Amidst these convoluted relations and the atmosphere of fear that colors the narrative about the Middle East, a group of 14 average citizens took a trip to Iran in order to create real relationships.

Rae Abileah, a local groups coordinator for CODEPINK out of San Francisco, called the trip a jihad in an effort to recast the word’s use. “Jihad simply means spiritual pilgrimage,” she explained. “Words like ‘jihad’ have been misused, or used out of context, by U.S. mainstream media and the former Bush administration and Republican party to take on whole other definitions.” The intention of these citizen diplomacy missions is to recast the mainstream narrative of the Middle East, defining it in terms of peace rather than war.

The mission, sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation, consisted of Jews and Christians, university students and retirees, activists and rabbis. They explored mosques, temples, bazaars, and ancient ruins, amid a backdrop of chalky mountains and sandy cities.

But most importantly, the group members spent time talking to real citizens. Through Farsi interpreters and non-verbal communication, the delegation attempted to “find common humanity within poisoned social contexts,” said Rabbi Rosen Brant, from the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation of Evanston.

Describing life there, Abileah’s overriding notion is that Iran is a “tale of two cities:” one out in the streets, and one behind closed doors. This is particularly true for young people and women.

Upon entering Iranian airspace, women on the trip wrapped themselves in their hijabs. Because Iran is an Islamic Republic under the control of a Supreme Leader who functions both religiously and politically, women are required to wear some form of the hijab in public, but the degree to which the head is covered is left up to the individuals.

“Honestly, I didn’t feel a Western righteousness or anger around wearing head covering,” Abileah said. “I figure ‘when in Rome…’ when it comes to something that is not physically harmful…. We learned to poof our bangs and hair in the front in the hip style of the young women in Tehran.”

Beyond hidden hair, women are furthermore disbarred from singing in public and are almost always separated from men in public.

Despite these restrictions, Rabbi Brant noted that the many Iranians, including those who are not Muslim, enjoy living in a country that “moves to a religious rhythm.”

The citizen diplomats extensively explored numerous mosques, including the beautiful mirrored mosque in Shiraz, and met with leaders of the Jewish community in Iran, which numbers approximately 20,000 and is represented by one member of parliament. According to the Iranian constitution, a population of 500,000 is needed to gain representation in the parliament (also known as the Majilis of Iran), but an exception was made for religious minorities like the Jews, Zoroastrians, Catholics, and Armenians.

The delegation generally refrained from speaking substantially about politics.  “Once you raise the issues, you stand in judgment,” Rabbi Rosen said.  But when they did touch upon the subject the perspective was invaluable.

The United States’ storied relationships with countries of the Middle East, particularly our alliance with Israel, weighs heavily on the minds of Iranian citizens. The history of our interactions with the area are not widely known among the American populace; for example, the 1988 U.S. attack on civilian Iran Air Flight 655, which killed all 290 on board, including 66 children. Not only has the U.S. failed to apologize for accidentally shooting down the airbus, but many citizens are not even aware of the event.

Not to say the void in cultural understanding rests with Americans alone. Restrictions on freedom, an idea so distinctly and loudly rejected by Americans, is a habit of life in Iran. Besides the restrictions on women, there are other violations of liberty. Alcohol, forbidden by the Koran, is forbidden by the Iranian government; Facebook is banned within the city limits of Tehran; protests that Iranian NGO Mothers for Peace planned against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq were forbidden; public hangings still happen regularly. But even the most egregious of human rights violations should be solved by Iranians, as Rabbi Rosen points out.

Agreeing that aggressive U.S. military or economic policy will not positively effect the country’s political or social atmosphere, Abileah says “This kind of external pressure and threat will allow more fundamentalist leaders to rise to power in Iran, and nationalism, rather than internal social change movements, will prevail.”

Abileah emphasizes the need for Americans to educate themselves on life in Iran and ignore the “saber-rattling hype.” CODEPINK will launch a Winds of Change campaign soon, in which American citizens will be able to invest in an Iranian wind power company for just $5 a share. “This act defies U.S. sanctions, supports alternative energy in Iran, and fosters peace and friendship between our two countries,” she says.

Speaking about her experience now that she’s returned to the U.S. has shed more light on the intercultural tensions for Abileah. One woman in New York City thought her oft-repeated slogan, “Peace With Iran,” was wildly idealistic. Instead of arguing with the woman, Abileah listened and acknowledged, a vastly important skill she fostered while in Iran. By learning this skill, we can all progress toward understanding.

For a complete look at the delegation’s trip, see Rae’s two-part blog and Flickr page, as well as Rabbi Brant’s blog.

Editor’s note: Abileah’s quote “Jihad simply means ‘spiritual pilgrimage’” may be terminologically misleading. ‘Jihad’ does mean struggle. Abileah’s usage is more akin to a ‘great jihad’ or spiritual jihad, that of the inner struggle toward improvement. She wrote, “We are on a jihad ~ which means that we are going to a conflict[ed] region and seeking to transform our perception of it into a field of compassion, a spiritual journey to deepen our understanding…”

Opponents of the policy have long considered it a targeted attack on hugely popular conservative radio talk shows, while its supporters attempt to explain it as a necessary measure to ensure fair and balanced dispersal of information. The implications of the policy, if actually reinstated instead of used as rhetorical leverage, are troubling, and not just for conservatives. When it was originally instituted in 1949, policy makers were “worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and [therefore] tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment public unrest,” Jon Sinton wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal. Back then, it was a logical move: broadcasting space was limited and licensed, particularly outside of the major cities. But by the mid-eighties, it became clear that such regulatory measures over content were certainly unnecessary and perhaps unconstitutional. The legislation was overturned and eliminated in 1987 by the Reagan administration-appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC), thus beginning the conservative versus liberal battle over the policy. A bill introduced the same year to revive it was vetoed by Reagan.

Under the 102nd and 103rd Democrat-controlled Congress, the policy was legitimately re-introduced in 1993 to the House by legislation called the “Fairness in Broadcasting Act.” The attempt to re-instate the policy put conservative radio shows in a tizzy, particularly Rush Limbaugh, who erroneously dubbed it the ‘hush Rush’ bill, a name that continues currently. The bill was thwarted as Republicans gained power, and eventually took over, in the 104th Congress.

Hailing to the pattern, the current Democrat-dominated congress is once again talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and conservatives are once again rallying against it. In the last months of 2008, high-profile politicians like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA.) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), publicly supported its renewal. Schumer even provided the discussion with its most popular sound bite when he said, “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

On the other side, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation in 2007 to permanently ban the policy. Republicans have speculated that with total Democratic control from White House to both congressional houses, such a bill does not stand a chance. They may not be far off with such a prediction, considering that no Democrats have signed the bill.  It is important to note that Barack Obama flatly does not support it, as his campaign press secretary stated in an e-mail sent to the industry journal Broadcasting & Cable.

Despite all this talk, no bill attempting to officially reinstate the policy has been introduced. So will the Fairness Doctrine, under that name or another, actually make it into legislation? One hopes not. Not only would the Fairness Doctrine: Act II be a really bad idea, it’s a markedly unnecessary one. The way we consume media has vastly changed since the policy was crafted in 1949. There’s a veritable buffet of media consumption options out there: thousands of radio stations–public-supported, advertiser-supported and subscription-based–dozens of news television stations; thousands (though the number is dwindling) of newspapers and print sources; and then there’s the infinitesimal space of the internet, a forum which allows anyone with an IP address the ability to hear and engage in controversial discussion.

The whole concept of the policy is based on the fact that people have scant resources for hearing about and understanding issues of public importance, which is simply no longer true. Both conservatives and liberals who consume media through a one-sided source do so because they want to, not because they have to. The Fairness Doctrine would therefore limit freedom for broadcasters.  And freedom should be protected, no matter who is championing the cause.

Participants have two hours to create a track from the time of the sample’s drop (“drop” referring to the five minutes the hosts spend scrambling to release the audio track on the internet, passing it out on CDs and/or handing it out on flash drives). The rules are simple: no guitars, no voices, no external sound whatsoever. Unlike the Food Network’s campy Japanese cooking show, these chefs aren’t allowed to work with anything but the main ingredient. By cutting and shifting the pitch, tone, tempo, speed, sound, dynamics. the chefs completely reshape the sample into a song. The pieces are surprisingly organic—as organic as digital music can be—and may bear little resemblance to the sample they’re derived from. Between them, the musicians have an entire album’s worth of new music by the end of the night.

There’s a veritable opus of music produced in the five seasons of the Iron Chef of Music, run by electronic/experimental label Kracfive out of Pittsburgh. “It started off as a couple of friends doing it,” current Iron Chef host Rodger Ruzanka says. But he wanted to make it more accessible. The experience expanded and three years ago, the competitions moved with Ruzanka from Pittsburgh to Chicago where they took place for a time at co-host Joe Hahn’s then-living space, the Heaven Gallery, in the Wicker Park neighborhood.

Since Hahn moved out of the gallery, the competitions have had trouble finding space and have become more sporadic. Both Hahn and Ruzanka itch for new competitions. They are constantly bugged by eager would-be competitors. Holding Iron Chefs at venues, as opposed to online, allows for discussion. Competitors can call out alleged cheaters and discuss technique. While they cook, they talk smack. Spectators, though sparse, can watch showdowns live. Although there’s no host narrating the competition in poorly dubbed English, viewers can stroll around and see how the participants put their tracks together.

The most recent battle’s main ingredient was a sample from the presidential debates. A woman in the audience asked the candidates, “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis.” Tracks produced that night, from Michigan to Venezuela, played on every part of the sample: redefining the term party (Ruzanka’s track insisted, “Got money? You party,”) redistributing the speaker’s sentiments and sounds, and even setting her nasally emphasis on the crisis against a tonal dreamscape. The tracks not only prove the chefs’ flair for re-imagining a sample but also reflect a mixture of viewpoints on a textured issue.

For seasoned veterans of the electronic music scene, Iron Chef is a chance to hone their skills under intense time and material constraints and see how they stack up against their peers. For everyone else, it’s just a chance to hear new music and say, “Wait, this whole three-minute song is actually just the sound of rocks rolling down a hill?”