|
From
Washington to Tehran... with Love
|
By
Mutiullah Tayeb
Translated
by: Imad Alayoubi |
09/07/2003
|
|
|
|
President
Bush expressed his support of the latest student protests; this
expression was no different from his address to the people of Iran
during the launch of the Persian Farda radio station
|
When
you click on the “Student Movement” icon on the Farsi version of the Voice
of America web site, a page opens that carries news of the latest student
protest demonstrations in Iran, as well as news reports on and analyses of the
Iranian student movement that was triggered by the events of July 1999, which
claimed the lives of a number of students.
This
web site is one of tens of electronic media that address Iranians from the
United States of America and attempt to engage and support the Iranian youth
movement, which is seen as a catalyst for future change within the Islamic
Republic of Iran, the second country listed on George W. Bush’s “axis of
evil”.
Tehran,
however, is attempting to block the U.S. media attack, which is launched through
the air waves, in order to minimize the impact of the U.S. media on their target
audience, especially the students, who have become the focus of Washington’s
attention.
What
is the objective of this media war that Washington is launching via the rock
‘n’ roll and heavy metal songs, the live broadcast of student protests
against the tyranny of the velayat-e-faqih or guardianship of the
jurisprudent, and the around-the-clock coverage of the situation in Iran?
A
Call for Democracy and Public Freedom
The
last paragraph of the U.S Senate’s Resolution 306, which was passed on 25 July
2002, regarding democracy in Iran stated: “In dealing with Iran we must focus
all of our efforts on the people and their hopes of a free and democratic
nation. The Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty must redouble
their efforts to provide uncensored truth to the Iranian peoples.”
The
Senate also agreed to set a side $50 million to restore genuine democracy to
Iran through the establishment of Farsi satellite radio stations in the United
States and supporting the broadcasts that target Iranians, particularly the
youth, who constitute 70% of the Iranian people.
The
U.S.-sponsored satellite stations and broadcasts started to focus on the issue
of public freedom and democracy, which is a sore point with the Iranian regime.
The main target audience of the U.S.-backed media campaign is the generation
that emerged after the revolution, a generation that is searching for its
identity and pondering its future within a society that is controlled by a
strict sectarian movement through organizations and establishments that lay the
boundaries, set the rules of the game, and govern the way they deem fit.
It
seems that the policy of the U.S. media war against the Iranian theocracy
started to reap some fruits. In a direct reference to the role of the media in
the existing war between Tehran and Washington, Iranian National Security
Minister Ali Yunisi has confirmed that the latest disorders were led and
orchestrated via satellite stations from outside Iran.
It
seems that the United States aims at stirring a youth uprising within Iran that
would change the situation in a way that would serve Washington’s interests
and spare it the trouble of waging a new war. It is clear that the Unites States
is resorting to a strategy similar to that which was adopted by the Islamic
Revolution in Iran: tape recordings from Ayatollah Khomeini were sent from
France and distributed among the youth, who converged on the streets of Iran
against the Shah.
In
1978 the Iranian youth, emboldened by the moral support they received from
abroad, rose up against the dictatorship of the Shah calling for freedom. A
quarter of a century later, Washington wishes today to repeat the same scenario
and seize on the youth’s rage against the tyranny of the conservative movement
within the Iranian corridors of power. Through satellite radio broadcasts and
the Internet, the U.S administration is providing moral support to the defiant
youth who started to break their silence and come out onto the streets,
sacrificing their lives and futures.
The
U.S. Media Approach
President
Bush expressed his support of the latest student protests, calling them a
positive step on the road to freedom. This expression was no different from his
address to the people of Iran during the launch of the Persian Farda radio
station, which airs western and Iranian songs-banned in Iran-and provides
24-hour news coverage and analysis of the situation in Iran. In his radio
address, President Bush said, “We continue to stand with the people of Iran in
your quest for freedom, prosperity, honest and effective government, judicial
due process and the rule of law.”
At
the same time, official statements from Washington not only declared full moral
support for these demonstrations, but expressed major concerns about the Iranian
government’s reprisal against the demonstrators.
The
message conveyed by the U.S. media to the Iranian people is threefold. First,
the U.S. administration supports the popular action against the Iranian regime
and intends to address the people directly, not through the reformist movement
that represents them in the government. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
stated that the objective of the U.S. policy towards Iran is to directly address
the Iranian people-bypassing their leaders-and inform them that the U.S.
administration agrees with the actions they are taking. Thus, the U.S.-backed
media conveyed a message of support to the small groups that took to the streets
in protest as well as the silent masses that criticized their government in a
less vocal manner.
Second,
the U.S. administration calls for the mobilization of the Iranian masses to
change the Islamic regime that has ruled Iran since the Khomeini-led revolution
in 1978, and assures Iranians that the world will not sit idle but will support
them if they rise to change the regime or steer its policies away from the
reformist approach in order to achieve public freedoms and democracy.
These
messages of support and calls for change have been met with some opposition
within the United States, particularly from politicians like Garry Sayk,
who was the national security advisor during the crisis of the U.S. hostages in
Iran in 1978. Sayk believes that unless Washington is ready to provide
real support and actual backing of a major popular uprising against the regime
in Iran, sending any gesture indicating U.S. support of such uprising will harm
the movement behind it, instead of aiding it. Such a gesture could lead to a
morbid scenario similar to that which happened in southern Iraq in 1991, when
the Shiites, in response to U.S messages of support and calls for change, rose
against Saddam Hussein. President Bush, Senior, who endorsed those messages,
watched Saddam slaughter thousands of revolting Shiites without lifting a
finger.
The
Iranian government feels the pressure of the tightening grip and may not take
kindly to any internal movement that attempts to destabilize or topple the
regime. And those who take to the streets undoubtedly realize that responding to
the rhetorical support of the White House could be irrational and that they
might have to persevere long to persuade the Iranian masses of the importance of
a strong, broad-based action to achieve freedom and reform internal affairs
without any outside intervention.
Mobilizing
the Iranian people for change is clearly expressed in the continued U.S media
coverage of the demonstrations in an attempt to portray them as the most
important events on the Iranian scene, notwithstanding the fact that these
demonstrations were much smaller than those which took place in 1999. Throughout
the demonstrations, Farda Radio and the Farsi broadcast of the Voice of America
continued live news reporting and hosted Iranian and other analysts around the
clock to analyze the events and examine their impact on the future of the
government and the contending political movements in Iran.
The
Iranian regime resorted to suppressing media coverage of the protests, linking
them to the United States, the “great Satan”, and describing the protestors
as “mercenaries of the enemy.” These measures backfired when people from
across the spectrum started listening to the U.S.-sponsored broadcasts. The
protests became a burning issue that stirred hot and controversial debates in
parliament, government establishments, and the streets of Iran. The events also
drew international attention to Iran at a time when Washington, several European
capitals, and Moscow, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency started
pressuring Tehran to allow the inspection of its nuclear facilities.
The
third and perhaps most important message of the U.S. media is the call for
ensuring the communication between the Iranian youth who came out in
protest-calling for Khamenei’s death and taking the risk of being attacked by
Hizbollah loyalists or being imprisoned-and their families and friends and other
citizens who were closely monitoring the situation, as well as thousands of
Iranians abroad. The information technology facilitated the protestors’
communication with the entire world. Protestors used cell phones, electronic
mail and personal web sites to convey what is happening on the scene, and Radio
Liberty, the Voice of America, and the opposition’s satellite stations in Los
Angeles and Canada quenched their listeners’ and viewers’ thirst for
information.
Will
History Repeat Itself?
Some
members of the U.S. administration wish that the current student protests in
Iran could turn into a mighty force that would uproot the Iranian regime -a
scenario similar to the overthrow of the Ceausecu regime in Romania in 1989.
However, many people in Iran fear that the Tehran University campus could turn
into another Tiananmen Square, where, in 1989, the Chinese army massacred a
large number of students who converged in the Chinese capital Beijing to call
for democracy and public freedoms. The world silently watched the events unfold
on CNN. Maybe because the United States was not ready to engage in a war with
China, as is the situation today. As for Iran, Washington is two minded: Should
the U.S. military intervene now to liberate Iran from the grip of what President
Bush calls a number of unelected officials who control the reigns of government
in Iran, or should they wait until the popular opposition base broadens?
However,
the consensus in Washington is that cultural invasion and more media attacks are
necessary to widen the gaps among various movements within the Iranian society,
thus setting the stage for actual confrontations among these movements. Such
confrontations would provide justification for international intervention and
would allow the United States to change the regime in Iran in a way that would
serve U.S. interests, even if this change takes place in the distant future.
The
Iranian media have chosen to undermine the protests. This is particularly true
of the state media, which seek to portray the protestors as traitors and make
serious attempts to block the U.S. messages.
The
media in the war between Washington and Tehran remain an essential tool for
influencing public opinion, and Iranian listeners, viewers and readers find
themselves inundated with a flood of information and news reports and analyses
that are difficult to sift through and make sense of, especially when they are
interspersed with slots of loud and vigorous Western music broadcast by Fadra
Radio or Farsi folk songs on Tehran Radio. Frustrated, many viewers and
listeners often search for lighter programs or turn off their TVs and radios to
contemplate their futures.
|
