 |
| Mahmoud Ahmadinejad putting a keffiyeh scarf around the neck of an actor playing Cyrus the Great (Source: Mehr News Agency). |
A year ago, when during the Asian Cup tournaments, and at the request of Iranian authorities, the slogan and title on the bus carrying Iranian athletes was chosen as "Persian Princes," I wrote in an article that “The Islamic Republic, to gain and maintain its power, has always relied on the support of the ignorant masses who are under delusions.” In this regard, I added that “This regime, both to gain hegemony among revolutionary forces during the revolution and to strengthen its absolute power after the fall of the Pahlavi government, was supported by segments of society who, due to their religious delusions, formed a powerful and active social base for this regime.” I concluded that “It is easy to understand the new tactic of the Iranian authorities, invoking ancient Aryan nationalism left over from the Pahlavi era. In fact, the Islamic Republic hopes to gain the support of a class of Iranians who, due to their economic and social positions, have a louder voice both inside and outside the country and possess powerful connections and lobbies among foreign politicians.”
The new game of the Islamic government, this time under the name of the "Persian Gulf," and Ahmadinejad's provocative trip to Abu Musa Island, which revived the controversy over the ownership of the three islands in the same waterway, shows that the situation continues to turn the same way. The misuse of the emotions of the ignorant and deluded class, preoccupying them with an idealized ancient Persian identity and unfounded fears about territorial integrity, remains one of the most important and effective bases for diverting the people's thoughts from resisting the regime.
The happiness of the Islamic government is not only that young people, frustrated by the restrictive social policies of the Islamic Republic, turn to certain issues as an ideological shield against these impositions, but also that many groups who claim to speak with fresh and unbiased ideas are easily manipulated as victims.
For example, here I would cite a person named Reza Parchehzadeh, who, nowadays, speaks from the position of a young intellectual about national issues in Iran.
In his article "Essential Elements of the Separatist Discourse of Pan-Turkism" (2), which is a response to the article "Azerbaijan, the Colony of Iran" (3) by Mr. Vahid Qarabaghli, he makes statements that embody the success of the Islamic Republic's policies. It is true that similar statements have been made many times before, and it is hard to find an Iranian publication or website without such articles and reasoning. It is also clear that the style of writing that Reza Parchehzadeh uses in this article is more trivial and shallow than similar examples found on websites affiliated with Pan-Iranists and supporters of the Pahlavi monarchy. However, the point that makes this article of Reza Parchehzadeh noteworthy in the context of the Islamic Republic's populist policies is that he used to say different things in the past.
Not long ago, in his "Bahman Theses" (4), he believed that:
“The greatest harm of 'Westoxification' for us was that we became 'Persia-worshippers.'"
"Two kings never die: the king of Iran and the king of the Iranian mind. To achieve democracy, we must decapitate the king of the mind."
"From Caesar to today, despots have used the excuse that 'the country is in danger! Come, unite under my banner!'"
When we place his latest article next to these previous statements, we see that the Islamic Republic has been far more successful in its policies than we had imagined.
In this article, Mr. Parchehzadeh, who once considered "Persian worship" as a harm, has now changed his stance and repeats the theses of these Persian nationalists by saying: "It was the Iranian government that, with its misguided policies, endangered the cultural attachment of the Persian Gulf to Iran, so much so that today the sheikhdoms are proudly claiming ownership, and Google removes its name from its maps."
In other words, not only does he not consider the cultural attachment to the Persian Gulf harmful, but he also criticizes the Iranian government for endangering this attachment with its misguided policies. In other words, he insists that the Iranian government should show its strength and emphasize the cultural attachment of the Persian Gulf more than ever, so that the sheikhdoms do not claim ownership. In this context, the question that Mr. Parchehzadeh must answer is that if his view of the cultural attachment of the Persian Gulf is the same as the Persian or "Persia" identity, how does this Persian worship now differ from the one he previously considered harmful?
Mr. Parchehzadeh has made other statements in this article that again show the success of the Islamic Republic's policy in directing the attention of the deluded class to ancient nationalism. He says:
“The Islamic government, as the Pan-Turks constantly shout, is not a 'government of the Persians,' and in fact, it is known for its anti-Persian sentiments. I will not talk about the status of Persepolis and Pasargadae, but something has not passed since the removal of the great Shahnameh mural in Mashhad, the destruction of the statue of Arash the Archer in Sari, and the removal of the statue of Aryo Barzan in Yasuj. Only a dark heart and a near-sighted eye can fail to see these.”
I am left wondering: Are Persepolis and Pasargadae no longer symbols of Persian worship? Is the Shahnameh and the war between Iran and Turan, and the praise for conquests in the story of Arash the Archer, not Persian worship? And was not Aryo Barzan one of the generals of Persia? If these are Persian worship, then why was it harmful before, but now not only is it accepted, but the Islamic government is called anti-Persian because of its neglect of these symbols?
The Islamic Republic’s success in changing Mr. Parchehzadeh’s views is not limited to the issue of Persian worship. Interestingly, when the issue of Persia comes up, the concept of democracy, which Mr. Parchehzadeh previously said must be achieved by “decapitating the king of the Iranian mind,” disappears. When it comes to the implementation of democracy and when someone speaks about the right to education in their mother tongue, he loses his composure and forgets that he had previously said, "From Caesar to today, despots have used the excuse that 'the country is in danger!'” This time, on the contrary, he repeats the words of the most reactionary and extremist Pan-Iranists, saying, “If they do not want to remain within the territorial framework of Iran, they deserve to go to Turkey and Azerbaijan.”
We notice that he says this about those who, as he himself admits, "do not necessarily call for separation outright, but instead are strongly advocating for federalism.” In other words, the debate is not about, as he calls them, “separatists,” although even if it were, expelling them from Iran would not align with his belief in decapitating the king of the Iranian mind for democracy.
Mr. Parchehzadeh has expressed these views alongside his hysterical and slogan-driven attacks on Azerbaijani democratic and human rights activists. He, who was upset by the term “Azerbaijan, a colony of Iran” used by Mr. Vahid Qarabaghli, has clung to everything in an attempt to hide the realities of Iran’s social, cultural, and political environment beneath his illogical attacks.
Reza Parchehzadeh is too young for us to think that he has forgotten what he said just a few months ago about Persian worship and the king of the Iranian mind. Therefore, it is necessary to ask him why someone who just recently, with a democratic spirit, considered “Persia-worship” harmful, now repeats the most reactionary views of the most racist Iranian circles regarding the name of the Persian Gulf and the expulsion of Turks from Iran.
If his agitation is due to the use of the term “colony” regarding Azerbaijan by Mr. Vahid Qarabaghli, he should at least know that this term has been used by almost all Azerbaijani civil and political activists for many years when referring to South Azerbaijan’s situation in Iran.
Naturally, I do not claim, nor is it of any importance to me, that Mr. Reza Parchehzadeh is pursuing personal interests in his dramatic shift from a self-proclaimed advocate of freedom and democracy to aligning with the most reactionary and racist circles. On the other hand, the legal dispute arising from his defamatory statements against Azerbaijani civil activists, as well as labeling the human rights organization ADAP, which is affiliated with Amnesty International and enjoys global respect, as racist, is an issue between him and the organization he defamed. However, when looking at the other side of the matter, I can firmly say that, with this example of Mr. Reza Parchehzadeh’s shift, we must truly commend the Islamic Republic for its successful achievements in winning over the ignorant masses.
I hope Mr. Reza Parchehzadeh will forgive me for categorizing him among the ignorant, because based on the content of his writing, any other impression of him would be mistaken.
Footnotes: