The New York Times International Weekly – The escalating rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia has alarmed foreign policy experts who believe that it could further destabilize the region. But feminists have reason to rejoice. In the competition between the two regimes to earn the mantle of the more moderate Islamic alternative, women have been the beneficiaries.
When Saudi women earned the right to vote, or drive, or run for office, Iranian women did not pay much attention. Women in Iran had always enjoyed those rights, and their Saudi counterparts were simply catching up. But when Saudi Arabia lifted the ban on women going to sports stadiums, Iranian women got angry at their own government. The timing of the Saudi announcement in late September was perfect — if inflaming Iran’s civil society was the goal. Only a few weeks earlier, Iranian women were banned from attending the qualifying World Cup match in Tehran between Iran and Syria, while Syrian women were permitted to enter the stadium.
“When I see reforms in Saudi Arabia, I am doubly elated: happy for Saudi society and women especially,” said Mariam Memarsadeghi, co-founder of Tavaana, a website dedicated to civic education in Iran, “but also thrilled that the Iranian regime’s false moral superiority is punctured, that the Iranian regime’s laws and actions against women’s rights are made to look backward even by a country long seen as the region’s most backward.”
Iranian activists have always looked to the West to pressure Tehran to respect human rights. But the appearance of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on the scene could shift the attention to Saudi Arabia. Whatever his long-term intentions, he is robbing Tehran of narratives it has long relied on. Citing the Saudis’ poor record in engaging and educating women, Iran has easily deflected Western criticism of its own practices.
Which nation had the most oil, the richer elite, the greater influence or the mightier military may have occupied the headlines, but not the minds of ordinary citizens. The routines that make everyday life easier — driving, working, traveling — were what concerned people. No amount of oil reserves can make up for the limitations on women’s movement and activities.
Adjusting to this reality has been more difficult for Iranian women, who had experienced a feminist renaissance under the Pahlavi dynasty.
In 1936, Reza Shah, an autocrat whose vision for Iran bore some resemblance to Prince Mohammed’s Vision 2030 for Saudi Arabia, banned the hijab. Watching the women in his family go out without their heads covered, his relatives recounted in memoirs, had been painful for the shah, but he believed it an essential step toward modernity.
By the time the Islamic revolution of 1979 swept through Iran, women had the experience of four decades of relative freedom. After the revolution, returning to a life without the right to divorce, to have custody of their children, or legal protection to equal inheritance was hard on Iranian women. (Saudi women never had those rights.)
One way to view the Middle East quagmire is that it is less a byproduct of mismanaged economies or radical religious views than a problem engendered by entrenched misogyny. The differences that distinguish Iran from Saudi Arabia, including the Shiite-Sunni divide, vanish in light of what they have in common: Their women live under abject conditions. When it comes to economic participation, health, political empowerment and access to education, both Iran and Saudi Arabia are among the 10 countries at the bottom of the World Economic Forum measures.
Westerners often point to Iran’s lax rules on the hijab to make the case that it is more tolerant. The truth is that after 40 years of resistance, the regime has simply got tired. And with a population that grew from 40 million to over 80 million in that time, and an overstretched military, it has also lost some measure of control.
Now, a Saudi prince is following in the footsteps of the shah. This similarity is not lost on the Iranian leadership, which argues that Prince Mohammed will be likewise doomed because of modernist ambitions that go against his people’s traditions. But Iranian feminists are seeing its rival do more for women’s advancement than all of Iran’s female-friendly laws have in the years since the 1979 revolution.
Signs of “Saudi envy” are beginning to appear. An Iranian feminist and founder of a campaign against the mandatory hijab, Masih Alinejad, distributed posts by joyous Iranian women drawing inspiration from their Saudi counterparts, illicitly slipping the scarves off their heads, walking the streets of Tehran, and recording video messages. To allay some of the anger, Tehran made this compromise recently: Female weightlifters will be allowed to compete internationally, a first for Iran.
While the Saudi-Iranian hostility causes the world to worry, women have benefited. A timeless lesson proves true once again: Though governments may be enemies, sisterhood is global.
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Reuters – In recent weeks, Iran has again been in the throes of an uprising. Signs of the regime change America had long hoped to see are on the horizon. In the unlikeliest cities — once the strongholds of the conservatives — Iranians have taken to the streets, demanding, not just reform, but a referendum.
A nationwide referendum in March 1979, in which over 90 percent of Iranians marked Islamic Republic as their choice of government, gave legitimacy to the current regime. Many Iranians now hope for a second referendum, which could give them a chance to undo the government they chose nearly 40 years ago. The restraint that the United States showed in refraining from military action against Iran was the right course when the threat of war loomed between the two nations. But while we must continue to avoid war at all costs, now that defenseless Iranians have taken to the streets, cautious silence is no longer the right approach.
A chorus of experts has been calling for the United States to do nothing. They argue that U.S. support for Iranian protests would weaken the hand of the reformists. These experts are out of step with the protesters, who have been chanting, “Reformists! Hardliners! The game’s over!” In other words, Washington still has its heart set on a possibility that Iranians have given up on.
This is not the first time Washington has been slow to grasp the reality on Iran’s streets. In December 1977, as the embers of an imminent revolution were beginning to burn, President Jimmy Carter made a toast to Iran’s monarch with these words, “Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.”
Read the rest of the article here.