Iran: open thread

Posted on Wednesday 24 June, 2009
Filed Under International

 


THE exigencies of the day job preclude pontification today. Instead, I invite readers to hold forth with their opinions about developments in Iran. To get the conversation started, here’s a sample what is being said on some other British (and Irish) leftie blogs:

AVPS

Shiraz Socialist

Socialist Unity proffers this little gem:

Within their ranks [the opposition] are undoubtedly many who see this as the opportunity to challenge the very foundations of the Islamic Republic, determined to end the political, social, and cultural restrictions which are part of daily life in Iran, ushering in a new system of government altogether.

Note how John Wight says this like it’s a bad thing.

Splintered Sunrise

Stroppyblog [scroll down for Carnival of Socialism with Iran theme.]

The Daily (Maybe)

LONDON PROTEST TO DEMAND RELEASE OF JAILED IRANIAN TRADE UNIONISTS

Friday, 26 June 2009

12:30pm to 1.30pm

Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 16 Princes Gate, London SW7 1PT

(parallel to Kensington Road, not far from the Royal Albert Hall).

[via]


<<Go back

Comments

18 Responses to “Iran: open thread”

  1. Red Deathy
    on June 24th, 2009 at 08:42

    I think the chief thing here is seeing the leftists who privilege anti-imperialism over democracy.

    When Charlie and Fred wrote in the manifesto that communism is the battle of democracy we can take that as meaning that democracy is a good in and of itself in terms of the class struggle, and in the absence of any obvious actors in a situation to support, we can play the long game of preferring democracy (and the chance of making revolution) to dictatorship.

    I’d suggest taht, and not some geo-strategic great game should be our starting point.

    So, it’s not that ruling class stooge robbed ruling class stooge of the election, it is that an election has been visibly fiddled, and a lot of people came out to oppose that. The regime, so far, has stood firm, but it may well turn out to be a dead beast walking.

    Thousands will remember their part in this dispute, and will maintain links. The dispute may well continue, and impose unacceptable burdens on some of rhe ruling clique. In a while we’ll get some slight reforms, and a lot of face saving, but I reckon democracy will win in the end.

  2. Letters From A Tory
    on June 24th, 2009 at 10:01

    Now that Obama has broken his silence, he will have to decide how vigorously he wants to pursue his aims or whether he will stick to throwing a few nasty words at Iran.

  3. Chris Baldwin
    on June 24th, 2009 at 10:16

    There’s only so much Obama should do. Ultimately he can condemn vote rigging, but for America to try to engineer a change of regime in Iran would be an unacceptable act of imperialism. As for the left, we need to be clear that the real issue isn’t Ahmadinejad or Mousavi. The real issue is the religious elite – not so much its reactionary clericalism, although that isn’t very nice, as its unaccountable power. The election may have been rigged, but even if it hadn’t been it wouldn’t have been fair because candidates are excluded from taking part by the leaders. If people are contesting the actions of the elite, that’s a good thing, whomever they support. The British left really can’t affect anything here, but the most important thing to do is defend the right to protest of the Iranian people, whatever their political inclination. Beyond that, we can affirm that what we’d like to see in Iran is what we’d like to see here – secular socialist democracy.

  4. Sue R
    on June 24th, 2009 at 11:34

    I just have a very simple test to judge other societies: ‘would I like to live there as a member of the poorest section of society?’. I usually find that that gives me the answer I require. As for John Wight, the man is a disgrace. Of-course a lot of people have got a lot invested in the Iranian regime ie Palestine, Venezula, Hezbollah etc, so they don’t want to see it go down, but I think that’s their problem. They are asking the Iranian workers to sacrifice themselves so they can continue to feel good about being anti-imperialist. I don’t know what Obama should do. His rather lack-lustre denuciation of the violence contrasts with his energetic self-promotion, but I can see the point that America would prefer to deal with Amadinajad and the clerics as they are a known quantity. One thing the Yanks hate more than anything else is popular power.

  5. Entdinglichung
    on June 24th, 2009 at 11:50

    the Iranian regime isn’t anti-imperialist, it is opposed to British and US imperialism but is aligned with German, French and Russian imperialism

    Marg Bar Jomhuriye Eslami!

  6. old goriot
    on June 24th, 2009 at 12:36

    “the Iranian regime isn’t anti-imperialist”

    I think the nuanced phrase preferred by Wight/Newman is “a thorn in the side of US imperialism”.

  7. Chris paul
    on June 24th, 2009 at 15:06

    All a bit muddled this. Are the protestors wishing for a different conservative establishment figure? Or are they after a completely different result? It seems to be the former for many of them?

    And was the election so rigged that it changed the conservative establishment puppet that won? Or not? Although the rigging seems gross it may well be the latter.

  8. Brigada Flores Magon
    on June 24th, 2009 at 19:18

    ‘Reactionary clericalism…though that is not very nice.’ How very British: ‘more tea, vicar?’ Durruti had a clearer line on this: ‘The only church that illuminates is one that is burning.’

  9. modernity
    on June 24th, 2009 at 21:26

    I have scoured a lot of ground and Iran related links in the past week or so, this one stood out:

    “Virtually identical to those neoconservatives on the right are some on the left who do not celebrate that the Iranian regime teeters at the abyss. What do they have in common? It is a nostalgia for the Cold War and an inability to break out of its dualist mode of thought: one in which the world is divided between two ideological poles (the dinosaur left and the neocon right disagree only on which pole is “good” and which is “evil” but the rest of their analyses line up seamlessly together; as they argue with each other, the rest of the world has moved on to embrace a more current reality).”

    http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/iran-1930s-level-crossroads-international-left

  11. Michael
    on June 25th, 2009 at 16:32

    To say Ahmadinejad is anti-imperialist and therefore the left should back him is laughable. It is like saying the British Empire was anti-imperialist because it opposed the French Empire and so on.

    The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Ironic that the left should go down that shallow road, one usually trodden upon by the United States.

  12. modernityblog
    on June 25th, 2009 at 18:39

    “Ironic that the left should go down that shallow road, “

    Not all have.

    Some did cos they can’t think too originally nowadays, others opposed them.

    A scan of any Iran thread on SU blog, shows that a wide majority are against the Iranian State’s attacks on its own people and their repressive measures, etc

  13. Michael
    on June 26th, 2009 at 00:29

    [Posted by modernityblog | 18:39, 25 June 2009]

    “Not all have.

    Some did cos they can’t think too originally nowadays, others opposed them.

    A scan of any Iran thread on SU blog, shows that a wide majority are against the Iranian State’s attacks on its own people and their repressive measures, etc”

    Which is something of a relief! I know that the majority of the British left have the sense to see Ahmadinejad’s regime for what it is, but I find it incredible that some elements are actually entertaining the thought of supporting him for his anti-US stance.

  14. modernityblog
    on June 26th, 2009 at 15:10

    “I find it incredible that some elements are actually entertaining the thought of supporting him for his anti-US stance.”

    As do I, but what was that expression “the struggle brings out the contradictions?”

    I think we underestimate how many people are rather ‘conservative’ in their thinking, and the reactions to the fiddled election and repression of the protests in Iran demonstrates that.

    Those who think about politics as a set of slogans, fixed lines of argument and are prone to Cold War thinking have had the most problems trying to think about the revolts in Iran and fit them into their thought process.

    Now you could argue why that is the case, but as SU blog shows there’s plenty of evidence to show that these lefty ‘conservatives’ have a love of the Strong Man (be it Galloway, Chavez or Ahmadinejad)

    What surprising is the lengths that they will go to, in their argumentation

    shades of the 1950s?

  15. Chris S
    on June 27th, 2009 at 15:21

    HOPI has established a dedicated blog to what is going on in Iran.

    http://hopinewsfromiran.wordpress.com/

  16. modernityblog
    on June 27th, 2009 at 15:48

    ops should have written:

    I think we underestimate how many people in the WEST are rather ‘conservative’ in their thinking,

  17. Vodka Iordanov
    on June 30th, 2009 at 02:33

    deleted spam – attempt to sell Vodka to DP readers. Whatever next?

  18. Michael
    on June 30th, 2009 at 12:02

    Wow, how cliche. Advertiser instantly assumes that the tipple of choice for lefties is vodka.