on a serious note... is iran really pushing this hard? how far is it trying to go?? this following piece of brilliance, a product of the recent arrest of British military officers, is something that i refuse to accept as genuine capitulation: ""I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments" (thanks to CNN for the quote). that's just a bit too convenient, with language that obviously leans too far toward the discourse of the sacrificial lamb.
it's a piece (and by that, i mean all words purportedly from the sailor's hand) that too easily and glibly lays blame on specific parties. it's unabashedly a text meant to play the media card, one that the two 'indicted' governments will never believe as genuine. indeed, Tony Blair voices the collective disdain for the charade: "All this does is enhance people's sense of disgust. Captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way doesn't fool anyone." (again, thanks to CNN, same article as above).
while numbers of westerners would discount the letter's authenticity from the get-go, i find a further dead giveaway is the language. it simply doesn't embody the subtle nuances and veracity of the trauma and repentence and/or regret evinced by such a situation. it shows a lack of understanding the vocabulary necessary to truly represent the inner maelstrom of a captive. of course, it's logical to say that a captor would not allow a communique that is not in its favor, but in this particular instance, the transparency of this letter is sadly, and, if it made be said this way, frighteningly laughable.
parade magazine has created a list of the world's ten worst dictators, and indeed, it is a sobering portrait of the leaders contending with bastions of western ideals (however right or wrong they may be). if you peruse the list, ahmadinejad does not appear on his own, but rather as an arm of seyed ali khamane'i, the leader of iran's Guardian Council. parade does indicate that within the definition of dictator, the individual cannot be removed by legal means. i would suppose that this means ahmadinejad is not eligible for his own ranking, as he could be replaced in the next election. does this suggest that he is merely a mouthpiece for the hardline council? is he the polemic that can be the target of western disdain and frustration, to draw attention away from those truly in control of the government machinations?
what's next? for myriad reasons, i feel that we ought not to be iraq, and the ubiquitous analogies to the vietnam war are wearing on the older half of my generation. does this tension with iran mark another stage in our collective, societal maturation process? are we to face the fear of nuclear war, as did our boomer parents? or, is it to become reality, except on much more horrific, terroristic levels?
where do we stand?
it's a piece (and by that, i mean all words purportedly from the sailor's hand) that too easily and glibly lays blame on specific parties. it's unabashedly a text meant to play the media card, one that the two 'indicted' governments will never believe as genuine. indeed, Tony Blair voices the collective disdain for the charade: "All this does is enhance people's sense of disgust. Captured personnel being paraded and manipulated in this way doesn't fool anyone." (again, thanks to CNN, same article as above).
while numbers of westerners would discount the letter's authenticity from the get-go, i find a further dead giveaway is the language. it simply doesn't embody the subtle nuances and veracity of the trauma and repentence and/or regret evinced by such a situation. it shows a lack of understanding the vocabulary necessary to truly represent the inner maelstrom of a captive. of course, it's logical to say that a captor would not allow a communique that is not in its favor, but in this particular instance, the transparency of this letter is sadly, and, if it made be said this way, frighteningly laughable.
parade magazine has created a list of the world's ten worst dictators, and indeed, it is a sobering portrait of the leaders contending with bastions of western ideals (however right or wrong they may be). if you peruse the list, ahmadinejad does not appear on his own, but rather as an arm of seyed ali khamane'i, the leader of iran's Guardian Council. parade does indicate that within the definition of dictator, the individual cannot be removed by legal means. i would suppose that this means ahmadinejad is not eligible for his own ranking, as he could be replaced in the next election. does this suggest that he is merely a mouthpiece for the hardline council? is he the polemic that can be the target of western disdain and frustration, to draw attention away from those truly in control of the government machinations?
what's next? for myriad reasons, i feel that we ought not to be iraq, and the ubiquitous analogies to the vietnam war are wearing on the older half of my generation. does this tension with iran mark another stage in our collective, societal maturation process? are we to face the fear of nuclear war, as did our boomer parents? or, is it to become reality, except on much more horrific, terroristic levels?
where do we stand?
1 comment:
I think there are a few things going on here. We really don't know that much about the inner workings of Iranian leadership and government, so it's hard for anyone to really know what's going on right now. On top of that, the strange role of the Guardian Council makes we wonder if there isn't a lot of tension within Iran right now about exactly what they're doing, too. And an NPR report from last week said that a lot of Iran's senior leadership realizes that this is a big problem for them but don't know how to get out of this while saving face.
On top of that, there's definitely a sense that this is Iran retaliating about Iranians being arrested in Iraq and the U.S./European push to get them to drop their nuclear program. If anything, though, I think this serves to weaken Iran's hand, even if it does build support for them within the region.
As for the situation itself - clearly it's untenable and Iran's refusal to disclose the soldiers' location or allow them to meet with the British consulate is preposterous. The letters and public statements are absolutely fabricated, meant to disgrace England and puff up Iran's standing. Lastly, the overwhelming evidence proving it was the Iranians in the wrong here make the situation even more heinous.
Post a Comment