The first of a three-part series of brief articles considering the run-up to the June 14th Iranian presidential elections
Compared to citizens of other developed
countries, Americans are not especially well-informed about the world. Like other peoples only more so, Americans view the world
through a glass darkly – a glass darkened by ignorance and
prejudice. Much of the fault lies not with the people, but with their
corporate-monopoly media.
Consider the case of Iran, a
geo-strategical lynchpin nation more than three times the size of
Iraq. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has gotten uniformly
bad press in the USA. From derogatory caricatures of the Ayatollah
Khomeini – a stunningly brilliant, mystical scholar falsely
portrayed as a crude, thuggish dictator – to hysterical
exaggerations about Iran's nuclear program, the US media has
consistently used Iran as a punching bag. The many positive aspects
of Iran and its Islamic Revolution have been ignored, suppressed, or
distorted, while negative aspects have been exaggerated or invented
out of whole cloth.
In Iran, despite the fact that
presidential candidates are vetted by a Council of Experts, voters
choose from among candidates whose range of views is considerably
wider than those of candidates in American elections. Those
candidates represent many different, competing power centers: Groups
within the clergy that are often at odds with each other; a populist
bloc calling for more redistribution of the national wealth;
reformists who want to soften the hard edges of the Islamic
Revolution's legacy; justice-seeking hardliners associated with the
Revolutionary Guards and the basiji volunteer corps; free-market
advocates; and many others. Even Jews have considerable political
representation in Iran – though their disproportionate power in
relation to their numbers is not as extreme as it is in the USA and
Western Europe. (Iran's Jews have repeatedly turned down massive
bribes from Zionists who want them to emigrate to Israel – not just
because they are patriotic Iranians, but because they are doing well,
both economically and politically, in Iran.)
One sign of the vibrancy of Iran's
democracy is voter turnout, which reached 85% in 2009 and is likely
to be strong again this year. (Compare that to US presidential
elections, which peaked at 57% in 2012.)
In short: The American founding
fathers' ideal of a balance of power between competing factions is
more fully realized in Iran than in today's USA, where the two major
parties have a monopoly on the political process while offering
voters a choice almost as meaningful as “Coke or Pepsi?”
Iran's revolutionary democratic
experiment has undoubtedly fallen short of utopian expectations. That
is the way of all revolutions. But it does have some significant
achievements under its belt.
Its first and foremost achievement is
that it has survived the ceaseless attempts of the world's most
powerful empire to destroy it. Like Fidel Castro, who survived
hundreds of CIA assassination attempts, Iran's Islamic Revolution has
spent most of its life dodging American bullets. But unlike Castro's
Cuba, the Islamic Republic of Iran has managed to remain reasonably
democratic and deeply pluralistic in the face of continuous threats
and attacks.
The US tried to “strangle the Islamic
Revolution in its cradle” by arming Saddam Hussein and sending him
to invade Iran in 1980. Rumsfeld and other US leaders helped Saddam
acquire chemical weapons, which he used in terror attacks against
Iranian cities as well as against troops on the battlefield. (The
joke goes that in 2003, when asked how he knew that Saddam had WMD,
Rumsfeld answered, “Because we kept the receipts!”)
The Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate
in 1988 – Iran would have easily won had it not been for the heavy
US-orchestrated Western support for Saddam, including WMD – but
Iranians have not forgotten the experience, and their votes have
repeatedly elected war heroes and veterans to public office. One of
the results of the war, and the subsequent US-led anti-Iran “cold
war,” has been the determination of the Iranian people to maintain
and assert their independence. That is why Iran's nuclear program has
the support of the vast majority of its citizens, including
reformists, who want their government to assert its legitimate rights
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to have a full-fledged,
independent nuclear energy program including uranium enrichment, as
explicitly permitted by the NPT.
While defending itself against serious
outside threats, Iran's revolutionary Islamic Republic has managed a
number of impressive social, economic, and technical achievements.
Though the Western media has portrayed the Islamic Republic as a
medieval theocracy, in alleged contrast to the “modernizing”
Shah, the facts are otherwise. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979,
Iran has:
*Ended child labor.
*Raised life expectancy from 55 to 73
years.
*Provided universal free public
education through the end of high school.
*Vastly increased women's education,
which lagged far behind men's under the Shah, to the point that today
women dominate Iran's universities and publish more than 4,000 books
per year.
*Become the second biggest refugee
recipient nation in the world, according to the UNHRC.
*Become the largest automobile
manufacturer in the Middle East.
*Developed an impressive space program,
launching satellites with pulsed plasma thrusters and solar panels.
*Maintained relative harmony between
ethnic and religious groups, despite the tremendous diversity, and
despite heavily-funded foreign efforts to incite ethnic and sectarian
strife.
*Provided more significant aid to the
Palestinians, in their struggle to resist occupation, than any other
country – which is probably the main reason that the US media and
political class, both largely owned and operated by supporters of
Israel, are awash in anti-Iran extremism.
It is safe to say that the vast
majority of Iran's voters are proud of the progress their nation has
made since the revolution of 1979, and determined to maintain Iran's
independence (including nuclear rights under the NPT and support for
the Palestinians) in the face of foreign bullying. But opinions
differ regarding how to best achieve those objectives. In the next
article in this series, I will examine some of the issues and
candidates in the upcoming June 14th elections.
- - -
(1) Turkey's democracy has not yet
fully emerged out of the shadow of its military junta, which is
controlled by the US, NATO, and Israel; it is still a partially
colonized nation and as such is by definition non-democratic. As for
Israel, it is not a Middle Eastern democracy because (1) it is not
Middle Eastern, but a European settler colony, and (2) it is not a
democracy, since the majority of its rightful voters are not only
ineligible to vote, but have actually been ethnically cleansed and
confined to de facto concentration camps.
(2) Western media allegations of
Iranian election fraud in 2009 were almost hallucinatory in their
complete lack of basis in any kind of evidence, as Flynt and Hillary
Leverett explain in great detail in their book Going to Tehran.
Labels: 9/11, ayatollah khomeini, democracy, Iran, iran-iraq war, iranophobia, Islamic Revolution, Israel, jfk assassination, presidential elections, rumsfeld, Saddam, stolen elections, wmd, Zionism