Expert Panel Session on Oral History of the Country – (Part 1)
Representing the Strategic Layers of the Sacred Defense; Prioritizing the Oral History Scientific ApproachCompiled by: Maryam Asadi Jafari
Translated by: Fazel Shirzad
2026-06-02
Note: According to the Oral History website, the “First Session of the Country’s Expert Panel on Oral History; with a focus on sustainability, the Sacred Defense, and resistance” was held online on the evening of Wednesday, May 20, 2026. This session was organized by the Deputy for Science, Research, and Technology of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, in collaboration with the Foundation for Preservation of Sacred Defense Works and Values. The initiative aimed to create synergy and cohesion among activists in the field of oral history to promote the oral history of sustainability, resilience, the Sacred Defense, and resistance, as well as to facilitate the management of interdisciplinary knowledge regarding the Second and Third Imposed Wars.
Dr. Reza Jahanfar, Director of Knowledge and Science Production at the Deputy for Science, Research, and Technology of the Army and the secretary of the session, moderated the meeting. After welcoming the attendees, he addressed the expectations of the Foundation for Preservation of Sacred Defense Works and Values from the Army’s Deputy for Science, Research, and Technology as the specialized headquarters for the Army’s oral history. He stated: “In accordance with the directive of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, four key actions will be carried out under the leadership of the Army: holding the 5th National and 1st International Conference on the Oral History of the Sacred Defense and Resistance; establishing the country’s specialized oral history panel by the Army’s Deputy for Science, Research, and Technology (leveraging the Deputy’s experience with specialized panels for publishers, knowledge management, and national-level organizational impact); holding a national meeting on the oral history of sports in the country; and launching an academic program in oral history at the Master’s or PhD level within one of the Army universities.”
Incorporating the 12-Day and 40-Day Wars into the “Oral History Conference”
Following this, Dr. Gholamreza Azizi, scientific secretary of the 5th National and 1st International Conference on the Oral History of the Sacred Defense and Resistance, provided a report on these conferences. He noted: “Since the title ‘Resistance’ was added to the name of the Foundation for Preservation of Sacred Defense Works and Values, it was decided that the 5th edition of the conference would be held ‘internationally’ to cover the Axis of Resistance more precisely and broadly. It was also decided to include contemporary issues in the oral history of the resistance sector (particularly from the perspectives of military historiography and war historiography) in this scientific and research event.”
“Furthermore, following the 12-day imposed war, new topics such as ‘Oral History of Crisis’ and ‘Oral History during Crisis’ were added to the conference themes. The 40-day imposed war expanded the scope of researchers’ exploration, adding themes of resistance, sustainability, and resilience to the conference agenda.”
“Various meetings and workshops have been held so far for this edition of the conference. Several workshops were conducted at the Shahid Sattari Aeronautical University, and the second part of tonight’s session, dedicated to speeches by veteran professors and authors, is planned in line with these efforts.”
“At a time when our beloved country is exposed to enemy attacks and atrocities, we hope to utilize oral history as a tool to understand the past, comprehend current conditions, and build a better future. We are also striving to explore the mechanisms for establishing a Master’s degree program in oral history with an emphasis on the Sacred Defense to train a new generation of oral historians, and to pursue this through relevant authorities. In future sessions leading up to the conference, we will address the oral history of the military and the oral history of sports during wartime.”
Individual Preferences in Oral History Should Not Replace Historical Necessities
Hojjat al-Islam Saeed Fakhrzadeh, Director of the Office for Registration and Compilation of Islamic Revolution Achievements at the Art Bureau, addressed the “necessity of prioritizing and formulating policies for selecting topics in the oral history of the Sacred Defense.” In an excerpt from his speech, he stated: “How did we export our revolution to the world during the war? What were its mechanisms? What were its tools? The people who played roles in this process must share their memories, which are currently missing. We shattered the prestige of the two superpowers of the East and the West. How were the budgets secured during the war? How were equipment purchased while we were under sanctions? How were the basic needs of the people met while a war was raging at sea? Was the shipping of commercial goods involved in the Tanker War? So far, no information has been provided to the public about this. Even in the oil sector, we have many memories of attempts to stop the flow of oil to pressure the country. Our pipelines were repeatedly attacked and damaged, yet they were repaired and returned to the operation cycle within less than 24 to 72 hours. We never felt a shortage of gasoline or oil throughout the 8-year war, even though our refineries were hit repeatedly. These accounts have been addressed less frequently. The military’s scientific and technological achievements, as well as the foundations of industrial self-sufficiency, were laid during the war. The infrastructure for many accomplishments in the industrial or combat engineering sectors was formed during the Sacred Defense. These events are crucial for a deep understanding of the war and for transferring the experience of scientific management. If we do not plan to record these experiences, we will lose the opportunity to generate knowledge. Ultimately, if our focus is merely on emotional narratives, oral historiography will not go beyond the level of ‘memoir writing’ and will not become a source for producing historical knowledge. In my opinion, oral history can only assist society when the selection of topics is based on research priorities and knowledge needs. Otherwise, individual, subjective activities will replace historical necessities, and a significant part of the war’s experience will remain marginalized. Without scientific prioritization, oral history will fail to represent the strategic layers of the Sacred Defense.”
The Necessity of Establishing a Connection Between Art and Oral History
Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia, a faculty member at the War University and spokesperson for the Army, highlighting Iran’s global importance from various perspectives, stated: “The first great human civilization was formed in Mesopotamia, near Iranian territory. The world’s first empire was established in Iran in 550 BC, and the rich Islamic-Iranian culture has further increased Iran’s significance. Our geography is also crucial; Iran is located at the crossroads of the world and, geopolitically, possesses sensitive points such as the Strait of Hormuz. We hold the world’s top rank in oil and gas resources, and the nature of the Islamic Revolution over the past 48 years has made our country a target for the greed of our enemies. Iran has always been exposed to threats—from soft and semi-hard to hard threats. Thus, we need to enhance our deterrence capabilities. The people are the core and essence of this system; therefore, it is necessary to promote their culture of resistance and resilience. I believe that addressing the oral history of the Sacred Defense leads to the promotion of this culture, and utilizing the lessons learned from that era will raise our country’s defense culture.”
“We need strategic, grand, and fundamental planning in the field of oral history to move towards our major goals and achieve positive results. This does not mean that nothing has been done so far, but I believe that planning in this area needs to be deeper and broader. The second point is to pay attention to the deep layers of the Sacred Defense era. The works published so far have been good in terms of volume, but we need works that pay more attention to the deep layers of the Sacred Defense, such as rationality, prudence, and foresight. Lastly, if we can establish a stronger connection between the oral history of the Sacred Defense and art, these works will become more enduring and effective. If we want the teachings of the Sacred Defense to be lasting and transferred to the younger generation—thereby keeping Iran immune to future enemy aggression and raising the level of deterrence (we must inevitably utilize art). We can translate all the superficial and deep teachings of the Sacred Defense era into the realm of art to immortalize and preserve them for future generations.”
Emphasis on Cooperation Among Organizations Active in Oral History of the War
Continuing the “First Session of the Country’s Expert Panel on Oral History,” Brigadier General Abbas Bayramy, Head of the Sacred Defense Documents and Archives Organization at the Foundation for Preservation of Sacred Defense Works and Values, stated: “In 1404 (2025-26), I studied nearly 60 titles of oral history books published by the Foundation, the Army, and the IRGC. Let us remember the martyr General Naeini, who put in a great deal of effort to advance this path. Our biggest problem in oral history is that the questions posed in the books have no connection to the essence of the subject, and the narrator tries to distance themselves from the context of the interview; as a result, the audience’s needs are not met. The second problem is that the fundamental requirements of the oral history of the Sacred Defense and resistance must be identified, points which Mr. Fakhrzadeh alluded to. If all colleagues in the expert panel on oral history cooperate, the Sacred Defense Documents and Archives Organization is prepared to host discussions (conducted with sufficient awareness of the 8 years of Sacred Defense, the Resistance Front, and modern wars) to turn these topics into a bank, and ultimately define projects, operational assignments, and a division of labor to reach a high-quality output within the next 5 years. It seems we do not have much time, because the people who were the creators and originators of these works are, unfortunately, for whatever reason, either becoming martyrs or passing away due to old age. These are our primary sources, and our access to them is slipping away.”
Challenges of Narration in War
Subsequently, Dr. Mahmoud Sadat, Deputy of Research and Technology at the National Library and Archives of Iran, delivered a speech focusing on “Challenges of Interviewing, Compiling, and Publishing Oral History in Iran.” He stated: “In terms of interviewing challenges in oral history, the selection of the subject is the first challenge we face. Political topics often prevail over social, cultural, and economic ones. The second point, which runs contrary to the principles of oral history, is that we usually go to the ‘elites’ of each field and record their narratives, whereas oral history theory suggests we should go to the ‘silenced’ of history (people who are not represented in history, such as those living on the margins, villagers, and women). During the Sacred Defense, we have also rarely approached this segment, and the narratives of the elites have been gathered, published, and made accessible. Typically, upon the request of a client, one goes to the elites, and topics of a social or economic nature are less frequently sought.”
“Regarding the challenges of choosing a narrator, the question arises: ‘Is the interviewer free to choose the narrator, or do they approach specific individuals based on the client’s request?’ The second point is that there is usually a preference for choosing ‘actors’ rather than ‘eyewitnesses.’ However, in events like war, there may be individuals who are not ‘actors’ but are eyewitnesses; especially when war is brought into cities and people become observers of events. While the Sacred Defense was mostly in specific areas and we deal with actors, we must also pay attention to the narratives of eyewitnesses (witnesses from different spectrums and groups, including women and even children). The narrative must be gathered from various viewpoints. However, we usually choose the ‘top’ of the actors of that historical event, such as division commanders, whereas experience has shown that if we approach lower ranks and platoon commanders, they have been more involved in the issues and challenges and provide more precise information.”
“The next point is: ‘When do actors or narrators provide us with a better narrative? When they are in charge or after they have left their positions?’ Experience has shown that those who have been removed from their posts, or have stepped down for any reason, offer more liberated and precise narratives compared to those currently in power.”
“The next point is: ‘How much time must pass since that action before we approach the narrator?’ Historians often say that in history, an event must ‘steep’ (mature)—meaning some time must pass before we investigate it. However, there are two points here: when some time has passed and we approach the narrator, they usually analyze the event rather than explain the essence of the occurrence. In other words, analysis overrides the report of the event. Perhaps they were present in the war when they were young, but now, years later, they have heard others’ narratives and seen related documents, becoming more mature; now, they analyze the event. Therefore, when we approach them, they provide more analysis than a report. In oral history, it is very difficult to separate a person’s report from their analysis. Although their analysis is also valuable to us, what is of greater value to the oral historian is the person’s report.”
Selecting a “Middle Ground” by the Interviewer
Dr. Mahmoud Sadat continued: “The second point is the selection of the event by the narrator. Undoubtedly, we have a two-stage selection process: the individual who recounts an event has committed a portion of it to memory, and a long time may have passed since then. When we approach them to record the narrative, they relay only a part of what they have committed to memory. This is that two-stage selection, and ‘selectivity’ is considered one of the characteristics of oral history; meaning, a part of the event is memorized, and a part is articulated. In my opinion, this is also among the challenges of oral history interviewing. The next point is that the interviewer must choose a middle ground between a ‘tape recorder’ and an ‘interrogator’ in order to gain the interviewee’s trust and achieve the right result. In this process, comprehensive study prior to the interview, including reading newspapers and documents, is of paramount importance.”
“Regarding compilation (editing), there are a few points. Should we be bound to the verbatim prose? That is, should the narrator’s words be expressed exactly as they are, or do we intend to ‘edit’ them? Is the work that Mr. Lajevardi did at Harvard University considered ‘compilation’ or merely ‘transcription’? In my view, the policy regarding compilation must be clear. Are we bound to the raw prose, or are we attentive to the market and want our work to be a readable piece? If we are bound to the prose, it becomes like Mr. Lajevardi’s work, and if we are bound to the market, it becomes like some of the works produced by certain institutions (meaning they hand the interviews over to individuals to be rewritten). Undoubtedly, the language of a woman, a leftist, a revolutionary, or a bilingual person who has lived abroad is not identical. Yet, because of the writing style of the person who rewrote it, they all take on the same tone. We must choose a middle ground between prose and marketability.”
“I also have a few points regarding annotation (clarification) in compilation. Are we permitted to explain the narrator’s historical errors on the same page? To what extent are we allowed? We may footnote a mistakenly mentioned name, but if we take the narrator’s comments about another person and provide them to that second person, and then print their rebuttal at the bottom of the page, I do not believe this is correct. A critique can be written after the book is published. Therefore, the limits of annotating a book must be clearly defined. Sometimes in certain books, very ordinary words have been annotated. We must consider a reasonable limit for annotation. In annotation, the author should not influence the reader’s mind in the footnotes; they should only provide the birth date and activities until the person’s passing, and approach the annotation of that individual with neutral language.”
"The next challenge in compilation is whether the spoken language can be converted into written language. In doing so, do we lose anything in oral history? When someone expresses a point in their local dialect, should we present it verbatim, or convert it into the standard written language? When a person is present during an event like war and expresses their emotional states, they undoubtedly express those states much better in their mother tongue or dialect. Whereas, in my opinion, converting it into the standard written language can lead to losses.
Sometimes there are eyewitnesses from different backgrounds; for example, they went to the front from the streets and markets and have a colloquial way of speaking and are comfortable expressing their narrative. Should we discard this narrative? Is good literature preferred over bad literature in narration?
In compilation, avoid using suggestive titles like: ‘Decisive Battle’ or ‘Great Epic.’ Before the reader even reads the book, they understand that it must be a great epic. So, let’s not use emotional words in book titles.
The next challenge is, is it correct to combine interviews? It’s possible that different Sacred Defense centers may have conducted multiple interviews with the same individual at different times. Is combining these interviews correct? Oral history has an identity. This means we approach an individual at a specific age within a certain timeframe and discourse, and those statements have their own unique identity. Combining them creates problems. I myself have done this. An interview was conducted with an individual during the Reform period, another in 2017, and we also approached them. However, they gave three different answers to the same question. Should we choose the most complete answer and delete the others? These, in my opinion, are potential losses we might encounter in compilation.
Finally, regarding publication, we face two types of censorship. One is censorship based on the employer’s policies, who may not intend for certain information to be published. Another is censorship by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Should we publish everything that is recorded? For example, Astan Quds Razavi has been actively involved in oral history for many years, but they have no policy for publication at all. They only collect for the future. If a publication policy is determined, it even influences the interview and the set of questions. In the publication policy, should we focus on marketability and sales, or on producing a historical text for future generations? One of the tasks of a historian today, and oral history is no exception, is to produce data for the future historian. In the publication policy, we must consider that in 200 years, this book will be referred to as a correct historical text. We have compiled the ‘Oral History Manual,’ which we can provide to centers. In this manual, standardized interviewing, compilation, and the production of correct texts are taught.
To be continued …
Number of Visits: 21
http://oral-history.ir/?page=post&id=13313