Washington Moves To Control Iran’s Revolution: US Shifts
Focus to Support Tehran Opposition
15 January 2010By Shamus Cooke
It seems that President Obama has finally woken up. He
now realizes that the U.S. friendly “color revolution”
in Iran that he hoped for — and planned for — has
gotten out of control. To the Democrat’s terrible
regret, a real revolution is under way.
An extremely revealing article in the Wall Street
Journal entitled "US Shifts Focus to Support Iran’s
Opposition," explains the U.S. government’s unpleasant
wake-up call. The article is essentially a debate
among state officials and other “experts” as to the
Iranian movement’s strength, and whether or not it can
be channeled to meet the needs of the U.S. government
and the U.S. corporate interests it represents. The
article states:
“…a number of Iran scholars in the U.S. said they have
been contacted by senior administration officials
eager to understand if the Iranian unrest suggested a
greater threat to Tehran's government than originally
understood.”
And:
“American diplomats, meanwhile, have begun drawing
comparisons in public between Iran's current political
turmoil and the events that led up to the 1979
overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi.”
The article also stated that “There's realization now
that this unrest really matters." (January 10, 2010).
To the Democrats, this presents an urgent foreign
policy re-shuffling: the U.S.-friendly leaders of
Iran’s opposition movement — represented by their
leader Moussavi — need to be strengthened, since their
political approach is significantly more conservative
than the still-radicalizing demands of Iran’s
revolution, which already amounts to no less than a
deep structural change in Iran's political and
economic life. The "official" Iranian opposition wants
no such change; as such, they have stopped organizing
demonstrations and have become mere spectators,
watching events unfold that have already passed them
by.
This was already the case in June, when The New York
Times reported:
“People in the street have been radicalized, and I do
not believe that most of them would today subscribe to
Moussavi’s avowed platform.” (June 24, 2009).
Also from The New York Times:
“… Mr. Moussavi… meant only to be an instrument for
making Iran a tiny bit better, nothing more… Now, like
us, Mr. Moussavi finds himself caught up in events
that were unimaginable, each day’s march and protest
more unthinkable than the one that came before.” (June
19, 2009).
It’s now been seven months since this commentary, and
the revolution has only become more resolute and
militant. The initial shouts against voter fraud have
evolved into demanding "death to the dictator",
combined with threats against other sections of Iran's
political superstructure. The “respectable" opposition
seems like a dinosaur in this context.
But Obama is determined to re-energize the
already-extinct “official” opposition. He hopes that
by financially targeting the current political rulers
— through sanctions and bank account freezes — that
the U.S. friendly Iranian opposition will be
strengthened, while toppling the existing regime.
This is a risky maneuver. The outcome could in fact
strengthen the current regime, and help unite people
against the economic attacks of a foreign enemy. But
any open collaboration between Iran’s opposition and
the U.S. is also risky, since Iranians have a good
memory of repressive U.S. interference in their
country — when the C.I.A. organized the overthrow of
the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953
— not to mention more recent examples of U.S.
imperialist foreign policy in neighboring Iran and
Afghanistan.
The Wall Street Journal article is the first report of
Iran’s opposition openly proposing plans to help
de-stabilize the current regime and signifies
Washington’s willingness to follow through.
It must be noted that Moussavi and other leaders of
the U.S. friendly-section of Iran’s opposition do not
represent progress for Iran. These people are
arch-conservatives who constitute a resolute section
of Iran’s repressive establishment. If they were to
come to power, they would likely welcome U.S. business
interests, while maintaining the repressive state
apparatus used by the current regime, which is exactly
why the U.S. wants them in power.
But the U.S. is walking a dangerous tightrope, since
the energy of the revolution is more than capable of
ruining all the U.S. plotting. Moussavi and his ilk
are already in the process of being pushed aside. Real
revolutions — unlike a U.S. “color revolution” — are
not easily manipulated events; masses of
suddenly-conscious people have high expectations that
cannot be met by the corporate-controlled U.S.
government.
If Obama were sincere about helping the people of
Iran, he would leave the country in peace, instead of
making threats and beating the war drum, a drum he’s
pounding in the exact same rhythm that Bush played in
the march to war with Iraq.
Hands off Iran!
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade
unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).
He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments