The massive protests that have rocked Tehran and other major cities in Iran have received significant attention in the mainstream press (although some actually dispute this fact). In Iran, mass discontent with the Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime, spurred largely by inflation and rising costs of living (sound familiar?) has given rise to widespread civil disobedience, as well as instances of armed violence among protestors. The mainstream media, when not openly agitating for regime change, has responded by accusing the left of hypocrisy and inaction: after all the demonstrations for Gaza, why aren’t young people coming out in droves to protest the mass killings orchestrated by the IRGC?
On the surface there may be some validity to these claims. It is evident that young people aren’t taking to the streets in large numbers as they were throughout the first year of the Gaza genocide, and no encampments have sprung up on college campuses. This has led several mainstream commentators, from Piers Morgan to the Atlantic magazine, to suggest that the Gaza protests were not an outraged response to mass killings, but were actually motivated by something else. Others closer to the fringe have claimed that the IDF targeted mainly terrorists, while the Iranian regime, in a couple of days, mowed down 30-40,000 innocent protestors.
It would be hypocrisy to condemn the genocide in Gaza while turning a blind eye to such carnage in Iran. One distinction, however, must be made clear: the mass murder in Gaza was live-streamed (despite the Israeli regime’s war on journalists) for over 2 years, while the assertion of 30,000+ dead in Iran has virtually no evidence supporting it. The initial figures, cross-referenced by health professionals in various Iranian hospitals, suggested a few thousand people had been killed in protests. The number grew when two anonymous sources reportedly told CBS News (which recently lost any credibility it once had) that the number is at least 12,000 and may be as high as 20,000. The 30,000 number apparently originated with the International Centre for Human Rights, a pro-Israel Canadian shell group that has been agitating for regime change in Iran for several years. Regime change proponents promptly forgot about the existence of this organization when a more legitimate source, in this case TIME, repeated the 30,000+ figure. However, the main source for their reporting was Dr. Amir Parasta, an eye surgeon with close ties to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah of Iran and America’s chosen puppet in the event of regime change. TIME has acknowledged that they can provide no independent verification or more direct evidence of these deaths, a statement echoed both by The Guardian and Iran International.
While I find it hard to believe that the death toll in Iran is anywhere near that high, I can’t dismiss the possibility that those numbers are close to the truth. In its report TIME mentioned that one of the only historical precedents for these massacres is Babi Yar, when Nazi forces killed nearly 34,000 Jewish Ukrainians in the span of only two days. The scale of that horror continues to boggle the mind, and it is remarkable how well that historical record has been preserved, despite the Nazis’ extensive efforts to conceal the crime. While 21st-century Tehran is not 20th-century Kyiv, it remains difficult for many people to comprehend such slaughter in such a short timespan (one of the reasons Holocaust deniers are still able to dupe listeners), and the Iranian regime is an extremely cloistered and repressive one, where the flow of information is kept under tight control. When a hated authoritarian government feels itself cornered and desperate, it usually lashes out with horrific violence. One should not underestimate what this regime is capable of, especially when they have already admitted to murdering thousands of civilians.
Sadly, a few self-described leftists seem to reject this fact entirely. It is not enough to suggest the possibility that Western media has inflated the death toll; instead, they engage in apologetics for the IRGC, claiming that they are only responding to violent provocations from the CIA and Mossad. While there is evidence that those agencies have infiltrated certain protests, suggesting that they are the main reason for the IRGC’s violent response is ludicrous. This kind of denialism not only plays directly into the hands of the regime, but it is an enormous gift for right-wingers and interventionists who accuse the left of selective outrage and performative activism.
It is now up to the left to articulate the difference between performative activism and activism based around tangible, actionable goals. It is necessary for them to do this in order to defend themselves from charges of hypocrisy. The Gaza protests, at their best, were marked by three characteristics: recognizing the nature of the problem, articulating why it directly concerned Americans, and offering a set of concrete demands that were both popular and achievable. If we apply these characteristics to the Gaza genocide and the mass killings in Iran, we see how quickly comparisons between the two fall apart.
In both cases, we have governments massacring innocent civilians: in the case of Gaza, all civilians are demonized by our elected officials as terrorists, potential terrorists, or terrorist supporters, while Iran’s victims are made up only of courageous freedom fighters. In the case of Gaza, federal and local governments, our universities, and various other institutions were investing in or directly funding a nation committing war crimes on a daily basis. There are many hawks and neocons who today dismiss the idea of international law, but even if you ignore this, such arms transfers were also in violation of US law. Conversely, our government and institutions are not providing Iran with any real financial or military support.
The objectives of the Gaza protests were for the most part clear: divestment from Israeli institutions complicit in war crimes, a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, and a complete arms embargo imposed on Israel. This is where the biggest contradictions become clear: what demands should the left bring to its protests against the Iranian regime? The implication, from many of the left’s critics, is that we must vigorously demand that our government intervene militarily in Iran, decapitate the Ayatollah’s leadership, and re-install the monarchy under the Shah. By almost any possible metric, regime change in Iran would be a catastrophe. In our multipolar 21st century world, Iran is a crucial flashpoint between the United States and its rivals Russia and China. Not only is Iran the third-largest oil producer in the world, it also borders the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas shipments pass. An emboldened US and Israel, now dominating the Middle East, would encourage greater bellicosity from Russia and China. The Russians would now have an easier time ignoring our hypocritical warnings about territorial sovereignty while the Chinese would accelerate their preparations to take control of Taiwan and the South China Sea. All of these potential developments would greatly heighten tensions among these nuclear-armed superpowers.
War in Iran remains deeply unpopular with the American public. Many of us remember the multi-trillion dollar disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, Syria, and Yemen, the destabilization in the Middle East that led to a rise in terrorism, and the suspension of civil liberties and the explosion of the mass surveillance state. Putting all that aside, we must ask if the idea of a US invasion of Iran is in any way popular with the Iranian people. Let’s not forget that in 1953 Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister was overthrown by the US and UK, who installed the Shah. Would it be rational or dignified for Iranians to embrace the same puppet leader foisted upon them by the same imperialist government? It’s true that certain factions among the protestors are seeking a return of the Shah, but do we have any reason to believe these are the majority?
I think that the left could make two reasonable demands of the US government with regard to Iran: an end to the crushing sanctions that have wrecked Iran’s economy, and to use the tools of international law to ensure that the criminals within the Iranian state are held accountable. Ironically, it seems that these are the measures that the left’s critics most staunchly oppose. They have always shown approval when US sanctions decimated the lives of ordinary Iranians, just like they did to Cubans and Venezuelans. They have mocked and derided the idea of international law as the United States ran roughshod over it, most damningly during the war in Gaza. Since they have always endorsed US-imposed cruelty via soft power or direct military intervention, who are these critics to accuse the left or anyone else of cruelty?
.
It is a profound embarrassment to me to witness an article laced with U.S.–Israeli Imperialist propaganda published under the rubric of an entity founded by, and supported by, one of the pillars of the Left, Prof. Rick Wolff.... that is to say: under Democracy-At-Work’s rubric.
.
I would like to know: does Prof. Richard Wolff support the view this article presents?
.
The author, Isaiah G Blum, while claiming that it is only “some self-described Leftist” engaging in “…apologetics for the IRGC, claiming that they are only responding to violent provocations from the CIA and Mossad…. [and that] …there is evidence that those agencies have infiltrated certain protests, …”
.
In fact, however, the evidence supporting these claims – that the mass killings have, in fact, come from Israeli and U.S. actions. – has, in fact, been widely presented (by Ricky Hale, of Council Estates Media, among others) and has not been refuted.
.
The drumbeat for war against Iran is being sounded, not only by our own Monster-in-Chief, but also, by supposedly leftist papers like The Guardian.... and worse:
.
During the month in which the CIA, the Mossad and MI6 conducted their insidious False Flag operation with Iran, attempting to foment an insurrection by reportedly burning down hundreds of Mosques and Fire Stations and Ambulances, and assassinating over a thousand police officers and Iranian civilians {shades of exploding pagers, anyone?}, Democracy Now, and Amy Goodman – who claim to be progressives – have, to my everlasting horror, insisted on reporting these events by repeating the Empire’s propaganda that it is the State of Iran that is propagating the violence against their own people, rather than the Empire that is assaulting Iran and its people.
.
The U.S. assaulted Iran, first by economic sanctions that provoked what were indeed initially peaceful protests (and that the State of Iran allowed to proceed peacefully when they were still peaceful), then by infiltrating the peaceful protests with agent provocateurs, with guns and bombs to assassinate Iranian police officers and Iranian citizens, and to destroy the mosques, fire stations and ambulances; and now by bringing war to their doorstep.
.
In respect to the Iranian public, the Empire’s false flag operations were not effective. In their case, the ploy of the Israeli-American Imperialist Ruling Classes did not pan out. The mass murders by the CIA, Mossad, and MIG6, of the Iranian people, were recognized for what they are, and the Iranians rose in mass protests against the criminal actions of these foreign incendiary forces operating contrary to international law within their nation's borders.
.
Much of the Western public, however, has been highly compliant, nodding along with the Talking Heads who claim that it has been the Iranian authorities who committed these mass murders of Iranian citizen, and that it is the Iranian citizens who have been spontaneously carrying out the mass destruction of hundreds of Mosques – and of fire stations and ambulances, and police stations.
.
As though as any state is going to destroy its own civil infrastructure en masse.
.
And as though the people of any Islamic nation would undertake to destroy hundreds of its Mosques.
.
This is so absurd a contention, it doesn't even pass the laugh test, but even Democracy Now – to Amy Goodman's endless shame – has nodded along with this warmongering nonsense!
.
I was born in Republic of Ireland, and I can tell you that, even when vast numbers of the Irish people – out of disgust at the conduct of the priests – walked away from the Catholic Church, not one of them vandalized a single church.
.
That the American people would accept the contention that the Iranian people would, themselves, burn down hundreds of their mosques – their own places of worship for centuries – tells us nothing about the Iranian people. It does tell us a great deal about the deep vein of racism in the American culture.
.
I have to agree with the comments below criticizing this article. Not only does it have nothing to do with Democracy at Work, but to call "protesters" in Iran who were killing policemen and attacking government building 'freedom fighters" is beyond the pale. Who is moderating this substack? It's hard for me to believe that Richard Wolff would approve this post.