Arjan Ring of Power

A mysterious Ancient Artifact dating back to around the second millennium BCE and the Middle Elamite period. It was discovered at the historical site of Arjan (Argan) in Behbahan County, Khuzestan Province, Iran, and is currently preserved in the National Museum of Iran.

Arjan (Argan) was the name of an ancient city and province belonging to the Middle Elamite period, located on the border between Khuzestan and Fars. The remains of the city lie about 12 kilometers northeast of Behbahan, on both sides of the Marun River. In 1982 CE (1361 in the Iranian calendar), the remains of a tomb dating back to approximately the second millennium BCE and the Elamite period were discovered near this site.

The tomb contained a large bronze coffin, along with a gold ring, 98 golden buttons, a dagger, a silver rod, a jug and a goblet, as well as a tray and ten cylindrical bronze vessels dating to around the 8th century BCE. One of the notable features of the tomb was the use of bitumen mortar and a plaster coating to prevent moisture penetration due to its proximity to the Marun River.

One of the most significant discoveries from this archaeological site was the mysterious golden ring found on the deceased person’s left hand, which became known as the Arjan Ring of Power. The ring has a hollow, crescent-shaped cylindrical handle, with both ends terminating in two oval-shaped plates. The inner surfaces of these plates are symmetrically decorated with images of two winged lions standing on either side of a sacred tree. A braided-hair pattern surrounds the motifs. Beneath the lions’ feet are three rows of engraved designs in the shape of semicircular arches, while grooves carved along the handle extend outward and end in a twelve-petaled flower motif on the exterior sides of the two plates.

The ring bears an inscription in the Elamite cuneiform script on its handle, which translates as:

“Kidin-Hutran, son of Kurlush.”

The policies of the United States and Israel and the humanitarian consequences of external pressure

Serious concerns also exist regarding the policies of the political systems of the United States of America and Israel towards Iran, particularly regarding increased political, economic, and military pressure and the continued presence of threats of war.

According to critics of these policies, such actions, alongside statements regarding negotiation and diplomacy, have contributed to strengthening extremist and war-oriented political forces in the region while negatively affecting the daily lives of ordinary Iranian citizens.

Economic sanctions, external pressure, and military threats may contribute to:

• weakening the national economy;

• reducing public welfare;

• damaging national resources and assets;

• increasing pressure on ordinary citizens;

• and restricting opportunities for peaceful civic and social participation.

On this basis, it is requested that the humanitarian consequences of such policies, like any other actions affecting civilian populations, be examined under international human rights standards.

A political paradox or double standard: a situation where British institutions or media may criticize the Islamic Republic of Iran in one context, while in another context they may report, engage with, or even indirectly align with positions held by Iranian officials when those positions happen to overlap with UK or Western interests against the United States.

Ethical Statement on Political Contradictions and Double Standards in International Media Coverage

A significant ethical challenge in international politics and media is the existence of selective standards when evaluating governments and political actors. The relationship between Western governments, international media organizations, and foreign states can sometimes produce apparent contradictions, particularly when strategic interests influence political narratives.

In the case of Iran, criticism of the Islamic Republic, its officials, and institutions may coexist with situations in which Western governments or media organizations highlight, amplify, or engage with statements from Iranian authorities when their positions temporarily align with Western interests. This creates a perception of inconsistency: opposing a government on certain issues while giving legitimacy or visibility to the same government on other issues.

Such contradictions raise important ethical questions about whether political principles are applied universally or adjusted according to geopolitical interests. A consistent ethical framework should evaluate all governments and political actors according to the same standards, regardless of whether their positions align with or oppose the interests of the United Kingdom, the United States, or any other power.

The ethical concern is not that governments or media organizations should never engage with actors they criticize. International relations often require communication, negotiation, and recognition of political realities. However, transparency is essential. Audiences should be able to distinguish between reporting a political actor’s views, cooperating with a government on specific matters, and endorsing that government’s legitimacy or policies.

When media coverage presents criticism of Iranian authorities while simultaneously highlighting their views when convenient, it risks creating confusion about editorial principles and political motivations. Likewise, when opposition to US policy becomes a shared position between Western actors and Iranian officials, the alignment of interests should not automatically be interpreted as a shared ideology or moral agreement.

The ethical responsibility of media and governments is therefore to maintain consistency, disclose motivations, and avoid selective application of principles. Political disagreements should be judged by established standards rather than by temporary alliances.

“From the perspective of national significance, the Shahnameh, by promoting the idea of a ‘worldly homeland’ (mihan-e jahani), was able to become a counterweight to the promotion of the idea of ‘homelandlessness of the world’ (jahan-mihani) in mysticism. It has played, and continues to play, an important role in the historical, cultural, and national self-awareness of Persians.”

At first glance, this statement may appear contradictory, because the words “world” and “homeland” seem to stand beside each other in opposition. However, Khaleghi-Motlagh deliberately uses this conceptual contrast to explain one of the most significant intellectual tensions in Iranian history.

Mysticism, particularly from the sixth century AH onward, tended to emphasise humanity’s membership in a universal spiritual community rather than attachment to national, linguistic, and territorial identities. In this worldview:

• The true homeland is the realm of meaning and spirituality.
• Geographical borders have secondary importance.
• Before being Iranian, Roman, or Arab, a person is a seeker on the path of truth.
• All human beings are members of one universal family.

This is what Khaleghi-Motlagh refers to as “world-homelandism” (jahan-mihani), a perspective that today could be understood as a form of cosmopolitanism. Persian mystical literature contains numerous examples of this universalist outlook.

According to the Shahnameh Research Society, however, Ferdowsi chose a different path. He too speaks of justice, wisdom, morality, and humanity, but he presents these values within a historical and national framework. In the Shahnameh, humanity does not exist without a past. A society does not exist without memory, and a nation cannot endure without a historical narrative.

For this reason, the Shahnameh constantly speaks of Iran — not merely as a political territory, but as a cultural world. In this sense, a “worldly homeland” means that Iran is a world in which human values acquire meaning.

In other words, the Shahnameh does not say:

“Forget your homeland in order to become universal.”

Rather, it says:

“Through understanding one’s homeland, one can reach universal values.”

Why “Worldly Homeland”?

Khaleghi-Motlagh deliberately avoids using the term “nationalism.” Instead, he chooses a more subtle expression because the Shahnameh never promotes hatred towards other nations.

Within the Shahnameh:

• The enemy is not simply someone who is non-Iranian.
• There are virtuous Turanians.
• There are also immoral Iranians.
• The true criteria are justice, wisdom, and righteousness.

Piran Visah, one of the most noble figures in the Shahnameh, is a Turanian. In contrast, Garsivaz is also Turanian but portrayed as corrupt and destructive. Similarly, Shaghad is Iranian, yet he is remembered as a traitor.

Therefore, the Shahnameh does not advocate racial superiority. Instead, it presents Iran as the bearer of a cultural and ethical tradition. Thus, “worldly homeland” means:

A homeland whose values possess the potential to become universal.

One of the most important aspects of Khaleghi-Motlagh’s argument is his emphasis on the Shahnameh’s role in preserving Iran’s historical memory. Following the Arab conquest of Iran, many elements of Iran’s previous identity were at risk of being forgotten.

The Shahnameh reconstructed and preserved this memory.

It preserved names.
It preserved myths.
It preserved narratives.
It preserved the stories of kings and heroes.

Most importantly, it transformed the Persian language into the medium through which this collective memory survived.

From this perspective, the Shahnameh is not merely a book of stories; it is a form of “collective memory.” If a nation is understood as a community that remembers a shared past, then the Shahnameh has been one of the most important instruments for preserving that past.

The importance of Khaleghi-Motlagh’s statement lies in the way he places the Shahnameh in relation to mysticism — but not as a rejection of mysticism. Rather, he argues that throughout Iranian history, if only the voice of mysticism had remained, an important part of Iran’s historical and national memory might have weakened.

The Shahnameh created a balance.

Mysticism calls humanity towards the spiritual world.
The Shahnameh calls humanity towards its historical and social responsibilities towards Iran.

These two perspectives are not necessarily enemies, but they fulfil different cultural functions.

Perhaps the most significant part of Khaleghi-Motlagh’s statement is his final observation:

“The Shahnameh has played an important role in the historical, cultural, and national self-awareness of Iranians.”

Historical self-awareness means that a nation understands:

• Where it came from.
• What experiences shaped it.
• Which values formed its identity.
• What responsibilities it carries towards the future.

The Shahnameh has performed precisely this role. For generations of Iranians, the past was not known only through historical texts, but through Ferdowsi’s narratives. Therefore, the Shahnameh is not merely a literary masterpiece; it is a cultural institution responsible for transmitting memory and identity.

Jalal Khaleghi-Motlagh’s statement should not be interpreted as a simple opposition between “the Shahnameh versus mysticism” or “nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.” His argument is that two major intellectual currents have existed simultaneously throughout Iranian cultural history:

One current emphasised universal humanity and liberation from boundaries of identity.

The other emphasised the preservation of language, history, memory, and homeland as the foundation for the continuity of a civilisation.

The Shahnameh represents the second current — but not through a narrow or supremacist perspective. Rather, it portrays Iran as a cultural and ethical tradition capable of carrying values with universal significance.

Therefore, “worldly homeland” in Khaleghi-Motlagh’s interpretation does not mean the rejection of the wider world. It means seeing the homeland through a universal lens: a homeland whose message, through wisdom, justice, righteousness, and culture, extends beyond geographical borders.

For this reason, more than a thousand years after its creation, the Shahnameh remains one of the central foundations of Iranian historical and cultural self-awareness.