More About Iran…
“We will stand with the people of Iran for they love freedom and the United States does not forget those who call for it”
- George W. Bush, June 2005.
Yet again the US has condemned Iran for its shortcomings and lack of democratic processes. It’s getting rather tiresome, rather like a broken record player, but something which I feel deserves closer scrutiny.
The history between the state of Iran and the US is one that stretches back over half a century back to the days of the Shah, when the democratically elected Dr Mossadegh was overthrown by a CIA/MI6 inspired pro-Shah coup d’etat. When the Shah was ousted in 1979, he presided over a regime that was was one of the most repressive in the region yet backed by the United States and the UK - just like today where the West give continued support to Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. When the Islamic Revolution took place, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, the US immediately had a new bogeyman in the region.
Later that year, students stormed the US Embassy and took over 100 hostages in a long drawn out episode, only resolved on the day Reagan took office. Yet it is instrumental to point out that in the run-up to the election of 1980, the Reagan campaign team had negotiated with the Iranians for the delaying of the release of the hostages at exactly the same time as the Carter administration was trying to release them. Quite apart from being illegal under US law, the Reagan team also promised to honour arms contracts awarded under the Carter administration. You may ask why did the Republicans act in such a manner. The simple reason is that Carter was beginning to make a strong showing in the polls and the Republican campaign wanted to prevent an “October Surprise” - so called for the month in which Carter began to claw back in the polls. Thus by delaying the release, it would show Carter as incompetent in the face of the enemy (especially after his failed rescue attempt in 1980) and thus lose him potential votes. In the event, the hostages were released on the day that Reagan took the oath on the lawn of the White House.
The events of 1980 ultimately led to the Irangate affair, where the same people initiated high level contacts with the Iranians to sell Hawk missile batteries and other weaponry from which the proceeds would fund the Contra rebel terrorist groups in Nicaragua. Yet in the senate hearings, Reagan, Bush and other senior administration figures were absolved of any blame while Col Ollie North took the rap. Interestingly, he seems to have been rehabilitated under the present Bush regime - serving as an unofficial adviser in the one of many subcommittees devoted to the war on terror.
So for the Bushites to claim that Iran is the enemy of peace and a supporter of terror is a clear case of hypocrisy when the fates of Iran and the US are more intertwined than people think.
But even discounting this, when Bush and his lapdog Blair criticise the Iranian government for its lack of democracy, the stupidity of these men reaches new levels of incredulity. It’s worth examining the actual system used in Iran and comparing it to the US and British models of government.
Firstly, one cannot disagree (unless you happen to be a filthy neo-con pro American toady) that Iran uses the democratic method of electing leaders in that direct elections are held to pick the candidates - just as the electorate pick the leader in the US and UK. However one can argue that the Iranian system is better as it allows the people to directly elect the leader whereas the electoral system in the US and the first past the post system in the UK often result in a minority electing the leader.
Secondly, while the Iranian system has shortcomings in the sense that the Consultative Council can bar candidates from standing, one can argue how different is this to the Western model where the political/electoral system is so heavily weighted against candidates outside of the two main parties? At least one can in theory disband the council, whereas when both major parties in the US and UK favour keeping the status quo, it is much more difficult to instigate change.
Also, the House of Lords in the UK is an unelected body that has power in delaying legislation - yet one can argue that the council in Iran serves a similar purpose. However, while the council has more power than the Lords, by reforming the Lords as Blair wants to, there would be a situation whereby Blairite loyalists would be appointed to act as yes men to merely rubber-stamp legislation. Such is the hypocrisy of modern Western democracy.
Finally, a word about the so called free press in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK. Many idiots are under the impression that Iran’s press is merely a mouthpiece for the state - yet look at the press in America today where the spirit of inquiry has been expunged as the corporate owners have towed the government line. Essentially, in the US, state ownership of the press has been outsourced to corporations - yet the result is the same. But if you look at papers and blogs from Iran, one can see critical articles of the government despite some newspapers being closed down.
To conclude, one must remind oneself that the differences between Iran and the US/UK are not as great as our leaders would have us believe (and certainly not worth fighting a war for) and when you examine the history shared between Iran and the West it is one that should always be borne in mind when listening to the latest pronouncements from the Great Satan Bush and his little imp Tony Blair.
“Let not the speck of dust in thine neighbours eye blind you to the mote in your own” - The Bible