Demonstrators assaulted and shot by police in the streets… vigilante groups intimidating legitimate protesters… a theocratic state scorning and repressing those who challenge the dominance of the official religion… a thinly veiled nuclear program creating anxiety among neighboring countries and destabilizing the region.
You will be forgiven if you assumed that the above is a description of the situation in Iran. The reference is to Israel, which for decades has been carrying out the same kind of actions being denounced in Iran. Of course, the repression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and the Arab residents of Israel has no exact analogy in Iran. Israel’s treatment of its Arab residents and occupied neighbors comes closer to ethnic cleansing than anything happening in Iran today.
West Bank "settlers"
Not only does the parallel between Iran and Israel not extend to the genocidal impulses of the Israeli theocratic state, but it also falls short of describing the nature of the opposition movements in the two countries. The Palestinian and Arab opposition to the regime in Israel is by virtue of historical necessity anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist. The forces in Iran looking to Mousavi for leadership are, by contrast, the liberal middle- and upper-classes who seek not an end to the theocratic regime but more scope for expansion of their privileges.
This is no apology for the repression that actually is taking place in Iran. The consolidation of the Islamic Republic in Iran took place over the dead bodies of many in the broad-based movement which brought about the revolution that overthrew the Shah in 1979. That revolution, which united anti-imperialist sentiment across many parties and factions, grew into a bloodbath for the secular and working-class movements which had helped to rid Iran of foreign domination. The catastrophic war between Iran and Iraq saw the United States arming and supporting Saddam Hussein in the hope that he would overthrow the revolutionary regime in Iran. This assault on Iran provided the pretext for the reactionary clerics there to wipe out their erstwhile allies of the left and create the repressive theocratic state which has
Mousavi - challenging suthority?
monopolized power for the last quarter century.
Nevertheless, given the Iranian regime’s steadfast refusal to bow to western domination, it is obvious why the press and political establishment in the U.S. and Europe employ such blatant double standards in dealing with the behavior of the Israeli state and that of Iran. As Israel continues to develop its nuclear arsenal there are no impassioned cries for weapons inspectors to be allowed in to monitor the situation. By contrast, of the two states, only Iran features as a nuclear threat in the daily western propaganda barrage, even though it has allowed inspectors in. In the wake of the U.S. intelligence estimate which said that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 the hysteria over supposed Iranian nukes only grows shriller. And all of this goes on in spite of the fact that Iran, unlike Israel, has never launched a war of aggression. This obvious bias in this portrayal is accepted because Israel serves as the globo-cop for U.S. interests in the Middle East. Although Israel’s development of nuclear weapons may not have been strictly according to plan, they, and Israel’s military machine in general, serve as a deterrent against the development of alternate political/military power centers which might compromise U.S. and European dominance of the region and its resources.
Equally blatant is the double standard which dictates that the western powers must look away while Israel periodically engages in killing sprees in the occupied territories or neighboring countries. However, when a comparatively small number of deaths accompanies demonstrations in Tehran, those same western powers ascend to the highest peaks of outrage. Again, the point is not to excuse Iran’s brutal response to internal dissent but to highlight the blatant bias which passes lightly over Israel’s crimes while sparing no effort in the villification of Iran. The west is always ready to sanction (not to say foment) anti-government activity in Iran because Iran’s government, as reactionary as it is in its own right, opposes U.S. and European dominance in the region. On the other hand, protest in Gaza and the West Bank, and anti-Israeli resistance in states bordering Israel, are deemed a threat to “regional stability” (western dominance) and brutal repression is considered a reasonable response.
Gaza in ruins
The western powers are constantly seeking all over the world for partners like Israel to assist in the task of establishing or maintaining their hegemony. The Obama administration in Washington will play this game more ably than the Bush administration which preceded it. During the Bush/Blair era neo-colonialist tactics of commercial penetration and war by proxy were put to the side. Instead, old-style colonial methods of military invasion, occupation, and political takeover were revived for the war in Iraq, and contemplated for other areas. Obama is in the process of returning the west to the more subtle methods of neo-colonialism. But his buy-in to the double standard of supporting aggression and repression by his proxies and condemning equivalent behavior by his opponents has been demonstrated. One instance of this happened during his presidential campaign, when he observed silence on the Israeli massacre in Gaza but condemned Russia’s intervention in Georgia. He has now repeated this behavior in respect of the protests in Iran.
At the same time as the U.S. and Europe are moving back to the more nuanced tactics of neo-colonialism, Israel has moved further to the right with the election of the reactionary Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister and the latter’s selection of the grotesque Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister. This will result in some very awkward moments, as when Lieberman and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared for a joint press conference at the White House recently.
The U.S. will be pushing for a more tolerant and pliable Israel which is willing to make relatively generous concessions to the more “moderate” Palestinians in order to lower the level of tension in the Middle East and render the situation there easier to control. Israel however, regards lowered tensions as a threat, since the national identity of Israeli Jews, and hence the viability of a Jewish racial/religious state, is rooted in a siege mentality. Moreover, any reduction of tension in the region could jeopardize Israel’s status as the largest recipient of U.S. aid.
Despite any awkwardness between the new, more liberal administration in Washington and the new, more reactionary administration in Tel Aviv, Israel and other clients states of the U.S. will continue to benefit from the spinning of their murderous repression as being somehow better than the murderous repression carried out by anyone who stands in the way of western domination.
