Subject: On Saturday, at Rutgers U, April 26, 2008, IRAN TODAY or The Persians - at least how the 60s paved a process that brought us where we are today - but all this without mentioning for the day the word “oil.” Next Weekend, April 30 - May 3, 2008, Mahmood Karimi-Hakak Brings Aeschylus’ The Persians to Siena College, Albany, NY.

That was indeed an extraordinary event. I decided to drive to the Bush Campus Of Rutgers University, on the grounds of what was Camp Kilmer in the WWII days, Piscataway, New Jersey, because I knew that Trita Parsi was going to speak there. As we already reported about him, he seems to have very good insights on the US - Israel - Larger-Middle-East triangle - even though that we already observed that even he avoids mentioning the word oil - and in our view of the world this is a sign of incomplete truth. Otherwise the insights are nevertheless very helpful - because oil is a topic for the elite-few, while mass psychology - based on the relation to national mythology or, even true historic facts - is what moves the big masses of people that end up moving history.

I mentioned WWII because I found it very appropriate Camp Kilmer as a locale for this meeting. As I explained many times in the past, modern history of the Middle East is an outcome of settlements that resulted from the two named world wars of the 20th century. WWI created Iraq, and set Inter-State borders for the Middle East; WWII partitioned the world at Yalta so that Britain will have in its zone of influence Iraq and Iran, while the Soviet Union exited Iran and got in exchange Eastern and Central Europe. This had to do with oil - but then, as now - the real topic was not out in the open. It was only over 50 years later that the Freedom of Information Act started to trickle out facts - and now as then - State rulers prefer to divert our attention from rigorous economic interests, to the softer sciences. Anyway - it is nevertheless important to have at least the understanding of these soft sciences right.

I thought I was the only one that will be thinking so at the “Iran Today” meeting, but after I had asked a question about oil - the only time during the day that this word was brought up, one of the Iranian business people that came to listen in - told be without my having prodded so - “at these meetings oil is never mentioned, there must be a reason why they do not mention it.”

THE PROGRAM FOR THE DAY:

THE COVER OF THE PROGRAM FOR THE CONCERT by the Chakavak Ensemble of Traditional Persian Music:

The First Panel Dealt with Iranian Identity:

Professor Ahmad Ashraf Explained the place of the story-tellers in shaping the culture from pre-Sasanian times. Even the political integration setback during the Mungal period actually helped forge the Iranian identity that via a hybrid Iranian-Shia identity moved to the forming of an Iranian Nation concept. It still did not make for an Iranian Nation State in the 19th century - it only provided the basis for such a state. It was the reviewing of the architectural archeological factual historical evidence that in 1971 led to the celebration of 2500 years to the establishing of the Cyrus empire - that was when from the mythos - the Shah then declared the modern nation.

Dr. Hashani-Sabet, reviewing identity and borderlands - said that modern nationalism still did not get cover for all Iran’s areas - at best there is a romantic nationalism. Real Nationalism, something not too prevalent in the Moslem Middle East puts according to a poll taken in 2001 - 14% of the people in Jordan that say the “Nation” is the most important factor that makes them Jordanians. For Egypt the comparable question yielded 10% and for Iran just 4%.

Nevertheless - the identification as Iranians (even though modern Nationalism did not catch their eye) it was 58% that said they are Iranians. She spoke of academic reconstruction and deconstruction of the Iranian image and the politics involved. There is a clear frontier policy now.

The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, effectively controlled the politics of Iran between 1918 and 1923 but Winston Churchill, the New Secretary of State for The Colonies created in 1921 a State called Iraq that resulted in an unclear border for Iran. (Just Think what others already called as - “Churchill’s Folly.”) For many years Iran did not even recognize Iraq. People that considered themselves Iranians were placed by the British in Iraq. In a Saudi article about Karbala - they did not accept these “Iranians” as real Arabs.

Problems of unsettled borders were also on the Baluchistan frontier with Pakistan. Though arid land, the problem one got into the open after the Pakistanis detonated heir nuclear bomb. The Shifting river border with Iraq requested several times the involvement of Turkey as an arbitrator - but then the Kurds did not get any place n such negotiations.

The third presentation - Dr. Shouleh Vatanabadi - dealt with Iranians outside Iran. That was the progression from 3,000 years ago to Today. 9/11 brought many issues to the forefront - among these the place of the women in Iranian-American society. There is the multiplicity of identities in full bloom - right here. She made points about abstraction of identities: of Iran in the US, but also of the US in Iran. She found ideas so different that they were astonishing. The American colonizer in Iran and some nostalgia to life in Israel. She finds that in the US they are not ready to accept that there are different abstractions in Iran - one expects in a book about Iran only reality - but why not see that - more a French book deals with abstractions - so it becomes more valuable. I got from this that we are wrong in taking Iranians by the word of what they say.

The Second Panel Expanded Further Into Cultural Issues:

Majid Muhammadi described the Iranian politics on cinema matters. He defined three economic means for a politically driven and controlled cinema - both for the production of Iranian movies and for the allowing in and the the showing of foreign movies: Hedayati, Hemayati, and Nezarati. Thus each year there is a political target se for the movie making industry. This policy is then driving the funding of the making of movies and the funding of showing the movies. Film directing is a privilege given by the system to political insiders.

In term of numbers - cinema houses are closing - in a country of 70 million people there are now 300 cinemas (compare this to 14,000 in the US). There are 500 movie directors but only 45-65 movies are made per year. Out of these there are 3-5 that are high box office movies. In 2007 20 million tickets were sold.

Peter Chelkowski showed us political Wall-Art. That is Wall Graphiti and political posters. Some of the samples were astonishing - some blunt and some more abstract. I will see to it to post some of them at a later date.

Mahmood Karimi-Hakak who studied at NYU Drama Department 1977-1979, with Richard Schechner - the guru of the Off-Off- Broadway those days - went back to Iran 192-19999 and directed a Mid-Summer Night’s Dream Production. Hell broke lose - it was forbidden - and eventually he left the country. He is an optimist. The society is young and most young are intelligent and breeze for fresh air. They succeeded despite difficulties. He says that Shakespeare is as relevant even when censors cut the production. Now, the closing of the show became the subject of a documentary movie.

Now, back in the US, Mahmood is directing “The Persians” for Sienna College in Albany - with shows from April 30 till May 3, 2008.

Please see some pages I scanned:

THE THIRD PANEL WAS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE IRANIAN SOCIETY TODAY - This WAS A LEGAL PANEL:

Mehrangiz Kar pointed out that in 1963 women got the right to vote { OK that was ahead of Switzerland!}. They can even be elected but will not hold important positions. The problem is more serious in inequality in daily life in ares such as inheritance or compensation for damages - simply a woman seems to be only half a human being. A campaign for women’s rights gathered one million signatures! The woman that organized this got the Olof Palme award.

Farhad Khosrokhavar followed with Young people.

The Fourth and the Last Panel was on International Relations - the original reason for my coming for the day. The first speaker was Trita Parsi, the President of the National Iranian Council in the US:

He grew up in Sweden where he got his M.Sc. in International Affairs at The University of Stockholm - then his PH.D. at SAIS, Johns Hopkins U. in Washington DC. He worked for the Security Council of the Swedish Government and got to washington August 2001 - right in time for 9/11. That sealed his activities since - as he decided to concentrate on next conflict in the Middle East - on Iran. This came about as he realized that last book was written about Iranian-US relations in 1987. Actually it was by Israeli Journalist Tom Segev who, though very good, had at the time access only to Israeli documents.

The main push to do a new book came from the realization that in 1987, when Khomeini was still alive, Yitzhak Rabin CALLED IRAN - ISRAEL’s BEST FRIEND. That clearly was so in the 60s and 70s when both countries faced threats from the same enemies Pan-Arabism of Nasser and the Soviet Union push into the Middle East.  Israel wanted the relations with the Shah out in the open - but Iran preferred to keep it all secret in order to avoid needless reactions from the Arabs. There was an Israeli mission in Tehran but no lags and no visibility whatsoever. Parsi challenges the idea that in 1979 there was a root-change.  He thinks that despite the new government in power in Iran - basic relations stayed on. Paradoxically, because of the hostage crisis, the Iranians became even more dependent on Israel for access to US Congress - and for spare parts to US previously supplied equipment. It all boiled down to Vietnam and Israel when it came to replacement parts to American arms.

Trita Parsi points out the Israeli of National Security as being a No-Arab Periphery Doctrine involving Turkey, Ethiopia and Iran. Only three days after Saddam’s invasion of Iraq, the Israeli Minister of Defense held a conference about the need to keep up the Iranian defense.

THE MOST EXCESSIVE RHETORIC AGAINST ISRAEL COVERS OVER THE SUBVERT IRAN-ISRAEL RELATIONS.  israel lobbied in Washington to continue helping Iran.  What changed was the collapse of the Soviet Union so in 1991-93 and then Israel was ready to have a new look at Iraq. now there was an Iran-Iraq balance in Israel relations.  From the Iranian perspective they also allowed a change and promoted their own utility to the Us by allowing shipments of oil while Father Bush dealt blows to Saddam. On the other hand, Israel felt that without the SU it is losing its own utility to the US. Now the alliance of the US with other Arab states in the war against Saddam required putting Israel outside the circle - with an added promise that after the war they will turn their attention again to the Palestinian issue.

Iraq thought they can push Israel to disrupt this new found Arab-US entente by enticing Israel to react to the shelling. Israel did not allow Saddam to dictate its policy, but what will happen if the US and Iran find a way out to their conflict? The Periphery Doctrine will then fall and Israel must decide on a new policy. Will Israel be interested to support Hamas in order to undermine the PLO? The first are Sunni fundamentalists while the Latter are Sunni Nationalists. The US can only relate to the Nationalists -= not the Fundamentalists. If the peace process succeeds - then Iran is isolated! So - Now Iran will Support Hamas in order to avoid an outcome that marginalizes them also.

So - again - a collusion of Israel-Iran interests. When does one take posturing serious and when does posturing translate into action?

THERE IS NO COMPROMISE IN IDEOLOGICAL BATTLES BUT THERE IS AMPLE WINDOW SPACE FOR COMPROMISE IN STRATEGIC BATTLES.

The Arabs support the US to stabilize Iraq - then go to Damascus and declare readiness to negotiate with Israel but the Bush Administration does not react very much to the Damascus Declaration. of May 17, 2003. The problem is that Chamberlain is remembered and nobody wants to become the new Chamberlain of the Middle East.

{A question from the floor asked and who are the Molotow-Ribentropps of the Middle East.}  Parsi’s answer was that this is an excellent question - the best that was ever put to him. I DO NOT THINK THAT WASHINGTON HAS THE INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITY TO TALK TO IRAN - he said. it will completely require a change in the climate for the ME. It is not all bad when human rights is on the table - he continued. If the Marshall plan would have been about containing Germany it would not have been the success it became. Diplomacy has to be the first option, but we did not spend the time to figure out what it means to bring in Iran.

In the last couple of years we have seen Iran drifting reluctantly in the direction of Russia, China….  In 1995, the first Reagan Administration started to isolate Iran and Pushing it to China and Russia. US allies become discouraged also of the way the US handles the situation and may even pull the rug from under the US diplomacy.

Hamid Zangeneh, who published a book titled: “Islam, Iran, and World Stability,” was the last speaker. His topic was Iran-Us but much was already taken from him by Parsi.

He stated flat - “The overthrow of Mossadegh has denied Iran 30 years. Americans don’t understand this - WE DO!”

ALL OF IRAN REMEMBERS “THE COUP - “The American’s Ask What Is Iran Good For”"

There was an affection in Iran to Kennedy. Nixon years were good for the Shah! It was the Americans that made hen the Shah to Buy the nuclear system. We could do the dual containment of Iran-Iraq - specially now that the UN Security Council gave the Us the go on Iran.  Saudi Arabia is in the Foundation of all three countries but they never fought in any of these regional wars. The Israeli have! India, China, Europe, Japan, the US will have to sit down.

So what does Iran Want? Actually they do not want to make the bomb - all what they want is to be like Germany - to have the know-how - the capability to make a bomb without making one.

if America has to leave Iraq in disgrace - the military will move all over and there will be a loss for Iran and Israel - that is why Israel sees in the loss of Iraq a disaster. israel does not want to see the US cozy up with the Arab countries. SO NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD GO TO CHINA AND GET THEIR HELP IN ORDER TO FIND A SOLUTION.

OK - You see - We Talked about the whole world and managed not to say the word oil once - that is except my own question that was addressed to Panel No.2 and was about the oil money - easy come to the governments - easy go - so that was the basis for the corruption in the Iranian-Arab region. The answer came that the corruption is a cultural thing and that countries like Zimbabwe are corrupt without having oil. So, let me confess that I saw the point - and the point was that when people - for whatever reasons - do not want to see the subject of oil - they will simply display total blindness to that subject - THEY WILL NOT SLIP ON OIL! And my newly found Iranian friend, I mentioned earlier, simply made the same comment.

Could we say that oil people are interested in shaking out the topic in an intellectual exercise? Even so, the shake-out on Saturday was done very well and I feel like I had a clearing of sinuses when trying to decipher further the intricacies of the Middle East.

And one last point - history has provided Iran with much to grieve about - something that it did not hand to the Arabs - so - despite the incomplete conversation - I am more sympathetic to the Iranians then to the Arabs.