Western Journalists, Iranian Questions
Reading and watching President Ahmadinejad’s interviews in the United States, a few general observations stand out. The first is what the Iranian government and its associates thought of the interviews which is that the president spoke with an “iron fist” striking at the Great Satan, which probably left no teeth in its mouth!
Non-government observers, however, made one of three conclusions or assumptions, after the interviews, which are that:
1-Western journalists demonstrated their ignorance and that they constantly deal with the same is issues;
2-Behind these interviews, business continues as usual as economic deals, the Persian carpet, and the receptions play the key role, and,
3-The problem that the Iranian people have with governments such as the ninth administration in Iran, is not the central concern of foreign journalists.
I don’t want to go into the conclusions that the government has reached over the president’s interviews because they reflect the same old story and in any case they have a different purpose in giving these interviews. I am interested in looking at the conclusions (or observations) reached by journalists. Being a journalist myself, I have issues with the first and second conclusions, while the third one is interesting to me. Here is why.
The first observation. We must be still very naïve and prisoners of obsolete views to think that “we are better than the rest of the world” and so conclude that Western journalists are ignorant, don’t know how to research about their interviewee s, etc. The world is full of first class professional journalists who not only know this profession well but also have all the resources to learn everything about their interviewees. And in fact a large number of these journalists are in the United States.
The second observation. This one is based on the view that “everybody was paid off”. While we Iranians constantly engage in conspiracy theories and have thousands of reasons for doing so, the latest one being the words of the ninth administration itself that it came to power through a complex and multi-level operation, but this does not apply to everything around us, particularly when one end of this game lies outside Iran. There is no doubt that the role of money is gaining importance by the day around the world and calls the shots, as the saying goes, but this too is not absolute, especially in a multi-polar world. If this was the case, the world would be a safe heaven for the political and economic mafia and people like Ahmadinejad would not have to resort to all these political games to promote their agenda. Furthermore, the accusation of “A Persian carpet in exchange for an interview” is a serious charge cannot apply to everyone and all, even though the carpet can bring in different benefits.
And now the third observation. The Western reporter comes to the interview session with logic, reason and more importantly with questions that are important to him. He only has time for one or two questions. He does not use the opportunity to ask a question about the torturing of a Kurdish student, even if he knows the name of the student and even if his heart beats for him. What he wants to know is what direction relations between the United States and Iran will take. The statements calling for the destruction of Israel, or some have said playing with the Israeli card, are only a political game for the purpose of getting more concessions or perhaps getting a security guarantee for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Is Iran an ally of the West or a sponsor of regional Islamic groups? For what goal? And other similar questions. And of course there are questions regarding human rights, even though these are not the first questions.
The world of politics has its own rules. Once the big issues are resolved, the little ones will fall into place. And if there are unresolved emotional issues, they will not lead to suicide attacks. On the other hand, we Iranian journalists have a different story. When Mr. Ahmadinejad says that Iran is a free country, we have a thousand examples to disprove him. When he says that Iranians freely talk in front of him and the leader we have hundreds of examples to show otherwise. When he says that he enjoys 98 percent of the public’s support, we invariably are reminded of the para-military group called the Baseej. When he talks of exemplary lives of intellectuals, religious groups etc, we know examples for each group whose problems are exemplary, and not their lives.
This is why when we listen to Ahmadinejad being interviewed by Westerners, we want to jump in and say: What about Osanloo (the trade union activist who has been in jail for trade activism); What have the Kurds done; What about the widespread poverty in Iran; What about corruption at the highest levels; What about Saeed Mortezavi (reference to the notorious Tehran public prosecutor); What about commander Zarei (of the police force); and thousands of other “What abouts”. These are our questions, not those of Westerners. But they do not ask these questions not because they don’t know, but because these are not their issues. Not because there is a Persian carpet to be exchanged. A Persian cat may be, but definitely not a carpet.
But the key issue really is this: It is our unanswered questions that will finally determine the fate of Ahmadinejad and other actors behind the scene. And while we cannot freely ask these questions, they thrive in our heart. And the number of hearts that have these questions is growing by the day. These are the hearts that have graced kings to grandeur, or banished them to exile. And on that day of judgment, every time someone like Ahmadinejad claims that 98 percent of the public freely expresses their views in front of me and the leader, 98 percent will freely say that he is lying. And the judgment will be read out not only in the Western media and in the presence of Western journalists, but prior to that it will be announced through the domestic networks.