Argo And The Clash Of Civilisations
By Radha Surya
14 November, 2012
Countercurrents.org
The Hollywood film Argo harks back to the hostage drama that transpired in the wake of the Islamic revolution of 1979. The story is based on the real life rescue of six diplomats who escaped from the American embassy when it was seized by Iranian students and took refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador. The film quickly became a commercial and critical success. Argo rose to the top of the box office list in the third week of its run. Critics have vied with each other in the use of superlatives--One of the best movies of the year, close to flawless, among the worthiest spy thrillers to come out of Hollywood in years and so on. Clearly Argo is poised to be a front runner at this year’s Oscar awards.
But Argo is problematic for several reasons. To start with the film goes against the historical evidence in order to uphold a world view that affirms the fundamental decency of America's role in the world. This affirmation is made despite the initial nod to historical authenticity in the form of a review of damning facts like the 1953 Anglo-American coup which led to the overthrow of the nationalist, democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the reinstatement of the feudal order led by Shah Reza Pahlavi. The storming of the American embassy in Tehran and the capture of the staff took place in reaction to the granting of asylum by the US to the fugitive Shah. On the Iranian side there were fears of a re-enactment of the coup of 1953 and the return of the Savak, the Shah's dreaded CIA trained secret police. The facts are presented but they are allowed to drop out of sight once the obligatory--and ultimately perfunctory--history lesson has been covered. The "real' story of the involved Hollywood-CIA collaboration takes over and the Iranians are allowed to degenerate for the most part into an angry gun-toting or slogan shouting mob. "I guess they saw us as the bad guys then and they see us as the bad guys now" was the reaction of one of the hostage takers of 1979 after watching Argo ("Iran Hostage Taker Returns to the Spotlight with Insight," New York Times, November 1 2012).
Remarkably although the film is largely set in Iran there is hardly a single decent Iranian to be encountered. The household help at the Canadian ambassador's house is the sole exception. She facilitates the escape of the Americans and is thereby redeemed--despite being Iranian. The others run a gamut that ranges from the weak sarcasm of the ineffectual official from the Ministry of Culture and the enraged tirade of the bazaar merchant to the ferocity of the Revolutionary guard who detains the Americans at the airport. It turns out that the Shah had killed the shop keeper's son. But with its myopic focus on the plight of the American diplomats the film manages to bungle even its moment of empathy with a victim of the Pahlavi regime. Was it after all necessary to depict the shop keeper as uncontrollably furious in his grief? Or is it only among Iranians (as opposed to Americans) that grief lacks dignity and restraint? Unforgivably the "nail biting" thrill of the final escape is achieved at the expense of an unbelievable display of stupidity on the Iranian side. The revolutionary guards set off in hot pursuit when they come to know the real identity of the American diplomats. But they fail to take the obvious step of contacting the air traffic controller in time to prevent the take-off of the Swissair plane with the American diplomats on board. Not only are the Iranians hostile and threatening. They are or so the film would have it mentally handicapped as well.
It is of course possible to urge the absurdity of over-interpreting a Hollywood spy thriller. And to point out that Argo does not claim to be a documentary about the Islamic revolution of 1979. But as has been shown by a plethora of academic studies, it is naive to view the representation of culturally alien ethnic or national identities by the entertainment industry as being non-political or ideologically innocent. In Argo the erasure of Iran's recent history and the negative portrayal of the people of that country must be recognized as being at the very least offensive to Iranians. The historical details that are foregrounded particularly the glimpses of street executions only serve to reinforce an underlying narrative in which the Islamic Revolution is somehow barbaric. There is no acknowledgement that the revolutionary transformations that the world has witnessed in the twentieth century as well as in previous centuries have entailed violence. The French Revolution gave way to the Reign of Terror after bringing into being a social order in which the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity held sway. Other examples abound of virtuous revolutions taking a bloody turn. Argo seems to imply that lawlessness and bloodshed are the singular characteristic of the revolution that deposed the Shah. In Argo, Huntingdon's clash of civilisations thesis stands translated into the implied world view of a Hollywood spy thriller.
The postscript text that appears at the end of the film states that the story of US-Canada collaboration in the rescue of the diplomats stands as an enduring model of international co-operation between governments. Unfortunately the converse is true of Iran-US relations in the past and the present. Consider for instance the protection extended to the Shah in 1979 by the US. Here the question raised in a scathing review of Argo is very relevant: Why didn’t the Americans just return the Shah to Iran...Why not let the Iranians prosecute their deposed corrupt leader (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/26/argo-fuck-yourself/). Then there is the issue of the fraught Iran-US relations at the present time and the ongoing threat of a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Over the past decade American officials have stated at regular intervals that all options are on the table with regard to Iran. To date the implied menace in this statement has not been translated into military action but other forms of coercion notably economic warfare are being practised with great success. In October 2012 food prices across Iran skyrocketed as the currency lost 40 percent of its value in a two day period. State Department officials exulted as US-instigated international sanctions that had been intensifying over the years took their toll and brought Iran's economy to the brink of collapse. Here if any is an object lesson in international relations of the non-exemplary variety--the kind which is designed to cause maximum harm and suffering to the ordinary people of an "enemy" power.
Argo was released at a time when the Presidential campaign of 2012 was at its height. Despite the gap between the candidates on domestic policy issues it is notable that they were in unanimity in their foreign policy particularly with respect to Iran. It is regrettable that in the foreign policy debate not only candidate Romney but President Obama as well saw fit to resuscitate the falsehood about Iran having threatened to wipe Israel off the map. President Ahmadinejad had spoken about Israel being consigned to the dustbin of history eventually but not made a specific threat. This has been pointed out by a plethora of informed commentators but entrenched interests have made it impossible to thrash the lie about wiping Israel off the map. Now it stands revived at the highest level of the US administration.
The 2012 Foreign Policy Presidential debates and a Hollywood thriller about the 1979 Iran hostage crisis--nothing it seems could be further apart. They are nevertheless inexorably linked by a common thread of disinformation and obfuscation respecting Iran. Informed experts like former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and former CIA analyst Paul Pillar have been saying for years that fear of a US led attack is the driving force behind Iran's nuclear program and have recommended giving Iran security guarantees against US led or supported attack. But sane advice has been drowned out in the belligerent cacophony on the topic of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Crippling sanctions have been imposed on Iran by way of pressuring the county into abandoning its nuclear program or so the claim goes. But why doesn’t the US seek to meet its stated objective by using the non-coercive approach recommended by the experts?
Radha Surya has an academic background in English Literature and Library and Information Science and holds a computing job at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.
Comments are moderated
