An American's thoughts and discoveries about satellite broadcasts from Iran and the USA, and other published reports about Iran. Sponsored by The Movie Poster Page
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
He gave another talk today. The image is from an IRINN broadcast, and my translation is of a Persian overdub. I think this was a shortened version of the original talk, because it only lasted about 16 minutes. The translation is here. It looks like he was in a different TV studio this time, but the origin of the broadcast is still Al-Manar.
My Egyptian friend Hesham and I did a rough translation of his talk here. The talk is a half-hour briefing to his followers and supporters on the current state and causes of the war in Lebanon as he sees it; it is also an optimistic prediction of victory from a man who believes he is completely in the right. I fear and dislike the idea of having people like him running my life, but he seems nonetheless a true revolutionary hero whose outlook is not clouded by liberalistic nuances or doubts. Like the Israelis, he has no compunction about killing bystanders.
Baheyya's fury at the slaughter of innocents in Lebanon Baheyya: Egypt Analysis and Whimsy is powerful, but I still wonder what anyone can do. It is fine to draw a comparison between a boy with a bloodied leg, dead children in a Palestinian mortuary and Condoleezza Rice "dining at the Waldorf" with Kofi Annan, but I don't understand what she is recommending. To me, words, chanting, signs and placards seem futile; if you're the secretary of state, is it an option to have a meal with Kofi Annan at a delicatessen? Does rhetorical spitting do any good?
The "Made in Israel" spot the IRINN ran on July 19 at least proposes something we can all do: We can boycott Israeli products. There are not many places where I can make common cause with Iranian state TV, but here I can. We don't have to support this stupid slaughter, at least not as consumers. As US taxpayers, we don't have a choice. We may have a democracy here, but it doesn't have a foreign policy ballot.
This isn't about supporting Hezbollah. The greatest benefactors of the Hezbollah are the Israelis. With their indiscriminate bombing in Lebanon they're doing more for Hezbollah recruiting--and ultimately more damage to themselves--than anything else I can imagine. I'm not a Hezbollah supporter though. I'm afraid of them and all the other jihad movements, but ideologically they look like heroes to a lot of Lebanese and Muslims these days. That's one of the things I hate about this.
I hate it because Hezbollah is a Khomeinist group that would take Lebanon the way of Iran if it could. Its leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, is a powerful and charismatic speaker who is said by some to be the Gamal Abdul-Nasser of his time. He has rallied enormous crowds in Beirut on a number of occasions to hear his political and religious speeches, and today as the Israelis are trying to find him and kill him he has thousands of followers who carry his picture in marches and swear endless allegiance to him. Amir Taheri gives the Hezbollah some current perspective here.
I can see why Nasrallah looks like a hero to his followers. He is the first Arab leader (even if he isn't the head of a state) to defy Israel successfully; he doesn't care how overwhelming the odds against him may be, so strongly does he believe in the principles he is fighting for. I can only respect his absolutely fearless and unwavering determination. Yet I can't get over the feeling that his manic drive is aimed at my personal destruction. I'm an infidel after all, at least as that concept is defined by him and his ilk.
Nasrallah and his brethren in the Shi'ite clergy really do seem to feel that they have possession over judgement day and that some strains of humanity, the ones who don't buy Islam, don't have any right to pray (apologies to the late Robert Johnson).
On 29 June an IRIB2 news announcer proudly proclaimed that an Iranian design student at a college of painting and fine arts in the Republic of Azerbaijan had introduced a line of hijab designs for women that "eclipsed" Western styles. She exhibited her line of veils in the city of Baku; the announcer said the garments had been inspired by old Safavid and Timurid illustrations.
I couldn't help noticing that none of the women in the Baku audience was wearing a head cover of any kind, let alone one with a revised 14th century design. We know what would happen if the women in the Islamic Republic had the same freedom to choose as the ones in Baku, don't we?
Incredibly, a reader actually wrote to me and said no, I don't know what would happen if the women in Iran had the same freedom to choose as the ones in Baku. I rarely feel as confident about predicting a future event as I do in this case.
If the women in Iran could choose to wear or not wear a chador, we'd see a situation similar to the one in Egypt. In Egypt, not every woman wears a head cover, not even every Muslim woman. Moreover, the ones who wear them are much more likely to choose a color other than black. If the women of Iran could choose what to wear without any religious restrictions, Iran would look a little more like Egypt (and Baku) than it does now. There would be less regimentation in female attire on the streets of Tehran. There, I've stated the obvious!
