Rooyesh

Qum is not usually thought of as a fun place. It is a gray, sun-baked city that serves as the center of learning for Shiite Islam. Its personality is solemn, its shops tend to be old, low-rise and rundown, and it is full of clergy members and police officers.

But on Tuesday, Qum felt festive — for Qum, at least. Bright lights and flags decorated the city. It was the start of celebrations surrounding the birthday of Imam Mahdi, the savior of the Shiite faith. The birthday offers Shiites a chance to welcome a birth, rather than to mourn a death, which tends to be the focus of holy days here. Shiites believe that Imam Mahdi, the 12th imam in a direct bloodline from the Prophet Muhammad, is alive but has remained invisible since the late ninth century, and that he will reappear only when corruption and injustice reach their zenith.

This year, in keeping with the government effort to promote and enforce religious values under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the celebration is receiving plenty of attention from the state, even to the point of being extended an extra day. In any society, religion and culture are essential components of national identity, each contributing to the society’s bedrock principles. Throughout Iranian history, Islamic faith and Persian culture have been intimately merged. Yet, successive leaders have tried to promote one or the other in a constant competition for the national soul, usually with the goal of buttressing their own authority. Each effort, however, has ultimately fallen short. Under the Pahlavis, the goal was to elevate Iranian nationalism over Islamic identity.

Today, the opposite is true, especially since the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who campaigned on a platform of returning Iran to its Shiite revolutionary values. But the chances of success now seem no greater than in the past, clerics and political analysts said. “I think there are some scholars and sectors of the government that have such intentions,” said Fazel Meybodi, a cleric who teaches at Mofid University in Qum, speaking carefully, to avoid offending the authorities. “I think they will not succeed.” Islam split into two major sects, Sunnis and Shiites, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The core dispute was over who would serve as Muhammad’s successor. Shiites believed in following the Prophet’s family line, and took as their guide the 12 Imams. Because of this minority belief, the Shiites were historically subjugated and persecuted by the Sunnis, so they looked to their imams as fighters for justice and against oppression. These are crucial ideas that inform Iran’s political class to this day.

Following the Shiite emphasis on oppression and justice, people here say, Mr. Ahmadinejad has labeled the United States “the great oppressor,” as opposed to the previously popular “great Satan.” But his fervor has also made him a mark for those who are not quite so religious, and even those who are. “Mr. Ahmadinejad, his knowledge of Islam is little,” said Ali Akhbar Dashdy, a spokesman for Mofid University. “He is not a clergyman. He only knows what he hears people say.” Some of the president’s critics abroad have said he is so devoted to the idea of the return that he is inclined to spark Armageddon to precipitate it. No one here seems to buy that view, at least publicly. And some have mocked the president saying, for example, that he has spent money to pave a special highway to expedite the return — another rumor that seems to have no basis in reality. So how are people celebrating this birthday? In many different ways, despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s efforts to promote Islamic identity.

It is a mélange — like Iran itself — of culture and religion. People hand out food, often tossing juice containers and candy into passing cars. They picnic and enjoy fireworks displays. There are even outdoor concerts. And in Qum, the government organized an exhibition beneath the Masumeh Shrine, a popular site of pilgrimage. Booths were set up, like at a convention. There was a spot for people blogging about Imam Mahdi. The Bright Future News Agency occupied a booth. Another had clerics offering personal advice. And there was the booth set up to warn people about “Satan worshipers.” There was a Jewish star at the entrance, posted atop a replica of what was supposed to be the Washington Monument (which also was described as a satanic symbol because it is shaped as an obelisk). There was also a movie concerning “perverted cults,” which focused on the Bahai faith. Outside, there were lines of men and women heading to Jamkaran Mosque, on the outskirts of the city. And here was another example of what divides and drives Iranians. Many see the mosque as a site where they can leave messages for Imam Mahdi and have their wishes answered. Others see it as nonsense.

The mosque was built after a villager dreamed in the year 974 that Imam Mahdi told him where he would return and showed him the site, which is where the mosque now stands. There is a well there for visitors to leave their letters of request, and the crowds were thick on Tuesday as people packed so tightly into buses they could not shut the doors. And that, perhaps, illustrates another Iranian trait — a pre-Islamic affinity for waiting. When Iranians practiced Zoroastrianism, they were also awaiting a savior, called Saoshyant. They say that helped cope with the stress of one heavyhanded government after another. That fit well with Shiite Islam, academics said. “Iranians are comfortable as Shias,” said Dr. Muhammad Sanati, a social psychologist in Tehran. “They feel at home with a prophet coming. They are comfortable waiting, waiting for salvation, waiting to be saved, waiting for good days.”

The George W. Bush administration has seemingly taken advantage of the Congressional recess to escalate tensions with Iran. Earlier in August, the State Department revealed plans to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a global terrorist organisation.

On Tuesday, in a speech to U.S. war veterans in Nevada, President Bush raised the temperature further by declaring his intent to “confront Tehran’s murderous activities” in Iraq.

But what on the surface may appear as business as usual in the war of words between Tehran and Washington may in reality repeat an earlier pattern widely suspected to have been aimed at provoking war with Iran.

With Congress gearing up for a fight with the White House on the surge policy in Iraq, President Bush has arguably many reasons to talk up tensions with Iran. Focusing on Iran may help deflect attention away from the surge strategy’s failure to turn the tide in Iraq. It can also help convince Congress that Iran is responsible for U.S. misfortunes in Iraq and that cutting the funds for the war would embolden the clergy in Tehran.

Iran’s radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is certainly not making the work of the administration more difficult. Shortly before Bush’s address to the Nevada war veterans, Ahmadinejad did his part in ratcheting up tensions.

“Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region,” he predicted at a press conference. “Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbours and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation,” he continued in a clear reference to the United States’s declining position in the Middle East and Iran’s bid to reclaim a regional leadership role.

Still, the nature and implications of the Bush administration’s recent moves do not have the characteristics of a customary rhetorical deflection exercise. Accusing Iran of seeking to put an already unstable Middle East under “the shadow of a nuclear holocaust” and promising to confront Tehran — whose actions “threaten the security of nations everywhere” — before it is too late echo statements made by the Bush White House about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein prior to the invasion of Iraq.

In fact, Bush’s speech to the veterans in Nevada has several similarities to his address to the nation on Jan. 10. That was also slated as a major speech on Iraq, though it spelled out little new about Washington’s strategy except to call for staying the course. Instead, it revealed key elements of the U.S.’s new aggressive posture on Iran.

For the first time, the president accused Iran of “providing material support for attacks on American troops” while promising to “disrupt the attacks on our forces” and “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Moments after the president’s speech in January, U.S. Special Forces stormed an Iranian consulate in Erbil in northern Iraq, arresting five Iranians who Tehran said were diplomats. Washington described the detained Iranians as agents and members of the IRGC. Later that day, U.S. forces almost clashed with Kurdish peshmerga militia forces when seeking to arrest more Iranians at Erbil’s airport.

The U.S. move drew stark criticism from the Iraqi government. “What happened… was very annoying because there has been an Iranian liaison office there for years and it provides services to the citizens,” Iraq’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshiyar Zebari told Al-Arabiya television.

Similarly, Bush’s harsh words for Iran in Nevada were promptly followed by a raid at the Sheraton Ishtar Hotel in Baghdad where eight Iranian nationals were arrested. The group included two diplomats and six members of a delegation from Iran’s Electricity Ministry. A U.S.-funded radio station reported that the Iranian delegation was in Baghdad to negotiate contracts on electric power stations.

While the eight Iranians were later released — unlike the five taken in Erbil who still remain in U.S. custody — actions of this kind combined with the intensified war of words can, intentionally or by accident, trigger a larger crisis. (A U.S. official later called the Sheraton incident “regrettable” and denied that it was related to President Bush’s remarks in Nevada).

In January, the president’s allegations against Iran were widely seen as preparing the grounds for war. Key lawmakers in the newly elected Democratic Congress moved swiftly to challenge the administration and demand evidence for its claims.

At a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a day after the president’s Jan. 10 address, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska drew parallels with the Richard Nixon administration’s attempt to deceive the public regarding the U.S. government’s efforts to expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia.

“[O]ur government lied to the American people and said we didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did,” he told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out. I will resist it,” Hagel continued.

Other lawmakers publicly questioned the veracity of the president’s allegations regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq. All in all, the pushback from Congress in January is believed to have played a key role in preventing hawks in the administration from forcing the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran.

But with Congress preparing for a fight over Iraq — not Iran — and with key lawmakers planning to pass legislation imposing harsh new sanctions on Tehran, Congress’ ability and willingness to simultaneously contain deliberate or unintentional escalation with Iran may be limited. If so, there may be little business as usual about Washington and Tehran’s intensified war of words.

By: Dr. Trita Parsi, IPS

Western news agencies have quoted a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as saying that Iran is cooperating with IAEA inspectors to resolve outstanding issues.