Game Of Thrones Sub Kurdish
Kahlil Algya
When he delivered his fiery speech to Congress in March, declaiming the Iranian regime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deployed a rather memorable phrase. He equated the Islamic republic with the jihadists of Isis, arguing "both want to impose a militant Islamic empire" on the world. He went on to say that both the extremists and Tehran's leadership were waging "a deadly game of thrones."
The Washington Post's WorldViews blog picked apart Netanyahu's speech that day here, but the Israeli leader planted another seed. What if the fantasy world of Game of Thrones, the vastly popular HBO series based on the books by George RR Martin, was indeed transposed to the fractious Middle East?
**A disclaimer: The analogies are far from exact (which ought to be expected when you graft imaginary medieval fantasy things onto a real part of the world that is a lot more complicated.) If you have not watched the show or read the books, you probably won't follow the allusions to current affairs; if you have, you may likely disagree with them.**
The wealthiest and most powerful house in Westeros, the Lannisters are kingmakers. To the house's lead patriarch, family matters before all. The Lannisters' influence can be felt in direct and subtle ways across the realm, even in places far from their domains. They are criticized by some for having a record of abuse and brutality, while others resent how their power has been built purely on the natural resources found beneath their lands.
Now, they are hounded wherever they turn. Some, faced with little choice, were co-opted by those they shouldn't trust. Others have gone underground or abroad and are waiting for their fortunes to change. There had been talk of spring, but for the Starks, winter truly came.
The Greyjoys remember fondly a distant age when they counted large swathes of Westeros under their dominion, but it's ancient history to almost everyone else. Steeped in their own traditions and ways, their recent interventions in parts of the region have smacked of political navet.
House Martell of the southern region of Dorne has always seen itself as distinct from the other major houses of Westeros. They come from a different ethnic background and take pride in their own myths and legends. Their hatred of the Lannisters is matched only by the long-standing enmity for the Tyrells (see below).
They've had to hold their nose and find common cause with the Lannisters, despite obvious differences. Their rivalry with (and mistrust for) the Martells of Dorne is on a constant simmer, and sometimes flares into open conflict.
The Wildlings are in truth fleeing these monstrous creatures, some of whom are zombie Wildlings. The White Walkers are shockingly effective in their tactics, and swallow up new recruits into their mysteries at frightening rates. There's a lot of debate over where they come from and what they want, but everyone agrees that they're awful.
Their clashes with the Wildlings and White Walkers have intensified in recent times. Some people believe they are as lousy a pack of scoundrels and criminals as those who they battle. Their lobbying efforts in the main capital have yielded a degree of support.
*WorldViews recognizes that this parallel exaggerates the degree to which the United States has been sidelined from the strategic discussions in the Middle East. It is obviously still a key, perhaps preeminent actor in the region.
**WorldViews recognizes that these parallels obscure some of the criticism of the Iranian and Israeli governments, and do not mention the negotiations for a nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran's support for proxy militias in other corners of the Middle East or Israel's problematic treatment of the Palestinians. But you try finding all of that in the Westeros of "Game of Thrones."
In a blunt warning to the clerical leaders of the Islamic Republic, leaders of 24 student associations have advised them to "learn" from the fate of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and "revise" their present line of policies before they are forced to do it by foreign powers.
The "Analytical Statement", published on several Iranian internet websites on Monday, comes exactly one week after 127 members of the Iranian parliament called on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to "drink his own cup of poison" by choosing between the continuation of the present authoritarian rule, "one which would inevitably lead to the collapse of the regime," or to adhere "sincerely" to democratic principles.
In their analysis of the current situation of Iran and the region in the aftermath of the downfall of Baghdad's former Baathist regime and the behaviour of Iranian officials, the authors observe that "the spectacle of burned buildings in Baghdad and the statues of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein being pulled down must be a lesson for all other tyrants that if they refuse to come down from their imagined ivory towers, they would "also disappear, as other promised lands, thrones, kings, caliphs and emirs did in the past and would in the future."
"Was there any other way -- faster, more practical, less costly in human lives and materials -- to put an end to the rule of a blood thirsty, dangerous man like Saddam and his oppressive rule in the past 30 years than to attack him, as the Americans did?" the 24 signatories asked, observing that the number of the people killed in the Coalition military operation against Iraq was "much less" then those Saddam had killed in the two weeks prior to the start of the conflict.
"Now that everyone has seen...contrary to all predictions by leaders of the Islamic Republic...how the United States overcame so easily...the so-called mighty Iraqi forces, the time has come for [Iranian officials] to make use of this occasion and wake up. Stop closing newspapers, imprisoning dissidents, attacking students, journalists, political activists and the elite, and ruining a young generation's hopes... Let this nation become again the people's land," the statement ended.
Over a one-week period, two groups of influential Iranians have criticized the unelected but powerful institutions undermining efforts towards their country's liberalization. They have both expressed concerns about the status quo, and demanded a change. As the American administration is clearly shifting towards destabilizing the Iranian government, these realities of Iranian society suggest that an inevitable fundamental change in its political system will not be an American determined outcome, but one arising from a deep-rooted indigenous movement for democracy.
Unlike what some hawkish policy makers in Washington might think, Iran is a totally different society from those of Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of history, social fabric and development, political aspirations and economic, industrial, scientific and military capabilities. As a result, the American experience in those countries on "regime change" is simply inapplicable to Iran. Despite the depth of social dissatisfaction with the status quo and a clear desire for a secular political system, as citizens of an ancient country now a regional power with claims to a higher international status, Iranians will not act according to any Washington-envisaged plan...
Although the majority of Iranians support normal relations with the United States, they do not desire to help build an American puppet regime. For those who are not convinced, the Iranians overthrew such a system in 1979. As a result, the desired ties as stated by the Iranians are those based on equality of the two sides and their recognition of each other's interests, like the ones they have with two other nuclear powers, Russia and France. The American hoped-for puppet regime, like that of the Shah, cannot be established in Iran -- with or without B-52s...
If the current trend continues, this will pave the way for a gradual replacement of the religious system with a secular one. Any American intervention in this process will simply hamper such process by making all Iranians unite in the face of a superpower seeking to restore its lost influence in their country, an unwanted scenario for the citizens of a regional power.
Statism, nationalism, pan-ism, leftism, Islamism: All were ideas imported from the West and twisted beyond recognition. Each wrecked our lives, in its own way, before we realized it was dangerous for our well-being. So, what will be our next big import from the West? It is democracy. And there are attempts already at twisting it beyond recognition by reducing it to mere electoralism. There can be no democracy without elections. But there can be elections without democracy.
Suddenly, Iran, where all candidates are approved by non-elected mullas, who also ignore the decisions of the elected Parliament, is labelled a "democracy" in Washington. Some of the smaller Gulf states, where doctored elections are used to increase the powers of the ruling elite, are hailed in as "new Arab democracies".
Because of our mimetic tradition, electoralism of one form or another is likely to spread to most of the region within the decade. We will all become "democrats" just as, at different points, we had all become statists, nationalists, pan-ists, leftists and Islamists of one kind or another. Our democracy could prove to be as fake as our other imports.
The reason? Once again we may be putting the cart before the horse. Democracy does not start with elections. It starts with freedom of thought and expression. It starts with grass-root movements, clubs, associations, unions, and, eventually, political parties.
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul made a very important appeal in Tehran during the foreign ministers meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference where he called for the Muslim countries to put their houses in order and avoid facing the humiliation that Iraq has suffered recently.
It is time the Islamic world looked at its house with a more critical eye. Do we like what we see? A referendum is held in an Arab country where "100 percent" of the people approve the leader. Then a few months later a foreign power invades that country and most of those people who had a share in this vote go out into the streets bringing down the statues of the very same leader and publicly condemn him. This has happened in Iraq but it could happen in any part of the Islamic world where regimes are authoritarian and the way their leaders are elected is simply arbitrary and undemocratic.
93ddb68554