Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today clarified the Iranian position on when it would support a popular movement in the Arab world. The country had shown different standards in its reactions to the Arab Spring, supporting the uprising in Yemen, for example, but actively opposing the uprising in Syria. Khamenei said today that if a popular movement is against a pro-US/Israel regime, Iran supports it. If, however, the uprising were against an anti-US/Israel regime, Iran would oppose it.
“Our stance regarding these public movements is crystal clear. Anywhere there is a popular Islamic and anti-US movement, we support it,” Khamenei said. “We support movements that are against the US and Zionism,” Khamenei added [IRNA, 4 June].
12 comments:
The speak of truth from Khamenei. The truth of the truths.
Actually, this:
"If, however, the [Arab] uprising were against an anti-US/Israel regime, Iran would oppose it."--Nader
Doesn't really equate to this:
"If somewhere a movement is provoked by America and Zionists, we will not support it. Wherever America and the Zionists (Israel) enter the scene to topple a regime and occupy a country, we are on the opposite side."--Khamanei
Whether by accident or intent, I believe this to be a case of fallacious reasoning.
Anon 2:51 PM,
Khamenei himself is saying that he supports movements that are anti-US/Israel. He has made it Chrystal clear, and I agree with Anon 12:50 PM that he is telling the truth, admitting that the foreign policy implications of a particular movement in a particular country is the driving force for Iran to support or oppose it. As opposed to a policy of defending democratic, anti-dictatorial movements in the region regardless of whether the regime in power is a friendly dictator or a hostile one. Khamanei should be getting full credit for telling the way it is, not hiding behind slogans.
Let me add to the comments above by saying why Khamenei's straight talk on the issue deserves credit. In the US, for example, the administration is on the record for supporting the democratic movements in the Arab world, the Arab Spring, but when it comes to Bahrain, it supports the ruling family. This is a contradiction that cannot be explained through slogans.
In Iran's case, it's been Syria that has been problematic. Not only they support Syrian people's aspirations for freedom, they are actively supporting and helping the ruling clique. What Khamenei is saying publicly is what we have said as our analysis, that Iran defends democratic movements only if they are against the governments it deems hostile or pro-West. It is the foreign policy implications and not the democratic natures of those movements that are important, he says. We should give him credit for saying it.
Nader, it's a conditional statement.
Here's the position:
""If somewhere a movement is provoked by America and Zionists, we will not support it."
The active, delegitimizing factor is the situation of being "provoked."
And the conditions for the statement are:
"Wherever America and the Zionists (Israel) enter the scene to topple a regime and occupy a country, we are on the opposite side."
It is fallacious to portray this conditional statement simply as:
"If, however, the [Arab] uprising were against an anti-US/Israel regime, Iran would oppose it."
Needsless to say that my sentence above should have been: Not only they do NOT support the Syrian people's aspirations...
The wise among us never put things down in black and white. America, on occasion, can be a force for good - as it was in Bosnia.
All baloney. All of you. The Syrian revolt was not provoked by either Israel or the USA. The first Israeli reaction to the revolt was fear of any unknown future Syrian regime; and the USA was saying the Assad (the criminal) was still a nice guy.
The real Iranian standard is if the revolt can result in a secular
government...Iran will be against it. If the revolt has major elements which are Islamist....like the Eyptian Muslim Brotherhood....Iran will give it military or political support. As usual, Admadineajad is nothing but a liar.
annon 5:40, Iran was also in Bosnia so what's ur point? the resistance on the ground was set up and trained by Iran.google it.All of nato's bombings didn't do much as is the case in Lybia. The US doesn't have a coherent ME foreign policy.they kinda make it up as they go along.at least Iran's position is clear.whether good or bad is another subject all together.
its exactly like the US position vica versa.
Anon 5:40:
Although the foreign policy considerations is the driving force here, but other factors must and do play a role. You have mentioned Bosnian example. More important is the example of Afghanistan. In no other conflict, do the national interests of Iran and those of the US/West have overlapped, namely in anti-terrorism and anti-narcotic issues. Generally, in international politics generalizations run the risk of over-simplification. When it is said the driving force behind Iran’s policy vis-à-vis the Arab Spring is the nature of the regimes, being pro or against US/West; it does not mean that there are no other considerations.
There is a better word for it in bothe US and Iran's case.
REALPOLITIK !
Post a Comment