Prof
William O. Beeman: Iranians Deny The Arrogant Literature
Of The West
29 June 2010
By Kourosh Ziabari
Prof. William O. Beeman is the head of anthropology
department at the University of Minnesota. His
inimitable and independent approach toward the current
affairs of Iran, one of the most controversial
countries of the world, resembles the attitude of Noam
Chomsky in terms of perspective and mindset and has
cost him his reputation, professional credit.
Regrettably, he was insulted and attacked by a number
of American mainstream media and fanatic
neoconservatives over the past years and even his
academic colleagues blamed him for what they
considered to be his support for the main pivot of the
“axis of evil”.
Prof. Beeman who speaks the Persian language fluently
believes that Iranian people should not be treated
with disdain and arrogance since their ancient
superiority and historical backgrounds causes them to
be resistant toward the hostile rhetoric and inimical
literature.
He says that it’s not justifiable with any conscious
and knowledgeable mind to allow Israel to accumulate
an arsenal of 200 atomic warheads while putting lethal
pressure on Iran to suspend its civilian nuclear
program.
In an interview for the Foreign Policy Journal, I
talked to Prof. Beeman on a variety of Iran-involved
topics including the media propaganda, nuclear dossier
and the prospect of revolution.
The Islamic Revolution of Iran emerged alongside
a series of brisk transformations and makeovers in the
arrangement of international deals and equations. One
of these prominent contributions was the permanent
dissolution of CENTO pact. How do you perceive that?
How did the Iranian Revolution of 1979 impact upon the
formation of international relations?
The Islamic movement has been active for more than 100
years. One of the most important figures, Jamal ed-Din
al-Afghani, (Asadabadi for most Iranians) was very
influential throughout the Islamic world. The Islamic
world was suffering from military and economic
oppression from Europe, largely because of the
advantages the West gained through the Industrial
Revolution. He urged the following remedies:
1- Purification of Islam– He claimed that the Islamic
world had lapsed because faith in Islam had lapsed.
Renewed faith and practice in Islam was necessary.
2-Reform– He urged Islamic leaders to re-examine
Shari’a Law and practice to modernize in conformity
with the modern world. One of his followers, Mohammad
Abduh of Egypt, “opened the door of ‘Ijtehad” to enact
legal reform.
3- Resistance– He urged Muslims everywhere to resist
colonial influence. This led to groups like the
Muslim Brotherhood, and indirectly to the Iranian
Revolution.
All three of these elements were active in the Iranian
Revolution. The Iranian revolution was the first
revolution in the Middle East to oppose Western
colonialism in the name of Islam. This was a complete
fulfillment of the promise of the Islamic movement. It
was very inspirational for the rest of the Islamic
world. There was one difficulty–the Sunni world was
uncomfortable that it was undertaken by the Shi’a
community, but Ayatollah Khomeini’s picture was on the
walls of Muslim homes everywhere in the Islamic world
from Morocco to the Philippines.
So, do you believe that the new government of
Iran managed to polarize the distribution of political
power by giving birth to a new regional hub and fading
the hegemony of the U.S. and Russia?
Yes, I agree. However, just as the original Islamic
movement identified the alliance between corrupt
Middle Eastern leaders and European colonial power as
the basis for misery in the Middle East in the 19th
and 20th Centuries, so today do the leaders of some
Middle Eastern nations, who are allied with the West,
decry Iran. However, the people of the Islamic World
respect and admire Iran’s willingness to carry out the
philosophy of “Neither East nor West.” So there is a
distinction between leaders of Islamic States, many of
whom are even afraid of the Iranian philosophy, and
the people, who admire the Iranian philosophy. Again,
this distinction is more than 150 years old.
Was the omnipotent catchphrase of Iranian
revolutionary thinking, i.e. the supportive umbrella
for the oppressed nations and subjugated people of the
world, a major factor in the ultimate victory of
anti-Western movement of Iranians in 1979 which was
spearheaded by Imam Khomeini?
Yes, actually Imam Khomeini’s philosophy was
inspirational for many people throughout the world; I
certainly support this ideal. This has been one of the
hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution as it goes
forward. However, I would be less than honest if I
didn’t admit that this ideal has not been completely
realized in Iran. Iran’s support for downtrodden
people in Lebanon and the Palestinian world shows the
power of this philosophy. It is an ideal toward which
we all must strive. Consequently, people must
continually make their leaders aware of these ideals,
and hold them to those ideals. This should be a theme
in the next Iranian elections, in my opinion.
Nevertheless, Iran has been grappling with a
huge amount of black propaganda and psychological
attacks vindicated by the corporate and so-called
independent media of the West since the dissolution of
the U.S.-backed monarchy. How do you perceive that?
Unfortunately, Iran has become the most popular
villain for American politicians. Both Democrats like
Representative Gary Ackerman and Republicans like
Senator Sam Brownback can attack Iran and become
popular. In fact no American politician ever lost a
vote by attacking Iran. Partly, Americans are still
mad about the American hostages in 1979-80. They are
also mad about Iranian opposition to Israel, which is
largely supported in the U.S. It wasn’t always so. In
the 1980′s the universal villain was Libya, and the
rhetoric against Iran today is almost exactly the same
as the rhetoric against Libya. There is a practical
reason for this. Lobbying groups, such as AIPAC have
enormous influence in the United States They review
all candidates for election, and have influence over
every newspaper, television and radio station. Their
sponsored organizations, the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy (WINEP), and the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) have millions of dollars behind them,
and large publicity agencies working for them, their
opinions and editorials appear in every U.S. media
outlet every day. It is very difficult to counteract
these people. They are actively working to promote
attacks on Iran.
As you implied, the root of anti-Iranian
sentiments lies in the nuclear activities of the
Islamic Republic which the Western governments and
their affiliated corporate media portray as
threatening to international peace. Should Iran pursue
its nuclear programs under the current pressures?
Iran is granted the “inalienable right” to the
development of peaceful nuclear energy under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States
and some European powers want to claim that Iran
should be different, and should have its treaty rights
denied, because some people thought that Iran “might”
be making weapons. There is absolutely no evidence
that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and it should
be allowed to continue to exercise its rights under
the Treaty.
How should the Western powers deal with Iran
regarding its nuclear program? Will the continuation
of current “stick and carrot” stance be fruitful in
this framework?
Iranians will grant legitimate respect to those who
deserve it–to honorable leaders, virtuous scholars and
wise teachers. They hate “ghodrat talabi” (Desire for
illegal power) when people try to exercise power
without legitimacy. Yazid is an example of such a
person. Just as Imam Hossein would not yield to the
illegitimate authority of Yazid, so will the Iranian
people not yield to the illegitimate authority of, for
example, George W. Bush. The strong sense of spiritual
purity and justice is a characteristic of Iranian
life, and Iranians will resist injustice and
illegitimate exercise of power, even if they must die
for it.
- Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance
journalist and media correspondent. He has interviewed
political commentator and linguist Noam Chomsky,
member of New Zealand parliament Keith Locke,
Australian politician Ian Cohen, member of German
Parliament Ruprecht Polenz, former Mexican President
Vicente Fox, former U.S. National Security Council
advisor Peter D. Feaver, Nobel Prize laureate in
Physics Wolfgang Ketterle, Nobel Prize laureate in
Chemistry Kurt Wüthrich, Nobel Prize laureate in
biology Robin Warren, famous German political prisoner
Ernst Zündel, Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff,
American author Stephen Kinzer, syndicated journalist
Eric Margolis, former assistant of the U.S. Department
of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts,
American-Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud and the
former President of the American Motion Picture Arts
and Sciences Sid Ganis.
EsinIslam.Com Add Comments |