Excellent piece by Zizek that I think sharply hits it on the nail in one respect:

"If our cynical pragmatism will make us lose the capacity to recognize this emancipatory dimension, then we in the West are effectively entering a post-democratic era, getting ready for our own Ahmadinejads."

Yes indeed, very well said by Mr. Zizek.

The part that hurts the most is the so called leftist who compare challenging Ahmadinejad is like the coup that CIA worked out to take doctor Mosaddegh off the position as a progressive prime minister. Ahmadinejad is anything but progressive and, time to time giving food coupons to certain countrymen is how he and his kind organize their side.

The part said about Guards not being a working class militia... thanks a hundred times since, these bloody guards expropriated whoever's property and company who was not obedient to their demands and laws

<i>West are effectively entering a post-democratic era, getting ready for our own Ahmadinejads</i>

Palin/Huckabee 2008

Just to expand a bit on that last comment.

The one thing that's always limited the American Christian right, it seems to me, has been their views on the economy. Milton Friedman is almost as much their bible as THE Bible. As such, they've never been able to win over the bulk of the working class.

When Bush was at the height of his power, he tried to privatize social security. But he was rejected.

The one thing that really scares me about Palin and Huckabee is that they both seem more willing to nod in the direction of economic populism than Bush was. The "Club for Growth" actually opposed Huckabee because they saw him as a "leftist" on the economy. Alaskans, of course, have always had the "Alaska Permanent Fund" where every Alaska gets a cut of the oil money. Part of "Drill Baby Drill" was "I want a bigger check this year".

Add a recession, hysteria over immigration, and, perhaps, Obama as Failed Clinton II, and a resurgent Christian right with less dogmatically free market views could take power.

And one final thing.

<i>There are a couple of crucial consequences to be drawn from this insight. First, Ahmadinejad is not the hero of the Islamist poor, but a genuine corrupted Islamo-Fascist populist, a kind of Iranian Berlusconi whose mixture of clownish posturing and ruthless power politics is causing unease even among the majority of ayatollahs. His demagogic distributing of crumbs to the poor should not deceive us: behind him are not only organs of police repression and a very Westernized PR apparatus, but also a strong new rich class, the result of the regime’s corruption.

</i>

I think the majority of "leftists" defending Ahmadinejad don't quite seem to understand one thing. Whether or not the protests are a "coup" attempt by the CIA or the expressions of a legitimate civil rights movement, Iran can't/won't stand still.

The ideal of "a sort of anti-US populist theocracy in alliance with Hugo Chavez that pisses off Israel and is thus, good, even though it represses its own young intelligensia and hey they deserve it anyway because they're just a bunch of rich kids" is a strange ideal indeed. But it can't last.

If the protests have weakened the clerics and discredited the Islamic revolution, it's not necessarily going to mean democracy or even American style neoliberalism. Up until now, Ahmadinejad's power has always been limited by the clerics.

But what if the clerics are weak and the military/security apparatus steps in to take it's place with, perhaps, an Ahmadinejad with even greater power, fascism taking over for theocracy?

another good piece by Mehdi Kia: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/775/adifferent.php

<i>"What Ahmadinejad engineered, in alliance with a large section of the security apparatus and a handful of mullahs, was to essentially deprive the clergy of their ability to use elections to increase the power base of their particular factions inside the regime. This was not a flash in the pan. The election coup had been systematically organised over the last 12-15 years. It began with mobilising and the methodical winning of all electable and non-electable organs - starting with the mayorships of major cities (Ahmadinejad is an ex-mayor of Tehran), the municipal council elections, the majles and the presidency of Ahmadinejad in 2005.

In parallel the military-security apparatus became a major economic force in the country. The coup on June 12 was the logical next, and last, step in a long process by which those that called themselves the osulgaran (‘principled’) have been catapulted into undisputed power."<i>

Caricatures about the people's strubble during the election:

http://www.peykeiran.com/Content.aspx?ID=2931

Thanks

Zizek is claiming "Mousavi is something entirely different: his name stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution" and that "today’s protest movement is the 'return of the repressed' of the Khomeini revolution." He also describes Ahmadinejad with the neo-con term "Islamo-fascist," while at the same time equating him with Berlusconi. These are unusual claims for leftists to make, and he provides no evidence for them. Are you really sure you want to endorse them?

some candid thoughts on this:

1) the 1979 outbreak of revolution in Iran brought great hope to people. but it became clear (even slowly to those of us here in the U.S. influenced by mechancal "inevitablist" belief in progress) that the Islamic currents in Iran were much stronger than the secular left. and I remember my dismay when I heard that a few of the radical left Iranians we knew were suddenly growing beards and wearing crescent jewelry. IN other words, it wasn't just that the Islamic countryside overwhelmed the more radical secular forces in 1979, but there was an attraction to the Islamic "revolution.

I confess that I have never really understood well what precisely that attraction to Khomenei was. It was tempting (from our very different and secular framework) to assume that the Islamic revolution was <em>simply</em> a recoiling from capitalist modernity (which the Shah of Iran certainly represented in many ways). And my current understanding that it did represent a powerful backward-looking recoiling from "modernity" (in a way that saw little difference between wetern-oriented capitalist modernity and socialist revolutionary overthrowing of "traditions chains" and religious values). I also suspect it had for itself an aura of purity, an end to corruption, a view of strict justice based on clear eternal principles, a form of nationalism that viewed Islam as a counterweight to western-influenced decadence and the forgetting of domestic culture. etc. (i.e. Change you can believe in -- because it claimed to resurrect an illusory past and an illusory Islamic virtue.) And it was also true that there was a bit of opportunism (of going with the flow) when previously secular revolutionaries started wearing Muslim beards -- as it became clear who was going to win, some peole sought to redefine themselves within that new framework.

Anyway....

what i'm saying is: why is it so odd to PG for someone to claim that:

<blockquote>"Mousavi is something entirely different: his name stands for the genuine resuscitation of the popular dream which sustained the Khomeini revolution."</blockquote>

Aren't there currents in the protest movement who believe that the promises and hopes of the 1979 islamic revolution became corrupted and betrayed?

Don't they coexist, contend and even partially overlap with currents that want something less theocratic?

Hasn't some of the struggle (among the protestors) been precisely over whether to "rejuvenate" the 1979 revolution, or whether to overthrow the Islamic revolution? And isn't that where some forces fall out as loosely "pro-western" and others (hopefully) as more radical anti-imperialist oppoents of Islamism?

2) In the U.S., the neocons and Republican right have wielded the term "Islamofascist" -- as a label for a wide swath of political-Islamic opponents (from Al-Qaida to the taliban, to the Iranian government). And for that reason alone, I would not personally use that term (in public discussions in the U.S. in particular -- just like I wold never use the word "totalitarian."

That is because using their terms could be misunderstood as adopting their analysis, their framework, their self-righteous claims to justice for their "war on terror" and so on.

In a similar way, some left forces (I am termed) started calling the CPUSA "the commies" during the 1950s. If true, that would obviously have been a bad thing, because even if we would have had (and should have had) severe criticisms of the CPUSA (at that time), it would be wrong to make such criticisms in ways that seem to echo the McCArthyites (who were dominating the society with their own well-known attacks).

However.....

Even though I would not use that term "Islamofascist" -- I do believe the Islamic republic has been truly fascistic. And that from a place fundamentally different from the neocons, or from the U.S. liberals, or from the propagandists of U.S. imperialism -- we DO need to make our analyses and criticisms of that.

Now, of course, that word "fascist" is in many ways worn -- it has been over used and underdefined for decades.

When Bush wants to overthrow Saddam Hussein he calls him a Hitler. When the left wants to demonize Bush, they compare him to a Hitler.... and so on. and precisely what that means, and what is being said, is often not clear. (The RCP for example has made a whole strategy around denouncing Bush's theocratic fascism, without offering their current definition of the term fascism.)

But still, I think the Islamic Republic has been quite brutally repressive toward forces outside a narrow "mainstream" of Islamic politics. the secular left have been criminalized and brutalized. women face persecution (and direct street bullying ) for displaying their neck on the street. the Iranian system of punishment has very harsh and extreme -- with many crimes (and quite a few non-crimes) punishable in extreme ways.

Now it may be that my view is colored by the fact that specifically communists (including I assume people I knew) were hunted down and killed during the 1980s. Perhaps there is another side -- i.e. the Islamic electoral democracy may (however bourgeois and illusory it is) provide political openings that are not classically "fascist." I would be interested in learning from people who don't agree with me, and exploring more deeply the particularities of Iran today.

However, at this point I certainly think there is a very rightwing, punitive, reactionary and (yes) fascistic element to the Islamic republic.

3) Finally, PG writes:

<blockquote>These are unusual claims for leftists to make, and he provides no evidence for them. Are you really sure you want to endorse them?</blockquote>

Endorse?

Does it need saying that posting a Zizek essay here does not imply an endorsement? (Any more than leaving PG's comment unmolested means an endorsement of PG's claims, right?)

Certainly we should examine Zizek's claims, debate them, question them, learn from the, learn from the discussion of them, evaluate them. And some among us may want to "endorse them" (partially? wholly? conditionally? Sure.)

From the Angry Arab News Service:
Not too long ago Zizek referred to Iran as an Arab country--but that does not stop him from pontificating.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/zizek-iran-analyst.html

Zizek wrote 'Iran is the only large Arab state which not only does not diplomatically recognize Israel, but resolutely denies its right to exist as a state' in an article on the In These Times site (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2280)

Yes. Zizek does make that common boneheaded mistake and the editors at In These Times didn't catch it.

But in the same article he also argues that the Iranian theocracy SHOULD have nukes.

<i> It is precisely because this harmony can in no way be taken for granted that countries like Iran should possess nuclear arms to constrain the global hegemony of the United States. </i>

Seems like a petty way of dismissing an argument.

let us make one thing definitely clear our innovator comrade Mike E,

You said:

<blockquote>"The point of your post seems to be that Zizek is a know-nothing, and has no right to speak on Iran since he doesn’t know the most basic facts about it. I suspect that is unfair, and I would be somewhat surprised if Zizek doesn’t know that Iran is Persian (not Arab)."</blockquote>

Only the last part is what burns me dear far cousin for the following reasons that are not jokes but, fundamental principles of being a revolutionary in Iran by true left organizations and, everyday people.

Everyday i have to correct X number of people that if people has told them being Persian, they are either damn racist ... (not exactly but technically speaking Nazi) idiots or, then want to disassociate themselves with the Islamic Republic regime. Why?

Did you ever feel cool to be called a Brit or Aryan, instead of just American?

Farsi is a language. Iran consists of Arab, Azeri, Blucher, Fars (a.k.a Pars/Persian) Ghoochani, Kurd, Lor, Turk, Turkmen and many more nations. The word Persian was French colonial improvisation. Full stop.

To make it simpler, there were 3 large tribes of Aryans migrating to area where a part of it is called Iran. They were Maad (said Mede in English), Pars, and Part.

Mede are technically all those people you call KURDS nowadays. Pars are located in central province of Fars, where city of Shiraz is town of poetry of Saadi, Hafez, etc...

Parts (with their own divisions and languages) are people located on the whole shores of the great Caspian lake (Caspian Sea sic.) and they are of total different cultures.

Kurds who are separated in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey speak at least four different dialects. in the meantime a large Kurdish chunk of people were moved by couple of centuries ago king to the north east of Iran, Khorasan province, that is next to Afghanistan so they don't exist too much as a nation. Another fact of the matter about this peculiar fact is that seeing two states - excuse me province - in north west of Iran called West Azerbaijan and East Azerbaijan. That is fake, since, King Reza Pahlavi was told by ATATURK of Turkey to make it so. West Azerbaijan is a mostly Kurdish peoples' area and Mahabad, where at some point became the temporary pro soviet Republic of Kurdistan during the 2nd world war era (and the Mohammad Reza was declared king by the western world demand – but also important that he declared the country as Iran of several nations, by taxing tea …made a railroad, etc.) ...

back to the main topic it is noteworthy that the revolutionary uprising of Sarbedaran in Amol i.e. the genuine preceding members of a group currently claimed to be called CPI(MLM)-(Avakian Thought i add ) occurred among the Part people, not Pars, a.k.a. Persian people.

Self Determination for oppressed minorities is the correct principle of Iranian revolutionary leftists that goes along with the position of one of the two Turkish Maoist parties (the one called Turkey - North Kurdistan TKP-ML) that while not advocating seperationism, but having a federal program as minimum and, right of separation, is a must for those nations. That is not to endorse it whatsoever but, it has not as well been synthesized as within the say, Nepalese revolutionaries.

And finally about "Arabs," it is noteworthy that Arabic Iranians are truly treated as second class citizens for hard labor (while they keep their different civil attitude) not far from the way Mexicans do labor in the US or, Turk and Kurds in Germany or, Philippinos in Arabic countries.

Arabs are most located in the same province where almost all oil of Iran that rules the economy, called Khuzestan. In Ahwaz, Abadan suburban... people sometimes do speak Arabic just like in Azarbaijan they speak Azeri in Part area there is two different dialects that i cannot dig a word out of.

And in Haft Tapeh where most of the current strike and struggles occur at, that was a totally American/European installed Sugar Cane harvesting to counter Cuban matter (and i grew up at,) there used to be at Shah's time, practically 4 different small towns.

Higher People's town (Share Olia) Lower People's town, a.k.a Plantation, where the factory is located, Pump Station, which was the lowest peoples, the Arabs with Machetes doing the labor work, plus Paper Factory town.

Left of Iran is no where near Nepal UCPN (Maoist) to define at least a federal republic. Time willing though, the non Avakianists will draw a more realistic pattern of the Iran's probable revolution.

p.s. Calling Latin American peoples "Hispanic" is a slap into my face.

I'm sorry to pipe up in a much more encompassing discussion here, but as long as we're defining nationalities (which is important, when you're talking about a place like Iran), etc., two things do come to mind:

First of all it drives me a little bats, and more so is forever insulting to say people in Mexico, when "American" is used to describe the people or individuals of the U.S. Those "citizens" of the U.S. are North Americans--the continent includes Mexico and Canada.

And when some people in the U.S. say to me--you're an "ex-pat(riot)" I really bristle...and my answer is consistently--I am not an ex-patriot since I feel no patriotism for or affinity to any nation, but instead, am an internationalist...y ya.

<i>And certainly with being “just American” (which could sound like a rightwing protest against “hyphenated Americans.”)

</i>

Actually the phrase "there are no hyphenated Americans" (which I think was coined by Teddy Roosevelt) originally had a somewhat progressive meaning.

It meant that southern and eastern Europeans can and should call themselves "American" in spite of the nativists (Google "Henry Cabot Lodge") who were labeling them as "unassimilable".

You have more or less the same split today. The McCain/Kennedy camp which wants to combine enforcement with some sort of path to citizenship would roughly correlate to the Teddy Roosevelt position. And the Pat Buchanan/Tancredo would rougly correlate with the Henry Cabot Lodge position (which the irony that Lodge would have considered Buchanan and Tandredo unassimilable).

At your service comrade ... there's lots more i learn here ...

Re being called Brits or, white man or Aryan, etc. that you i actualy was pointing it to average US natives; trying to point out that if Farsi makes Iranian a Persian, then the US plus Australian, New Zeland ... got to be referred to as Brits and, most Latin American countries as Spaniards. A language does not define a nationality. People in Afghanistan, are they "Persians"? how about Tajikestan people?
And, once debating/almost quarelling in a bus in regard to a drunk white guy using un bearable terminologies about black people (of which the bus driver was one as well) and, this other African American guy misdirecting it into aliens taking over our jobs, on that regard of his staring and pointing out to the Latin Americans wtih profanity (he was not drunk but - severely destitute looking street brother) i had to gently remind him that by the way who is not an alien in the US that, others laughed and ... so with the help of this other Black woman who could be UCLA student, it led to a long conversation about certain San Jose Mercury article regarding some journalist who allegedly committed suicide with two bullets in his head?! but, exposing that the ... fbi? cia? i don't know folks put crack drugs in poor neigborhoods to cause poor people of color and blacks in particular get arrested and make business out of jails and, jobs for immigrants without documents.. that makes it even "Fruits of Islam?" endorsers etc. as more productive propagandists who do more than selling Farakhan's DVDs....

And besides, no,

the majority nationality may be Persian (or Pars)

that is not true. Both Kurds and Azeris (that are called Turks all over Iran except say politicaly correct or cultural institution the East Azerbaijan people and lots of them who are all over the place in Tehran, Hamedan, etc.) i believe are both outweighing the Fars/Persian people in numbers. The word Persian was mostly French Colonial/Imperialist historitians (later adopted by British)... and has no statistic value whatsoever.

still "just American" thing is not about advanced fellows like you guys since, in general rcp activists (still) are legendary in replying about their nationality (even yesterday in the demonstration of i don't konw from 5 ... to 30 thousand people demonstrating in LA where they were the one and the only left group present - as i saw) and i never mean you as most of this blog fellows.

Ka Miles Ahead, i'm with you! whatever they do is sick but, unfortunately reflection of the state imposed double standards and definitions.

But back in what communists say here of course, from mother earth kids to ... anything without border is our primary strategic target

Thanks Stanley for your further productive inputs.

Reading that dialogue for me is like Steven Tyler watching Spinal Tap. Painful. I think I've actually had conversations like that.

Mike:
<blockquote>I do not identify as “American.” It would be odd to be called “Brit”, and odder yet to be called “Aryan.” But it would be a problem for communists to identify with being “American.”</blockquote>

Miles:
<blockquote>First of all it drives me a little bats, and more so is forever insulting to say people in Mexico, when “American” is used to describe the people or individuals of the U.S. Those “citizens” of the U.S. are North Americans–the continent includes Mexico and Canada.</blockquote>

I'm going to disagree with you two here. Not because I don't think of myself as a communist and therefore internationalist, but because anywhere I have traveled to in the world people, including our comrades, are going to automatically label me American.

Now if I really wanted to, I could go into my family origins. I could say I'm a first generation American, since my father came here from Scotland, and that my mother was born in Italy, to an Italian mother and a French father -- but who cares? I'm not going to insist that those I meet refer to me as an Internationalist, nor will I insist that anyone call me a Scots-Italian-French woman living in America, because either would be ridiculous. No matter who it is I meet, they're going to call me an American -- because I come from the United States of America.
And they won't call me North American, even though I reside on that continent, just as they wouldn't call my friends who live in Mexico or Canada North Americans, either. Mexican, Canadian and American is how we will be labeled by strangers, acquaintances, friends and comrades in other parts of the world.

So, I'm personally not at all offended being identified as an American -- and I'm really curious why anyone else would be?

Funny story: Once when I was in Scotland my Aunt Maggie actually introduced me to her neighbor with: "This is my niece, Adrienne. My brother's girl -- visiting from America. Lives in California, but she was born in the Colonies..."
My jaw dropped in disbelief. Uh, yeah I was born and raised in New Jersey -- a state which happens to be one of the thirteen original British colonies -- but why on earth she would make that distinction...!?
I suppose I could have chosen to take offense, but instead only found it bizarre and hilarious!

Look I am obviously not someone who is so keen on being oh-so politically correct that I worry about dotting every “i” or crossing every “t.” In fact, I remember an hours and hours long discussion, when the RCP was publishing an exposé of Reagan in the <i>RW</i>, and the back and forth was whether or not to call Reagan “the” American Hitler, or “an” American Hitler. I have to admit, that at the time (and probably being pragmatic), I thought the hours’ long debate was really a matter of semantics, and “the” vs. “an” mattered little to the “masses” or even one “mass.” “No, no, no – this is a question of line and ideology.” All righty.

But there is terminology, that I think we need to be more sensitive to, and educate ourselves as well as others about. Recently (and before Ka Green Red laid out different languages and nationalities in Iran), I was talking to a friend in Los Angeles about the situation in Iran. She forever refers to Iranians as Persians; not only the Iranian people en masse, but she thought everyone spoke “Persian.” So we got into (yet another) whole discussion of all that, actually this wasn’t the first time, but hopefully the last.

Awkward or not, and sometimes cumbersome for activists in usage, there are certain terms and definitions, which have been changed over the course of time, and at minimum, while seemingly comfortable (or more universal sounding) for activists, need to be pointed out or “excavated” because the words don’t aptly describe the people (or their history) you’re talking about, and this language does little to raise some consciousness. (Talk about awkward, that last paragraph was pretty convoluted.)

An obvious example—Before Malcolm X and the Black liberation movement, Black people, and African Americans if you will, were called “Negroes”, “colored” and of course worse. By saying and incorporating into “our” language, “Black is beautiful” a profound effect was had, not solely on African Americans, but affected an entire society. Conversely, to this day, “Black English” is still being disputed among certain sections of the people.

And as far as immigrants go, one of the big benchmarks and over the top propaganda amongst the anti-immigrant government forces is “Ya gotta speak English! You’re in Amerikka now and English is our language.” Meanwhile you can drive on any freeway in the U.S. and half the off-ramps (especially in the West) have Spanish names (mispronounced I might add, by most English speaking folk.) And both Spanish and French words have become commonplace in the English language.


Brazil is not the only one that calls itself the United States of Brazil. Mexico is called--EU de Mexico (the United States of Mexico)

And in Mexico, to distinguish the U.S. of A. from Mexico’s United States, there’s the common usage of the acronym EEUU, among los mexicanos. But if we want to get real, in Mexico, the most common terminology (which is pejorative) when speaking of, or even talking to someone from the U.S. is simply to call you a “gringo/gringa.” Some people catch themselves, especially if they know you personally, and mid-sentence, sometimes with an apology, you’ve gone from “gringita” to norte americana.

<blockquote>”I understand that people in Latin America (for perfectly good reasons) call the citizens of the United States “North Americans” (while those citizens call themselves “Americans” in ways that seems illogical and self-centered.)”</blockquote>

The “for perfectly good reasons” has to do less with “Americans” being illogical or self-centered. It has to do with historical facts, and a history pretty much forgotten (or ignored, at least not taught or emphasized in U.S. history classes) by los gringos, but still very evident and remembered by the majority of los mexicanos. It has to do more so with the embedded language of the imperialists, and great power chauvinism. And for many of those Mexican (Central and Latin American) immigrants living and struggling in the U.S., often times the effect is for those same people to deny their own history, even geography, and fraudulently they hope to be assimilated into the one-all powerful, America, i.e. the United States of America.

Or there is a tendency among some say from Mexico, to take things to another extreme, which is a more fervent nationalism or patriotism for their native country.

To excerpt from Wikipedia for expediency, with my emphasis:

<blockquote> ”Texas successfully achieved independence and was annexed by the United States, a border dispute led to the Mexican–American War, which began in 1846 and lasted for two years, settled via the "Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo" <b>forcing Mexico to give up nearly half of its land to the U.S.</b>, including California. Further transferred some of its territories, southern Arizona and New Mexico, via the Gadsden Purchase in 1854.”</blockquote>

In a former post by Mike, which I thought not only thought-provoking and poignant, but exemplary in terms of our collective practice, “Iran: They are Right to Rebel! And we have responsibilities” (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/iran-it-is-right-to-rebel/) to me, and many others, that responsibility was to act on a very fundamental ideology that we share: internationalism.

And while I definitely uphold some communist/revolutionaries being much more adept and speaking (and really listening to) the language of the people, and communicating with people not by using some jargon that has become part of “our” language, that sounds empty and rhetorical to most, simply saying “American”, and an assumption that the U.S. is the “true” America <i>is offensive</i> to a whole range of people around the world. (Sorry Adrienne, I just this moment read your comment--but in part I would like to emphasize with you that it is not just a matter of your being offended/not offended personally--we're talking about whole peoples here.)

It is not always possible to engage in a whole discussion with people over some of these semantics, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out some differences to the more “politically conscious” audience who we both embrace and are trying to reach out to. We need to further educate ourselves, especially if we think we have inherited the mantle of educating others.

So I for one appreciate Ka Green Red’s informative comments about Iran, and the distinctions between language, national minorities, religious persuasions, etc. And I am hoping that my friend stops (even though she supports the people of Iran) running around referring to all Iranians as Persians. IMO, this is not simply a matter of semantics, or a matter of comfort linguistically. It’s uneducated, and in a small way, a perpetuation of ignorance.

Interesting discussion about the usage of language and its political, cultural and ideological effects among activists and the wider population.

"For people within Afghanistan, the word Afghani is (apparently) associated with a specific ethnicity, and so the communists of that country once argued the adjective in English should be Afghanistani (i.e. so you would say “the Afghanistani roadway system….”). But no one in North America knows of this association between Afghani and the Pashtun people, so it would be a linguistic distinction imposed on communist speech in english that would not impact how anyone heard it, except for the fact that we would be using an oddly invented word."

So far as English language is concerned, it is my understanding that the adjective "Afghani" is an equally "oddly invented word." for the proper adjective when reffering to (a)person(s) from that part of the world, would be Afghan(s). Perhaps it would be helpful to note that the currency of that country is called Afghani; afterall, no one in the U.S. wants to be called a Dime or a Dollar.

The problem with the usage of "Afghani" is manifold.
for instance, in Iran I think there should be continuous struggle even with ordinary people to avoid being chauvinist toward Afghans, including the use of Afghani instead of Afghanestani.
To an afghan, especially in Iran, it would be highly derogatory to be asked "are you an Afghani?" in Farsi/Dari. it literally means "are you worth a penny?"

On another thread, who knows where because there have been a multitude of posts re Iran, but I said something like, I thought that this earthshaking event had some other implications, one of those being that this upheaval and uprising (with all its contradictory nature) also made it more difficult for the U.S. (and Israel) to simply "bomb Iran"--Iran as part of the "axis of evil." And I also said, it wasn't that long ago, that alarm bells were going off as to the U.S.'s intentions of actually bombing Iran...something that appears to have been put on the back burner for the Left, but not on the back burner for the reactionaries and imperialists.

I don't doubt that the U.S. has verbally supported the uprising in Iran for its own sinister reasons. But what I do think necessary is to further examine how the imperialists face their own contradictions, while they still try to jockey for their own position; how we and the people have to take advantage of the new set of contradictions. Not just look for cracks and fissures in Iran against its reactionary regime, but what this represents for other reactionary political forces with their future designs against Iran, as well as the entire region.

I think there was an excellent op/ed piece in today's <i>Huffington Post</i>, worth reading and thinking about. It raises the complexities of politics on a world scale:

an excerpt:
<blockquote>"This is not a minor issue for Israel, nor for American military planners who might have harbored hopes of reviving the idea of a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear sites. A former head of Israel's Mossad intelligence service, Meir Dagan, let slip the dilemma facing anti-Iranian hawks when he told journalists recently: "If the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element."

"In effect, Dagan said, Ahmadinijad was Israel's choice because it would have been a lot easier to send a wave or two of F-15s to bomb Iran if the world knew that Iranians had, indeed, overwhelmingly reelected such a cretin.

"Now, images of street protests vastly complicate that calculus. Imagine the revulsion if such air strikes, as they regularly do in Afghanistan, led to the unintended deaths of dozens or more of the very Iranians who are being cheered in the streets today?"</blockquote>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/iran-now-harder-to-bomb-c_n_225112.html

"Iran now harder to Bomb"