Why suffocate Iranians?

Why suffocate Iranians?

It was a report filed on the eve of the death anniversary of the founding Leader of the Iranian Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini. But other reports from that country, filed on the anniversary of the death of Khomeini, spoke of Iranian people being not only steadfast against the sanctions, but defiant to defeat the sanctions.

But thinking of the Ayatollah who died 23 years ago, I contemplated what he would have felt had he come back to life, looking around his country and what has happened in the intervening period after his death. He surely would have made a flashback of the day he seized state power in his country following the escape of the Shah, who had succumbed to a massive popular uprising.

At the head of that massive uprising, the Ayatollah had led his people in continuous demonstrations and protests on the streets, defying the imperial army’s tanks and other coercive means at the disposal of the best armed state in the entire Middle East and the Gulf those days led by the Shah.

But now, three decades on after his Revolution, the Ayatollah, had he come back to life would certainly have been pleasantly surprised if not vindicated with what has happened in the intervening period, what with that Revolution in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt which had terminated oppressive regimes there.

Last week, as the people of Iran commemorated the death of the founding leader of their Revolution, a Revolution of which put to flight the most reactionary monarch of the 20th century, described then as “imperialism’s outpost” in the Middle East, it is necessary to take a glance at the alliance of Iran and the state of Israel of those days.

As already pointed out, Iran as a monarchy then, run by the Shah before the Revolution was one of the best armed states in the Middle East – parallel only to Israel. It had best weapons put at its disposal by western powers, led by the United States. At that point, since it was a client state of imperialist powers, nobody then questioned the level and quality of its arms, whether nuclear or not! Since it was a client state of the West, Iran of the Shah then was considered a threat to nobody, least of all Israel.

Its army was armed to the teeth with latest western technology. Along with Israel, Iran was then regarded as the “police post” in the area at the behest and service of western powers. But the triumph of the Iranian Revolution 33 years ago with the Ayatollah at the head meant bringing to an end its erstwhile servile and marionette relations with the West especially the United States.

Iran has henceforth chosen the road of economic independence and not dependence, political independence and not tutelage or outright pawns of foreign powers. Iran has since allowed no one to take charge of its natural resources. Nobody can say today that present day Iran is a shadow of any foreign power. Iranian people are very much their own men and women.

And the Islamic Republic thus declared after the Shah was put on flight has been a translation of the cultural and spiritual aspirations of the people of that country. The leadership of the Revolution after Khomeini’s death has remained faithful to the genuine aspirations of the people among which is to call their own shots. In concrete terms, the Iranian Revolution is delivering. It has taken the education of its people very seriously, especially in science and technology.

This brings us to the question of nuclear technology whose acquisition by Iran seems to be the major reason behind the crippling and suffocating sanctions which have been imposed on the country thanks to the prodding by the big boys of the world. But who said nuclear technology is the untouchable reservoir of a select group of nations?

Is it not true that basically all the big boys of the world, especially the veto wielding members of the UN Security Council have nuclear arsenals at their disposal? Is it not true that even Israel has such weapons? Why should one part of humanity be considered more “responsible” to acquire nuclear technology and others to be considered less responsible to possess it?

A flashback at history indicates that one super power used this weapon against another nation which was Japan. But a look at history again shows that several nations have engaged their troops abroad on one excuse or another but certainly not Iran. Iran has never attacked other nations – if anything it had been attacked – if one would recall Saddam Hussein’s expeditions on Iran which failed.

But the conduct of Israel and its relations with its neighbours raises the real question as to which country is a danger to international peace and security. The other day Israel attacked a flotilla of ships from European countries sending humanitarian aid to Israel’s blockaded Palestinian Gaza strip. There were muted sounds if not silence from the UN Security Council which failed to neither condemn nor censure Israel for its cold blooded murder of civilians aboard civilian ships on international waters.

Much earlier, Israel had launched massive land and air attack and blockade against a 1.5 million civilian Palestinian population of Gaza which caused an international outcry but was never reciprocated by censure by the UN Security Council such as imposing sanctions on the Israeli state as it has done so on Iran. Continuous explanations by Iran that its ambition to a acquire nuclear potentiality was simply for peaceful purposes such as the generation of electricity and not the manufacture of a nuke has fallen on deaf ears.

Now the sanctions imposed last year and celebrated by President Obama “as the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has ever faced” continue to the level we have seen at the launch of this perspective that the country is constrained to export anything, even flowers! Certainly this trend is suffocating and murderous to the people of that Persian country. It is certainly barbaric and unacceptable to the rest of us, the powerless majority of the people in the international community.

One wishes, the Non-Aligned Movement was still there and active as in the old good days. It seems it has ended up being “globalised” or swallowed by the unipolar order of today which is by itself very dangerous to the peace of mind of the weak segment of the international community which is in the majority. Can someone in the leadership of the developing world or Third World please speak up?

E-mail: wakuhenga@gmail.com


Post your comments



Recent Posts


more headlines in our related posts

latest # news