"How can one be Persian?" wondered Europeans during the period of Enlightenment.

Today this question is "How can we go to Iran?" or with more Shakespearian hues, "To go or not to go to Iran, that is the question"!

This question, of course, does not concern only Iran, but recent history is such that my country has been rejected by the international society and at the same time, has been the focus of geopolitical concerns. As for me, I left Iran during the Shah's regime and returned to work again since a few years as an agricultural expert. Through my work and contacts with various European friends (I lived in Germany for a long time), I became interested in the image of Iran in foreign countries, and like many Iranians today, I am happy as well as surprised to see tourists here.

Beyond the attraction for places of world heritage

My situation enabled me to meet a good number of people and therefore often deal with questions like whether tourists must or not visit Iran, what freedom do they enjoy here, where does my country figure in their imagination? Beyond the personal pleasure of discovering places of world heritage (Ispahan, Persepolis etc), what are the political and economic stakes involved?

Of course, responses are varied depending on who is questioned - Europeans in Europe or tourists in Iran. Those who have taken the necessary steps to reach here have already answered the question. They are rarely disappointed and return to their country with an image that is completely different from the one they had before coming here, even if they were very open minded at the outset (not giving in to the existing discourse on Iran). It is true that since a few years, the European media has a relatively more flexible position on Iran as compared to the American media. Surely the European policy - at least on the economic front - is well disposed to resuming dialogue.

In Iran itself, not everyone agrees with the policy of opening the country to tourism especially in the most conservative religious circles. Indeed, tourism is not a neutral commercial activity. Currency enters the country only if the tourist can make as much, and some mullahs - in minority - fear that tourists may deprave the society, culture and Islamic norms. Iranian Shiism - in its popular as well as learned forms - refers easily to Satan, and especially to the opposition between Man of Enlightenment and the world of Darkness. And in a cultural environment where symbolism occupies an equally important place as that of reality, dangerous amalgams are unfortunate.

Tourists are not a threat to our culture

Iranians are generally happy to see the return of tourists since a decade and also to see an increase in the number of tourists each year. This way they know that they are not forgotten by the rest of the world and whenever they can, they discuss with foreigners even if conversation is not always easy because of the language. They also know that tourists are not a threat to their culture. Iranian culture was in danger during the Shah's time when one had to plunge into our anti-islamic Persian roots (epoch of the great emperors and the Shah dreamt of being its worthy successor) and at the same time push ourselves towards western culture, or more precisely, towards cultural sub-products handed to us. Access to true western culture was reserved for a small intellectual elite. Iranian culture was in danger at the beginning of the Revolution, when we had to plunge ourselves in the history of muslim Iran and its Shiite peculiarity. Today Iran and especially its people claim this triple heritage and the development of tourism can contribute to revive it, in its totality.

Of course, there is the question of respect for human rights. But in what way is this question more pertinent to Iran than other countries that are more famous as tourist destinations?

Of course, there is the question of democracy. And Iran has shown to the world that people could vote and that combined votes of the youth and women could make the opposition win.

Of course there is the question to know who benefits the most from tourism in Iran. The people, the State or a political and economic oligarchy? Today, in Iran, there are travel agencies owned by the state or closely linked to the state through foundations as well as privately owned ones. Similarly, there are private and state-owned (or closely linked to the state) hotels and transport companies. There is choice. Tourism certainly does not, as yet, benefit the poorest and it is too marginal to affect national economy. But it does not contribute to the defence budget, the junta or one ethnic group against the other.

* Agricultural expert, pseudonym

Return to Top