Imperialism And Resistance

Cindy Sheehan interview on Venezuelan TV, strong truthful words. Unlike many on the liberal-left of the US, who backed (and continue to back) the Obama campaign for a 3rd Bush Imperial Regime, Sheehan remained clear in her stand against US imperialism – while one may not agree with her on specific issues, at the very least she is willing to name the cancerous rot of imperialism for what it is… (Cindy’s words are translated by Eva Golinger).

See also a recent article by Chris Hedges on “Ralph Nader was right about Obama.” There are a number of such articles appearing, however, it remains to be seen if such sentiment while translate into actual political action, or, if the US liberal-left will, once again, ally themselves with the liberal wing of imperialism.

Part I

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Part II

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

By now, the standard claims about Iran’s “stolen election” have been repeated so many times by the establishment Western media, as well as by those on the left who took the bait, that almost everybody is hooked on it and unable to wiggle free. Undoubtedly, many foreign activists sincerely believe that they are supporting democracy inside Iran, and large numbers of Iranian dissidents truly are struggling for a more open and decent society and political order. But if Iran’s 2009 official election result is valid, and if there is strong majority support among Iran’s citizens for the structure and general character of its Islamic Republic, then these foreign activists, including the collection of Nobel laureates gathered around Wiesel, and those on the left who like to invoke “solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement,” clearly are not aligned with majority opinion inside Iran. We are not quite sure what to call this toxic mix of opposing the majority will of a foreign country’s citizens and doing so in the name of “democracy,” while feeding into the regime-change program of the United States and Israel. But strong currents of Orientalism as well as imperialism are clearly running through it.

read more here

Usually I think it is a waste of time to cover any elections that is taking place under imperial occupation, even if such elections have popular participation, the resulting government will remain under the tutelage of the US, and will ultimately fail to implement anything meaningful for the occupied population. The US then uses such failure to bring forth candidates who promise their White House masters to move the occupied nation even deeper into the imperial abyss.

With regards to Iraq, the issue is far more complex than what some liberal and reactionary liberals are making things out to be, for them the banning of the Ba’athists is a sidelining of “secular Sunni and Shias” – perhaps this is so… however, this is also a very simplistic analyses, and does not take the nature of the Ba’ath party into consideration. It has become fashionable amongst western liberals to paint a picture that the Ba’ath party was just a big (mostly “Sunni”) membership club, that one had to join in order to get a job etc. Well the fact is that the vast majority of Shia’s and Sunnis were not Ba’ath party members, and the overwhelming majority of Shi’as would have never been allowed to join the Ba’athists, and would never ever have even applied for such membership. There was, and there is a class issue that is conveniently ignored, that much of this “secular Sunni” and a handful of “secular Shia” belonged to, and continue to belong to the upper liberal elite classes of Iraq. The war that the Ba’ath party waged against the vast majority of the people of Iraq was not merely sectarian, nor just a question of Saddam Hussein’s political and physical survival, rather it was a systemic attempt to eradicate cherished Islamic values. Islamic values cherished by the vast majority of Iraqis who lived in abject poverty, and who were considered by the Ba’aathists to be ignorant and superstitious and illiterate on account of their imaan.

US imperialism is not going to protect the Iraqis, and as the video below correctly points out, it is the US that wants a return of the Ba’athists (who will pledge an even greater level of allegiance to the occupiers) stoke an anti-Iran nationalism, that would benefit the Americans to further expand their empire. All the while making sure that no form of popular resistance takes root in Iraq. BUT “They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; and the best of planners is Allah” (Qur’an 8:30)

The word Ayatullah has become a pejorative descriptive word amongst the neo-con imperialist types, and some of their North American reactionary liberal allies. The neo-con attitude towards Islamic values and institutions is well documented and understood, the reactionary liberals create a slightly more complicated situation because of their attempt to keep up a veneer of respectability in their attacks on Islamic leadership. However, often the reactionary liberals are very clear about their attitudes, and like their neo-con compatriots, they too couch their attacks in terms of “freedom.”

A more obvious example of reactionary liberalism is that of, one, Asa’d Abu Khalil

From his blog:

Monday, December 07, 2009
Alcohol is now banned in Basrah
The people of Iraq has a long history of enjoying food and alcohol. Now, new rules apply. In the Ayatullah republic, the governorate of Basrah has banned alcohol. But to be fair: drinking water is still permitted. And for that, Kanan Makiya said: thank you, Mr. Bush.
Posted by As’ad at 7:28 AM

Sunday, December 06, 2009
This is the Ayatullah republic that the US constructed in Iraq
“Authorities have ordered the closure of all Baghdad nightclubs and dozens of shops selling alcohol, concerned the venues were undermining “public morals,” the city’s governor said on Sunday.”
Posted by As’ad at 9:18 AM

I don’t think I need to point out the obvious nonsense of the above statements, there is a history of how alcohol and drugs have been used by the imperialists to subdue populations that they are attempting to conquer, or keep under their control. If indeed Iraq does implement any Islam based laws, then that is NOT because the imperial US has created something, rather it is a result of the resistance of the people of Iraq.

Below is a recent Press TV documentary explaining the concept of Grand Ayatullah, and is a must viewing for those actually interested in understanding this remarkable scholarly tradition of Shi’a Islam.

I can understand the Pakistani liberal-elite being either hoodwinked, or enthusiastically supporting native informants such as Perez Hoodbhoy, he is one of them, after all… But what does bother me (although less now than before) is that people like Hoodbhoy are celebrated as “progressives” and “leftists” by North American liberal-left medias such as Z Net that publishes his articles almost on a monthly basis (9 in the year 2009, 8 or 9 in 2008, and so forth…). Part of the problem is the rampant Islamophobia amongst liberal-leftists and, as a result, like their neo-con counterparts, they promote native informants who speak on behalf of their preferred ideology: secularism. Another part of the problem is that, also like their neo-con counterparts, the liberal-left is forever in search of that “good Muslim” who will appeal to their sensibilities, self-determination be damned. Such an attitude on part of the liberal-left media has left “progressives” in North America confused, and paralyzed – in effect playing right into the hands of the neo-conists, and liberal imperialists such as Obama and Obamaists.

In Hoodbhoy’s monochrome vision there are no shades of gray, his worldview is Manichean: You are with us, or you are with the terrorists. Opponents can only be driven by ‘evil’: there are no innocents. Violence is its own explanation, there is rarely a cause. To suggest one is to be an ‘apologist for extremism’. This is no leftist talking, this is Sharon-speak.

“If people don’t respect the sanctity of Ashura, they will not respect the sanctity of anything”

The above sentence is perhaps the most important quote that I’ve heard from Iranians speaking out against the US backed green movement actions. Muslims don’t live in a self-created delusion that there is no such thing as the sacred – Islam calls us to live in a sense of complete awareness of Creation – from the tiny ant, a grain of sand, to the massive cosmos. And we also have our traditions and rituals – these too are sacred: Salaat, Hajj, the observances of Ashura, amongst others. Significant sections of the North American/European reactionary right and liberal-left regard sacred traditions as not only mere “superstitions” but believe that insulting and denigrating these traditions is an acceptable form of “free speech.” This is then imitated by some sections of the alliance of secularist-monarchist-leftist-liberal in Iran (aka green movement). Of-course, the harm that they do is much more to themselves than to Islam, or even to Muslims, but as Muslims, and as Shi’a Muslims, it is also our responsibility to disassociate ourselves from such individuals, and such movements. This vow of disassociation is the meaning of lanatullah.

WARNING: The last section of the video contains graphic insulting language against Islam beginning 8:31.

As’ad AbuKhalil the reactionary liberal who poses as a “leftist” while supporting the neo-con/Obamaist dream of wishing the worst for the Islamic Republic, and its fall – is now grudgingly acknowledging that there is an “other side” (i.e. one that favors the Islamic Republic) in Iran. Within a government, any government, there will be political differences, and those exist within the Iranian parliament and other branches of the Islamic Republic. However, there is a difference between talking about “two sides” when discussing internal political differences, and talking about “two sides” when one of those sides is engaged in an act to overthrow the existing Islamic Republic, and replace it with a toothless Persian Republic.

Most of the liberal supporters of the neo-con/Obamaist dream have not examined the material gains made by the Islamic Republic, nor do they have any understanding, or are staunchly against the role that the Islamic Revolution played in the awareness amongst Muslims of the true nature of our own religion. This is especially so for Shi’a Muslims, whose school of Islam had been relegated to mere rituals, and mourning without meaning. It is the result of the Islamic Revolution that we now, alhamdulillah, have a significant number of scholars who are able to explain the meaning and significance of Islam in our individual and collective lives. Those who advocate a Persian Republic, or to keep Islam only as a cultural symbol, with the vilayet-i faqih relegated to a figurehead, have no such concern with reviving the true spirit of Islam, as a movement for social justice at both the individual and societal levels.

Given these facts, can we place the side that advocates a Persian Republic in reality, if not in name, on the same level as those who are Islamic Revolutionaries? No we cannot, just as we cannot place the opposition to President Chavez in Venezuela on the same level – that opposition has been repeatedly exposed as nothing more than pawns of the US, who want to undermine the Bolivarian movement. The opposition in Iran has also been exposed, and the US has explicitly acknowledged their role in the “empowerment” of the green movement within Iran. There is then the question of numbers, and street power – the fact is that when the opposition in Venezuela issues calls, there too you will see tens of thousands out on the streets. In Iran, aside from the run up to, and immediately after the June ‘09 elections, the numbers have not been more than a few thousand at the most, and for the most part a few hundred. Yet, we see the North American/European corporate medias, and liberal-leftists inflate these numbers maybe 10 fold, and make grand claims of imminent blood shed, civil wars, and a (counter) revolution in Iran. The liberal-leftists pays little or no attention to the opposition in Venezuela, but they are ignorant about Islam, Iran, and have a general tendency towards Islamophobia. The result is that they fall right into the traps laid for them by some of the worst reactionaries stalking this planet, and mistakenly regard them as “freedom fighters.”

Muslims and especially Shi’as should not become confused, if mistakes are made by the Islamic Republic, then they need to be expressed internally – and we should not take a high moral tone that aims to lecture the Rahbar, or the President of Iran. Those of us in the west especially do not have any moral standing to make grand statements – we live within a system that has slaughtered a million human beings just in the past decade, and aims to continue this slaughter over the next decade. The Islamic Republic has been thus far successful in defending not only itself against direct harm from imperialism, but also aided and allied itself with others who are in a state of resistance. The liberal-leftists, and Muslims living in the west have accomplished nothing even remotely comparable, and, quite frankly, I do not believe that they even have the ideological capacity to work towards halting imperial violence.

Readers of this blog probably don’t need a run down of the anti-Iran campaign being waged by the US/”western” media – so, instead, lets take a look at three examples of the left-liberals: there are still those who expect leftists to be more careful with their analyses, and to actually base their words on facts, and realities – instead of the opportunism that they are now displaying:

Below are three examples, comments follow:

“So, whatever the truth about the claims of a fix, these protests can do nothing but good. They may, in addition to getting rid of some particularly onerous forms of oppression, open up a space in which the left can operate more freely, and in which the labour movement can assert itself more forcefully.”

“An energized populace in Iran, willing to defy illegitimate state edicts, can only lead to good, fraud or no fraud.”

“In the end it will result in a crisis. This will be a government of crisis, which will probably not last its full term. The political and social divisions inside Iran will be widened. The militancy of the workers will grow and express itself first in economic strikes for better wages and conditions, as we have already seen in the past few years, and later as political strikes and demonstrations. The most urgent need now is to organize the workers and provide the movement with a coherent programme, policy and banner.

This can only be the red banner of socialism.”

The common assumption behind these kinds of infantile statements is that the Islamic Republic is a horrendous oppressive state, against whom any kind of protest is good. The overt reason for such an assumption can only be straight up Islamophobia – complete with orientalist imagery of the “mad mullah” waging a war against “freedom” (defined by the same leftists, of-course).

Even more problematic is what these leftists are supporting; Mousavi, and his movement to re-define Iran into a toothless nationalist republic, is backed by some of the most corrupt elements of the Iranian establishment. And they are located in the most affluent areas of Tehran. Whereas Ahmadinejad’s Islamic movement is located in the heart of every city, town, village’s working class districts.

Wittingly (for the most part) and (a few) unwittingly, the “western” left is, in essence, siding with the elite, upper classes, against the working class. Now, why are they supporting these elites – well, the twisted logic is that this has “politicized the Iranian people” and that civil strife of this kind is good, even if the cause they are supposedly fighting for is not real “fraud or no fraud”. This is like saying, that running towards a mirage is good, hey, at least you are running, it’ll get you energized. That is the kind of nonsense one would expect from those who engage in psyop destabilization, because their aim is to create a chaotic situation, and then swoop down and take the spoils.

This issue of “polticization” is yet another example of an outright racist attitude – the Iranian people are probably the most politically aware around (and the ones outside Tehran are the most aware). Just because the vast majority has not bought into western style secularism, does not mean they are not political. The opportunist left defines being “political” as being “socialist” or having a liberal-secular outlook.

The Islamic Republic has maintained strong links with its vast working class, and this has only gotten stronger under President Ahmadinejad. There may well be some disaffection with the government, specifically with regards to the economy, but anyone thinking that this is going to usher in secularism, socialism, or even a move in that direction, should cut down on any mind altering items that they may be consuming, and get back in touch with reality.

A couple of recent articles on Iran worth reading:

The Vineyard of the Saker: Insider report about the events in Iran:

Ahmedinijad is a person who lives simply, conducts himself without extravagance and is honest in his profession in every manner. Where as Mousavi is someone who is from the upper circles of the society and is seen as a part of the corrupt political elite.

Iran’s ‘Stolen’ Election: a Hardline Demagouge’s Victory Over a ‘Reformer’? Not So Fast

Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi’s supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I’m a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn’t feel elated – I felt a chill. To me, this didn’t look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a “preferential option for the poor,” to use the words of Christian liberation theology.

While the liberal-left blogs/media, and the mainstream media continue to give a huge space to the pro- Mousavi/Rafsenjani demonstrators in Iran, they have almost completely ignored this hugely massive turnout for President Ahmadinejad. See also e-mail by an Iranian (former Mousavi supporter) responding to Cole’s allegations and Deconstructing Juan Cole’s “evidence” of rigging

President Ahmedinejad’s landslide victory has resulted in a vitriolic reaction from liberal rags such as the Nation, and the liberal-imperialist Juan Cole (there are, I’m sure, others). Their favored “change Iran” candidate having failed, they have resorted to leveling charges of rigging of the elections by the Islamic Republic’s leadership. They base their rigging charges on what they thought was a groundswell of support for Mousawi – as reported by the western media, whose coverage was largely limited to the daily “party atmosphere” created primarily by affluent residents of northern Tehran.

The “change Iran” crowd, not only failed to understand Iran’s complexity, it appears that they also fooled themselves into believing their own rhetoric. IF they had bothered to look at the polling data, they might have better braced themselves against the shock of their defeat. Check Yoshie’s post on Lenin’s Tomb on Ahmadinejad’s victory, that includes polls conducted about a month before the elections. – Read also the comments, Yoshie does an excellent job of expanding on her blog entry. While I agree with her in most areas – I do think that she understates the importance of the Islamic nature of Ahmadinejad’s campaign and outlook, not only in relationship to Iran, but also the wider popularity that the Islamic Republic now enjoys amongst Muslims worldwide (including Sunni Muslims).

The “change Iran” crowd, if they were not so into conspiracy theories within Iran, could have checked some of Iran’s own internal polling. Not the candidate’s own polling, but those by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) – that was completed before June 7th, of more than 16,000 people, 30 major cities in each Province. The IRIB polling data showed Ahmadinejad winning with 62.7% – they had Mousavi with 25.7%. This, and other polls are listed on the Wikipedia page: Iranian Presidential Elections, 2009. Note that Rooz Online is a reformist pro-Mousavi outfit, and Rajanews is pro-Ahmadinejad.

The hate speech that has filled the liberal rag Nation’s blog by, one, Robert Dreyfuss is the most obvious example of the kind of Islamophobic rants that appear in left-liberal circles, and largely goes unchecked, and unchallenged. Here are a few excerpts:

On Monday I wrote about Iran’s Green Wave, in support of reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi. Today I am writing about the Red Tide. That’s the red-armband-wearing, virtual fascist movement in support of reelecting President Ahmadinejad.

It’s hot, sweaty, and dusty, and a ear-splitting sound system is playing martial music as thug-like young men chant slogans. As the crowd gathers, various speakers whip up a frenzy of anger, xenophobia, and religious ecstasy.

perhaps 50,000 ecstatic followers, a lumpenproletariat crowd of roughnecks and fanatics

The women at the Mousavi rally are sheathed in scarves, but their stylish hair is visible underneath, they wear attractive makeup and pink lipstick, and below their short outer garments are visible jeans and, in many cases, high heels. At the Ahmadinejad rally, the women — in the thousands — are segregated from the men, and they are dressed head to toe in all-covering black.

I don’t think I need to explain what this kind of characterization of Iran’s working class means – and how much this is in the vein of what might hear on the reactionary FOX News. But since The Nation is supposedly a “respected” outlet (amongst the left-liberal crowd) – this trash is accepted as “legit.”

In my next post I’ll discuss some possible directions that President Ahmadinejad, and the movement that he represents, need to take. Meanwhile, there has been some good analyses that have appeared in the past day or two – and rather than repeating what they’ve said, I’ll link to them, and encourage all to read ‘em:

The US Media Campaign to Discredit Iran’s Elections.

Musings on the Iranian Elections (Vineyard of the Saker)

Wishful Think from Tehran (Must read).

And they plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah (Qur’an 3:54)