Why do so many leftist defend Iran?

[cclark501]

They are not our allies, they are our enemies, in fact they have been imprisoning and assassinating members of socialist and communist parties. So why do so many in the leftist movement care what happens to Iran?

I'm not saying I would support a US invasion of Iran but I really won't care if this theocratic state is overthrown.

[MP5]

The only reason i can figure that so many of the so called left support Iran is because of the fact that they are anti-western. Or atleast the regime is where as the people are not. Most Iranians under 40 that Ive met hate the Iranian government with a passion as well as the whole Islamic-Fascist thing going on not only in Iran but also throughout the Arab world. So the lefties are going by the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend it seems.

The Iran regime must topple on it's own though. If the west intervenes it will do nothing but incite hatred towards all things western and stir up nationalist sentiments thus creating a whole new problem. But the under 40 Iranians for the most part hate the Iranian government. They are also well educated and unlike countries like Saudi Arabia the young people are about as Islamic as i am Catholic.

So when the old guard dies off or a revolution happens the change will come from within. There is not nearly as big of a danger of Islamic fundamentalists taking over as say Syria or Libya so i don't think we need worry about that.

[roy]

I don't know of any leftists that defend Iran. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'leftist'. I don't think anyone on this site defends Iran; certainly no serious communist would.

[ВАЛТЕР]

There's a difference between supporting the Iranian regime, and being against imperialist aggression against the people of Iran. I doubt any leftist supports the Iranian regime, but I'm sure all of them are against an act of aggression against Iran. Not because the state itself deserves support (it doesn't), but because it would only result in proletarian deaths. No war but the class war and all that jazz.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

No leftists defend the far-right out of 'anti-imperialism'. People who espouse this garbage are often self-labelled 'communists' in the most superficial terms possible.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

We don't support the Iran goverment we defend the Iran people against imperialism.
Don't think that if the imperialists do away with the Iran goverment the Iran people will get in a better situation. The ruling class always stays the same or is replaced with a new ruling class just as brutal. But even when the ruling class is replaced it is the people that pay te price, the ruling class can get away the people get bombed.

Real leftists attack imperialism to defend the people, not the ruling class.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Real leftists would support the Iranian working class fighting back against a government that hangs people for wanting fucking safety-checked working conditions, not take the chauvinist route of popularizing that very same devil-machine as the only bulwark against 'American' imperialism (Isn't the Khomeini regime doing what it's doing to become a major imperialist player itself, anyway?).

[MP5]

No leftists defend the far-right out of 'anti-imperialism'. People who espouse this garbage are often self-labelled 'communists' in the most superficial terms possible.

I still don't get why so many so called leftists and even Socialists (mostly of the Stalinist type) supported Gaddafi. Sure he did some good such as shipping arms to the Provisional IRA in their struggle against British imperialism but he was a dictator who lived in a palace. So unless all the people in Libya lived in palaces as well and the working class controlled the means of production in the country then he was in no way a Socialist.

The people who just support regimes for no other reason then they hate America and the west in general are morons. Christ knows that i am no fan of the bourgeois "democracy" in the west but it is still better then the dictatorships that some of these people support. The proletariat class suffers even more in places like Iran then we do in the west.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

It's the anti-western symphaty.

But as Roy already mentioned, i don't know any leftist supporting Iran. Ahmedinejad is a Nationalist. Which leftist would support a Nationalist?

[Comrade #138672]

We don't support the Iran goverment we defend the Iran people against imperialism.
Don't think that if the imperialists do away with the Iran goverment the Iran people will get in a better situation. The ruling class always stays the same or is replaced with a new ruling class just as brutal. But even when the ruling class is replaced it is the people that pay te price, the ruling class can get away the people get bombed.

Real leftists attack imperialism to defend the people, not the ruling class.Indeed. It is defending the people of Iran against imperialism.

Also, when the U.S. is being a hypocrite, talking shit about Iran, it is logical to 'defend' Iran, and pointing out that the U.S. does not have anything to stand on, because they are doing the very same thing that they are resenting.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Indeed. It is defending the people of Iran against imperialism.

How about defending them from their own government first?

[Le Socialiste]

Some leftists support the Iranian government on anti-imperialist grounds, arguing that, given its hostility to the U.S. and the West, it warrants a modicum of support. Of course, while anti-imperialism is an understandable position to hold (I would consider myself an anti-imperialist), these people tend to draw the wrong conclusions from this stance, i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This brings them into direct opposition with any and all oppositional movements that arise from the masses against the existing state; in their eyes, such resistance marks a threat to these supposedly anti-Western/U.S. governments - the protesters being 'puppets of the West' who will subvert and weaken these states in favor of pro-Western policies. You can see how this is problematic. By poorly drawing this line in the sand, these leftists reach conclusions on the matter that are firmly anti-worker, anti-communist, and lack any grounding in marxian theory. By muddling the issue, it becomes a case of them preferring the devil they know to the supposed 'devil' they don't.

[Le Socialiste]

Indeed. It is defending the people of Iran against imperialism.

Also, when the U.S. is being a hypocrite, talking shit about Iran, it is logical to 'defend' Iran, and pointing out that the U.S. does not have anything to stand on, because they are doing the very same thing that they are resenting.

What happens when the people rise up against the existing regime? Do you support the masses or hedge your bets (if not demonize them outright)? This is certainly the case surrounding some anti-imperialists' stance on Syria, who have emerged on the side of Assad, and it's what happened during the 'Green' revolution in Iran (2009-10).

[The Intransigent Faction]

Also, when the U.S. is being a hypocrite, talking shit about Iran, it is logical to 'defend' Iran, and pointing out that the U.S. does not have anything to stand on, because they are doing the very same thing that they are resenting.

I have no illusions about the leadership of Iran, but I agree with this. Leftists should be expected to be critical of the Iranian regime, as long as this is done in a class-conscious way which is just as critical of the Western narrative about who the "freedom fighters" are.

One should not be an apologist for U.S. intervention any more than one should be an apologist for the "national bourgeoisie".

I guess what it comes down to is, would it be easier for workers to rally against an isolated regime or a U.S.-backed one?

[DoCt SPARTAN]

They are not our allies, they are our enemies, in fact they have been imprisoning and assassinating members of socialist and communist parties. So why do so many in the leftist movement care what happens to Iran?

I'm not saying I would support a US invasion of Iran but I really won't care if this theocratic state is overthrown.

I dont like any organization of military purposes that kills and commites terrorism. (just like America or Al Qaeda) But Support the innocent people being drone striked everyday for where they live. America makes it look like the nation or the religion of Islam is terrorists. So i support the innocent people not any armies in Iran.

[Le Socialiste]

I guess what it comes down to is, would it be easier for workers to rally against an isolated regime or a U.S.-backed one?

I believe this to be a false dichotomy. The U.S. has experienced its fair share of setbacks over the years - the most recent having been the ongoing 'Arab Spring'. The revolutions throughout N. Africa and the Middle East swept away many a U.S.-sponsored dictator, from Ben Ali in Tunisia to Mubarak in Egypt - the lynchpin in American foreign policy in the Middle East. Of course, these uprisings haven't yet seen the victory of working people over the ruling establishment and the class it represents, but they are ongoing struggles nevertheless. Egypt certainly speaks to this, if the last few months are to be any indication. Syria remains locked in civil war (the U.S. initially supported Assad - Clinton deemed him a "great reformer" - before abandoning him), and Iraq's seen mass marches and demonstrations against the existing regime and its policy of sectarianism. Yemen, Libya, et al. saw former leaders and governments supported by the U.S. and the West crumble beneath the pressure of mass resistance (the latter due to Washington's desire to secure an outcome most favorable to it).

One of the most famous instances of a U.S.-backed dictator being overthrown was *drumroll please* - Iran! Yes, the shah's overthrow was the culmination of what Washington once considered 'unthinkable': workers organized themselves into workers councils (or shoras), strikes, occupations, and resistance to decades of oppression and marginalization ensued. Was the revolution eventually hijacked? Sure, but my point remains - it's a mistake to think America's support of a specific person or government renders them more difficult to overthrow or unseat.

[ILikeRevolution]

Iran stands up to American imperialism, and is one of the few countries left in the world that does so. Didn't Lenin say it's favorable to support a government in the third world, even if it's of bourgeois nature, that stands up to the major imperialist powers?

[Raúl Duke]

Didn't Lenin say it's favorable to support a government in the third world, even if it's of bourgeois nature, that stands up to the major imperialist powers? Does Lenin say anything about the case when such governments face internal mass upheaval? Because this I think is the real issue.

Most leftists are generally against imperialist aggression, so there's little disagreement on that.

But when it comes to say the Iranian protests, the Syrian civil war, etc the opinions have been divided. Should leftists defend the "anti-imperialist" reactionary/bourgeois/"reformist"/etc regimes when faced by apparent popular discontent?