Iranian angst

The stand-off between Iran and the United States is getting reflected in ways that spark concern for the Zoroastrian community heritage dating back thou­sands of years. The most prominent is the court battle being fought in the US whereby institutions and museums hold­ing national Iranian artifacts on trust are being ordered to sell them so that the proceeds can be used to fund the victims of state terrorism attributed to the Ira­nian government.

"The University of Chicago's Orien­tal Institute is currently in possession of ancient Iranian artifacts including a col­lection of 2,500-year-old tablets, ac­quired on loan in 193 7, which chronicle the daily workings of the Persian Em­pire. The University is being sued to turn over the artifacts as restitution to victims of a 1997 bombing in Israel. Representing five Americans injured in that attack, David J. Strachman success­fully sued the Iranian government for 71.5 million dollars on the grounds that Iran is responsible as a state sponsor of terrorism. In order to recover this sum from a non-responsive Iranian govern­ment who has thus far declined to appear in the US courts or to acknowledge their judgments, Strachman has demanded that the University and several muse­ums auction their collection of ancient artifacts and turn over the funds to him and his clients," writes Niki Akhavan in Payvand Iran News (July 5, 2006).

"A federal judge has rejected a key defense by the University of Chicago in a lawsuit over rights to ancient Persian artifacts, a decision bound to ripple through the American museum commu­nity," concurs Ron Grossman's report

in The Tribune dated June 28, 2006. "The judge's decision comes as Ameri­can museums are facing tough ques­tions about how they acquired certain collections. The Metropolitan Museum of Art recently agreed to return invalu­able antiquities that Italian authorities said had been looted from that country. The J. Paul Getty Museum is negotiat­ing a similar claim with Italy.

"University of Chicago had argued that it needed to protect Iran's rights to the property, even though Iran declined to come to court. The University said the Iranians were gun-shy because of bad experiences with the American legal system, a claim rejected by US district judge Blanche M. Mamting in Chicago.

"In a published decision Manning ruled the University's 'brazen accusa­tion that the courts of the United States are hostile to Iran and that, as a result, Iran should be excused from bothering to assert its rights, is wholly unsup­ported."'

Wltile Strachman, is ready to trans­late the judge's ruling into cash for his clients by asking for a judicial sale, the US Department of Justice is said to be reviewing the court's ruling.

"In several recent cases involving US citizens and foreign nations, the Department of Justice intervened and claimed the national interest is better served if such disputes are resolved through diplomatic negotiations rather than legal suit, an argument revived in the University of Chicago case," adds Grossman.

Further complicating the issue are fears of US military action in Iran, as reported 'in The New Yorker (July 1, 2006). The article by Seymour Hersh refers to the statement of the US Secretary of State presenting a prospect of the US joining Russia, China and Europe in direct talks with the Iranian government provided "the Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment and

reprocessing activities." Hersh notes, "Iran, which has insisted on its right to enrich uranium, was being asked to con­

cede the main point of the negotiations before they started. The question was

whether the administration expected the Iranians to agree, or was laying the dip­lomatic groundwork for future military action."

Noting thatPresidentBush has talked about "freedom for the Iranian people," with the corollary that "Iran's leaders have a clear choice," Hersh adds, "There was an unspoken threat: the US Strate­gic Command, supported by the Air Force, .has been drawing up plans, at the President's direction, for a major bomb­ing campaign in Iran."

The article quotes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to have said that Iran would make a forn1al counter - proposal by August 22nd, while Ayatol­lah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme reli-gious leader, has declared, on state ra­dio, "Negotiation with the United States has no benefits for us."

While the US Navy and Army have registered their reservations against US military action in Iran and warned that an attack could lead . to serious eco­nomic, political and military conse­quences for the United States, as notes Hersh, the Air Force is seen to be in favor of the idea of"carpet bombing" in lieu of precise details of where the Ira­nian nuclear facilities exist.

One of the problems exercising Zoroas­trians regarding Iran is the report in the New York Post (May 20, 2006) by Amir Taheri that a new law "mandates the govermnent to make sure that all Irani­ans wear 'standard Islamic garments' designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate 'the influence of the infidel' on the way Iranians, especially the young, dress." The Post article was brought to Parsiana 's attention by FEZANA Journal editor-in-chief Dolly Dastoor.

Taheri further notes, "It also envis­ages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoro­astrians, who will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to instantly recognize non-. Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean)."

The law, drafted during the presi­dency of Muhammad Khatami in 2004, had been blocked within the Majlis. That blockage, however, has been re­moved under pressure from Khatami's successor, Ahmadinejad, adds Taheri.

"The new law imposes a total ban on wearing neckties and bow ties, which are regarded as 'symbols of the Cross.' Will Iranian Christians be allowed to wear them, nevertheless? No one knows," writes Taheri.

"Another aim of the new law is iP abolish the chador, the overall piece'})f cloth that Iranian women have tucked themselves in for centuries. The reason is that the chador existed before the Khomeinist revolution and thus cannot be regarded as 'properly Islamic.' Women must wear clothes that would, in fact, transform them into advertis­ing billboards for the regime's ideology."

Quoting Mostafa Pourhardani, min­ister of Islamic orientation, the Post ar­ticle notes, "By September, the Majlis is expected to approve an initial budget of $ 800 million to help 'the poor and the needy' adopt the new uniforms. All pub­lic-sector workers, estimated to number 4.5 million, will be in uniform by 2009 at the latest."

Parviz Varjavand in an e-mail posting on the Zoroastrians@yahoo groups.com writes, "I have just called Kourosh Niknam, the Zoroastrian deputy in the Iranian Parliament and he confinned that this news was not true. There had been a talk in the parliament about designing a dress-code for all Iranians in order to distinguish Iranians from other nationali­ties and specially fixing a standard for how Iranian women should wear proper Islamic cove1ings, but the proposal was voted down and never came to pass. There had never been a talk about Iranian reli­gious minorities having to wear different color patches in order to be distinguished from Moslems."

Varjavand's statement is corrobo­rated by Dr Mahbannoo Tata, professor emeritus in the University of Kerman. In an e-mail to this reporter Tata notes, "This was reported a long time ago and promptly disclaimed by the government. You probably know that these days the manteaux worn by young girls do everything except what they are meant to i.e. 'hide the curves!' So ever so often they threaten to have guidelines for what can be sold in stores."