Comment by Rover222
1 month ago
Why are none of the people I saw posting non-stop about Palestine saying anything about Iranian freedom? Would honestly love to hear a genuine response from anyone who is against the movement in Iran. Or even conflicted about it.
I offer two possibilities:
1. Iran has frequent large protests that consistently get crushed. So while I assume the vast majority of Americans oppose the Iranian government, it’s hard to get worked up for the 5th, 6th time.
2. The US doesn’t support the Iranian government. We already sanction them. What additional support can US citizens lobby for? In the case of Israel, decreased US support would have a tangible effect. Unclear how increased US support for Iranian protestors would matter.
> The US doesn’t support the Iranian government.
The US does support the Saudi government, though, and the collective response from the concerned citizens brigade about their relentless 10+ year pulverization of Yemen has been... nothing.
Makes sense!
I’m not against the movement, but the last time Iran had protests this bad was in 1979. It didn’t get better afterwards. It’s a huge mess and I hope they figure something out to fix it, but I’m just pessimistic.
Thanks for the reply. Makes sense.
I hope the movement succeeds.
I've been curious myself about why the activist class seems weirdly quiet on this issue.
On a quick scan of media feeds I've seen a couple of things that stand out (I do not confirm or deny how true these claims are)
1) Current Iran is a enemy of the USA and thus activists can't support the destruction of the current regime. Iran is able to create nukes so can put pressure on the USA in Middle East Politics (esp. Palestine and Israel)
2) The uprising and the Shah are CIA/Western Backed and thus supporting the protestors is de-facto colonialism/imperialism.
3) Contrary to popular belief Iran is not actually a Muslim nation, only the leadership is. The population is significantly more varied and people do not want to be seen supporting the firebombing of Mosques because Islamphobia.
I don't know how widespread these opinions are, but it IS very strange how I don't see more outrage.
There's an alliance between the new left and islamism due to some ideological similarities.
Sure one side would march for pride and the other hangs gays on cranes.
However, in foreign policy both explain anything as some product of colonialism, a phenomena that essentially disappeared 60 years ago.
This is due to the effect Edward Said had on US humanities, which was in turn was influenced by Muslim Brotherhood thought in his home country of Egypt
Ironic considering Iranians consider themselves to be under Islamic colonial oppression.
I hadn't heard of Edward Said, thanks for mentioning.
The core of far left activism is being anti-Western. Therefore, they can't say anything bad about even the most despicable anti-Western governments.
That is what it seems like
I think the left-leaning activist people in the Americas are so against any position that could align with a Trump position, that they can’t think beyond those lines. If Trump supports the revolution it must be bad.
Or because the Iranian Islamic regime supports Hamas? And they somehow align with that side. I don’t know.
1 reply →
Speaking from an American perspective, many left-leaning commentators I've seen are focused on the ICE situation in the states right now.
But that's the most optimistic take I can conjure.
Definitely part of it. But the Mexican leftists I know are equally silent. As they were on Ukraine too. It’s really only when then can root against the US or Jews, as far as I can tell.
[flagged]
There are a lot of signs that the leader being suggested would be a king, which is not something most citizens in democratic nations would feel natural fighting for.
I would say it's really about opposition to death and suffering.
The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.
Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up worse for both America and the Iranians than our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A valid response would be to say that you think abuses in Iran are bad enough that a military intervention is justified and that it will lead to a better outcome for Iranians. My intuition would be to disagree with that, based on the results of past interventions, etc...
You don't have to support military intervention to pay attention. People supported Palestine without wanting to bomb Israel.
Also... Are the executed protesters not also death and suffering? What about victims and conflicts resulting from the groups Iran funds?
The problem is, I really do believe any kind of mass support for the Iranian protesters will in fact be co-opted to start a war with Iran--at least at this particular moment in time.
And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome.
Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment, etc...)
1 reply →
> The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.
And yet they are silent on the death and suffering in: Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo, Myanmar, Libya. Just to name current active conflicts where people are dying, to say nothing of all the others that have flared up and subsided in my decades on this earth as I've watched "activists" ignore them all so they could hyper-focus on whatever Israel was doing at the time to protect its citizens and the Jewish diaspora. The word "exhausting" doesn't even scratch the surface of how it feels to deal with otherwise smart, educated people who roll around in this hypocrisy-laden dogpile.
In none of those conflicts you mentioned does the US act as the main benefactor to the side causing excessive suffering. And in none of those conflicts do they lobby aggressively for the support of US politicians.
Considering that reality, does it not make sense that Americans would be more vocal when it comes to this conflict, because we actually have agency to affect it?
I genuinely want to know what your response is to that argument, because it's not a new one, and seems very obvious to me.
7 replies →
I have a less charitable and more direct answer. Right now there is a notion in Left that Israeli are the oppressor. In Iran large majority of population is Persian but MINO (Muslim in name only due to dictatorship). They are struggling to get freedom from the Islamic regime and getting some help from Israel. This flips the narrative in Left's mind (if they accept it) that Muslims can be oppressors too and that is untenable for them. especially because Left in Western nations has basically aligned themselves with muslims so its easier for them to just ignore it.
BTW its not just left here, I originally hail from India and you can feel the pin-drop silence from left on Iran there too. They just hope the rebellion gets crushed by regime like other ones and they'll pretend status quo.
My TLDR takeaway: Muslims only care about when they are oppressed & Left is completely aligned with them right now.
I completely agree with you.
In certain subreddits I have seen the idea that there is no revolution, it's all mossad/CIA propaganda. It's quite conspiratorial but it's the same subs that typically love China, NK etc so it's not surprising.
However, I have seen these thoughts spread to more seemingly mainstream geopolitical subs as well. I am not sure how much astroturfing is going on here. Probably quite a lot.
Because the Iranian regime was the one pushing that pro Palestine narrative.
Yup. Hard to be pro Hamas and then cheer a secular revolution in Iran.