Oliver Stone's presence in Iran; opportunity or threat

Commentary by Elham Rajabpur

Keyhan News

Monday, December 3, 2007

(Translated by the Open Source Center)

They say that a wise person is not bitten in the same spot twice. But it seems that it has become our custom in certain cases to be bitten several times in the same spot and still not learn our lesson. The meaning of this statement refers to the probable presence of Oliver Stone--Hollywood's famous director--in Iran concerning negotiations and his request for making a documentary, the topic of which is Dr Ahmadinejhad, our country's president.

A piece of news--the mere proposal of which--has amazed and worried many friends of Islamic Iran's honour and power and those concerned about its reputation. Taking into consideration the history of measures by western media against Iran's Islamic system and its nation and the domination and influence of global Zionism on the said media and the establishment of a media empire with a Zionist nature, it is fully obvious that being optimistic about Oliver Stone's request and his intention and objective of making a film about Dr Ahmadinejhad and the showing of realities and hoping that he refrains from alterations, deliberate manipulations and damaging the honour, power and the interests of the Islamic system, is an irreparable mistake which will bring us nothing but regret and remorse.

The fundamental question is this: Which one of the many western journalists, programme makers, writers and film makers and Americans in particular who claiming to be aware of Iran's realities and of reflecting them correctly to the world, have used numerous facilities and amenities in Iran and after returning to their country have acted without any spite and prejudice and have narrated exactly what they have seen, for Stone- with the history of having made the film Alexander-to be the exception to this rule?

A good example is Ms Christiane Amanpour, who with the aid and help of the country's officials at the time, was even allowed easy access into Majlis and various other sections which not even domestic journalists had easy access to and no obstacles were created against the making of her reports in the country and having once returned to her country, we saw how she portrayed Iran?! Especially at a time when in western countries, including America as the biggest so-called defender of false freedom and democracy, Iranian journalists have to deal with many limitations and refusals and in America are not allowed to stray far from their headquarters.

The people of Iran have still not forgotten the publication of the book and afterwards the making of the film called "Not without my daughter" which was against the Iranian nation and culture. Not much time has passed since the making of the latest anti-Iranian and confrontational films such as Alexander, the 300 and Persepolis. The way that news concerning Iran is reflected with prejudice by western reporters and journalists or for example offering unrealistic statistics about the number of people who participate in demonstrations, elections, national projects, etc ... is a repetitive story. The wide-spread production and broadcasting of programmes in various television and satellite networks which aim to discredit our country's international image or introduce Iran as a regional danger and emphasis Iran's efforts for obtaining a nuclear bomb and being a threat to global security and ... in order to influence public opinion and divert people all over the world from the truths of the international system, are listed in the permanent agenda of these media. Offering a harsh and uncivilised picture of the people and the country of Iran, stressing the abuse of human rights in Iran, provoking western and non western countries against Iran by making Iran's peaceful nuclear programme appear dangerous and exaggerating the dangers of a nuclear Iran, focusing on the propagation of racial differences, creation of a psychologically negative and poisoned atmosphere against Iran, calling Iran a terrorist state or a supporter of terrorism and the advancement of hundreds of other political and security projects or in other words, the implementation of all these colonialist policies will not be possible unless help is provided by the arms of the media of these exploiting colonialists and the creation of an organised psychological war before any of their power seeking and expansionist policies can be put into execution.

Under circumstances whereby during the past 28 years, the western world has used all its financial and non financial facilities to inflict a blow against the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran and has brought all its might to bear upon the destruction of the holy structure of Iran's Islamic system and to confront it as the ideological rival of the west's materialist world, how can one trust a person belonging to the same group and emerging from inside Hollywood- and the maker of many anti-Iranian and anti-Islamic films- especially considering the dominance of the Zionist and anti-Iranian media policies and allow him such ambitious totalitarianism? Someone, who despite efforts at proclaiming himself to represent the opposition in America's ruling system, is in line and in accordance with the essence and the overall policies of this system and making the film the World Trade Centre is indicative of this fact.

Oliver Stone is the same famous Hollywood director who in 2004 made the film Alexander about the life and battles of Alexander of Macedonia and engaged in blatant alterations of historical truths against Iran. In addition, by offering an unrealistic and sensationalist image of Alexander, introduced him as a free, justice-seeking and just person and in contrast, showed the Iranian nation as barbaric and a savage race and at no point in the film does he point out the burning of the glorious Persepolis structure which represented the Iranians' civilisation and the height of Alexander's savagery. This is despite the fact that because of his overthrow of the Achaemenid dynasty and the savage mass killings and attacks carried out by his army, Alexander is a hated figure among Iranians. Also, through his film, the World Trade Centre and in keeping with the Pentagon and in line with the White House, he tried to show the 9/11 event as an attack by the world of Islam against the western world and western civilisation. Incidentally, two years previously, Stone had also made a documentary about Fidel Castro which was met by Castro's protest and dissatisfaction. Although he introduces himself as one of the critics and opponents of Bush's and the White House's warmongering policies, he supported George Bush in America's presidential elections.

Among Oliver Stone's other works, films such as Platoon, JFK, The Doors and Nixon can be pointed out and The Doors was in commemoration of one of America's perverted and half mad singers; someone who urinated on the head of his fans during his concerts and enjoyed doing so and who finally died in Paris as a result of a drug overdose and was buried in the Pere Lachaise cemetery.

The film JFK was made with the aim of drawing a picture of John F Kennedy as a political saint as ordered by America's Democratic Party who during the first elections against Bush senior, introduced Bill Clinton as the person most similar to Kennedy and the film played an undeniable role in Bill Clinton successfully entering the White House. And finally, in the film Nixon, an overthrown and warmongering president who initiated several wars is shown as an innocent and blameless individual. All these facts leave no room for doubt of Oliver Stone's affiliation to America's key policies; despite the fact that some groups, out of ignorance, call and introduce him as an independent filmmaker.

Now the question remains that has Oliver Stone, suddenly and single-handedly risen to reveal certain truths and to enlighten the American nation? At a time when under orders from their politicians, policy makers and the ruling system, it is on the agenda of the western world's media to portray Mr Ahmadinejhad as a harsh, dogmatic, inhuman and ... individual, does Stone want to move against this current? Why has he decided to choose Ahmadinejhad, a figure disapproved by western and American officials, as the topic of his film? Will Ahmadinejhad's active diplomacy and foreign policy based on interaction with Iran and forging ahead be portrayed or will Iran be portrayed as warmongering, violent, abusive of human rights and undemocratic?

A group of American academicians invited Dr Ahmadinejhad to Columbia University to make a speech and to engage in a question and answer debate but contrary to academic conduct and procedure and manipulated by White House politicians, they tried seriously to discredit him and to portray him as extremely savage and inhuman, in which endeavour they were heavily defeated however. How can we now trust such a deceitful culture with its double standards and forget the Americans' propaganda and negative portrayals and voluntarily go under the hand of the filmmaker's blade so as not to have any chance of self defence later on.

In any case, we are afraid that the outcome of such a venture will not be the true and realistic portrayal of an intellectual and a peacemaker such as Ahmadinejhad but a portrayal of Ahmadinejhad according to Stone, Hollywood and global Zionism and in that case there will be no opportunity for complaint because there is no solution to an act which is done voluntarily.

We hope that through thinking and comprehensive deliberation, such instances are properly dealt with so that any kind of attack on the system's reputation and credit may be prevented and God forbid that we should provide the opportunity for our enemies to exploit us and to inflict a blow on the sovereignty of our Islamic society.

(Description of Source: Tehran Keyhan (Internet Version-WWW) in Persian -- Conservative Tehran evening daily. Published by the Kayhan Institute and edited by Hoseyn Shari'atmadari, Leader Khamene'i's representative at the institute )

Source: Open Source Center