Amir Taheri: differenze tra le versioni

Contenuto cancellato Contenuto aggiunto
m minuzie
Riga 54:
:''When I asked Bhutto what he thought of Assad, he described the Syrian leader as "The Levanter." Knowing that, like himself, I was a keen reader of thrillers, the Pakistani Prime Minister knew that I would get the message. However, it was only months later when, having read Eric Ambler's 1972 novel The Levanter that I understood Bhutto's one-word pen portrayal of Hafez Al-Assad. In The Levanter the hero, or anti-hero if you prefer, is a British businessman who, having lived in Syria for years, has almost "gone native" and become a man of uncertain identity. He is a bit of this and a bit of that, and a bit of everything else, in a region that is a mosaic of minorities. He doesn't believe in anything and is loyal to no one. He could be your friend in the morning but betray you in the evening. He has only two goals in life: to survive and to make money [...] Today, Bashar Al-Assad is playing the role of the son of the Levanter, offering his services to any would-be buyer through interviews with whoever passes through the corner of Damascus where he is hiding. At first glance, the Levanter may appear attractive to those engaged in sordid games. In the end, however, the Levanter must betray his existing paymaster in order to begin serving a new one. Four years ago, Bashar switched to the Tehran-Moscow axis and is now trying to switch back to the Tel-Aviv-Washington one that he and his father served for decades. However, if the story has one lesson to teach, it is that the Levanter is always the source of the problem, rather than part of the solution. ISIS is there because almost half a century of repression by the Assads produced the conditions for its emergence. What is needed is a policy based on the truth of the situation in which both Assad and ISIS are parts of the same problem.''<ref>{{en}} Da [http://www.aawsat.net/2015/02/article55341622/opinion-like-father-like-son ''Opinion: Like Father, Like Son''], ''Ashraq Al-Awsat'', 20 febbraio 2015.</ref>
 
*Khamenei non è il primo governante dell'Iran con cui i poeti si sono trovati nei guai. Per quasi dodici secoli la poesia è stata il principale mezzo d'espressione del popolo iraniano. L'Iran potrebbe essere l'unico paese in cui non si trova una sola casa con almeno un libro di poesie. All'inizio, i poeti persiani ebbero difficoltà nel definire il loro ruolo nella società. I regnanti appena convertiti all'Islam sospettarono che i poeti stavano cercando di riportare in auge la fede zoroastriana per minare la nuova religione. Il clero vedeva i poeti come persone che desideravano tenere in vita la lingua persiana e perciò sabotare l'ascesa dell'arabo come la nuova ''lingua franca''. Senza i vecchi poeti persiani, gli iraniani sarebbero forse finiti come tanti paesi nel Medio Oriente che persero le loro lingue indigene e divennero arabofoni. Nei primi tempi, i poeti persiani elaborarono una strategia per moderare il fervore dei regnanti e dei mullah. Cominciarono ogni ''qasida'' con un elogio a Dio e al Profeta, seguito da un panegirico per il regnante del momento. Una volta sbrigati questi "obblighi", potevano passare ai veri temi delle poesie che intendevano comporre. Tutti sapevano che c'era dietro un trucco, ma tutti accettavano il risultato perché era buono. Malgrado questo ''modus vivendi,'' alcuni poeti finirono in prigione o in esilio, mentre molti altri trascorsero le loro vite nel disagio, se non in povertà. I poeti tuttavia non furono mai passati a fil di spada. Il regime Komeinista è il primo nella storia dell'Iran ad aver giustiziato tanti poeti. Implicitamente o esplicitamente, alcuni regnanti fecero chiaramente capire ciò che i poeti non potevano scrivere. Ma nessuno si sognò mai di dire al poeta ciò che doveva scrivere. Khamenei è il primo che cerca di dare ordini ai poeti, accusandoli di "crimine" e di "tradimento" se ignoravano le sue ingiunzioni.
:''Khamenei is not the first ruler of Iran with whom poets have run into trouble. For some 12 centuries poetry has been the Iranian people's principal medium of expression. Iran may be the only country where not a single home is found without at least one book of poems. Initially, Persian poets had a hard time to define their place in society. The newly converted Islamic rulers suspected the poets of trying to revive the Zoroastrian faith to undermine the new religion. Clerics saw poets as people who wished to keep the Persian language alive and thus sabotage the ascent of Arabic as the new'' lingua franca. ''Without the early Persian poets, Iranians might have ended up like so many other nations in the Middle East who lost their native languages and became Arabic speakers. Early on, Persian poets developed a strategy to check the ardor of the rulers and the mullahs. They started every'' qasida ''with praise to God and Prophet followed by panegyric for the ruler of the day. Once those “obligations” were out of the way they would move on to the real themes of the poems they wished to compose. Everyone knew that there was some trick involved but everyone accepted the result because it was good. Despite that ''modus vivendi'' some poets did end up in prison or in exile while many others spent their lives in hardship if not poverty. However, poets were never put to the sword. The Khomeinist regime is the first in Iran's history to have executed so many poets. Implicitly or explicitly, some rulers made it clear what the poet couldn't write. But none ever dreamt of telling the poet what he should write. Khamenei is the first to try to dictate to poets, accusing them of “crime” and “betrayal” if they ignored his injunctions.''<ref name="dictatespoetry">{{en}} Da ''[http://www.aawsat.net/2015/07/article55344336/when-the-ayatollah-dictates-poetry When the Ayatollah Dictates Poetry]'', ''Ashraq Al-Awsat'', 11 luglio 2015.</ref>
 
Riga 84:
:''The Shah described the modernisation of Iran as the principal goal of his life, and yet he adamantly refused to see that there could be no veritable modernisation without democracy. He often referred to his Swiss education as part of his credentials as a profoundly committed democrat, but was, at the same time, convinced that Iran was not yet ripe for democracy, and that it was his duty as "the father of the nation" to save the Iranians from a slothful life of prayer, pilgrimage, small commerce, backward farming and cottage industry. He also wanted to turn Iran into a second Japan, make her one of the five or six major world powers by the end of the century. He regarded himself as the custodian of Iran's grandeur and freedom and in later years he extended his self-proclaimed mission of saving Iran to include the entire world.'' (p. 4)
 
*Più di un decennodecennio dopo la morte dello Scià, non è più necessario essere pro o contro di lui su tutti i temi. Come si potrebbe essere pro o contro tutto ciò che succesesuccesse durante un regno di quasi trentotto anni? Come potevano gli iraniani non sostenerlo quando combatteva per l'Azerbaigian o quando diede l'assenso reale alla legge che nazionalizzava il petrolio dell'Iran? Come si potrebbe essere contrari al principio della riforma agraria o all'elevazione della condizione delle donne? E non meritava appoggio quando combatteva per un sistema più equo di produzione e di determinazione del prezzo del petrolio, che lui chiamava «una sostanza nobile»? Ma come si poteva sostenerlo quando chiudeva tutte le porte alla discussione e al dibattito, e spingeva di fatto molti iraniani intelligenti e patriottici nelle braccia dei mullah reazionari? E come si poteva approvare l'illimitata ingerenza della polizia segreta [[SAVAK]] in quasi tutti gli aspetti della vita, soprattutto negli anni settanta? Infine, ma non meno importante, sarebbe difficile capire, tanto meno giustificare, la sua convinzione quasi patologica che solo le grandi potenze fossero capaci di proteggere o destabilizzare il suo regime.
:''More than a decade after the Shah's death it is no longer necessary to be for or against him on all matters. How could one be for or against everything that happened during a reign of nearly thirty-eight years? How could Iranians not be for him when he fought over Azerbaijan or when he gave the royal assent to the bill that nationalised Iran's oil? How could one be against the principle of land reform or the enhancement of women's status? And did he not deserve support when he fought for a more just system of production and pricing for oil, which he called 'a noble substance'? But how could anyone be for him when he closed all doors on discussion and debate and effectively drove many intelligent and patriotic Iranians into the arms of reactionary mullahs? And how could one approve of the unchecked intervention of the SAVAK secret police in virtually all aspects of life, especially in the 1970s? Last but not least, it would be difficult to understand, much less to justify, his almost pathological belief that only the major powers were capable of either protecting or destabilising his regime.'' (p. 5)
 
Riga 91:
 
*La nazione iraniana odierna è un curioso misto di più di tremila anni di incroci costanti. Se anche la nozione di razza avesse un significato concreto, sarebbe pressoché impossibile per la maggior parte degli iraniani risalire accuratamente alle loro radici «ariane».
:''The iranian nation today is a curious mixture of more than 3000 years of constant metissage. Even if the notion of race had any concrete meaning it would be virtually impossible for most Iranians to trace their '"Aryan'" roots accurately.'' (p. 14)
 
*Determinato a far rivivere il passato «ariano» dell'Iran, l'esercito creato da Reza Khan nel 1921 considerò suo dovere depurare la lingua persiana dal maggior numero possibile di parole mutuate dall'arabo. Il risultato fu un vocabolario «puro» che, a volte, era totalmente incomprensibile alla maggior parte degli iraniani medi.
Riga 117:
:''The Shah's vision of the ideal form of government was not so far removed from that of Mossadeq. In that ideal model one man, the king, prime minister or Pishva [Führer] would act as the guardian of the nation's highest interests. The Pishva, because he loves his people, could never do anything that might not be good for the people and the country. He might sacrifice the interests of the few for the benefit of the many. But he would never harm "the people" or "the nation" as a whole. Mossadeq's version of the same model envisaged a role for crowds, political groups – though not for political parties – and religious associations whose task was to support the Pishva by fighting his opponents and making him feel loved and cherished. In the Shah's model, the Pishva's decisions were to be carried out exclusively through the bureaucracy with the armed forces always ready to crush any opposition. All that was left for "the nation" to do was applaud the Pishva and make him feel good. Mossadeq and the Shah advanced exactly the same argument in defence of their respective models: Iran, being constantly prey to the devilish appetite of the rapacious foreign powers, the influence of the ajnabi (foreigners), multiplying the centres of political power would allow the ajnabi to infiltrate the nation's structures. Neither man could invisage a situation in which different sections of the Iranian society might, for reasons of their own, oppose the Leader. They could conceive of no circumstances in which an opposition movement could emerge without foreign backing and intrigue.'' (p. 168)
 
*La persuasione dello Scià Reza che la maggior parte dei mali dell'Iran provenisse dal suo "Arabsadeghi" (letteralmente: essere investiti dall'arabizzazione) aveva riportato nel dibattito politico ufficiale l'antico Iran come pietra angolare della nuova identità nazionale. Con Reza Scià costretto all'esilio, lo sforzo di re-iranizzazione era stato abbandonato nel caos e nella confusione della guerra e della crisi politica. La personale fede islamcaislamica dello Scià Mohhammad Reza ne fece un "re-iranizzatore" di gran lunga meno entusiasta di quanto era stato suo padre. Ma nel 1960 lo Scià Mohammad Reza riscoprì il nazionalismo persiano come una potenziale alternativa attraente a due ideologie che, era convinto, minacciavano la prosperità e l'indipendenza dell'Iran: lo sciismo dominato dai mullah e il comunismo sponsorizzato dall'Unione sovietica.
:''Reza Shah's belief that most of Iran's ills stemmed from its "Arabsadeghi" (literally: being hit by Arabisation) had brought ancient Iran back into official political discourse as the cornerstone of a new national identity. With Reza Shah forced into exile, the re-Iranisation effort had been abandoned in the chaos and confusion of war and political crisis. Mohammad-Reza Shah's own Islamic beliefs made him a far less enthusiastic "re-Iraniser" than his father had been. But in the 1960s Mohammad-Reza Shah rediscovered Persian nationalism as a potentially attractive alternative to two ideologies that, he was convinced, threatened Iran's well-being and independence: mullah-dominated shi'ism and Soviet-sponsored Communism.'' (p. 173)
 
Riga 129:
:''Both Pahlavi kings tried, at different times and with different methods, to de-emphasise the Islamic character of Iran. To achieve this they both encouraged the revival of Iran's pre-Islamic "Aryan" past. During the 1930s Nazi Germany, acting through Iranians who had studied in Berlin, played a crucial role in portraying Iran as an "Aryan nation" humiliated by successive waves of invasion. In 1936 the Reich formally recognised Iran as the "homeland of the Aryan race" and Iranians as 'Aryans by blood and culture'. This meant that Germans were free to marry Iranians and many did.'' (p. 192)
 
*Il sistema di pensiero dello Scià non poteva assolutamente essere considerato una filosofia, per quanto gli piacesse vedersi come un "re filosofo". Esso si basava su un certo numero di semplici – per non dire semplicistiche asserzioni – e offriva un certo numero di altrettanto lineari, benché forse ingenue, promesse. L'Iran aveva avuto un passato d'oro e poteva ambire ad un futuro aureo. Dato che un tempo l'Iran era stato una potenza mondiale e un creatore di storia non c'era ragione perché non divenisse di nuovo un attore di primo piano sulla scena internazionale L'Iran era uno dei 15 più grandi paesi del mondo ed era collocato in una regione di grande importanza strategica. Il fatto che l'Iran godesse di un alto tasso di crescita demografica significava che sarebbe diventato uno dei 15 paesi più popolati del mondo entro uno o due decenni. Le riserve di petrolio dell'Iran, le terze al mondo per grandezza, comportavano che la nazione avrebbe continuato a disporre di una fonte di liquidità pronta almeno per quasi un altro mezzo secolo. La scoperta in Iran negli anni settanta delle seconde più grandi riserve mondiali di gas naturale, accrebbe l'importanza del paese come fonte di energia per le nazioni industrializzate. La strada da percorrere, quindi, era chiara: l'Iran doveva impiegare le sue entrate derivanti dall'esportazione di energia per creare industrie i cui futuri profitti avrebbero dovuto compensare la perdita degli introiti derivanti dal petrolio e dal gas una volta che queste riserve si fossero esaurite. In altri termini, l'Iran doveva diventare una potenza industriale.
:''The Shah's system of thought could in no way be considered as philosophy, although he liked to see himself as 'a philosopher king'. It was based on a number of simple – not to say simplistic – assertions and offered a number of equally straightforward, though perhaps naive, promises. Iran had had a golden past and could aim at a golden future. Because Iran had once been a world power and a shaper of history there was no reason why she would not become a leading actor on the international scene again. Iran was one of the 15 largest countries in the world and situated in a region of great strategic importance. The fact that Iran enjoyed a high rate of population growth meant that she would become one of the world's 15 most populated countries within a decade or two. Iran's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, meant that the nation would continue to have a ready source of cash at least for another half century or so. The discovery of the world's second largest reserves of natural gas in Iran in the 1970s added to the country's importance as a source of energy for the industrialised nations. The road ahead, therefore, was clear: Iran had to use its income from energy exports to create industries whose future income would cover the loss of oil and gas revenues when those reserves became exhausted. In other words, Iran had to become an industrial power.'' (p. 194)