The Persian Conversion

Check Out Our Podcast!

2006-04-18T16:20:00.000-07:00

The Persian Conversion can now be listened to as well as read! You can find our podcast here or on iTunes [search the directory for "Persian Conversion"]. It explores issues that concern Iran through interviews with students from the University of Southern California, Iranian journalist and expatriate Omid Memarian, and USC political science professor and resident Middle East expert Richard Dekmejian. Enjoy!

The Absence of National Debate

2006-04-11T14:44:00.000-07:00

In an editorial that appeared in today's New York Times, the proposed military solutions to the problems in Iran are refuted as foolish. The sentence that stood out to me, however, was the prescription that "Congress and the public need to force the kind of serious national debate that never really took place before the American invasion of Iraq".

Is such a debate even possible in our society? With the media so unwilling to address any issue in its context and explore its ramifications, it is difficult for the public to understand what the options are and what is at stake. It could be argued that the media's unwillingness to provide perspective and challenge officials is the reason that no debate occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq.

If the media wants to see a debate occur, it must take initiative in informing and provoking the public.

Prediction

2006-04-11T14:13:00.000-07:00

Media coverage on Iran will increase because of American interest and constant changes in the nuclear situation-Iran has now declared it has successfully enriched uranium and Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is going to visit Iran to discuss its nuclear program. And because the media has to do its ‘duty’ of attacking the administration so the public will think that it is independent thus maintaining its credibility. (Bennett Ch. 5)

Furthermore the public is interested because Iran’s act of defiance may cause the administration to use its policy of preemptive action which the administration has left as a viable option against Iran.

What I Learned…

2006-04-11T14:12:00.000-07:00

So this is my last post of the semester and I would like to reflect on what I have learned about the media from class as well as from blogging on Iran.

Iran was only covered in the media when American interests were at stake or new developments occurred in the nuclear situation. That does not mean that we should have forgotten about the issue when it was not being covered because other media sources, such as the BBC continued to provide coverage.

The media in the US is constantly looking for stories that attract audiences, which would cause them to buy the newspaper. But allowing the media to set the agenda only causes us to ignore issues that impact us now or will in the future. Not actively seeking out information causes us to be isolated and puts us in harms way. For examples polices towards a country may have future consequences for us but because we never take the time to find out our government’s polices, when that country retaliates we shouldn’t be shocked…it’s our fault for not keeping a check on our government and its policies.

Headlines and Word Choice

2006-04-11T12:32:00.000-07:00

While blogging on Iran and the media coverage given to the country and issues concerning it, it has become clear that there is a difference in the way American media and international media cover the stories. American media is more sensationalized and unconcerned with news in the middle east, unless they are making an apocolyptic announcement. The latest headlines concerning Iran are no different.

Iran's president recently announced that they have successfully developed nuclear technology. Though Iran claims the nuclear program is only for civillian energy use, the west fears that they will continue their research and make nuclear weapons. Whether or not Iran does continue down this road, experts say it will be years before they can make a nuclear weapon.

BBC News reported this story with the headline "Iran declares key nuclear advance"
This headline is factual and it does not dramatize the issue. The headline from Fox News is worded a little differently. It reads "Iran has joined 'club of countries' with its nuke technology and enriched uranium"
And the headline on MSNBC reads simply "Nuclear Expansion"
in large ominous print.

While the content of all three articles is similar, the headlines could give a skewed view of world affairs to many who simply skim the headlines.

Beyond the bad

2006-04-11T00:52:00.000-07:00

All this talk about Iran's nuclear development and possible war with the US is rather depressing. Not to mention it also sets a very unfavorable frame for the Iranian debate. When discussion Iran's progress, if all one knows is the problems they are having with the west, then any discussion will have a negative bias towards Iran.

Thus I'd like to end my post marathon tonight with a commentary on the arts in Iran. I've always liked to think of a society's ability to contribute to the arts as an indicator towards their level of civilization. Its incredibly difficult to develop a nationwide art program if standard infrastructure is not in place. Thus, I was pleased to see news that Iran was in the process of starting a symphony. The Academy of Art has recently sponsored a recording with the Armenian Philharmonic Orchestra. This is a tremendous step forward in the Iranian artistic community.

I also came across an article where a Iranian artist advocates more criticism of Iranian art by the western world. While this may seem to an odd request, his argument is founded on the notion that artistic criticism is necessary to further artistic development and recognition. Thus more criticism will lead to more artistic undertaking by Iranians and will lead to more recognition of their work.

The role of the media in all of this reminds me of the role local media has on local communities. Newscasts on local stations seem to always depict the worst that is happening in the community, crime and scandal. And rarely highlights the good contributions to the local society. Similarly the media's neglect to depict the good aspects of Iranian society encourage the stereotypes of the average western observer. A shame too, because often times these stories prove to be the most interesting...

Are we going to war? Does it even matter?

2006-04-11T00:19:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I made a number of references to potential conflict between the US and Iran. In recent months, more and more stories are being published concerning a possible war between the United States and Iran. The media has been very vocal and critical over the possibility of war. Ghali Hassan of globalreasearch.ca describes American aggression as a multifaceted attempt to downplay failures in Iraq and stunt the Iranian nuclear program. He is extremely critical of the US supposed position, and tries to inspire much skepticism. Although, I do wonder how much of this crisis is real and how much is media driven.

So I tried to look for a source that isn't directly involved in the conflict, an article not written by either an American, nor an Iranian. I also eliminated any British writers because the British also have much interest in the situation. So I found a Chinese article that laid out some official responses to the media's depiction of a possible war. It basically says that the media has totally blown the situation out of proportions, which isn't difficult to agree with. Not much could be gained out of a war right now. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said he won't back down Iran's nuclear efforts no matter what US or UN officials say. Thus, fighting this war would only force Iran to speed up the development process, almost eliminating any possibility of Iran using the technology responsibly (not at all). Plus, there wouldn't be much support on the home front for such a war. Attacking Iran would also delay the conversion to a democratic state, one of the most prized goals for the region.

Naturally, regardless of the truth, the perception created by the media has already influenced the public outlook and has had a real effect on their lives. Fear of a possible war has already driven oil prices up. This will naturally also spread and reinforce the fear of Iran in the American psyche. Oil is still very important to a automobile dependent America, and Iran is still one of the most important exporters of oil. News that the US is gearing up for war with Iran, and the reality that gas prices are going up because of it, will only lead to Americans blaming Iran for the problems, and not the irresponsible media coverage. Just another setback to the progress of the Iranian transition to western world.

What Does the World Think of Western Media?

2006-04-10T22:35:00.000-07:00

I was browsing through the BBC a few moments ago and found a really interesting perspective on Hersh's New Yorker article. The government in Iran, rather than taking this information to heart or even as a warning to prepare for American attacks, has turned around and accused America of psychological warfare through the media. They have suggested that the article is part of a White House orchestrated psychological warfare campaign against Iran's nuclear program.

Earlier in the semester, we spoke about the importance of media as a linkage institution--bringing information from the government to the public. The fact that many Iranians are scorning the media report as a way the White House is trying to use fear tactics is an illustration of how important media can be-- as well as a means of providing information, it can be used as a tool for governmental purposes. It is also an illustration of what the world thinks of Western media-- as the puppet of Western governments.

I think the goal of the class-- seeing the way the media is currently being operated and visualizing the ideal media-- is clearly summarized in this response. The media is obviously not inspiring any faith in its primary purpose, if the overwhelming belief (both nationally and internationally) is that it is the government's lapdog. If it is so powerful that it can induce such a response, how come it does not fulfill its possibilities-- bringing the truth to the public?

Some Academia

2006-04-10T22:26:00.000-07:00

Since a large part of this blog's goal is to illuminate the media's projection of Iran, I thought I should add some commentary on just how newsworthy the Iranian situation is. Doris Graber tells us that the keys to newsworthiness are whether the story is shocking, familiar, timely and in close proximity. Unfortunately, Iranian stories do not meet these criteria all that well. Unless Iran actually starts detonating nuclear bombs on foreign soil, Iran's situation will hardly be shocking. Most people are already aware they are building a nuclear program, and with nations like North Korea also developing nuclear arsenals while also being led by a far more threatening dictator, these same people just won't find anything Iran does to be shocking. The proximity factor is rather inherent, Iran is nowhere near the United States' backyard. As far as timely is concerned, well, there really isn't much new to report concerning Iran. Sure, there's the whole nuclear development situation, but the updates don't really add anything new to the discussion that is anywhere near the high priority of the American reader. And that leaves familiar. America can certainly relate to continuing conflict between the US and a middle eastern nation, as we have encountered quite a bit of that in the last quarter century, but the vast majority of Americans can not possibly relate to the everyday life of the Iranian citizenry. The issues concerning Iranians are not really the same as Americans, and few links can be made.

Thus, coverage of Iran is relegated to the back pages of the newspaper, or is non-existent. This is not to say that the issues are not important. Eventually, some of the issues concerning Iran will matter to Americans, and a background of the situation is always necessary to react properly. To ignore the stories now because they are not currently newsworthy or seemingly relevant is irresponsible. I'm not advocating spending all of one's day studying the Iran situation, but rather to just stay aware of what's going on, it may be boring and borderline tedious, but an educated public will be far less likely to make a dangerous mistake in the future.

Regardless, it is important to note the undertaking of my far superior partners in this blog. Attempting to create awareness for the situation is not only noteworthy, but commendable. They have done an excellent job at illuminating some of the important stories being published about Iran and its future consequences concerning United States policy, as well as providing insight towards the media's depiction of Iran. Public debate is good, regardless of the story's newsworthiness.

A little perspective

2006-04-10T21:15:00.000-07:00

I came across an article by Khaled Mamdouh of IslamOnline.net. On thing I found to be particularly interesting was its commentary on the US aggression towards Islamic nations. The article asserts that Israel's influence was largely responsible for the US targeting Iran and Syria as foundations of terrorist organizations. Now, I'm not particularly interested in the validity of this assertion, but more importantly how it demonstrates the importance of bias and perspective in the media. Naturally, the conflict between Israel and the Islamic nations has been widely reported, but I think its interesting to see the Islamic point of view towards the conflict. They don't just see a big, bad United States trying to impose their will on the Middle East, instead they also see it as a direct attack from Israel. I doubt many western observers would see it from this light. Many take the evidence of terrorist roots in Iran at face value, and never question whether the Iranians have any underlying doubts to the argument. I doubt that this article, or the arguments it makes, will get any attention in the American media. Just goes to show the profound effect bias and stereotypes can have on the media and the public.

What exactly does Sovereign mean?

2006-04-10T20:28:00.000-07:00

Over the next several hours, expect a number of blogs from this particular author. I wish I could say its because of my undying support for the issue, but honestly, its the final hour of a semester long project. Nevertheless, I'll try to add to the discussion concerning Iran from the perspective my colleagues have tried to present. Most of what has been presented here has to deal with current events, and many of this has related to the United States' policy toward Iran. I recently came upon a quote from a State Department official stating Can we come up with something clever enough to support two aims: one, get Iran to make a strategic decision to give up its nuclear weapons program and two, help bring leadership change and democracy to Iran. I italicized the part that I wanted to highlight.

One of the things that always manages to get me is the importance we put on the US policy towards Iran, and not how we'll deal with the nation as a part of our own self interest, but how we'll mold the nation of Iran into our own western image. I know democracy has worked for the US, and its worked in many other circumstances, but when will we learn that it may not be best for every nation. It took a congress of some of history's most brilliant individuals to decide that a democratic government would work for the new United States. Interestingly enough, the Founding Fathers didn't decide on a democratic government, rather a republic. Regardless of that point, we, as a nation, had the right to choose our government on our own. A right we seem to be denying to other nations. I'm not advocating any particular government for the new Iranian regime, I've never been there, nor have I encountered enough data and personalities to suggest with any authority. Nevertheless, why isn't the option of allowing Iran to choose its own government style ever brought into question? Sure there's always the fear that a corrupt power structure will develop just like the ones that are in the process of being dismantled. This, however, shouldn't be a reason to prevent the Iranians from deciding their own future. The notion that they don't know what's best for themselves is ridiculous and arrogant to say the least. I'm sure the British thought the same of the colonies that eventually would do the impossible and defeat the greatest military power known to man up to 18th century. Maybe they need to develop their own constitutional congress and see what happens. To say that our endeavor in spreading democracy is anything but preserving self interest is extremely hypocritical. Our ties with the new government will be what they will be, but to place the country under our thumbs is never going to place them in a position to trust the western world and problems will continue to arise.

I hope anyone who is generous enough to read our little blog can bear with me during the following marathon, and I hope I can add to the public debate is some manner.

Controversial Reporting

2006-04-10T00:14:00.000-07:00

In its April 17 issue, the New Yorker will publish a report by journalist Seymour Hersh that claims the U.S. is stepping up its plan of attack regarding Iran-- particularly suggesting that the U.S. is seriously considering the use of "bunker buster" tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's main centrifuge plant. Although Hersh's investigative report quotes several unnamed officials, leading to much criticism over the validity of his conclusions, there is still much to be considered.
First of all, we are no stranger to the idea of military action regarding Iran-- rumors have been floating around on various news sources. The fact that an investigative journalist is confirming it should not be the basis for controversy that it seems to be-- it is not as if the journalist created an implausible theory. Not only that, Hersh's report cannot dismissed on the basis of seemingly questionable sources. In fact, his track record would suggest otherwise-- he has received a Pulitzer prize for uncovering the My Lai massacre and his investigation at Abu Ghraib exposed "one of the worst scandals in the Bush administration." Upon considering these two accomplishments, Seymour Hersh's reliability as an investigative journalist would seem undisputed. Add to that the fact that Washington officials have not blatantly denied Hersh's claims, but have simply reinforced their diplomatic intentions-- a stance that Hersh suggests is a mask for the public, while the secret plan of attack is being developed.
Given Hersh's career and Washington's response, it is a bit surprising that such an article is being criticised so greatly-- some critics have even gone so far as to suggest that Hersh is looking for trouble and adhering to the old adage "where there is smoke, there is fire". While the fact remains that he has not named his sources, which is a justifiable reason for doubt, Hersh's distinguished accomplishments and established reliability should be taken into account. And perhaps the article's prominent use in established media sources such as BBC and CNN lends it credence as well.

Plan of Attack

2006-04-09T21:30:00.000-07:00

According to Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, President Bush is gearing up for another regime change, this time in Iran. What Hersh has learned from various sources is frightening: the White House has "intensified planning for a possible major air attack" that may call "for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon [. . .] against underground nuclear sites".

As fearsome as these findings are, the fact that Hersh's sources are largely unnamed officials within the Pentagon creates an interesting context in which to discuss officialized news. If these plans are, as one military planner contends, part of a "campaign of 'coercion'" - "[y]ou have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down", Hersh quotes him as saying - should the press pass them on with so little exploration of the possibility that they are false or exaggerated?

And if Hersh is correct in his assertion that President Bush is set on "saving Iran" using nuclear weapons, then the lack of conspicuous coverage on the part of the mainstream media is astounding. Does the news's dramatization bias run so deep that no reportage about this story will occur until the mushroom clouds begin to bloom?

An Interesting Perspective

2006-04-07T09:00:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's New York Times, Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, wrote an editorial titled We Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program. In it he argues not only that Iran's nuclear program is "exclusively peaceful" but also that Iran has proved over the past several years its willingness to negotiate with and make concessions to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Zarif's account of the discussions that have been taking place between Iran and the West differs wildly from the reports of the American media, in which Iran is portrayed as uncooperative and unpredictable. The evidence Zarif cites is clearly selected and structured to frame the issue in a manner favorable to Iran, but after reading it I wonder how much our media actively engages in unfavorable framing of what Zarif terms Iran's "rightful enrichment activities".

2006-04-04T12:44:00.000-07:00

The blurring of entertainment and news media has been especially harmful to the blogs of those of us covering foreign issues, like Iran. We have had a more difficult time assembling information on our topic so that we may comment on its coverage.

Ratings driven news has resulted in, "A 1997 Harvard University study found that foreign stories comprised 13.5% of television news in 1995 , as opposed to 45% in the 1970s. Another report found that in 2000, the three major broadcast networks aired 1382 minutes of foreign news--a drop of 65% in just 10 years." -Greg Barnhisel, "Media and Messages"

What this drop in attention to foreign news coverage means for the American people is a less involved and informed public. Because the media is priming the public as to what issues are important in upcoming elections, the public may not see issues of foreign policy, like Iran, as important when casting their vote for national office. With little consideration being given to issues such as these, it could prove disasterous for our foreign policy.

Torpedos?!

2006-04-03T23:58:00.000-07:00

Well, turns out there IS something new going on. Talk about entertainment. Who decides, in the middle of being investigated for potential nuclear weaponry, to show off a new high-speed torpedo? Yes, that's going to inspire faith in Iran during this so-called "international showdown". And indeed, the provocative move sparked renewed discourse about potential military actions as the majority of world leaders considered the test a show of force that raised the stakes in the nuclear weapons standoff. They considered the test to imply that Iran would respond agressively to any pre-emptive attacks. Thinking about the possible impetus for such a show, it seems entirely possible that Iran is responding to the rumors disseminated by the media that military action by the United States is impending. The rumors covered in the media must be pretty powerful then, to induce this kind of a reaction. It just makes you wonder how many other newsworthy events are actually a result of rumors floating through the media-- begging the question yet again of how seriously we should take what the media tells us.
The attempt to ward off threats by Iran seems as staged as an election campaign-- the leaders know how to get the attention of their audience and are trying to sell their point that they are not afraid. But the difference here is that instead of employing a politics of charm and reliability, they are banking on a politics of fear. And unfortunately, rumor has it, thats not going to get them very far.

Breaking News! No Developments!

2006-03-28T23:45:00.000-08:00

There was an article on the BBC News website today [that has since disappeared from the front page] about the most recent developments in the United Nations Security Council's discussions concerning Iran. It seems that France and the United Kingdom have written a third draft of a statement which the Security Council will meet to consider and potentially adopt Wednesday afternoon.

I draw attention to this article because, in essence, nothing has happened - and yet the BBC thought it neccessary to update its readers on the progress of these talks. Those silly Brits, offering the public information about an ongoing story despite the fact that nothing dramatic has occurred. The stateside media knows better. After all, Americans don't care unless there's a crazed quote from Sharon Stone.

Expanding the Dialogue

2006-03-28T14:50:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to Jon Stewart's interview with Kenneth Timmerman, author of the book "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown in Iran", on a recent episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Although Stewart takes care to inject a degree of levity into the proceedings [speaking about the similarities between Iraq and Iran, he says that the Bush administration was "only one letter off"], for the most part their conversation is surprisingly sober. Timmerman levels serious charges at the Iranian government concerning their involvement with Al-Qaeda and the attacks of September 11th. And their discussion of the true nature of anti-American sentiment in Iran is especially revealing: Timmerman argues that, in fact, the people of Iran love America; the protests and flag-burning that the mainstream media covers are staged by their government.

I think this perfectly illustrates the function that programs like The Daily Show can serve in expanding our national discussion of politics. Although it is intended to entertain, the dialogue in which Stewart and Timmerman engaged was far more detailed and thoughtful than any coverage I have seen broadcast by traditional outlets.

Misinformation

2006-03-28T14:36:00.000-08:00

Middle Easterners are seen as terrorist or as Islamic fundamentalists because of the public’s lack of knowledge about the region and its people. Leading to the harassment and discrimination of Middle Easterns, proven by the reactions after 9/11 as well as past events such as the Oklahoma City bombings where the first suspects to be considered were Middle Easterners.

This lack of knowledge effects policy; the public seeing Middle Easterners as a threat advocate passing of laws that take away civil liberties and due process rights and change immigration laws.

Entertainment for years has painted Middle Easterners as terrorist or Islamic fundamentalist for entertainment purposes, by doing this they are doing their job-entertaining the masses but they should practice responsible journalism-what are future consequences, is portrayal of a certain class of people and its effects, and are the portrayals accurate.

How Seriously Should We Take a Cartoon?

2006-03-27T22:23:00.000-08:00

(cartoon by: Jack Ohman, Portland, OR, The Portland Oregonian )

It would seem that the idea of infotainment has informed our perception of news presentation- political humor is increasingly used as a conduit of information regarding the current global issues. Political humor is a popular way of getting a point across, as it entertains the audience and draws their attention to an issue. Perhaps it is not intentionally didactic, but it certainly does inform public opinion-- because it does contain explicit political information. For example, in the cartoon above, the overwhelming message is that being a religious fundamentalist (as the media views the clerical population in Iran) is as dangerous a weapon as nuclear weaponry. It implies that the clerics are responsible for the current tensions between Iran and the U.S., and suggests that perhaps we should not be focusing on just the nuclear weapons aspect of the conflict, but also on the foundation leading to the current state of affairs. While this may be true, if people take the cartoon as a form of information, they are only seeing the story in fragments (a fragmentation bias, if you will). Thus, political humor can also play a role in agenda setting: it can tell us what to think about certain situations or even how to think. So it begs the question of how seriously we should consider the information being presented to us. Is the public so apathetic that the only way to gain political information is in humorous tidbits? I won't lie, I like to see other people's opinions and sometimes the cartooons get me thinking, but I don't want to be someone who depends on the cartoons for her daily dose of current events!

Political Humor and Cultural Conversation

2006-03-24T01:47:00.000-08:00

There was a time when the practices of respectable journalism dictated a clear distinction between news and entertainment. But, with the advent of cable television and niche marketing, competition between networks for audiences has become increasingly heated. This competition has resulted in a blurring of the line between news and entertainment television.

Shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, combine the format of a serious news show with political humor which both informs the audience and ridicules those in the public eye. But while these shows are undoubtedly successful, many wonder if they are really in the public’s best interests. These shows present a picture of government which does little to inspire confidence in government or its officials. And if they come to be relied upon as the main news source for the nation, it will result in a skewed perception of reality.

While this is a valid fear, at this point comedy is only serving to enact a larger cultural conversation.

Rumor: War with Iran

2006-03-21T22:13:00.000-08:00

The Bush administration is already trying to sell a war with Iran as it did with Iraq, by making the same allegations it made against Iraq.

This cartoon was chosen because the same tactics used to convince the public to support the war on Iraq are being used again but this time for going to war with Iran. The public easily forgets and moves on to new headlines. But it is important to remember past events, to learn from them and to question governmental actions especially if they have proven to cause harm before.

(cartoon:http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://cagle.com/news/IranNuclearPower/main.asp)

2006-03-14T14:59:00.000-08:00

Article about Iranian media in the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4804328.stm

It's Not The End Of The World As We Know It

2006-03-12T19:00:00.000-08:00

In a recent New York Times editorial [registration required], Barry R. Posen suggests that "We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran". He writes, "while it's seldom a positive thing when a new nuclear power emerges, there is reason to believe that we could readily manage a nuclear Iran."

And why not? After all, we have survived the development of nuclear arsenals by India, which first conducted tests in 1974, and Pakistan, who did so in 1998. It is widely known that Israel has a stockpile of as many as 100 warheads, although they have never confirmed or denied the existence of these weapons.

All three of these countries have refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits only five nations to own nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China -- all of whom had tested nuclear weapons prior to 1967, when the treaty was proposed. India, Pakistan, and Israel argue that limiting ownership in this way is not valid.

Additionally, the United States provides nuclear bombs for deployment by many states that are party to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. The Bush administration has also encouraged the development of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, popularly known as the "bunker buster".

As Posen writes, the world grows more dangerous each time a new nuclear weapons state emerges. However, for the United States and other nuclear weapons states to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons even as they make no effort to reduce their stockpiles and, in fact, continue to actively develop nuclear technology, is simply unjustifiable.

2006-03-05T17:44:00.000-08:00

This picture offers another side to the Iran nuclear debate. American media coverage seems to cover the issue with only the American perspective in mind: that we are in danger if Iran builds weapons of mass destruction. However the media does not look at the deeper issue: why Iran and North Korea would want to build weapons of mass destruction and what messages is our government sending to Iran and North Korea. They do not look at the bigger picture.

Who Do We Turn To For News?

2006-03-02T01:12:00.000-08:00

So the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear activity is inconclusive in determining whether there is/will be nuclear weapons capability. Or is it? Iran's Foreign Minister insists that the report vindicates Tehran by failing to prove that there is covert development of nuclear weapons. However, this new tidbit of information has not been released in an official IAEA statement yet as it it confidential. Which means that we have to take the Foreign Minister's word for it until we hear anything different. Inconclusive could mean anything though, depending on one's interpretation-- it could leave the door open for further investigation (especially since Iran has been apparently uncooperative) or it could mean the IAEA is confident that Iran is not seeking more than electricity with its nuclear drive. But a copy of the report has been given to Japan-and Japan has continued to advise Iran to freeze nuclear research. How are we to interpret these two opposing factoids? Is it ironic that we have to depend on the country which is being investigated for the results of that very investigation? Or is it just disturbing.......?

It Seems Stealing from the Rich is Problematic.

2006-02-28T19:30:00.000-08:00

Less than a year ago, Mahmud Ahmadinejad was virtually unknown - not only throughout the world, but throughout much of Iran as well. Challenging the incumbent president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the devout mayor of Tehran was able to attract "a following not with his talk of strict Islamic values but by presenting himself as a sort of Islamic Robin Hood", as Michael Slackman writes in this New York Times article [whose headline calls Ahmadinejad an "upstart"]. Through his support of the rights of employees and the distribution of wealth during his campaign, he articulated what can be termed Islamic socialism: a message of economic equality and personal dignity. His opponent [according to this story, also by Slackman, announcing Ahmadinejad's win] "promised social changes, privatization and better relations with the United States".

In any Western nation, Ahmadinejad's policies would be considered liberal [if not progressive]. However, most of the coverage the West devotes to Ahmadinejad labels him a conservative. Of course, there are other facts that affect this definition: he advocates faithful adherence to Islamic law and promotes the resumption of uranium enrichment, and it is these values that receive the most attention in the press when Ahmadinejad rails against Israel or defies the IAEA. Such events are considered more newsworthy by journalists than the provision of health insurance and zero-interest loans; very little is heard about the issues Iran faces internally. Meanwhile, Slackman and others call Rafsanjani a member of "the country's reformist movement" and a "voice of moderation".

It is odd that secular capitalists whose friendliness with foreign investors and domestic policies can hurt the welfare of their constituents are spoken of as reformers, while those who champion taking steps to actually reform the economy and rid it of corruption are called hardliners. These labels appear to betray a greater bias. When reading them I often find myself asking, what's so bad about a country that acts in its own self-interest? The media seems intent upon demonizing Iran for wanting to become a prosperous and powerful country.

I understand that the politics of the region are sensitive, and I believe that our ultimate goal should be international cooperation. However, I find the West's framing of these issues extremely hypocritical. A nation should not be chastised for or prevented from doing what is best for its own people simply because it creates problems for the United States and the European Union. I think that Rafsanjani's chief aide, Mohammad Ali Abtahi, said it best: "We focused our attention on elites and forgot the ordinary people who are trying to get their daily bread".

I guess no news isn't good news...

2006-02-28T07:49:00.000-08:00

I'd like to start this entry by making a brief comment on the news.

There hasn't been much news this week concerning Iran. A comment, which of course, is false. More accurately, there hasn't been any new sensational news this week. Sure there have been stories on the Iranian nuclear relation with the world, but that's old news. We all know about Iran's desire to be a nuclear power, and the world's desire to suppress Iran's progress. The last thing we need is a nuclear power broker in the Middle East. But again, this is essentially old news. It is a story line that has been playing for quite some time and this week's headlines have only been mere updates to an ongoing situation. As a result we have diverted a bit from our past practices at the blog. Normally, we've tried to center our posts on one issue. Give you all out there a little perspective from multiple viewpoints on an issue that's not quite that close to home. However, with the lack of "news" this week, we've had to change our course.

What does this say about the news, that even a group of students who are learning the ins and outs of the Media-Governmental complex, would still fall for its trappings? Maybe its just a cold hard fact, that news has to fall under the guidelines, just like Doris Graber has enumerated: News must be timely, familiar, and sensational. Yet its not exactly a terrible idea that news hold a sensational tone, or at least place priority to sensational stories. Do you really want national news organizations, or even this blog, to give you every single event in Iranian society? Probably not. And even if you did, when would you find the time to read them all? In any event, we should all probably accept the fact that the news is a more informational form of entertainment and get the real information from the sources that matter, each other. After all, that's what the founder's, of this nation at least, intended. A free flow of ideas, not from a single authoritative source, but from a vibrant and interactive society.

Don't worry about there not being news though, we at The Persian Conversion will find many a way to keep information going out to you and provide the news as it comes.

What Does It Take to Make a Headline?

2006-02-28T00:54:00.000-08:00

Everytime I look online at the BBC website, there is something new in the main headlines about Iran. In contrast, while American newspapers keep up with the topic, it is by no means their main headlines. I think perhaps the reason Iran hasn’t been splashed all over the headlines over the nuclear crisis is because we are all waiting to see what the next step will be. They have been referred to the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency and the Security Council will soon enough be meeting to discuss what can be done to keep them from going forward with their nuclear program. So right now, all anyone can do is wait for a response. But tensions have been mounting, especially in Europe—where the news is daily updated with new stories and fears. Perhaps this in-depth coverage is because any conflict regarding the nuclear program will occur closer to European turf than to American turf, or perhaps it is just because the American public cares more for domestic issues or issues that they can relate to/will directly affect them. Furthermore, perhaps that is why journalists don’t consider the topic newsworthy--they may not think its that big of a concern right now. In fact, Iran has consistently perpetuated the fear of nuclear weapons--journalists don't really want to be crying wolf again because speculation may be more harmful than helpful, perhaps they feel it is better to wait instead for a definitive moment of crisis. The minute an authority figure speaks, however, the subject IS considered newsworthy. In Iran’s case, White House speakers have said that Iran has a one-week opportunity to correct itself and defuse any stand-off. Not only is this a definitive stand, it would also seem to be a threat. This warning is the latest and most pointed remark the White House has made—and we have yet to see increased media coverage. But it’s only been a few hours, maybe we should give it the benefit of the full 24. How much do you want to bet that, all of a sudden, there will be a sharp increase in coverage? Looking forward to seeing if my prediction turns out to be true…..

Iran gives information to IAEA

2006-02-24T17:18:00.000-08:00

Iran's pursuit of nuclear energy continues to be scrutinized by the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Due to added pressure from those groups, Iran has offered to provide the IAEA with more information regarding its uranium processing programs. Intellegece has reported that the program is linked to missle warhead design and the international community has feared Iran gaining control of such powerful and destructive weapons.

Iran is cannot produce atomic bombs or nuclear warheads because of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which took effect in 1970.

Some news sources have brought up the point that, under the administration of Gerald Ford, the US sponsored and encouraged development of nuclear energy in the 70's. They argue that since the US once encouraged the development of this technology, Iran should be trusted with the technology.

Although the UN and the IAEA are keeping an eye on Iran's program, there are no guarentees that they won't be fooled. So how do we make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear weapon State?

Media Sources in Iran

2006-02-23T08:51:00.000-08:00

Media in Iran after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in June 2005 has gone through new changes: restrictions, closures, and new technologically.

After the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the media in Iran has faced financial and political problems. Several newspapers which differed from the government, reformist newspapers, have closed and the journalists have been jailed.

The newspapers are in a hard place because the government’s and the public’s demands differ; the government wants the media to keep in line with its views on news while the public want the newspapers to report independently, not the official news given by the government. That is why reading the news paper is decreasing; the official stats from Tehran figure that there are only 30 daily papers in print.

So, where do Iranians get there news: Internet, America, and other Iranians.

It has been estimated that seven million Iranians are online but people still face obstacles in getting news online because the government has started to filter web sites.

They can get news from America as well; Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice asked Congress recently for $75 million dollars to broadcasts and fund anti-government groups in Iran. However an official who had been part of the Clinton administration told the Washington Post that the anti-governments the Bush administration wants to fund have very little support inside Iran and cannot successfully challenge the Iranian government. Furthermore Iranians do not really trust America and Iran uses jamming technology to block America’s broadcasts.

Then there are the Iranians living outside of Iran who have more credibility than American broadcasts and who the American government has also started to fund. Iranians living outside use the internet to provide Iranians with news and an outlet for Iranians to express themselves. However most are anti-government and openly support the Shah’s son. They also face problems because their news sources come from average Iranians; they do not usually have journalists on ‘the ground.’

In general it seems that Iranians access to the press and information is limited and they face many restrictions and biases.

2006-02-21T12:57:00.000-08:00

Iran is currently pursuing what it calls a nuclear energy program through uranium enrichment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported Iranian activity to the UN Security Counsel and there is discussion over whether Iran’s intentions are truly to develop nuclear power or whether they are to develop nuclear weapons. This has brought up discussion among UN member states about which countries should be allowed to pursue nuclear resources and who gets to decide if they will be permitted to.

But, regardless of what Iran’s intentions are, the debate if is of global importance. So why is the media paying so little attention to it?

In a recent Los Angeles Times, there was one small four paragraph article on the situation in Iran. It was the only article on a page filled with advertisements for diet pills and trade schools. It was easily missed. And on the internet, most of the information about the Iran situation comes from sources like BBC.com.

Perhaps the media feels that Iran is too far away for it to make a difference to American audiences. Or maybe they feel America’s attention span for the middle east has already been saturated by news on Iraq.

A Double Standard?

2006-02-17T01:11:00.000-08:00

So it’s official. The Security Council is taking the referendum submitted by France, Germany, and Britain seriously—they are prepared to meet next month regarding the Iranian nuclear program, possibly to impose economic sanctions as a means of prevention and regulation. It is interesting that both Brazil and Iran have initiated nuclear programs, but the Brazilian program has the approval of the West where Iran’s program is being considered a threat. Iran has also not been treated the same way as India or Pakistan, who have succeeded in their nuclear efforts. Why? The Western labels given to Iran of being part of the “axis of evil” and a “sponsor of terrorism” do nothing to assure the rest of the world that the nuclear program is, as Iran explains, for power production rather than military purposes. France, for one, is not buying it—the French foreign minister states that “no civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. So it is a clandestine Iranian military nuclear program”. This negative twist on the program is further exacerbated by the Iranian President’s consistently vocalized extremist views. It’s hard not to think that Iran’s motivations could be less about energy and more about developing weaponry. But all the same, some countries have voiced their support for Iran’s right to develop a nuclear program. Venezuela, in fact, supports Iran on the basis of “a nations' right to have access to progress and development including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” It further stated that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) could prove no deviation from peaceful activities towards military activities and setting such a precedent could allow big powers to prevent technological advances of other countries. I’m inclined to think that Iran’s defiance when asked repeatedly to halt the program would point more to clandestine activities than innocent. But still, what makes a country such as Venezuela ready to go to bat for Iran? Maybe there's something in that.

International Dilemma

2006-02-15T20:17:00.000-08:00

Iran decided to discontinue negotiations with Russia after the IAEA decided to report Iran to the Security Council; and it has resumed uranium enrichment work.

So what should the international community do?

It can sit back and take Iran’s word that the nuclear research is for energy production and not for the development of nuclear weapons. However this could have been accomplished if Iran had accepted Russia’s proposal.

Economic sanctions can be put in place but this would have devastating results on the civilian population as well as enrage Muslims around the world, like the economic sanctions in Iraq did; and it would not cause Iran to stop uranium enrichment. And it would give terrorist cells more justifications for attacking “the West.”

Iran can be invaded as well but that would have worse results than the economic sanctions.

The international community can make a deal similar to the one made by the US with India…which allows access to civilian nuclear technology and the building of nuclear power plants by foreign companies; in the deal military and civilian nuclear research is kept completely separate. This choice is risky and modifications to ‘the deal’ need to be made for the international community to accept and it requires a lot of trust but the deal may allow them to monitor Iran’s nuclear research better then in the past.

Whatever route the international community takes it needs to consider the impact the decision will have on Iran’s citizens, the Muslim world, and the international community.

There are still some things you can't talk about

2006-02-13T23:03:00.000-08:00

In a remarkably childish response, an Iranian paper is offering a similar contest to that of Denmark's newspaper. This is supposedly, according to the BBC, an act of revenge towards the Europeans. It seems incredibly simplified and antagonistic to place the Iranians in total blame for their response. Lets face it, we all know that religion will always be a hot button issue with anyone of devotion. The original cartoons were incredibly disrespectful and hardly proved any point. I guess it could have been at least condoned if they were even remotely funny. But they weren't. Taking jabs at an already over-stereotyped group of people is just irresponsible. Sure, there's free speech, but that shouldn't be without the limits of proper etiquette.

It is also distressing that the media so far has depicted the Iranian, and other Middle Eastern nations, response as extreme and radical, as if they have only two settings, rage and suicidal.

Where are the stories of the people who don't care, the people who see what the cartoons really are, bad writing. They are nowhere to be found. Its amazing to see the pundits comment on the need to end the demeaning stereotypes but never shed light on the reasonable members of these typecasts. I'm sure they exist, and I doubt they'd mind having their opinion known.

That isn't to say that the Iranian response is any better. Introducing equally disgraceful depictions of the Holocaust is no less digusting than that of the original cartoons. This just begs for nearby Israel to get upset. And it certainly doesn't warm any of the hearts in America. What good can come of all this "free speech" is really beyond me. Hopefully someone realizes there's a high ground to be had.

Hopefully in the future, we'll be able to cover the positive changes occuring in Iran. A future conversion of a nation trying to make the leap into the ranks of modern civilization. A nation trying to join the world stage as equals or at least respected, not feared. Will this time come before our project here is done? Probably not, but maybe, just maybe, coverage of this area will change and help those who care to know realize the admirable undertaking of this nation and its citizens.

In other Iran news for the week, an earthquake hits Iran's southern province of Fars. Thankfully no one was seriously injured.

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi, announced that Iranians should enter Iraq through legal channels only. Apparently many Iranians are either being abducted or arrested in Iraq.

According to Bill Powell of Time Europe, China is becoming a much larger player in the Iranian nuclear crisis. This may either become a victory of multilateral cooperation or a problem waiting to happen. Just what the region needs, another nuclear power rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty...

A Universal Standard?

2006-02-13T22:41:00.000-08:00

Following the publication of the cartoons now known ‘round the world, we have seen a deepening of the rift between West and Islamic countries, particularly with regard to free speech issues. Iran’s controversial reaction especially strengthens the divide by a deliberate provocation of issues the West would consider taboo. The violent wave of protest and retaliation has perplexed global politicians, who feel that this response is leading towards a dangerous clash of civilizations .

So what can we do about it? The E.U. and several Islamic countries have come forward to support U.N. actions to prevent “defamation of religion”, possibly by passing blasphemy laws which constrain the limits of free speech such that sacrilegious comments will not make their way into the media. On the surface, this seems like an interesting way to prevent further fiascos of the sort. But there are several problems with the idea. How would an official standard of media communications be received by countries who pride themselves on free speech? It is foreseeable that many Western countries should feel hindered and more than a little resentful to have these inherent rights taken away. Furthermore, how feasible are these laws and how are they to be enforced? For such laws to have any effect, it would entail extensive knowledge of other cultures and religions; people must know what is considered sacrilege—and this education too is not something we can impose on everyone.

I do agree with Kofi Annan that free speech entails a responsibility and discretion, that it should not step on the beliefs of others. But I don’t think passing a law will be effective in bridging the cultural gap between the West and Islamic countries—that is something that only education and a willingness to understand the other side can do.

What is responsible journalism?

2006-02-12T14:09:00.000-08:00

While outrage over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad continues to rage throughout the Muslim world, European media outlets continue to publish the cartoons responsible for the controversy, begging the question: in this situation, what is responsible journalism?

French and German papers have published the original twelve cartoons along with others depicting Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods, claiming “a ‘right to blasphemy’ was anchored in democratic freedoms.” This attitude is in accordance with that of their original publisher, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They were published with the intention of challenging “what it perceived was self-censorship among artists dealing with Islamic issues.” The cartoons were also reprinted recently by a Norwegian newspaper.

Unlike the European press, the American press has been guarded about what they show to the people. While the cartoon images are described on television, they are not shown. And it is difficult to find the images on the internet. One of the only American news sources to publish the material was the Philadelphia Inquirer. But this was met with protests of “irresponsible journalism.”

Then there is the issue of newspapers in Iran starting a contest for a Holocaust cartoon. Should it be the job of journalists to retaliate?

So which action is more irresponsible, to inform the public by showing images which could possibly incite more violence and rebellion? Or to self-censor and not give people all the facts?

Freedom of Speech in Iran (or lack of)

2006-02-09T11:49:00.000-08:00

An Iranian newspaper, Hamshahri, is having a contest to test the limits of free speech. However testing should begin in one's own country first. Iran has restricted various forms of speech and is now arresting and jailing bloggers. Campaign groups say at least two dozen Iranian bloggers have been jailed as a result of the clamp-down. The newspaper should be trying to resolve the problem and trying to decrease the violence that is occurring because the actions being taken are making the Muslim community seem like terrorists and intolerant of others rights and views. Even the Prophet experienced in his lifetime hatred and attacks yet he did not resort to violence and prejudices.

With this being said; other countries where freedom of speech is 'unlimited' should think before publishing articles about others... the effect its going to have on the public and what the purpose of the article is. The cartoons were not educating the public about Islam which is especially needed at this time because the teachings of Islam and its Prophet are not well known. The publishing of the cartoons seems to be only for inciting violence and reinforcing the racist views the public has about Islam. The Danish newspaper cannot deny that they didn't know Muslims would be outraged and violent. There have been many examples of what happens when Muslims feel their religion is being attacked...murder of Theo Van Gogh and the Fatwas issued against Salman Rushdie after the publishing of his book The Satanic Verses.

Both the Danish newspaper and the Iranian newspaper are right but both are also wrong.

When The Funnies Aren't So Funny

2006-02-09T00:20:00.000-08:00

In recent days, Iran has shifted its focus from nuclear weapons to cartoons. Unfortunately, the focus is anything but amusing. The cartoons in question portray the Prophet Mohammed, whose image is banned in Islam, in an unfavorable light—one even depicting the Prophet as a terrorist bomber. The anger sparked by these cartoons has swept through the Islamic world, most prominently in Iran, where papers are seeking to retaliate by holding a contest for cartoons regarding the Holocaust. Their reasoning? Testing the boundaries of free speech, the same reasoning used by the European papers which published the offensive cartoons.

It is understandable that the Islamic response to these cartoons is anger, indeed it would seem that the publication of these images goes against the very grain of Islam. In fact, a statement by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion, and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions." The anger incited by the cartoon is therefore valid. However, the violent worldwide wave of protest that has swept over Iran is extremely disquieting— according to Annan, the recent violent acts surpass the limits of peaceful protest. Rather, it would seem that the dispute is being exploited by extremists seeking a clash of cultures—Europe and America pitted against the Islamic world. And indeed, ever since his ascendance, conservative Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently demonstrated his anti-Western sentiments. Given the situation, then, Iran’s response to the cartoons would seem to be a politically driven agenda. Just something to think about.

It's Off To The Security Council We Go!

2006-01-31T19:57:00.000-08:00

Today the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council, a measure which may lead to sanctions. This is the most recent development in a month-long dispute between Iran, who on January 11 broke seals the IAEA had placed on several of its nuclear facilities in order to resume uranium enrichment, and the West. The United States and its European allies believe that this enrichment is not, as Iranians have claimed, for peaceful purposes. Although Great Britain, France, and Germany have spent the past several years negotiating with Tehran to halt the progress of their nuclear program in exchange for economic incentives, Iran's recent actions have ended their discussions. America has long disdained these efforts and urged that decisive action be taken against Iran, who in his 2002 State of the Union address President Bush labeled a member of an "axis of evil". In the State of the Union speech delivered Tuesday [transcribed here], Bush declared that "[t]he Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions" and continued to say to the citizens of Iran that the United States "respect[s] your country. We respect your right to choose your own future".

That's an interesting assertion considering not only the blunt statements this Administration has made about Iraq over the years but also the popular support Iran's controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been able to amass for his uncompromising approach to dealings with the West. In this New York Times article, Michael Slackman writes that Ahmadinejad "has used Western opposition to Iran's nuclear program to generate national unity and purpose. [. . .] Stop Iranians on any street in any neighborhood and they are likely to demand that Iran be allowed to pursue a nuclear energy program". Two countries who largely concur with this opinion are Russia, who is heavily invested in Iran's reactors, and China, who is heavily dependent on Iran's oil. Their support of this morning's decision made it especially significant, although both nations issued statements tempering their endorsement of the resolution and encouraging restraint. As threatened, Iran promptly announced it will no longer allow the IAEA to conduct inspections and will proceed with the enrichment of uranium.

My classmates and I will continue to follow these and other issues as they progress, offering several perspectives on the matters facing Iran both inside and outside its borders.

Welcome.

2006-01-31T16:50:00.000-08:00

Welcome to The Persian Conversion!