How mistranslations of Iranian political rhetoric into English have increased the likelihood of war
/By Research Associate Zahra Ladha
Following the 1979 revolution and Iran’s appearance on the world stage as a regional power, the political class in Iran quickly achieved notoriety for what has been deemed to be their incendiary rhetoric and aggressive stance against the West. As a result, over the years, many an op-ed and think piece dissecting speeches and comments made by the Iranian government have been written. However, time and time again in the analysis of Iranian political discourse, a lack of understanding of Persian culture alongside outright mistranslations of these speeches have been exploited to exacerbate existing political tensions between Washington and Tehran. Over the past year, much has been made of the physical engagement between Iran and the US which many claim has brought the two countries to the brink of war. In comparison, there has been little focus on the effect of the war waged against Iran in the US media. This phenomenon which has historically relied on deliberate mistranslations of the words of Iranian leaders, has a seen a significant re-emergence under the Trump Administration. The most notable of these instances is, of course, the infamously mistranslated ‘wipe Israel off the face of the earth’ quote attributed to then president Ahmadinejad which, as well as exponentially increasing regional tensions, has been repeatedly used to justify the nuclear sanctions against Iran. However, US President Donald Trump’s three years in office has seen the continued use several older mistranslations such as the ‘Death to America’ chant, with several new additions such as the recent mistranslated ‘the White House is mentally retarded’ comment ascribed to President Rouhani, in order to strengthen the pro-war faction on Capitol Hill.
“Death to America"
The most contentious slogan that exists on the Iranian political scene today is one that achieved notoriety several years ago. ‘Marg bar Amrika’, widely translated as ‘Death to America’ gained traction on the Iranian street prior to the onset of the 1979 revolution and quickly became a mainstay of the regime’s political lexicon. Hearing the call ‘Death to America’ and the less prevalent ‘death to England’ among the Iranian political class naturally inspires fear and anger in equal measure, and allows Iranian foreign policy to be framed as threatening not just to western values, but western existence as a whole. As such, the use of this phrase by Iranians has often been used by US politicians to bolster claims of Iran’s ‘global terrorist campaign’.
Linguistically, it cannot be said that the mainstream translation of ‘Death to America’ is inaccurate, in fact, it correlates directly with the Persian phrase ‘Marg bar Amrika’. The root of this mistranslation is not one based in language, but rather in sentiment. In the English speaking world, idioms and phrases relating to death are rarely employed in daily conversation, let alone in political rhetoric. English speakers prefer to use phrases like ‘to hell with’ or ‘damn’ to express frustration. By contrast, in Iran, the most effective way to denote frustration are phrases relating to death. Just a few months ago, San Francisco based Iranian blogger Sadaf Beauty used the phrase ‘marg bar jet lag’ (death to jet lag) on her Instagram story, having endured a particularly tedious flight. The colloquial phrase ‘boro bemir!’ literally means ‘go die’, but its sentiment would be more akin to ‘shut up!’.’Ghorbunet beram’, perhaps the most frequently used phrase in Iran is often used synonymously with the word ‘thank you’ but literally means ‘may I be sacrificed for you’. This phenomenon is a mainstay of the Persian language, but when translated directly into languages like English which do not use phrases related to death and sacrifice in the same way, understandably evokes a sense of fear. Therefore, a more accurate translation of a slogan like this, taking into accounting for its sentiment in Persian and how it is perceive in English would be ‘Down with America’.
It can be argued that ‘Down with America’ carries the same sentiment as the original ‘Death to America’ translation, rendering any linguistic distinction in this debate useless. However, in a speech celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei further clarified the use of this phrase, saying "we don’t have a problem with the American people”. He then stated that this slogan was aimed at “those who were running the country”, such as “Trump and John Bolton and Pompeo", and that the slogan is not intended to attack them as individuals, rather that it is about whoever is “leading America” while it “continues its evil and intervention in Iran and the Middle East”. From the perspective of the Iranian government, ’Down with America’ means down with American intervention in the Middle East and down with American hegemony. Therefore the most comprehensive translation of ‘Marg bar Amrika’ would be ‘Down with the American government’ and calling for ‘regime change’ in Washington is not a far cry from statements made by members of the Trump Administration on the ‘regime in Tehran’. John Bolton, an avid proponent of war with the Islamic Republic even went as far as to say ‘by the end of the year, we will be celebrating with MEK (an exiled Iranian opposition group responsible for killing the prime minister of Iran in 1981) in Tehran’. This is not to say that there are not elements of Iranian society that champion violent conflict with the US, nor that flag burning and anti-western sentiment have not played a significant role in Iranian politics. However, the purpose of ensuring that this phrase is translated accurately is to highlight that headlines such as ‘Iran chants ‘Death to America’ at Parliament session’ are based in inciting fear to further sensationalise the conversation surrounding US-Iran bilateral relations.
“Wipe Israel off the Map”
Whilst it could be argued that the mistranslation of ‘death to America’ is unintentional, there are several examples of Iranian leaders being deliberately misquoted in order to exacerbate tensions in an already precarious political climate. The most notable of said mistranslations date back to 2005 when then president Ahmadinejad was quoted first in The New York Times, and subsequently in almost every major publication as having called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map”. This was politically charged mistranslation in which every word deviates from the original Persian. An accurate translation of the statement“een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved” would have been “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time”. The use of the word ‘regime’ instead of ‘state’ highlights that Iran is a proponent of regime change in Tel Aviv, as opposed to threatening to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. Furthermore, promoting regime change instead of military force as a solution to the Palestinian question is consistent with 40 years of Iranian foreign policy. Whilst Iran has consistently opposed the state of Israel, Iranian policy makers have been insistent on the fact that the use of military force is not a step that they would be willing to take. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further clarified the Iranian position, stating: “We do not suggest launching a classic war by the armies of Muslim countries, or throwing immigrant Jews into the sea, or mediation by the UN and other international organisations. We propose holding a referendum with [the participation of] the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian nation, like any other nation, has the right to determine their own destiny and elect the governing system of the country.” The Islamic Republic has yet to promote military conflict with Tel-Aviv, and has consistently highlighted that the answer to the Palestinian question is allowing Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination.
Nonetheless, the phrase ‘wiped off the map’ immediately became a buzzword which found its way into every major discussion on US Iran policy. As if the original mistranslation was not enough to fuel a hardline anti-Iran agenda in Washington, politicians continued to embellish the statement to the extent that by 2011, whilst nuclear negotiations with Tehran were underway, politicians such as then US presidential candidate such as Michele Bachmann made a speech in which she claimed ‘it was in 2005 that he [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] said that he would use a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, he is a genocidal madman…” The addition of the word nuclear was not incidental, but rather was a carefully chosen in order to further stoke fears surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme. Furthermore, when President Obama addressed the U.N General Assembly six years after the original statement was made, saying Israel is surrounded by much larger countries that threaten to wipe it off the map’, this ‘threat’ was ascribed to other countries in the Middle East who had nothing to do with the original statement. Thus, instead of dialling back on the usage of a translation already lacking credibility, the statement was extended to include any number of states located within the Middle East.
One may argue that calling for a referendum to dissolve the "Zionist regime" in Israel in and of itself threatens the ideology on which Israel was founded. That notwithstanding, calling for regime change and for political participation of Palestinians is a far cry from ‘wiping Israel off the map with a nuclear weapon.’ With this being said, it is necessary to mention that the purpose of analysing the aforementioned mistranslation is not to suggest that Tehran, and in particular, the Ahmadinejad administration have not previously made statements that veer from criticism of Israeli politics to unbridled anti-semitism. One of the most infamous examples of this is the two day conference held in 2006 by Ahmadinejad, where he spoke at length on the holocaust, describing it as a ‘myth’. However, it is necessary to acknowledge that the deliberate mistranslation of Ahmadinejad’s comment in order to conflate the Iranian governments call for ‘regime change’ in Tel Aviv with threatening to wipe Israel off the map is a dangerous one. Framing Ahmadinejad’s words as a military threat has legitimised an exceptionally hardline position against Iran - a hardline position that has not been adopted by Washington on other states such as Lebanon and Pakistan, whose governments have a similar stance on Israel.
The Trump Era
Just a few months ago, major news outlets reporting on a speech made by President Rouhani in response to the Supreme Leader of Iran being placed under sanctions, claimed that ‘Iran’s President Rouhani mocks President Trump, says the White House is “afflicted by mental retardation”’. This was a significant mistranslation of the original Persian used in President Rouhani’s speech, where he said “dochare natavanaye zehni shodeand eynha. Khake sefid dochare maluliyat zehni shode”, of which an accurate translation would be ‘they are suffering from mental incapacity, the White House is suffering from mental disability’. The only word in the Persian language that could be reasonably translated as ‘retarded’ in Persian would be ‘aqab mande’ which connotes a sense of being slow, or left behind. ‘Natavaneye zehni’ and ‘maluliyat zehni’, by contrast, are words that are used in Persian to express an a sense of illogicality. Incidentally, every major news outlet that used this embellished translation failed to analyse the remainder of the speech in which the Iranian President questioned how the US can claim to want to negotiate with Iran whilst simultaneously placing the leader of the country as well as the Iranian Foreign Minister under sanctions. In this way, logical, legitimate concerns regarding the implementation of US foreign policy were overshadowed by an ‘ignorant’ and ‘insulting’ comment that in actuality was never made.
Despite Persian speakers immediately highlighting that this translation was incorrect, the response from the US President was quick, and threatening. Just six hours after the publication of this article, Donald Trump fired back with a twitter thread, claiming that “Iran leadership doesn’t understand the words “nice” or “compassion”… the thing they do understand is Strength and Power and the USA is by far the most powerful Military Force in the world." As if the implied threat did not suffice, this statement was followed by another tweet, in which President Trump announced that ‘Iran’s very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration.” This interaction serves to highlight a principal point in the conversation surrounding mistranslations of Persian speeches into English. The fact that a perceived slight against the President of the United States can evoke threats of a military response that would ‘obliterate’ parts of Iran is indicative of the fact that prior intentional mistranslations have had their desired effect. Where, in US bilateral relations with other countries, an ambassador might be called to Washington for questioning about the alleged comments, the US response to President Rouhani was the threat of ‘overwhelming force’. The diplomatic stage of the issue was bypassed entirely, taking both parties in question even closer to the brink of war and this was in part made possible by the longstanding image of Iran in the US media as a ‘rogue’, ‘terrorist state’.
Mistranslations from English into Persian
Where mistranslations have historically largely been a one sided affair in US-Iran relations, there have been reported instances of Donald Trump’s speeches being mistranslated into Persian. In 2017 IRIB translator Nima Chitsaz inaccurately translated large segments of Donald Trump's 2017 address to the U.N General Assembly, in which the US President repeatedly criticised Iran. Statements such as ‘[Iran] has turned a wealthy country, with a rich history and culture, into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed and chaos’ were translated as, ‘In our opinion, the life of Iranians could be better’. Trump’s “Other than the vast military power of the United States… Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most’ statement, was reduced to ‘The US Army is a very strong army and the Iranian nation is also very strong.” Chitsaz vehemently defended his translations, claiming that‘“First, these remarks were untrue. Second, they were against my country and they were against Iran’ and that Trump’s original speech could be heard in the background, therefore it cannot be said that he was censoring the speech. Nonetheless, he was criticised by the Iranian public as well as reformist politicians such as Mahmoud Sadeghi, who accused Chitsaz of ‘censoring’ and ‘distorting’ the speech.
Conclusion
Nima Chitsaz notwithstanding, the game of mistranslation has been played - and won - almost entirely in Washington. Portraying Iranian rhetoric as more adversarial and threatening than it is in reality allows policy makers in Washington who advocate war with the Islamic Republic to increase their anti-Iran rhetoric without encountering resistance. For example, persuading the masses that the Iranian people call for the annihilation of America at every Friday prayer has gone a long way in allying legitimate concerns regarding US sanctions that have doubled the cost of basic food items in Iran and by some reports, restricted access to life saving medicines. Exaggerating the militancy of political rhetoric in Tehran has also allowed the Trump Administration to employ language that strengthens the basis for war. After all, it is much more reasonable for the US government to threaten Iran with ‘obliteration’ if they maintain the image of a rogue Islamic Republic that wants to ‘wipe Israel off the map with a nuclear weapon’ as opposed to a government that has called for a referendum with Palestinian participation in Jerusalem. Furthermore, if history is any indication, in the wake of the rise in political tensions following the extra judicial assassination of Qasim Soleimani, mistranslations and sensationalist headlines to promote war with the Islamic Republic are once again set to dominate the US media.
