Iran and Libya in the movies Argo and The Dictator - Research Paper Example

I. Introduction This paper tackles the case of Iran and Libya through the movies Argo and The Dictator. These two countries are poor whose former leaders died clinging to tehir post albeit in Ghaddafi’s case, he died in the hands rebels while Khomeini died peacefully in his death bed. After close examination of these two countries, it was found that dictatorial government and state sponsored religion of Islam causes poverty, a characteristic shared by both countries. During the course of this paper, it was concluded that being a dictator does not automatically makes a leader hated by its people because Khomeini’s was also a dictator but was loved by his people. What makes a dictator hated by the people was the overt brutality and mercurial tendency of a leader which is the trait of Ghaddafi’s leadership. II. Summary of the films The films that will be subjected for analysis will be Argo and The Dictator. Argo is situated in Iran during the height of Ayatollah’s regime. The story begun when militants stormed the US embassy in Tehran where embassy employees were taken as hostages. Six employees were able to escape and was able to hide in the house of Canadian Ambassador. The US government in an effort to get them out of Iran consulted a CIA specialist Tony Mendez who proposed a cover of making a sci-fi movie entitled Argo. The proposal was hesitantly approved and all necessities to make the shoot look authentic were set-up. Until finally CIA specialist Tony Mendez arrived in Tehran to exfiltrate the six embassy employees using Canadian passports and fake identities under the cover of a moview shooting. Though they had difficulty with the guards at the airport, the six employees including Mendez was able to escape Tehran. The second movie is a comedy flick entitled The Dictator. Although the film was largely full of mirth, it encapsulated the the general idea of how dictators rule in the Middle East. The dictator was played by the eccentric Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen whose circumstances has a strong resemblance with the killed/murdered dictator Muammar Ghaddafi who ruled Wadiya that has a strong semblance to Libya. He travelled to UN Headquarters in New York to address the issue lodged against him about his nuclear build up where his demeanor as a dictator became a recipe for comedy. III. Review of academic articles The article "All The Ayatollah's Men" discussed how Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Republic differed from other revolutionary government or other absolute government in the Middle East as Iran during his rule adopted the ideology of religion where Islam is the official dogma of the state (Takeyh 51). It tackled Iran’s repulsion towards the US government with its perceived imperialism and “unpure” ways (being an imperialistic non-Muslim) and more particularly when US sheltered the exiled Shah of Iran. This is the backdrop of the film Argo where US embassy employees were abducted by the storming militants who were protesting US perceived intervention for the former Shah. The article also gave an idea of the extreme religiosity of the state and Khomeini’s deep influence among its people. Emery on the other hand discussed the consequences of Iran’s abduction of its US Embassy employees that lasted for over a year whereby an economic sanction was pressed against Iran. This was systematically imposed by President Carter through a series of establishing financial disincentive and economic sanction in Iran with the hope that this will induce a crisis that will lead to fall of Khomeini. Among other measures applied were the US embargo of Iranian oil and an unprecedented financial block on Iran’s dollar assets (372). Despite of these pressures, Khomeini’s administration survived where he remain to his post as its leader until his death in 1989. Ghaddafi on the other hand ruled through Libya by using his Third Theory as contained in his Green Book. Beckwith expounded on this albeit he wrote of Ghaddafi on less amiable terms with him describing the former strongman of Libya as the “lunatic of Libya”, a description which was originally coined by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. This Universal Third Theory rejected both the western capitalism and atheistic communism dismissing both as imperialists. Instead, he advocated for an Arab state against imperialism and called for Islamic revival akin to Khomeini’s imposition of Sharia Law as a state policy. His Third Theory called on the direct participation of people in government through councils as better alternative compared to representative democracy of the western model albeit he was unclear on this could be done. Major decisions still lies on his military junta and the direction of his Third Theory remained unclear. In the end, Ghaddafi’s rule was not seen to bring better outcome for Libya despite the former dictator’s effort to restructure Libya as the country remained organized along the lines of tribes and clans. The result of Ghaddafi’s inefficacy, eccentricity and brutality as a leader was obvious with the recent uprising that led to the dismantling of his government and his death in the hands of the rebels. Hauslohner tackled the fall of Libya which used to unthinkable during Ghaddafi’s height in power. There, it was implied how the Arab Spring emboldened and contributed to the population’s uprising against Ghaddafi which succeeded with the help of international community. It was emphasized in the article the task that remains ahead of Libya after dismantling the government of Ghaddafi which was perceived to be repressive and building a new one that will not slide back to its former dictatorial nature. IV. Comparative analysis To make the comparative analysis more effective, it has to be established first that the film The Dictator was a parody of the former dictator Muammar Ghaddafi whose country he ruled in the movie Wadiya was very much characteristic of Libya. In fact, the circumstances of Admiral General Haffaz Aladeen, Wadiya’s dictator was indirectly referenced to the former Libyan dictator Muammar Ghaddafi with his penchant for female bodyguards, early ascension to power, absolute hold of Libya and his unusual taste for eccentric grandiosity that was so inappropriate because many of his people is wallowing in poverty. In the movie Argo, the country (Iran) was implied to be ruled by Ayatollah Kohmenni with his pictures everywhere and the story was narrated against the backdrop of the militants protest against the US sheltering of Iran’s former Shah. Both countries shared several characteristics and also differed in many aspects. The most obvious semblance between these two countries are the nature of its government where it is ruled by one man. In Iran, leadership and its policies are derived from Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic Republic (Takeyh 51) that is characteristic of theocracy where religion or Sharia Law becomes a state policy. In Libya, Muammar Ghaddafi ruled as a dictator and outlined his policy in the Third Theory as a better alternative to western type democracy. Both of them has a tendency towards excess with Ghaddafi ordered the shooting of his protesters that snowballed into a rebellion and eventually led to his demise. Khomeini had also issued an order of killing of his political opposition in 1988 only that it was carried out discreetly and under the justification of religion. Ghaddafi, like Khomeini, albeit to a lesser degree (he is not an imam or a cleric) was also a fervent follower of Islam and endrosed Mohammedanism as state religion. As most countries in the Middle East and Africa, both Khomeini denounced foreign influences and abhor US imperialism. This disgust towards United States even led the students in Iran to storm the US embassy in 1979 where US embassy employees were held hostage for years. Although these two countries shared a lot of similarities in the way that they are governed, both countries has also a lot of differences. The most obvious difference is the recent killing/murder (still controversial) of Muammar Ghaddafi in the hands of the rebels. His regime was toppled by an armed uprising which is backed by the international community. Khomeini on the other hand held his post until the time of his death and remained as the beloved leader of Iran. During his death and funeral, there were approximately 3.5 million Iranian who joined the procession of his funeral despite the intense Middle Eastern heat. Ghaddafi’s death on the other hand was celebrated that it was even rumored that he was murdered when he was captured by the rebel out of sheer hatred for him. They also differed in reputation. Ghaddafi’s death in the hands of the rebels was not a surprise given how much people hated him that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat even called him “the lunatic of Libya that the CIA even have to commission a secret psychological profile if he is mentally stable (Beckwith). Khomeini on the other hand wore the mystique of a cleric and command unquestionable following from his people and he ascended to power via a landslide unlike Ghaddafi who grabbed power with coup d’etat. Both countries now remain destitute with Iran faring better with Libya as it was not ravaged by a civil war albeit still suffered from years of economic sanction and blockade by the US. Libya fared worst as it is still in ruin and is still yet to be seen to have a functional democracy after the toppling Ghaddafi’s regime. These two countries shared a common trait which contributed to its destituted state which is the dictatorial nature of its leadership and political system. No real progress was seen because anything that opposes to the status quo are brutally repressed. Religion was also heavily emphasized in both countries particularly in Iran where the state adopted Mohammedanism as its state ideology. Both economies are dependent on oil which explains why it managed to survive the various political and economic turmoil it experienced. Having stated these facts, it would be safe to conclude that the combination of dictatorship, endorsement of one religion and dependence on one source of income of the economy makes a good recipe for poverty and backwardness. But for a leader to survive and still loved despite of all the hardship it imposed on its people, one must take the caveat of Muammar Ghaddafi. Ghaddafi died in the hands of its enemy celebrating his death while Khomeini died in his deathbed mourned by his countrymen whose funeral was attended by millions in procession. The difference was that Ghaddafi was overtly brutal particularly when he ordered the shooting of the protesters. Khomeini also ordered the killing of thousands more political opposition but he had the grace to conceal it so as not to create resentment among the population. Also, Ghaddafi was capricious as a leader while Khomeini was known to be ascetic and had the mystique of a cleric that that added to his positive image as a leader. Finally, the manner they took or assumed power reflected on how their respective powers ended. Khomeini may have spent 15 years in exile but he took the power from last Shah through a legitimate election which he won by a landslide. Ghaddafi on the other hand took it by force, by a coup d’etat without the consent of the people. When their respective powers were taken from them, it reflected on how they took it. Khomeini relinquished power when he died peacefully while Ghaddafi’s power was forcibly taken away from him, in the same manner he took it that it cost him his life. Works Cited Affleck, Ben. “Argo”. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2012 Beckwith, David. Living the 'Third Theory'.  Time, 0040781X, Vol. 108, Issue 23, 12/6/1976, Charles, Larry. “The Dictator”. Paramount Pictures, 2012 Emery, Christian. "The Transatlantic And Cold War Dynamics Of Iran Sanctions, 1979-80." Cold War History 10.3 (2010): 371-396. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. Hauslohner, Abigail. Hope Among The Ruins. , Time International (South Pacific Edition), 08180628, Vol. 179, Issue 22. 6/4/2012, Takeyh, Ray. "All The Ayatollah's Men." National Interest 121 (2012): 51. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. Read More