Why Arab governments keep quiet about Iran
Posted on Thursday 25 June, 2009
Filed Under International
OBAMA has been widely criticised for his tardiness in openly backing the pro-Mousavi protests in Tehran, although on balance, STFU probably was the best course from a diplomatic point of view.
But as far as I know, not one Arab government has yet pronounced on the situation in Iran, either for or against. That strikes me as rather more interesting.
Remember that the Iranian regime plays a pivotal leadership role for shi’ite communities across the entire Middle East, not least in Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.
In addition, it has been an article of Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy to back selected armed organisations irrespective of creed, including shia Hezbollah and sunni Hamas.
As a result, he enjoys a substantial level of backing in the Arab as well as the Persian Street. So while many regional governments resent Iranian intervention in what they regard as their internal affairs, they nevertheless need to stay in Ahmadinejad’s good books.
But what must make tyrannical monarchs and military strongmen even more cautious is the television pictures of hundreds of thousands of demonstrators taking to the streets.
Oppositional groupings such as the Muslim Brotherhood will be watching with extraordinary interest. After all, there ever were to be free elections in Egypt, for instance, there would be little doubt about the outcome.
As I argued in an earlier post, the western left should back neither Ahmadinejad nor Mousavi, but stand with the Tehran protestors, if only because they represent the best hope for greater democracy in Iran.
But I should just note that in politics, it is important to think your positions through. If democracy were to make gains in Iran – even of a partial character – the example might well prove contagious.
I suppose there is a sense in which the rule of a theocracy with popular backing is preferable to the rule of an air force commander without it. But neither option is anything socialists would particularly want to celebrate.
<<Go back
Comments
10 Responses to “Why Arab governments keep quiet about Iran”
Interestingly, our own local Muslims have not had a lot to say either. Neither have I read their views on the crisis in Pakistan: infact there has been a deafening silence. Wonder why?
Well, he can bow, kiss his ring, and call him “Supreme Leader” all he wants… but these blood-soaked tyrants are laughing at Obambi. It doesn’t matter what Obama says to the Mullahs now… they lost all respect for him when he started sending them adoring fan mail. They know this smiley plastic mannequin isn’t going to do anything.
-
Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model here… not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obama-pologist left.
-
And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq’s liberation?
-
Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
-
That, and the fact that he’s already piled all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- and a democratic revolution at this point would be downright embarrassing for him.
-
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
Socialists have to return to basics and fight against religion getting involved in politics. Whether it’s Muslim in Iran, Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Judaism in Israel, Blair Faith Foundation in the UK or Southern Baptists in the US we need to keep religion and government separate.
“Contagious” is indeed the right word in the circumstances. Other Arab nations are not exactly championing democracy with their noteworthy silence, as they clearly don’t want their own populations to think that they should have a say in who runs the country!
Reaganite,
Iran-Contra.
Nuff said.
further
José Napoleón Duarte
Efraín Ríos Montt
Battalion 316
Resistencia Nicaragüense
a bad example to the sundry dictatorships in the region that the State Department doles out cash and guns to perhaps…
Les Abbey above is right about getting back to basics: leftist parties should be talking about providing jobs ,big infrastructure,everywhere.Over here the left is as obsessed with house prices as the Tories “We’ll never get elected with falling house prices!” But most houses are only worth about four or five times people’s annual combined wages.People make the major money out of their jobs.
Socialism is a materialist philosophy which centres on jobs,not identity politics .In the middle east it is too easy for religious fundamentalists to point at the West and say: Their societies are broken and fractured with long-term unemployment,schools where children disrespect their elders and split-up families.
I remember a Palestinian speaker, an advisor to Arafat at the time, saying at an international conference that no Middle Eastern government wanted to see a Palestinian state, really, because it would be the first democratic state in the Middle East.
Leaving aside how the Palestinian aspiration was thwarted and derailed, I think there’s no mystery in Arab government’s silence on Iran. If Ahmadinejad wins he can continue playing bad cop to the West, and meanwhile sharing the policing of Iraq, but if they want Iran’s influence brought down they would trust to the US and Israel to do something.
If Musavi were to win they might hope for an easier way.
But if the people on the streets and the strikers get their way that is definitely bad news. These things are catching. Egypt has worse poverty and unemployment than Iran, as well a shameful record of collaborating with the blockade of Gaza. It has some very determined and militant workers.
Saudi Arabia is much more repressive than the Iranian regime, both on workers and on women’s rights, and though the Saudis might be glad to see their Shi’ite rivals humbled, they don’t the spectacle of mass social unrest on their doorstep. Once you start this democratising lark where would it end?
Meanwhile the Israeli government too is worried that without Ahmadinejad it will lose a bogeyman, and lose its persuasive influence in Washington. Being all dressed up for a war with nowhere to go, it will still face the Palestinians.
As for our friend who wants to tell us what Middle Eastern Muslims might tell “the Left”, why doesn’t he try telling that to Middle Eastern leftists? Or better still just fucking emigrate.
yeah, everyone’s worrying about Ahmadinejad, including people on SU blog and else where who think he is some “anti-imperialist” megastar, not just a racist front man for sections of the Iranian theocracy.