Comment by thisislife2
17 days ago
As someone not from the west, I can relate to your viewpoints. While Iran and Venezuela, for example, may be flawed democracies, the west forgets that those who came to power there did so after a popular uprising and revolution. And just because the west doesn't like the current leaders there (for asserting their sovereignty on economic affairs), I am often bemused by the lack of political understanding of many westerners here who think just because Iranians are disgruntled at their current rulers, they are waiting to welcome the son of a despot ruler who they overthrew once, who has lived most of his life abroad, and urges foreign countries to invade his country so he can be the ruler of Iran again! The same with Venezuela too - however pissed of the Venezuelans are the current government, no Venezuelan is going to welcome the current Nobel peace prize winner, a right-wing politician who plans to privatize the energy resources of her country so her family can get back the "rights" that she believes was "stolen" from her, especially when she too urges foreign countries to invade her country.
I do subscribe to the view that politicians like these, who seek the help of foreign powers to come to power, are definitely traitors to their country. Inviting foreign powers to meddle in your affairs is how civil war erupt and lead to the eventual breakup of a country.
>...I am often bemused by the lack of political understanding of many westerners here...
It's not a lack of understanding, my friend, it's hubris.
I am from the US. There's a mindset that permeates through the west that somehow we are "better", because of our values, or our governmental systems, or our economic power, or our military power, or whatever. It is flawed.
We also have a rather naive and simplistic viewpoint that because we are "better", that our viewpoint is the correct one, and that people from non-western nations should just accept whatever we do because it's in their best interest. Oftentimes, though, that "best interest" is in the short-term capitalistic/economic interest of the actors from the West who in turn stand to profit handsomely from the setup they wish to impose on nations like Iran or Venezuela. There is no concern for human life, no concern for the economic or societal health longterm of the impacted countries, nor for the country's internal affairs.
This has cost us dearly over the years. Sadly, the irony here is that a lot of these countries have a very "westernized" populace who just want to control their own resources. If we weren't such assholes to them, they'd be on "our side" as opposed to the overractionary path they have taken.
Venezuelans voted for the party alliance led by Machado and support the removal of Maduro [1].
Iran looks more complicated. Pretty much the only insight we get is from the diaspora and cosmopolitan people from Tehran. There seems to be a very significant armed force clearly in favor of the Ayatollah, so removing him without their complicity will likely lead to turmoil.
1. https://x.com/atlas_intel?lang=en
I find it disingenuous to attribute the popular vote to Machado. The candidate that represented the alliance was Edmundo González and it was for him that the voters cast the vote. He is perceived by the public as a centrist / centre-left. He is someone who has worked under both Hugo Chavez and Carlos Andrés Pérez. Machado might have helped swing some right-leaning voters to him, but it is doubtful if Edmundo González could have managed to swing the left-leaning voters to vote for her, if she was the candidate herself.
As for Iran, you need to look beyond the perspective of "repressive" regime or an "army run" nation. It is only culturally "repressive" when you compare it to the western cultural norms. For a muslim middle-eastern country, it is actually quite moderate. And it is the only middle-eastern nation that has a functioning stable hybrid-democracy while most of the other middle-eastern countries are run as kingdoms by their Shieks (supported by the west). Moreover the Ayaotallah does have a huge support base amongst the religiously inclined, who do belive that their country's political system should have an Islamic influence. To understand this better, just look at the right-leaning politics emerging in the US and Europe about preserving the country's Christian culture - many of them are elected on that platform and if they come to power, can anyone say it is undemocratic? Further, it is important to understand that the Ayatollah is the equivalent of a Pope to the Shia muslims. Imagine the politco-religious turmoil that will take place in the west if an attempt is made to get rid of the Pope from the Vatican. I am sure many Iranians don't want to mix religious with politics. But I can assert with confidence that they are currently in the minority.