Donald Trump Reflected in Persian Media

Donald Trump announced his official candidacy for the U.S. presidential election on June 16, 2015, but for about a year and a half, as the Republican primary competition intensified, his name has been repeated almost daily in Persian-language media. This week's program discusses the image of Donald Trump as presented by Persian-language media. In this program, Alireza Namvar Haghighi, a political analyst and history professor at the University of Toronto, and Daniel Jafari, a media activist and signatory of a letter to Donald Trump, are present, while Shahram Rafiee Zadeh, a journalist in Canada, refers to excerpts of Trump's presence in Persian media. Shahram Rafiee Zadeh, a journalist monitoring Persian media, describes the first encounters of Persian speakers with Donald Trump's name: In recent years, at least six books by Donald Trump have been translated and published in Persian. Among these books, which address non-political topics, titles include: 'Think Big,' 'Think Like a Champion,' 'You Can Be Rich,' and 'How to Win in Life.' Most of these books have been bestsellers, and some have gone to subsequent editions or been re-translated. In Iranian press, three images of Donald Trump are observed. The first image, presented by media close to conservatives, portrayed his achievement of the U.S. presidency, despite his remarks against Iran, as possibly beneficial for Iran. Some conservative media, including Hamshahri Mah, even published special issues on this topic. However, publications close to reformists or supporters of Hassan Rouhani's government repeatedly stated in their analyses and news reports that Mr. Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election would negatively affect the JCPOA and also harm the status of moderation and centrism in Iran. These analyses continue in these publications. The third perspective relates to analyses published about how Donald Trump emerged and won the U.S. presidential election. These analyses were printed in most Iranian publications, with some emphasizing the dissatisfaction of the American middle class, while others, with an anti-Western view, read this as a sign of America's decline. Mr. Haghighi, do you think the image of Donald Trump presented in Persian media over the past year and a half has been accurate, especially compared to global media? Alireza Namvar Haghighi: No one has conducted research to compare everything. I haven't either. However, the conservative current in the country, while discussing Trump's policies regarding the JCPOA and presenting it as a jab at Rouhani's government, meaning that if Trump comes to power, all your foreign policy achievements will be lost, was nonetheless very pleased. From the conservatives' perspective, Trump is seen as a golden opportunity to confront America for several reasons: First, Trump currently has a rift with the U.S. intelligence community, and this rift makes any risky action against Iran, such as war or military attack, less likely. Second, Trump's very harsh stance against Islam, which has even faced opposition from Republicans, does not have support in the Islamic world and in a way strengthens radical Islam. Overall, for the conservative current, the benefits of Trump's presence compared to a president like Obama are significant. They may criticize in their press, but in reality, they feel that Trump's coming to power has benefited their current. Daniel Jafari: I think Trump should not be viewed as an individual but rather as a phenomenon. The approach of Persian-language media to the Trump phenomenon, in my opinion, represents a larger problem, and the flaw in the perspective of these media is a sign of a larger issue. In understanding the domestic political arena of the United States or generally in understanding the domestic politics of Western countries, I do not see a significant difference, for example, between Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad with Persian-speaking intellectuals, even those abroad. I recall an example. If I remember correctly, during Obama's election campaign, Ahmadinejad was asked whether he would be able to reach the presidency of the United States. He clearly stated in front of the camera and reporters that no, he is Black and 'they' will not allow it. Now who 'they' are remains to be seen, but it shows how immature or immature the Persian-speaking community's view is. In this regard, they have not reached the stage of understanding and see the whole system as a shapeless entity that is not separate and has no internal differences and internal competitions. They cannot show distinctions and cannot say that there is a difference between this group and that group. Just as Ahmadinejad was easily astonished by Obama's victory, the majority of Persian speakers were too. While if Persian media had a more comprehensive view of the domestic politics of the United States, this issue would not have been so unpredictable. It was not as surprising as Persian media said. Alireza Namvar Haghighi: There is no doubt that there is no comprehensive knowledge about U.S. domestic politics in Iran, neither in the press nor among politicians. Just like the incomplete views that part of the Iranian opposition has about Iran and convey it to Americans, like that letter they wrote to Trump. This view does not understand Iran's issues, does not know Iran's position, and does not understand the public opinion of the Iranian people. This view is similar to the Iranian conservatives' view of America. They are completely alike. That is, both sides suffer from a lack of a comprehensive view and a specific research perspective and do not recognize the developments and dynamics of the system. Of course, regarding America, as Mr. Jafari mentioned, it should not be forgotten that regarding Trump, polls almost 98% failed. So it's not just that Iranians didn't know. Daniel Jafari: I would like to briefly point out that Mr. Haghighi said that this distorted image in the minds of Iranians about America is a mirror of the image that Americans have of Iran. I don't think this is very accurate. Because you see in the United States, there are various governmental and non-governmental institutions and think tanks that study, interview, and have interactions to ultimately provide a report and assessment of the conditions inside Iran to those who need to make decisions. A diluted version of those reports is also reflected in the mass media. The fact that Mr. Haghighi explained that many polling agencies were shocked and did not expect this victory for President Trump is true that they did not have a high percentage... I am not an expert in this field, but what I read: First, many criticized the method and methodology of these polls. Of course, some also said that it is not as strange as you think. Polls do not lie. We should look at it correctly. There is a famous saying that says if you torture the statistics enough, it will tell you whatever you want. A review of the reflection of Donald Trump in social networks Shahram Rafiee Zadeh: From the beginning of Mr. Trump's candidacy, Iranian users on social networks paid special attention to him, and some of his statements, especially regarding immigrants, were criticized. However, there have always been two concerned views and perhaps one positive view of his personality and statements. But besides specific discussions, two different analyses about Donald Trump have been raised in social networks: Some expressed concern that Trump's victory would bring more restrictions or broader sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The second analysis was presented by two opposing groups. That Trump is not someone who can take a step towards ensuring democracy in Iran. Some from this group said that Mr. Trump has a transactional personality, which strengthens the suspicion that he may easily get along with Russia and Iran. Daniel Jafari: Returning to what I said earlier, I must say that social networks do not create thoughts but have opened the door for all people to express their opinions. This public opinion itself is neither a bad nor a good thing. But we should not forget that opinions are usually given to news that the news agency that published it has its own ideals and thoughts. When your starting point for interpreting an event is solely limited to a political viewpoint, it is natural that opinions and comments will also revolve in that direction. For example, in the United States, if you visit right-wing media and read people's opinions on their articles, you will tend to conclude that yes, Trump is very good and very smart. And if you go to the opposite side, you will see that Mrs. Clinton is very good. This phenomenon of 'islanding' people, meaning placing anyone in a mental island along with their like-minded individuals without hearing opposing voices, is not a new phenomenon. However, in Persian media, at least as far as I know, even in media that are free and published abroad, you cannot find even one conservative media outlet; a media outlet that you can apply conservative coordinates to. We do not have it, at least I do not know of one. If you know of one, please correct me. For this reason, if someone wants to hear the other side of the story, there is no food available for them. Alireza Namvar Haghighi: In any case, the trend towards democratic values is long-term. You see that America started this many years ago. One hundred or two hundred years ago. It has had internal and external wars to reach its current stage. In Iran, as they said, there is censorship in the public media. Social media have managed to overcome this, and the level of discussion of both supporters and opponents has increased, and in this regard, the public awareness of the people has increased, and their access to external resources has increased. Of course, this has also had a positive impact on state media. Overall, what he initially stated that Americans understand better, no, it is not like that. For example, in the 92 elections, both the U.S. State Department and most research centers believed that the election was under the control of the IRGC and that it was impossible for Mr. Rouhani to be elected. But he won. They do not know Iranian society. The reason that Americans' understanding of Iran is very mistaken is that Iranians living abroad, opposition forces, those who wrote a letter to Trump, more than knowing the realities of Iran and more than knowing what their priorities for change in Iran are, are simply seeking regime change without being able to recognize Iran's national interests. All opposition forces in the Middle East made these kinds of recommendations to Americans. The result was Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Second, it is not the case that they do not have understanding in Iran. There are research departments and think tanks in Iran that have serious studies about America. Because they have access to the same resources that you have access to in America. Many of those who have graduated in America also work in these research centers. So there is this understanding in Iran too, but it is natural that you cannot compare Iran with America. Research centers in America and the number of Iranians there cannot be compared to the number of those in Iran. Daniel Jafari: Mr. Haghighi says that American research centers said it is impossible for Mr. Rouhani to be elected. I am very eager to know which ones said that? As far as I followed, they said there is no fundamental difference between which candidates are elected. Another subject I wanted to mention is that you must set a standard and criterion for success that you can measure. As the English proverb says, you should not change the goalpost to define it as a goal. The issue that Mr. Haghighi said, I do not think... I will return to that previous sentence: If you are dealing with one-sided news in mass media and social networks, you will get stuck in your own intellectual island. That is, you do not see the perspective of the opposite side at all. When you get caught in this separate intellectual flow, you cannot see or understand the other side's argument to later understand where its flaws are. The only way left for you is to say that the opposite side is all bad and our side is all good. For this perspective, it is enough to just look at one trend: In the United States, at least in recent decades, good data has been collected showing that immigrants, upon their initial arrival in America, undeniably lean towards the Democratic Party. They vote for Democrats, their behaviors become Democratic, and they campaign for Democrats. However, after they settle into American society, the percentage of Republicanism among them increases, and gradually they become similar to the overall society. That is, almost the same half and half. This is a good sign and shows that integration or adaptation to the host society has occurred. Something that most European countries strive for and do not achieve is successfully accomplished in America. That is, they become similar to the destination society. Regarding the Iranian community, in addition to other problems that the behavior of the Islamic Republic has created for immigration to America, there has been a slow migration process, and the group that has come is mostly young. They gradually integrate...