Week 6 Readings!
Hello Everyone!
In case there is any confusion, our email is irandecal@gmail.com. Please send any questions, absences, excuses, etc to that email.
Here are the readings for this week:
Letter from Tehran: The Embassy Takeover (The links lead to the same article, but one of them leads to the pdf, email us if you have trouble with any links)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3011419.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3011419&Search=yes&term=tehran&term=letter&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dletter%2Bfrom%2Btehran%26wc%3Don%26dc%3DAll%2BDisciplines&item=1&ttl=2622&returnArticleService=showArticle
The Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989 (The links lead to the same article, but one of them leads to the pdf, email us if you have trouble with any links)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40257945
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/40257945.pdf
CURRENT EVENTS:
Khamenei: The Nuclear Decision Maker
Oliver Stone's Son, Converting to Islam and Meeting with Iran's President
Haaretz: Israel's Lack of Leadership as Dangerous as Iran?
Netanyahu on General Dempsey: Servant of Iran
See you all on Wednesday!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
that sean stone thing is kind of funny to me.
ReplyDeleteBut really, I wonder if the islamophobia people are having toward him now has something to do heightened awareness and attention of Iran in the media lately. Because I thought people weren't so paranoid and ignorant of muslims anymore.
I found it interesting how Khamenei is portrayed to be very stubborn and not open to other peoples opinion and believes that he has a large following behind him, when it may be much smaller than he realizes. I wonder if that is really the case and if so, will the people of Iran start comparing him more to Khomeini. Also, he seems to believe he is doing the right thing is not moving his stances on certain issues - but ultimately people of a country support a government that makes then happy and with all the backpack towards Iran, I wonder how long it will take before it starts negatively effecting the people.
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by the article on Khamenei. Most people in the US don't even know who this guy is yet he is the decision maker when it comes to pursuing nuclear weapons or not. Personally I think it is really dangerous for the leader of a religion to speak out against other countries and the West because when you are in a "divine" position where everyone kisses your feet it has a real brainwashing effect; but then again that is exactly what he and the regime want. Also, I didn't realize how important this standoff with the West is to the regime's legitimacy and success in Iran.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteto Julia's comment, I think the media IS what make people paranoid and ignorant of muslims. I think if you asked the average American what they know about Islam and Iran, you would just get a repeat of what a news source said. General history courses do not usually cover the middle east let alone Islam.
ReplyDeleteI thought the PBS article was interesting. It doesn't seem that Iran is willing to bend to the Western powers, and at the same time Israel doesn't seem intent on bending either. China and Russia are remaining firm on their positions and I believe the U.S. is realizing they are back themselves into a corner here and are beginning to ratchet down the rhetoric (there was a recent NY Times article that was downplaying Iranian nuclear proliferation as proof of this), Netanyahu isn't happy about that. Maybe our country is relaxing their position, or maybe they're just stalling slightly, but it doesn't seem like Iran is going to back down and it's becoming obvious that U.S. citizens are tired of war as well as fluctuating fuel prices that are partly a result of the current instability that this chest-puffing and posturing is causing in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteIn the article the “Islamic Republic of Iran” it states that Ayatollah Khomeini derived his power from divine mandate. I think this makes him ten times stronger, because religion is such an integrated part of Iranian culture that whenever you bring religion into the picture it becomes sacred. I think this is something that a lot of people, including myself, have a hard time grasping; this idea of religion being at the center of communities, and being such an integrated part of everyday Iranian life. Khamenei’s decision to continue the nuclear program and his warning that an attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences to the United States show his stubbornness. Iran is in no position economically or socially to enter into a war of this magnitude, doing so would only harm the Iranian people
ReplyDeleteI appreicate how the opinion article on Khamenei addressed Khamenei's personality and intentions. Being that he is the Supreme Leader and has dominion over almost everything, it is important to stress his tendencies. Khamenei's stubborness is an important quality that needs to be addressed when dealing with Iran. Clearly the sanctions against such a stubborn man would only set him in his ways even further, which makes the handling of the situation even more difficult.
ReplyDeleteI actually really agree with Nader's opinion of Khamenei. He states that the reason Iran is building up nuclear weapons is merely to protect itself from attack and the Western sanctions are merely a test of the Islamic government's power in the world. If Iran stops building weapons, it will weaken the country's influence. I also found it interesting that a religious leader would decide to build a nuclear weapon. For example, the Pope would usually try to maintain peace and would be against the building of weapons, right?
ReplyDeleteI greatly enjoyed the author's bias in "Israeli PM Netanyahu attacks Gen. Dempsey as Servant of Iran". The way it was written, it appeared there wasn't even an attempt to disguise such bias.
ReplyDeleteYet, I thought such bias was understandable. There are people who are very upset that America has been so approving of Israel's actions, and those who keep demonizing Iran when that is simply not the case.
Now, I don't agree with the author's contention that President Obama is allowing Netanyahu to "humiliate" him. I'd say President Obama just has a different flavor for diplomacy than some of the populace is used to in our Presidents. President Obama's been making the rounds recently apologizing -- some argue, excessively -- to other nations on our behalf, and frankly, that's something some Americans don't really like to see.
I too believe that the people in charge of Iran are rational actors. Yes, an Israeli attack might bolster nationalism, but only if Iran responded strongly. It would be difficult for Iran to not react to an Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities (which some Iranians might perceive in a similar fashion Americans did 9/11), and such reaction would certainly destabilize the region.
It appears Iran is on its path to reaching nuclear capability. Any attack on Iran shy of a massive first strike that cripples Iran's second strike ability, be it nuclear or conventional, is far more likely to destabilize the region than Iran holding onto nuclear capability as a bargaining chip at the global table and secondarily, but not in any way insignificantly, as a source of national pride.
I'm just saying. If you're going to attack Iran, I hope you do it VERY, VERY thoroughly or you may be starting a war we can't afford to fight.
The U.S.'s actions in foreign countries seem to be completely dictated by the U.S.'s assumptions about the foreign places without any real effort of trying to learn about the foreign people, which is evident in the U.S.'s support of the Shah's brutal regime. As shown in the U.S.'s help in overthrowing the Iranian prime minister and putting the Shah in power, if the U.S. wanted the Shah to be more humane, the U.S. certainly had the ability to do so. Furthermore, any logical person who is aware of what the Shah was doing will draw to the conclusion that this will not win the support and that the Shah needed to change. The U.S.'s inaction, which resulted in the intense anti-U.S. hostility in the Iranian society expressed in the Iranian Hostage Crisis shown in "Letter from Tehran" is thus a demonstration of the result of the U.S.'s lack of knowledge or effort of trying to learn about the foreign countries. Such phenomenon can be seen in many other places that the U.S. occupied, such as Vietnam and Iraq. And as history has shown, the lack of understanding that the U.S. government had when they implemented their policies will more likely than not result in the failure of the U.S. government from reaching to its goals. -----Wenjia Xing
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Oliver Stone article, if the article is as true as it claims to be, I really believe that the treatment Sean received from Iran is in a sense very warm, but at the same time undermine's the message they are trying to convey to the western world. It's not that I believe Iran should be hostile towards the west or even Sean, but the article made it seem like that by only a couple nonchalant phone calls or whatever, he was able to meet with the Supreme Leader and President in person. I don't know why but I fear a little for the leaders of the country when they so freely make time for it seems like just anyone. It is a nice gesture of both the SL and Pres. to meet with him, and perhaps I don't know much of the details or exactly how serious these film projects are, but the ease of which the article described of how Sean met with both seemed a little surprising.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the Haaretz article was interesting when it stated that "Netanyahu believes that Ahmadinejad'g goal is to complete the work of Adolf Hitler". I think it is pretty ridiculous to compare Ahmadinejad to Hitler because he clearly is nowhere near the same level as him.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the JSTOR article, I think it is really awesome how involved university students were and how passionate they were regarding the revolution in 1979.
Also, it is absolutely ridiculous that Israel receives $3 BILLION a year from US taxpayers! When the US has so many internal issues itself, I think we should first be focusing on our own national issues before being the "international watchdog" and supporting other countries.
Lastly, I think the "Islamic Republic of Iran" article was a bit over exaggerated with how strict things are with separation between men and women. I think over the past few years the country has become more lax, or the people have just given up on adamantly following the rules. However, this article was very informative and I enjoyed learning more about the concepts I was previously unfamiliar with, such as the division between Sunni's and Shia's.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Israel receives on the order of $3 billion a year from US taxpayers, roughly on average $1000 a person in the last few decades that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has dragooned us all into paying into Netanyahu’s coffers"
ReplyDeleteSo why is Israel soo paranoid? They are trying to pick a fight with Iran and its obvious that the West just wants to exploit them. Netanyahu has to be planning someone since he is freaking out about what everyone says or its just the election season for these three country making everyone lose their damn minds
Israel is being irrational. They obviously want to become the most powerful nation in the Middle East and Iran's nuclear program threatens their goal, not their safety. Israel is completely safe, especially with the nuclear weapons it already has had for decades and the billions of dollars it reaps up from the United States yearly, which is completely ridiculous. Why is anyone not worried about what Israel would do? The focus is on the wrong country.
ReplyDelete