Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« More Gore | The P-I on the Burner-Blogger ... »

Monday, May 15, 2006

Tehran Glitter

Posted by on May 15 at 2:10 AM

I’m not going to get into my histrionic reasons, but I’ve been obsessed with the ‘79 Iranian Hostage Crisis for as long as anyone who knows me has known me.

Ask anybody at work: I have a weathered photo from the crisis taped up on the door of my office. And at home, I have framed pictures from the NYT’s and Time magazine’s contemporaneous coverage. That’s how goofy I am about Tehran ‘79. (Man, I even wrote a 4-minute “operetta” about the whole thing—which I had performed at the Seattle Composer’s Salon in 2002.)

I will say this: Both in 1979—as a precocious kid—and to this day, I sympathize/d with “The Students.” They had a direct (and justified) connection to the mid-20th Century’s beautiful upheaval against the old guard.

There’s been a wave of new books about the crisis published in the last two years. And with titles like “Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America’s War With Militant Islam” & “The Crisis: The President, The Prophet, and The Shah—1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam,” it’s apparent why there’s renewed interest in the 27-year-old event.

In a review of Guests of the Ayatollah in The NYT Book Review this Sunday, there was a beautiful passage that I’ve been waiting for since 2001:

“The seizure of the embassy was a form of political expression, if a violent and, in the end, extraordinarily cruel one. The students wanted to say something to America and the West; that’s why they argued with the hostages rather than beheading them. The terrorists who plant bombs on the London subway have nothing to say.”

While I dug the Iranian students, I have zero sympathy or “understanding” for bin laden and the fascist al qaeda movement. Zero. They are right wing reactionary thugs; “Reactionary Utopianism” as Christopher Hitchens accurately calls it. Those who claim to “understand” al qaeda’s anger are knee-jerk pseudo leftist morons. (I’m sorry, but mouthing convenient oppostion to America’s support of Israel is not a get out of jail free card for messianic fascism.)

The U.S. backed the Mujahadeen insurgency in Afghanistan. While trite leftists think that makes the U.S. hypocritical—it actually makes the U.S. consistent.


CommentsRSS icon

You are defending a childhood fantasy.

The "students" of '79 are the Islamofascists of today. There is a factual and historic continuity between the two.

You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Just consider the spiritual and actual leader of the '79 students -- the fascist Khomeini:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini

Wake up -- they hang gays in Iran because they are gay.

Stockholm Syndrome.

Josh was that posted (around 2am) while you were smoking pot with Dan Savage as you read Andrew Sullivan's blog together?

-You forgot to mention the likelihood that Reagan prolonged the hostage crisis to get elected: the hostage release that occured the day of his inauguration and the iran-contra stuff.

-If that's not enough hypocrisy, think about how after doing that the us supported Iraq in war against Iran.

-Then as you note there's the US support for Islamist "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. But that's only just the tip of the iceberg of the US involvement in promoting radical Islam:

http://www.americanempireproject.com/bookpage.asp?ISBN=0805076522

So what's your point? That terrorism is bad? I don't think anyone would argue with you on that. But what's the point of saying terrorists are inscrutable? It makes you sound like a Christopher Hitchens style "right wing reactionary thug", like we should just fold the CIA into the military, since the war on terror is faught against unintelligible fanatics who only understand force. We just need to find out where they are, not what they think...

What I think you mischaracterize as sympathy for Osama et al on the left is a questioning of what exactly a "war on terror" should look like, and what it can possibly accomplish if it is all military and no social justice. As America's previous military and diplomatic interventions in the region show, a military-based approach has created far more blowback and war than it has peace or freedom. And that won't change no matter how much you hate Al Queda.

Whatever the initial motives of the anti-Shah rebellion, by the time of the hostage crisis the revolt had been taken over by the religious leaders. Many, many radical Iranians felt betrayed as they watched "their" revolution being taken over almost before it began by the mullahs, who of course turned out to be far more repressive than the Shah ever dreamed of being. Sort of like a dramatically compressed 1905 Russian Revolution. The "democrats" never had a chance.

I'm with wf on this. Since when did "understanding" become synonymous with "support?" Attempting to understand the history of this conflict so as not to repeat mistakes of the past (like, for instance, that little incident in 1953 where the CIA helped overthrow a democratically-elected leader in Iran and replaced him with the Shah, whose cruel and decidedly undemocratic regime was ousted by the Islamic extremists who are curently threatening to arm themselves with nuclear weapons) is not the same as trying to justify the deplorable actions of the extremists you are so right to villify.

Could you please drop the "everybody who doesn't agree with this is a complete moron" angle? While your staff undoubtably counts among its number many gifted political analysts, please consider the possibility that there might be those among your readership who also read books and newspapers on these subjects and yet somehow occasionally reach different conclusions than you. Especially if they are reading books other than the well-worn, dog-eared copy of whatever Christopher Hitchens book has apparently been getting passed around by the Stranger's editorial staff since 2002 or so. I seem to recall lot of that patronizing "if you don't agree you must be stupid" rhetoric on your pages in articles supporting the Iraq War, and in light of how that worked out one might conclude that it's time to knock it off. Glass houses and all that.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).