What's your opinion about Iranians who promote hostility against other Iranian nations such as Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and thereby directly contribute to nearly two centuries of Anglo-zionist imperial divide and rule designed to turn Iranians against each other along "ethno"-linguistic lines? Is this constitutive of some sort of a new brand of "non-pan-"Iranian nationalism, because it sure as heck doesn't sound like any of the traditional currents of Iranian nationalism I studied?
Watch local US-apologists pretend that hostile extra-regional powers have "nothing to do with it", that Afghans and Tajiks have had nothing but hatred for us for hundreds of years, and so on. But well informed patriots know full well how the British empire spared no effort to cultivate and exacerbate anti-Iranian sentiment among some of our Afghan brothers all along the 19th century, and how NATO regimes are presently involved in trying to create an artificial dissociation between the Persian language on the one hand, and its Dari and Tajik sub-dialects on the other, among many other such anti-Iranian endeavours specifically designed to neutralize Iran's immense civilizational appeal, which naturally shines into every direction outside her current borders.
The fact that Afghans and Tajiks speak Persian, the fact that they are "ethnically" Iranian for the most part, the fact that they celebrate Noruz and are, in short, Iranian peoples, is a
massive boon for Iranian foreign policy. To ignore this and isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran from these others Iranian nations, or worse to suggest that these are fatally bound to be ungrateful, hostile and so on, this is what incompetence would look like. In addition to playing into the hands of the enemy, which does not want to see Iran have any sort of influence anywhere outside her borders. As said, you never, never feed the enemy's discourse, you oppose it with counter-information war, even as you are involved in a hot conflict against a proxy of theirs.
Example: the zionist regime and its stooges are known to be at the forefront of sponsoring Azari separatism against Iran, as well as anti-Iranian irrdentist propaganda in the so-called Republic of Azarbaijan.
Specially dedicated to the zionists and US-apologists of this forum:
Now you have two options:
A) Either you conform to the narrative concocted by the enemy, adopt a reverse image of Azari separatist discourse and start presenting Azari Iranians as an alien, rebellious, historically traitorous element, citing the Pishevaris and so on as "proof" => you are either not particularly apt at understanding politics, or you are an infiltrator working for the enemy.
B) On the contrary, you double down on integrationist discourse, highlighting how Azaris are in fact and have always been part and parcel of the Iranian nation. You stress the huge pool of commonality over the incremental difference that our enemies have historically been experts at blowing out of proportion and instrumentalizing.
The thing is, Iran's enemies are extremely powerful, especially in the media and propaganda department, so of course, there have been setbacks for us in this regard, and there will be many more in future. But to treat setbacks as a fatality and as an excuse for abandoning Iran's proactive policy with regards to these nations is the essence of foolishness, and directly serves the agenda of Iran's main existential enemies, i.e. the US and zionist regimes.
Not really, my friend. If this was the case, in forty three years the fire you're thinking of would have caught.
_____
This is an important point you mentioned. Indeed, those who are sensitive and annoyed by the presence of Arabic words in the Persian language have to be reminded that practically the entirety of what's left of Iranian literature, and which in fact constitutes one of Iran's unrivaled civilizational treasures, is composed in Modern Persian and as such, incorporates some Arabic vocabs, whether we like it or not.
Even Ferdosi's Shahnameh does not eliminate them fully:
Moïnfar calculates that the Šāh-nāma contains 706 words of Arabic origin, occurring a total of 8,938 times, which yields 8.8 percent of Arabic in the vocabulary (i.e., individual tokens), and a frequency of occurrence of 2.4 percent
I doubt these authors and poets can be considered as "traitors" for using some words of Arabic origin - not to mention that these are not just proncounced in a different way in Persian, but also very often have a different nuance and are employed in a very different manner than in Arabic itself.
One should also be reminded that the reverse is true as well, since Arabic too integrated loanwords from Persian.
Now, I'm not condemning those who try to use as much local Iranian vocabulary as possible. But there seems to be this belief among some that the Islamic Republic has been following a deliberate policy of replacing Persian words with Arabic ones in every day use. This is not factual. Some people might have advocated such policies, but they were never implemented in any meaningful way by state authorities. As indicated earlier, officials in the Islamic Republic have even contributed to the preservation of the Modern Persian language, as seen with the institute headed by Haddad-Adel, or in the Supreme Leader's numerous speeches where he praises and commends the literary wealth of Persian.
Regarding Cyrus and the Achaemenids, although it's true that Iran's ancient history is less documented than that of certain other nations and although zionists as well as Anglo-Saxon imperialists have been and are trying to manipulate it to their advantage, I personally do not doubt the existence of Cyrus. Acknowledging it, in my opinion, is not serving the enemy's agenda.
However, the enemy does indeed have such an agenda with regards to Iran's ancient history, and it must be countered. This agenda is a threat to Iran in three main ways, as far as I can tell:
1) Attempts by zionists to instrumentalize reports about Cyrus emancipating Jews from Babylonian captivity and allowing them to rebuild their temple in Palestine. In particular, zionists will try to fabricate the notion that there's some sort of an extraordinary, special historic bond between the Iranians and Jewish people, and that therefore the Islamic Republic is supposedly "betraying" the heritage of ancient Iran.
2) Attempts by zionists, adepts of the Haifan Bahai organization as well as western imperialists, to restrict the Achaemenid heritage to Persians alone, and thereby, the call into question the very concept of Iran as a harmonious unified nation. This comes into play with the relentless zio-American attempts to instigate "ethno-separatism" against Iran. The utterances of French zionist sayan Bernard Henri Lévy, who sought to portray Iran as a "Nazi" invention whilst at the same time singing praises for ancient Persia (as opposed to Iran), essentially for its purported role towards the Jews, and whilst at the same time supporting Kurdish separatism across the board, offer a perfect window as to what the zionist enemy is attempting to achieve: the dismantling and balkanization of Iran along "ethno"-linguistic lines.
3) The third threat is possibly the most overlooked one, but is not less dangerous. And that is, efforts by western regimes and by their dominant oligarchy to "universalize" Iranian civilization. In other terms, to gradually foster the idea that Iranian culture and history, as well as its main markers and symbols, in fact belong to mankind as a whole, and that therefore, it wouldn't make any sense to set them apart as characteristically or properly Iranian. This is perfectly consistent with the general globalist onslaught on national cultures, as well as their attempt to dilute national identities, histories and civilizations into their planned one-world regime.
You can already witness clear signs of this strategy with the way in which Jalaleddin Rumi is increasingly considered a rootless, "universal" kind of poet and how his Iranian origins are more and more downplayed in America (where he has become one of the most read and most popular poets) and elsewhere in the west.
Another example is how the enemy has been working to split up the unifying force of Noruz, a festival common and specific to Iranian peoples and peoples of the Greater Iranian civilization sphere. The enemy's social engineering is focusing on denial of the Iranianness of Noruz, which it is replacing with "ethnic" references. If you were in the west, brother, you'd see how immigrant communities of Iranian civilizational backgrounds are encouraged by western state authorities at the national and especially local levels (municipalities) to hold separate Noruz celebrations: Persian, Kurdish and Afghan. Likewise, each of these communities will term Noruz as a festival of their own, e.g. "Noruz, the Kurdish New Year" on the one hand, "Noruz, the Persian New Year" on the other. You will hardly come across "Noruz, Iranian New Year". This atomization is conceived as a prelude to dissolution into a "universal" ensemble - it's always easier to digest smaller bits than large chunks i.e. unified nations.
Third example: a Cyrus sculpture inaugurated in the city of Los Angeles, USA in 2017. Pay attention to the discourse accompanying the inauguration: Cyrus was suddenly turned into kind of a champion of cosmopolitanism, as a symbol of transborder unity of man, with his Iranian character being largely erased and obfuscated. Cyrus and his heritage as a battle cry for globalist who have no tolerance for any national and religious specificity.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-freedom-sculpture-20170704-story.html
Many Iranians feel joy and pride when they see the president of the US regime address them a Noruz message or sport a Haft Sin at the White House. When a Cyrus sculpture is installed in California. When Rumi turns into a best seller in America. What they don't perceive, is the stealthy, poisoned dagger hidden beneath the sleeve covering the enemy's extended hand of feigned "friendship".
They don't understand how the enemy operates, and how anything positive it may say about Iranian culture or history is there to dissimulate its active policy to uproot, dissolve, and destroy the Iranian nation and civilization.
