Chapter 46: [I believe that…] — Summary and Analysis

⚠️ Spoiler Warning: This guide contains detailed spoilers for the entire novel. Proceed only if you've finished reading or are comfortable knowing the plot.

Summary

Chapter 46, titled “[I believe that…],” is a brief chapter that functions as a thematic interlude rather than a narrative progression. It consists of two epigraphs and a dictionary entry, with no narrative prose of its own.

The first epigraph is attributed to William J. Crow Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dated 5 August 1988. Crow asserts that “the actions of Iran were the proximate cause of this accident” and argues that Iran “must bear the principal responsibility for the tragedy.” This statement refers to the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988.

The second epigraph, dated 4 July 1988, is attributed to Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. Velayati holds the United States responsible for what he calls a “barbaric massacre of innocent passengers.” The two statements present diametrically opposed narratives of the same event: one frames the tragedy as an accident caused by Iranian actions, the other frames it as a deliberate massacre perpetrated by the United States.

The chapter then presents a dictionary entry for the adjective “barbaric,” tracing its origin to the Greek barbaros. The entry explains that the term referred to foreigners from “lands beyond moral influence,” especially rival nations such as the Persians, Berbers, and Turks. Greek soldiers mocked the languages of these foreigners by repeating the sound “bar bar bar.”

The chapter’s title, “[I believe that…],” echoes the opening words of Crow’s statement and frames the chapter as a meditation on belief, blame, and the language used to describe violence.

Key Events

The chapter presents two epigraphs offering conflicting official narratives regarding the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988.
The first epigraph, from William J. Crow Jr., assigns principal responsibility to Iran.
The second epigraph, from Ali Akbar Velayati, assigns responsibility to the United States and characterizes the event as a “barbaric massacre.”
The chapter concludes with a dictionary entry tracing the etymology of “barbaric” to the Greek barbaros, a term used to describe foreigners whose languages Greek soldiers mocked as “bar bar bar.”

Character Development

Chapter 46 does not advance the development of the novel’s narrative characters. Instead, the chapter’s “characters” are the two officials whose statements frame the chapter. William J. Crow Jr. speaks from the position of American military authority, using the language of legal causation (“proximate cause”) to assign blame. Ali Akbar Velayati speaks from the position of the aggrieved nation, using the moral language of “barbaric massacre.” Neither voice is given narrative context or development; they exist purely as competing claims about a single historical event.

The absence of any narrative voice in this chapter is itself significant. By removing the mediating presence of a character’s perspective, the chapter forces the reader to confront the raw materials of history—official statements and dictionary definitions—directly.

Themes, Symbols, or Motifs

Conflicting Narratives of Blame. The two epigraphs present irreconcilable accounts of the same tragedy. Crow’s language is legalistic and technical (“proximate cause,” “principal responsibility”), while Velayati’s is moral and condemnatory (“barbaric massacre”). The chapter offers no adjudication between these claims; it simply places them side by side.

The Etymology of “Barbaric.” The dictionary entry reveals that the word “barbaric” derives from Greek mockery of foreign languages. The Greeks heard the speech of Persians, Berbers, and Turks as meaningless repetition—“bar bar bar”—and used this perception of linguistic difference to justify moral exclusion. The term’s history is thus a history of othering: the designation of certain peoples as beyond “moral influence.”

Linguistic Othering and the Persian Connection. The dictionary entry specifically names the Persians among the peoples the Greeks mocked. This detail carries particular weight in a novel concerned with Iranian identity. The word used to condemn the United States’ actions—“barbaric”—is itself rooted in a tradition of dismissing Persians as uncivilized. The chapter thus exposes the deep historical layers embedded in the language of blame.

Civilian Casualties and the Language of War. Both epigraphs concern the deaths of civilians aboard a passenger flight, yet neither statement dwells on the human cost. Crow speaks of “the tragedy” in abstract terms; Velayati speaks of “innocent passengers” as a category. The chapter’s structure—two official statements followed by a dictionary definition—suggests that language itself is a battlefield where the dead are claimed and re-claimed by competing narratives.

Why This Chapter Matters

Chapter 46 is a pivotal thematic chapter in Martyr! It grounds the novel’s exploration of martyrdom, identity, and violence in a specific historical event: the downing of Iran Air Flight 655. By presenting two official narratives without commentary, the chapter dramatizes the way history is contested and the way language shapes our understanding of tragedy.

The chapter’s placement of the dictionary entry after the two epigraphs is deliberate. The word “barbaric” appears in Velayati’s statement, and the dictionary entry reveals the word’s loaded history. The Greeks used barbaros to dismiss Persians as morally inferior; centuries later, an Iranian foreign minister uses “barbaric” to condemn American actions. The word has traveled across time and been repurposed, but its core function—marking an enemy as beyond the bounds of moral consideration—remains intact.

For a novel that engages with Iranian-American experience and questions of martyrdom, this chapter provides essential historical and linguistic context. It reminds the reader that the categories through which we understand violence—who is “barbaric,” who is “civilized,” who is a “martyr,” who is a “terrorist”—are not neutral. They are inherited from histories of othering and are always contested.

Study Questions

1. Why does the chapter present two epigraphs without any narrative commentary?

The chapter’s structure forces the reader to hold two irreconcilable claims simultaneously. By refusing to adjudicate between Crow’s and Velayati’s statements, the chapter suggests that historical truth is not simply given but is constructed through competing narratives. The reader must decide what to believe, mirroring the chapter’s title, “[I believe that…].”

2. What is the significance of the dictionary entry’s mention of the Persians?

The dictionary entry names the Persians among the peoples the Greeks dismissed as barbaros. This detail connects the ancient Greek practice of linguistic othering to the novel’s contemporary Iranian context. It suggests that the language of blame and moral exclusion has deep roots, and that the word “barbaric” carries a history of specifically anti-Persian prejudice.

3. How does the etymology of “barbaric” complicate Velayati’s use of the word?

Velayati uses “barbaric” to condemn the United States’ actions, but the word’s etymology reveals that it was originally used by Greeks to mock Persians—the very people Velayati represents. The word is thus double-edged: it condemns the Americans while simultaneously invoking a history in which Persians themselves were the targets of such dismissal. This irony underscores the chapter’s meditation on how language carries hidden histories.