Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Support Iranians, Not US Intervention
During our travels to Iran in 2005, Penn and Erlich interviewed numerous ordinary Iranians. People were very friendly towards us as Americans but very hostile to U.S. policy against their country. We visited Friday prayers where 10,000 people chanted "Death to America." Afterwards those same people invited us home for lunch.
That contradiction continues today as Iran goes through its most significant upheaval since the 1979 revolution. Iranians are rising up against an authoritarian system but don't want U.S. intervention.
Many Iranians believe that they have experienced a coup d'état, in which the military and intelligence services have hijacked the presidential election. Through vote buying and manipulation of the count, Ahmadinejad had guaranteed himself another four years in office.
In June over a million Iranians marched in the streets of major cities across the country. The spontaneous demonstrations included well-to-do supporters of opposition candidates, but also large numbers of workers, farmers, small business people and the devoutly religious. They were fed up with 30 years of a system that used Islam as an excuse for union labor strike breaking, lack of women's rights and repression.
The Iranian government responded to these peaceful protests with savagery, killing dozens of people. Some human rights groups put the number at over 100. The government admits arresting 2500 people nationwide and continues to hold at least 500. Most are being held without charges or have simply disappeared.
The repression hasn't killed the movement. On July 17, over 10,000 people came to Friday prayers in support of the opposition. Instead of chanting "Death to America," they chanted "Death to the Dictator," a reference to supreme leader Khamenei. Police attacked them with clubs and teargas.
Meanwhile in Washington, some politicians tried to use the crisis for their own ends. Senator John McCain criticized President Obama for not taking a stronger position against the Iranian government. It's ironic to hear McCain and other conservatives proclaim their support for the people of Iran when a few months ago they wanted to bomb them.
That doesn't exactly build credibility among Iranians.
President Obama faces tough choices on Iran. If he speaks out loudly against Ahmadinejad, he is accused of meddling in Iran's internal affairs. If he says too little, then right-wingers in the U.S. accuse him of being soft on Ahmadinejad.
In reality, the U.S. has very little ability to impact what has become a massive, spontaneous movement for change. And it shouldn't. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, bringing the dictatorial Shah back to power. The Bush Administration attempted to overthrow the Iranian government by funding and arming ethnic minority groups opposed to Tehran.
The U.S. government has no moral or political authority to tell Iranians what they should do. Iranians are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves.
That's why citizen diplomacy is so important. Iranian demonstrators welcome the support of ordinary Americans. Joan Baez recorded a Farsi language version of "We Shall Overcome" that has shot around the world on You Tube.
Iranian activists are holding a hunger strike in front of the UN in New York from July 22-4 demanding that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon send a special commission to Iran.
We urge you to participate in the July 25 demonstrations around the U.S. and in Europe. Stand in solidarity with Iranians and against U.S. intervention in Iran (www.norcal4iran.org).
14 Comments so far
Show AllThe problem is that the US can't help itself from meddling in other countries politics. The US won't be happy unless any energy rich country does not bow down and grovel at the US. The US is NOT and never will be for demcracy on any of these energy rich nations. If it was, UAE, Jordan, Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc, etc will all be democracies. They cannot risk democracy as they would lose control of the energy resources in that country. It is easier to control one man than to control its citizens. Let that one man do the dirty work of controlling the citizens. If that one man steps out of line, demonize him...Saddam, Noriega, etc. etc....
Yep, we need to stop being the world policeman. Sure, I don't like Iran's government. But then Iran doesn't like ours. Iran also doesn't like Venezuela's government either, but both countries hate US meddling, the reason for the friendship. Also the US is now a debtor nation, with Taiwan, CHina, Japan and Korea holding about 40% of our national debt.
The US is not a "world policeman". Calling them police implies they're doing it to enforce the rule of law or the greater good of the global society.
The US government and military are facilitators for economic imperialism. The only reason they interfere in any nations' affairs is to allow US MNCs to exploit the nations' resources, both natural and/or human.
It's not about freedom, it's about money and it always has been.
I totally agree: "world policeman" is one of those euphemisms propagated by the government and the MSM. We should dismantle the Empire: hundreds of military bases across the globe and constant involvement in or support of wars of agression, slaughter and occupation.
Horrified,
You are perfectly right, while Sean Penn, usually well-balanced in his views and certainly correct wehn he wrote about Iran following his 2005 visist, is only partly right. Sean Penn et al., along with many, many observers, concede that the US had been meddling in Iran during the Bush years and for very, very long years prior to that, but argue that such a mass movement as followed the June 12 elections could be nothingbut spontaneous, because the CIA's (or MI6's or Mossad's or Jandollah's or the MEK's) covert or overt operations could not have such an impact over such a short time. But the point is precisely that the apparently spontaneous upsurge in protests is the result of a cumulative effort at subversion started years ago and which had built up and was unleashed after Moussavi's strong showing or possibly actual victory (but I strongly doubt that) in the elections. Sean Penn et al.'s implcit argument that the Obama administration is not guilty of INITIATING any new subversive effort is entirely correct, except for asking the providers of Twitter services to delay its scheduled upgrading of services to allow protestors to reach the outside world. However, the Obama administration, did not, could not, and therefore was under no moral obligation to, defuse under-currents of dissent that had been gathering pace from the satanic covert activities of Bush. In that sense, the call by Sean Penn et al. should be welcomed that Iranians should be left alone to sort out how they want a less-paranoid Iranian foreign policy and domestic liberalism policy to emerge out of the commotion over the interpretation of the election results.
In his latest analysis of the situation drawn by erudite Iranian scholar Kaveh Afrasiabi, he points out how ironic it is that Ahmadi-Nejad's choce of a First Vice President who had declared that the Iranian people are friendly to every country's people, including Israelis (though presumably not their bellicose leaders) has drawn the ire of the opposition, on the arguably reasonble ground of nepotism (he is the son-in-law of Ahamdi-Nejad) but muddled in the more emotive issue of 'friendliness to Israel'. Ahamdi-Nejad is likely to have to withdraw that nomination.
But then, that is precisely the reason to not only support the reconciliation process netween Ahamdi-Nejad/Khamenei and Mousavi/Khatami/Ayatollah Montazeri/Ayatollah Ali Saanei, but also to proclaim to the wider world the process admirable of opening up that is taking shape, to give more freedom to dissenters, to women, to minority groups and to non-corrupt economic operators.
Iran has a very crucial role to play in the regional stabilization process, which is fraught with dangers. These dangers will exacerbate as the troop surge and the drone-led 'assassination squads' that Seymour Hersch has denounced with much credibilty and whose exsitence have now been confirmed, threaten to inflame again anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan and quite possibly soon in Pakistan too, unless the Obama administration eliminates the remnants of Bush-like military duplicty in his foreign policy. Iran, together with Pakistan and Afghanistan can be valuable partners for the US if America abandons its overbearing, bullying attitude in the Central Asian/Caspian region, and recognises the predominat interest of the regional payers that also accommodates other Asiain powers' (including NATO member Turkey's) interests.
Sean Penn could make another very useful trip to Iran and take in these emerging regional dimensions of global governance.
How about we just keep our nose out of this. Let the Iranians figure it out for themselves.
You know what, Henry 8? You are right!
You're right, Henry. And the U.S./UN should lift the sanctions. Sanctions are, in fact, an act of war.
By the way, would this be the same Joan Baez who made a much publicized trip several years ago to show her support for Israel? Hmmm....
A more realistic view appears in Asia Times this morning.
"In short, what is happening in Iran is neither a revolution of any kind nor a power struggle, "between factions of the old-guard clergy", as proposed by the LA Times. The current crisis is a fierce battle between two factions of society. It is a manifestation of a 100-year battle since Iran's constitutional revolution (1905-1911) between those who advocate the imposition of strict traditional religious codes and those who seek the liberalization of society and the establishment of a tolerant secular government.
Inside the ruling oligarchy, the conservatives who are radically hostile to Western values and modernity are the dominating and indisputable force. This faction, led by the Sepah and the Basij , is represented by Ahmadinejad and is symbolized by the supreme leader. The moderates - Rafsanjani being the most notable figure - are not leading the opposition faction of society. Instead, they are pragmatically capitalizing on the current dissident movement by attaching themselves to the movement in hope of survival. Rafsanjani's era came to an end after his rival Ahmadinejad crushed him in the presidential elections of 2005."
Shahir Shahidsaless is a Canadian-Iranian political analyst writing mainly in Farsi. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and has devoted the past 10 years predominantly to researching and writing about the Middle East and international affairs for Farsi-speaking magazines, papers and news websites both inside and outside the country. He has authored a book, which has been published in Iran and Germany. "
It is highly doubtful that the forces representing the hope for a more secular and tolerant government will achieve victory in the face of the unrelenting incomprehension and hostility of the western powers and their various claims to ecomomic and political hegemony in the region.
Leave the iranian alone to determine their own destiny. Stop the creative interference forays.
Lift sanctions which even so called progressives conveniently ignore. What are the objective of sanctions, to undermine the governmnent? By the way what of the deafening silence on the american coup in honduras. No animation there. Same governmental players pointing accusing fingers at far away Iran are intigating coups next door. We seem to eat whatever they put on our plates
Inviting outsiders especially outsiders with distinquished predatory instints for other peoples money only undermines the Iranian people.
I do not know how to seperate the pentagons ojectives from that of the american people. In other words history is replete with examples of how missionaries assisted wittingly or unwittngly with the theft of other peoples resources. You do not change the devil, the devil changes you.
"Through vote buying and manipulation of the count, Ahmadinejad had guaranteed himself another four years in office."
Even though he was democratically elected, I have heard this same lie about him "stealing" the election that I am starting to change my opinion of the American "left."
In the US, "left" is just the sound of the other boot falling.
Do you have proof that he was democratically elected? I'd like to hear it.
Do you have proof that he wasn't?
When shove comes to push this administration, like the preceding one, will not care a hoot that I support the Iranian people but not US intervention.
Intervention can mean many things short of invasion.
Moreover the administration knows that a strong majority of US people support "intervention" short of invasion.
Supporting the Iranian people is a very dangerous game of US citizens whose government cannot be trusted any more than the green Iranians trust theirs. The difference is that they demonstrate peacefully in public.