TEHRAN, Iran — Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts.

No more — the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets.

"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.

Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour lamented what he called a "terrible" decision. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience," he said.

Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.

But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.


In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.

Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily.

Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.

Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month — its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values.

The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.

Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.

During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values.

Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and describing the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."

International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.

The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.

"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site.

The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States.

The probibitions mirror those imposed in neighboring Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, which imposed a strict version of Islamic law, including a ban on music and film. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.

Hard to figure out the thought process that preceeds a decision like this.
Ignorance of other cultures is NEVER a good thing.
Denying people of art is just criminal.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

it's probably cause they can't dance anyway......

it's probably cause they can't dance anyway......


i am not sure about that

The president is a queer.

The president is a queer.
uh...yeah.

I started to post that instead of what I went with.

Who cares? Country sucks anyhow. Why they hell do some people call it western? I'm pretty sure it is bigger in the gay ass south, in which I unfortunately live. I'd love for it to be banned. Good for Iran. He knocked the **** out of Hearns AND banned country music. Seriously though, I figured he was dead.

Wrong move, but he's free to govern Iran as he deems fit.

Do you blame him? Have you listened to the radio lately? ;) :D

Iran is home to one of the worlds oldest and most incredible cultues, that of the Persians. They dont need to be enriched by Britney Spears et al.

What is it with Hotel California? That song has seriously universal appeal. I personally never liked it all that much.

As for the Iran issue, hard to tell what this guy's agenda is. Probably just power-mad and wanting to show off to the world. I really don't think that morality concerns are what's driving him.

Iran/Persia has a longer history and stronger heritage than almost every other nation on the planet. They'll straigten things out eventually, as long as they don't provoke a worldwide conflict in the process.

Iran is home to one of the worlds oldest and most incredible cultues, that of the Persians. They dont need to be enriched by Britney Spears et al.

You seem to defend Iran an awful lot. Do you really think that a nation where groups of women recruits patrol the streets to make sure that other women are covered up sufficiently and not "acting out" is defensible? I'm not saying anyone should go in there with guns blazing, but there's nothing redeemable about the Islamic wing of their government.

Iran is home to one of the worlds oldest and most incredible cultues, that of the Persians. They dont need to be enriched by Britney Spears et al.
Yeah! Britney Spears, Beethoven??
Who needs 'em??
:rolleyes:

What is it with Hotel California? That song has

Iran/Persia has a longer history and stronger heritage than almost every other nation on the planet. They'll straigten things out eventually, as long as they don't provoke a worldwide conflict in the process.


Thats essentially my view.

The current regieme has its issues, but you yourself note there incredible history and culture. I just want a level playing field, that means the US not involving itself in others business. We need somesort of return to Roosevelt's early political isolationism. Keep our noses out, build up no resentment.

Thats essentially my view.

The current regieme has its issues, but you yourself note there incredible history and culture. I just want a level playing field, that means the US not involving itself in others business. We need somesort of return to Roosevelt's early political isolationism. Keep our noses out, build up no resentment.

I hear you. The problem is that isolationism fell out of fashion in the nuclear age, when you could no longer count on big oceans to protect you from your enemies. Really, though, you could argue that Pearl Harbour and WW2 in general also played a role.

The inescapable fact is that all the problems in the Middle East these days are caused in some way by Western interference (and Russia's as well), which has been going on since the Ottoman Empire began crumbling in the 18th-19th centuries. Now, that doesn't justify what's going on right now in terms of despotic regimes and terrorism. I think the problem is that people take this argument and go on to say "America is directly responsible for 9/11", which not only is untrue, but is also insulting to a lot of people. But that doesn't change the fact that the way the West has handled things in the Middle East has been nothing short of disastorous.

Now, having said that, Iran does need to be watched because it's not entirely clear what they're up to right now. Probably they're not going to drop a nuke on Israel, but if there's a slim chance that they are going to do that, something needs to be done. I don't know what exactly, but if things have deteriorated past a certain point non-interference isn't going to save us anymore.

This new guy in charge of Iran is a psycho.

Thats my whole point!

The USA is acting like Israel's slave, for no reason! There is no need for America to concern itself with Israel. Let us be honest, Israel is aggressive and involved in much of the issues in the ME.

As for the US, no one is going to attack America in the military sense. Events like 9/11 can be avoided by a more well thoughtout foreign policy.

Its as if there arent enough domestic issues. I mean c'mon, education system is in tatters, health care apartheid exists, violent crime is huge...

Sort these out first....

Makes sense don'it?

Thats my whole point!

The USA is acting like Israel's slave, for no reason! There is no need for America to concern itself with Israel. Let us be honest, Israel is aggressive and involved in much of the issues in the ME.

As for the US, no one is going to attack America in the military sense. Events like 9/11 can be avoided by a more well thoughtout foreign policy.

Its as if there arent enough domestic issues. I mean c'mon, education system is in tatters, health care apartheid exists, violent crime is huge...

Sort these out first....

Makes sense don'it?

Israel hasn't sent any suicide bombers into any neighboring country's city streets if I recall correctly.

No, it just does fly-bys into soverign nations called Lebanon and Syria.

If it didnt butcher civilians with F-16 armaments and stuff, the retaliatory bombings would probably stop.

**** Iran........*******s. :usa: :****you:

No, it just does fly-bys into soverign nations called Lebanon and Syria.

If it didnt butcher civilians with F-16 armaments and stuff, the retaliatory bombings would probably stop.

To be fair though the modern issues with Israel were started with the 1967 war, which was entirely an aggressive act on behalf on Egypt and the Arab states.

The U.S. involvement in Israel is almost an accident, similar to Britain's increasing dominance in India in the 18th-19th centuries. However like in India it's difficult to extricate yourself once you're in there.

I think that if Israel was less aggressive then peace would come only if the rest of the Middle East was sorted out. Unfortunately it is a mishmash of artificial states that have no political or cultural cohesion. Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, have no business being real countries.

Obsurd statement!

Much of the worlds history and ancient civilizations were formed there. They operate well enough as states if left to there own devices.

Unless you mean there should be one state encorporating Eyypt, Syria ect.

Obsurd statement!

Much of the worlds history and ancient civilizations were formed there. They operate well enough as states if left to there own devices.

Unless you mean there should be one state encorporating Eyypt, Syria ect.

That's the problem right there. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan (and indirectly Israel) were all created by England and France. Are you aware of the Sykes-Picot agreement?

Artifical borders were drawn up in the interests of the European nations that dominated there, with no regard for the actual people that were affected. I'm not sure if one big state would be the answer, though. Nasser tried hard to do that and got Syria on board with his idea, but things quickly fell apart.

Maybe new nations drawn along better lines would work. I don't know, the whole idea of nation-states is pretty artifical anyway.

That's the problem right there. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan (and indirectly Israel) were all created by England and France. Are you aware of the Sykes-Picot agreement?

Artifical borders were drawn up in the interests of the European nations that dominated there, with no regard for the actual people that were affected. I'm not sure if one big state would be the answer, though. Nasser tried hard to do that and got Syria on board with his idea, but things quickly fell apart.

Maybe new nations drawn along better lines would work. I don't know, the whole idea of nation-states is pretty artifical anyway.

Whilst I agree that it would be a good place to start, it would and could not ever happen.
These countries have their own identity and mix of religions and cultures, we are also now talking about powerful nations in their own right, I mean who would offer this solution.

The middle east for obvious reasons is on a knife edge currently, I don't believe that it would take a great deal more to spark a war with other nations if not indeed a holy war.

USA may learn with Iran or even Iraq, Britain learnt the hard way with Northern Ireland that you cannot dictate in 'friendly or diplomatic manner' and that blood and tears flow regardless.

Is there a solution yes, total war or police states but firstly who wants that World??? secondly who has the resources to do that???

Whilst I agree that it would be a good place to start, it would and could not ever happen.
These countries have their own identity and mix of religions and cultures, we are also now talking about powerful nations in their own right, I mean who would offer this solution.

The middle east for obvious reasons is on a knife edge currently, I don't believe that it would take a great deal more to spark a war with other nations if not indeed a holy war.

USA may learn with Iran or even Iraq, Britain learnt the hard way with Northern Ireland that you cannot dictate in 'friendly or diplomatic manner' and that blood and tears flow regardless.

Is there a solution yes, total war or police states but firstly who wants that World??? secondly who has the resources to do that???

Good post. I agree with the statement in bold, I think at this point we are past the point of no return. I was just saying that imo there is no workable solution right now and part of the reason for that is that these are artificial nations.

The first World War (and by extension the second) was triggered by the West fighting over the spoils of the decaying Ottoman empire, so there's no reason to suppose that it won't happen again.

That's the problem right there. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan (and indirectly Israel) were all created by England and France. Are you aware of the Sykes-Picot agreement?

Artifical borders were drawn up in the interests of the European nations that dominated there, with no regard for the actual people that were affected. I'm not sure if one big state would be the answer, though. Nasser tried hard to do that and got Syria on board with his idea, but things quickly fell apart.

Maybe new nations drawn along better lines would work. I don't know, the whole idea of nation-states is pretty artifical anyway.

Very good. Many Arabs forget this fact.

Good post. I agree with the statement in bold, I think at this point we are past the point of no return. I was just saying that imo there is no workable solution right now and part of the reason for that is that these are artificial nations.

The first World War (and by extension the second) was triggered by the West fighting over the spoils of the decaying Ottoman empire, so there's no reason to suppose that it won't happen again.


Fully agree mate!