P U L S E

An Iranian protestor flashes the victory or peace sign on Enqelab (Revolution) Street in Tehran during protests which saw thousands in the streets on Dec. 27, 2009. (AP Photo)

On the Day of Ashura, a Shia calendar day of mourning for the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Imam Hussein, thousands of Iranian men and women took to the streets all over Iran in protests that evolved into clashes with security forces after they beat, tear-gassed and opened fire on crowds of unarmed civilians.  Some protestors set fire to cars and motorbikes which reportedly belonged to security forces and many people were injured, with at least 5 people killed (some reports claim over 10), one of which is believed to be Mir Hossein Mousavi’s nephew.  Hundreds of other men and women have also reportedly been arrested.   

Analysts, bloggers and journalists all over the web are referring to the would-be irony should this holy day that commemorates the martyrdom of an Imam known for his resistance to tyranny mark the new beginning (spurred by the June 2009 Election protests) of the disintegration of the Iranian theocracy, a government which many Iranians living inside and outside of the country claim is not their representative.  In an article written with his brother Rouzbeh on The Daily Beast, National Iranian American Council founder Trita Parsi writes:  

With the government growing increasingly desperate—and violent—the new clashes on the streets in Iran may very well prove to be the breaking point of the regime. If so, it shows that the Iranian theocracy ultimately fell on its own sword…It will indeed be ironic if the Iranian theocracy begins to crumble on the most important religious day of the Shiite calendar.  

Significantly, the Parsi brothers also claim that should this be the case, the downfall of the regime will have been brought about through the efforts of the brave men and women who have been risking their lives on the ground, rather than the actions of parties motivated by factors other than that of supporting the birth of true democracy in Iran:  

It didn’t come to an end due to the efforts of exiled opposition groups or the regime-change schemes of Washington’s neoconservatives. Rather, the Iranian people are the main characters in this drama, using the very same symbols that brought the Islamic republic into being to close this chapter in a century-old struggle for democracy.  

No one with eyes can justifiably doubt the courage, sincerity and devotion of the men and women who have been taking to the streets for months (some for years) in Iran’s repressive political atmosphere.  Protestors are becoming increasingly agitated and several images and video clips have surfaced of security forces being overtaken by protestors (in this clip protestors have cornered Basijis while yelling: “why do you do this to your people?”), with some being interpreted as security members actually joining the protestors.  Indeed, these protests include all kinds of people from various segments of society protesting for their civil rights, a necessary and legitimate call that should be supported by anyone who believes in peace and social justice.  However, lurking in the mainstream media background (mostly beneath the inspiring images of bloody but defiant protestors) are also those who prior to the election unrest were chanting “bomb, bomb Iran,” but who are now encouraging people to stand in solidarity with these “Iranian people.”   

For instance, the following is a recent clip of former U.S. Ambassador to the UN during the Bush Administration and Fox News Hawk commentator John Bolton claiming that if “handled properly” the “knowledgeable and sophisticated” people of Iran will understand if foreign aggressors bomb their country.  

Notes “we must bomb Iran now” Bolton:  

I think a careful campaign of public diplomacy in the wake of a military strike could explain to the people of Iran who are knowledgeable and sophisticated, that the attack is not aimed against them, it’s aimed against this regime that they dislike so much.  

Like Bolton, The Washington Post op-ed columnist Charles Krauthammer (another Fox News commentator who supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) has also recently taken to encouraging his readers to support the demonstrators because he believes they are fighting for a cause he endorses:  

We lost a year. But it was not just any year. It was a year of spectacularly squandered opportunity. In Iran, it was a year of revolution, beginning with a contested election and culminating this week in huge demonstrations mourning the death of the dissident Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri — and demanding no longer a recount of the stolen election but the overthrow of the clerical dictatorship.  

Krauthammer goes on to explain why the Iranian protestors should be supported:  

Apart from ostracizing and delegitimizing these gangsters, we should be encouraging and reinforcing the demonstrators. This is no trivial matter. When pursued, beaten, arrested and imprisoned, dissidents can easily succumb to feelings of despair and isolation. Natan Sharansky testifies to the electric effect Ronald Reagan’s Evil Empire speech had on lifting spirits in the gulag. The news was spread cell to cell in code tapped on the walls. They knew they weren’t alone, that America was committed to their cause.  

Those who are familiar with Krauthammer’s work would have a difficult time reconciling his notion of America’s vision for a better Iran with the vision of the majority of Iranians living inside the country, but his message here is clear and to the point: support the Iranian protestors because they can be used as a pawn in our political game of who gets to dominate the Middle East.  

Then there is Alan J. Kuperman’s recent piece in The New York Times which the Lobe Log examined with references to other analysts who have revealed it for what it is: a lengthy call to war.  According to Kuperman, enough time has been wasted on that useless notion of diplomacy and the United States has only 2 choices now:  

Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.  

What of the inevitable blowback from a military strike that everyone from the Left, Right and Centre are warning about? Krauthammer tells us that “history” defends his hawkish positions:  

But history suggests that military strikes could work…As for the risk of military strikes undermining Iran’s opposition, history suggests that the effect would be temporary.  

Here’s how Kuperman ends his piece, which it should be mentioned, is entitled: “There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran”:  

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.  

These articles have been referenced not to downplay the legitimacy of the Iranian protestors, but to point out the stomach-turning hypocrisy of those who are suddenly claiming solidarity with them while simultaneously calling for further sanctions and military campaigns upon their country.  Pieces like the ones cited above from mainstream publications only refer to the Iranian people’s struggle to the extent that it helps in furthering their own vision for the region, but would the Iranians who are risking their lives for their civil rights accept this so-called support?  Would they, as Bolton idiotically suggests, understand and accept the proposal of being bombed?  

The new-found affinity the Right has found for the Iranian protestors is neither genuine nor worthy of praise and should be pointed out as such especially when they combine it with calls to war on the same people they claim their readers should now support.  The Iranian people who are taking to the streets despite the very real threat of being assaulted, arrested or killed are not doing it for the Right’s hope of regime change, or to force the Iranian government to submit to US and Israeli demands — they are engaging in their own movement and fighting for their civil rights because they have their own vision for a better Iran.  Remember their vision.  Take a look at who you’re standing in solidarity with.