RSS
« Another 9-11: Christmas for the Mojahedin-e Khalq? | The Lounsbury Return: Iraq & Civil War »
July 26, 2005
Turns Out Iran's History Begins Before the Hostage Crisis - Part 1
Why is this guy blathering on about Iranian history?
It turns out that Iran's history begins before the '79 Hostage Crisis.
The first book I'm taking notes from wants to start even before Mohammed (pbuh, of course). The book is Roots of Revolution by Nikki R. Keddie w/ a section by Yann Richard.
Now, some of you may ask why I didn't go straight to Ervand Abrahamian's* The Iranian Mojahedin. There's more than one reason why. To start, his work is disputed by the PMOI. For me to use his work to gainsay the PMOI seems needlessly arbitrary. Second, I need at least some sort of a minimalist landscape to use as background for the portrait of the MKO in my mind. I need some deeper history. Third, that book's not in at my local library.
It's interesting that in the preface both Juan Cole and Michael Ledeen are given thanks for their help in making the book possible. These are two folks who are seen in American, popular, political culture as residing on opposite sides of a fence- one a pro-neocon visionary and the other a librul with qualms about nuking Mecca. The book was published back in 1981 when, presumably, the differences between the two fellas were less hyped.
Even though Iranian history actually begins before the Hostage Crisis, the focus of this book is the events surrounding our Hostage Crisis, the Iranian Revolution and the Islamic Revolution. [This terminology and sequence may be worse than inexact.] It tries to portray a context for these events by showing some of the elements of Iranian history relevant to understanding the revolution. Hence the subtitle of the book: An Interpretive History of Modern Iran.
Given the focus of this book it's understandable why Dr. Keddie covers some twenty-three hundred years in twenty four pages. It's fallen to me to further condense those twenty four pages. She highlights the threads of Iranian history that she sees as most usefully explanatory in relation to understanding the Iranian Revolution.
"Scholars in the field of Middle Eastern studies are now accustomed to being asked: Was his revolution religious, political, social, economic,-or what? The only good answer seems to be that it was al of these..."
She says of the "recent 'Islamic Revival'", "...it follows a long tradition in both Iran and in the Muslim world of expressing socioeconomic and cultural grievances in the only way familiar to most people- a religious idiom arraying the forces of good against the forces of evil and promising to bring justice to the oppressed."
By 'Islamic Revival' it's not that people are any more religious than before, rather Islam's "re-entering politics." Particular to Iran, she says, is that "it was not a king or a colonel who proclaimed Islamic ideology, but rather a leader of the regular Islamic ulama ( a word inadequately rendered by "clergy," as their role is not to intercede between people and God, but to carry out Muslim law, education charity... a broader role than Western clergy)."
This difference between Iran's and other Muslim countries' "Islamic Revivals" she attributes to the differing development of two main divisions of Islam, the Shi'is and Sunnis.
She also outlines how the interests of the Iranian ulama became intertwined with those of the bazaaris and other "popular classes," how the ulama had a level of independence from the govt that was more pronounced than elsewhere in the Islamic world, and how these elements came together in the last couple of centuries and decades to allow the Iranian Revolution to take on the characteristics it did.
* Ervand Abrahamian is featured in this site's Select Bibliography
Posted by Simon W. Moon at July 26, 2005 07:10 AM
Filed Under: Gulf
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/48
Comments
Anyone in our brain-trust have an opinion on this book or author -- I tend to give it alot of credence but read it many years ago? The nature of the attacking commentary at amazon.com only reinforces its crediblity to me.
"Witness: From the Shah to the Secret Arms Deal : An Insider's Account of U.S. Involvement in Iran (Hardcover) by Mansur Rafizadeh"
Posted by: matthew hogan at July 26, 2005 01:19 PM
I noticed those reviews. That's part of the reason why I chose that link. I think later on these reviews may develop into something almost resembling some sort of a point.
While I'd heard from a PMOI spokesman that the Abrhamian works were..'tainted' shall we say, I'd not heard such about Dr. Keddie's work. I was disappointed to see that her work too was under par for the PMOI. If it turns out tha only PMOI generated works are acceptable to them it will leave me with few options but to evaluate their history in terms of works that they disapprove of.
Now "a spokesman associted with the PMOI" Ali Safavi did recommend Kenneth Katzman. However, the little bit of Katzman's work that I've seen isn't all that flattering to the MEK. For example look at this report for the State Department hosted over at the unsympathetic Iran Interlink site, The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran So, I'm not sure what exactly to make of the PMOI's objection. Fortunately, I don't have to decide today.
But, I too would be interested to hear other opinions of Dr. Keddie's work. I'd also like to hear about Abrahamian's work as well as Dr. Katzman's work.
Posted by: Simon W. Moon at July 26, 2005 01:52 PM
I was referring to the other book by Rafizadeh. Still sometimes one can guess the merits of a work by those whom it ticks off.
Posted by: matthew hogan at July 26, 2005 05:50 PM
She says of the "recent 'Islamic Revival'", "...it follows a long tradition in both Iran and in the Muslim world of expressing socioeconomic and cultural grievances in the only way familiar to most people- a religious idiom arraying the forces of good against the forces of evil and promising to bring justice to the oppressed."
One might add the West until a very recent date as well, as in e.g. the Protestant reform movements, Cromwell's little to do, etc.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at July 27, 2005 11:32 AM
One might add the West until a very recent date as well, as in e.g. the Protestant reform movements, Cromwell's little to do, etc.
I had a similar thought myself when first reading that section. Except my thought concerned our contemporaries akin to Gen. Boykin.
Posted by: Simon W. Moon at July 27, 2005 10:37 PM
sm-
nikki keddie's background is marxist(-ish) social history. in her works she is a bit very iran-ocentric. her book "roots of revolution" asserts that iran's population is more "revolutionary" than, say, them sunni arabs.
for other accounts see (swiveling around & looking at my bookself) misagh parsa "social origins of the iranian revolution" & john foran "a century of revolution" + their bibliographies.
nikkie keddie was the "history of iran" leg of ucla's history department's mid-east troika, with stanford shaw being the "history of the turks" & afaf marsot the "history of the arabs" components. the department has since overcome the ethnicist history approach.
--raf*
Posted by: raf* at August 16, 2005 06:50 AM
Wow.
Thanks. I very much appreciate that insight.
Posted by: Simon W. Moon at August 16, 2005 05:32 PM
