus the Great -
founder of the Achaemenid dynasty - brought the
Jews from Babylonian captivity and appointed the
Jewish prophet Daniel to be his adviser. This
demonstrated clearly that the Jews were not
discriminated against and could occupy any
position in Iranian society. This tradition
continues: Iranian Jews have absolutely the same
rights as everybody else and have representatives
in the Iranian Parliament. The same holds for
other minorities in the Iranian state.
This tradition of benign treatment of
minorities, the writer says, can be traced to the
time of the Achaemenid Empire. Mardonius,
commander-in-chief of the Persian forces that
invaded Greece during the Greek-Persian War, was,
according to one Persian observer, an ethnic
Greek. This once again demonstrates the absolute
equality of all subjects of the king. Anyone,
regardless of ethnic origin, could receive high
and politically sensitive jobs. Moreover, the fact
that Mardonius led the Persian army against the
Greeks indicated that his loyalty was first of all
to Persia/Iran, not to his ethnic kin.
All
these appeals to the Achaemenian past, in fact to
the entire pre-Islamic history, indicate that
nationalistic feeling is as strong as Islamic
fervor in modern Iran. In fact, Shi'ism, a creed
of universal revolution, has become just an
ingredient of nationalistic discourse. But does
this mean that the appeal of the early
revolutionary era is completely removed from
Iran's political/ideological life? To answer this
question, we may once again turn to the Soviet
regime.
Reinventing
revolution The increasingly nationalistic,
state-oriented ideology that motivated the Soviet
elite and populace in 1930-85 did not mean that
revolutionary ideologies were out of place. The
red banner, hammer and sickle, and icon-type
pictures of Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Lenin were
prominently displayed. The state officially
celebrated November 7, the day of Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917, and was eager to support
"revolutions" or "progressive" movements/regimes
all over the world.
All this helped
promote the geopolitical interest of the state. If
there was a problem, the Soviets could easily
proclaim that the regimes in the former Yugoslavia
and China were "reactionary". And the Soviet
regime had to close its eyes when friendly regimes
massacred communists, as did Saddam Hussein.
This model holds for the present Iranian
regime. Certainly the regime commemorates the
Iranian revolution and proclaims that it is ready
to help fellow Shi'ites in Iraq. But it apparently
also provides support to Sunni insurgents, and
according to some reports even to the Taliban,
with whom the Iranians have been at loggerheads
recently. The reason, plainly, is that these
groups create problems for the Iranian elite's
claimed arch-rival in the Middle East - the United
States.
The US itself has followed the
same model. On one hand, the neo-conservative
elite supposedly tried to "reinvent" the American
Revolution. And the administration of President
George W Bush, at least at the beginning of its
second term, promulgated that the spread of
democracy all over the world was the major goal of
US foreign policy, a bequest of the nation's
founding fathers. But one can easily discern that
not noble slogans but geopolitical pragmatism are
what poise the US for possible war with Iran.
It is clear that Iranian foreign policy -
like the foreign policy of any great power - is
not defined by revolutionary slogans. The belief
that Iranians are driven by revolutionary ideology
is as naive as to assume that Soviet or US foreign
policy has been conditioned by a desire to bring
socialism or capitalist democracy to the world.
Iranian pragmatic nationalism implies that Iran
clearly understands its national interests and
will stubbornly defend these interests. The
Iranians will not be deceived by sweet talk. And
the Iranian elite are not a bunch of fanatics;
they can engage in negotiation and compromise if
their key demands are satisfied.
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).
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
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
