The Language of Iran: Fear

Most would say that the regime of Ahmadinejad speaks Persian Farsi.  Insofar as linguistics are concerned this is true.  However, there is another language that is spoken, and apparently well understood in that part of the world: Fear.  As any Iranian expatriate could easily recount, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 was successful in instilling a fear of speaking, acting, dressing, or otherwise appearing Western.  Beyond xenophobic fear was that of the terror conveyed for noncompliance with the new regime’s take on piety. 

  

            During the demonstrations against the Iranian government in 2009, the citizens were again reminded that their protestations on behalf of democracy had limitations rooted in theocracy.  The regime succeeded in its endeavor to repress, thereby reinforcing through violence that dissent would not be tolerated.  

            The language of fear is not only spoken in Iran, it is exported for global consumption.  Witness Hezbollah’s ability to perform acts of terrorism worldwide and Iran’s impunity in having made significant contributions to them.  Observe the demonstrated conventional power of a small army to force Israel to acknowledge that they are a force to be reckoned with (2006).  Behold the message inherent in the Iranian warships’ passing unmolested through the Suez Canal to deliver aid to the Assad regime’s tyrannical and murderous efforts in Syria.  These are the hallmarks of the diplomacy of violence, the broadcasting mechanism of fear.

            As Iran’s regime is currently attempting to subvert international will and acquire nuclear weapons they have invoked the language of fear yet again.  In calling for the annihilation of another nation-state, they seem to believe that such a bullying tactic will bear fruit of the sort that characterized their regime’s domestic successes.  

           Bullies need a victim that is incapable of mounting a formidable defense.  This is where the language of fear loses its power.  The only way to tie the tongue of the fear-speaker is to demonstrate one’s ability to speak more eloquently and forcefully.  As the foreign policy question of responding to fear speak is raised more frequently, the answer could perhaps be found in the ability to hold a bullhorn to the Iranian regime’s ears and proclaim that its language is dead.  In turn, perhaps the Iranian citizenry will have their voices heard in the language of freedom.


To view this on WordPress see:
http://wp.me/p2E6N6-b

http://wp.me/p2E6N6-b

Battle Cry, "Allahu Akbar"...

I am curious what the net effect of the battle cry, "Allahu Akbar", God is great(er than the enemy), has on the composition of Syria's future government.  Although I understand that all engaged in war believe their deity to be on their side, I'm not convinced that the Arabic version of this model is simply a modest wish.  It seems to be the most prevalent cry and phrase in all matters pertaining to battle.  It all begs the question: if a new regime supplants the older regime, will they have the capacity to separate Mosque and State?  Further, what would convince us that this is true?