Generally book reading seems to be on the decline, collateral damage in the age of short attention videos, podcasts etc. I am no exception, finding that it is all that I can do to keep up with the slew of geopolitical trends and events that characterise our current times.

However, when Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran repeatedly encourages his western audience to read ‘Going to Tehran – Why the US must come to terms with the Islamic Republic’ (2013 – Leverett and Leverett) I, for one, eventually felt the need to find the time. Professor Marandi, with close links to the Iranian Government, appears to have taken on a Western facing role in providing an Iranian perspective on the current conflict in Western Asia – in combative debate with commentators in western mainstream media and in  more considered and nuanced interviews on alternative media. He is my main ‘go to’ when trying to get a sense of what is going on in Iran and how it might be planning its next moves in its war with the US and its Israeli proxy.

The authors of the book, Flynt and Hilary Leverett are academics and former US National Security Officials.

The book opens with an absolute gem from a 1962 JFK speech, no less, that sets the context for popular western conceptions of Iran and more generally serves as a reminder to us all that geopolitical analysis is complicated and that conclusions and propositions are not to be reached and stated lightly:

‘We (often) enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.’ (i)

In our collective defence I would want to point out that so relentless and embedded are the propaganda messages in our western mainstream media that it requires considerable time and persistence to access alternative sources that allow such constructive discomfort!

— x —

The Leveretts (writing in 2013) suggest that a western mythology has been developed about Iran that comprises three elements:

1) Irrationality. That Iran is an immature, ideologically driven polity unable to formulate foreign policy that is in its own material national interests.

2) Illegitimacy. That Iran has an illegitimate and unstable political order that is at risk of implosion.

3) Isolation. That through diplomacy, military action and economic pressures Iran can be isolated and brought to collapse.

Within a few pages I found myself coming to a very clear view that it seems unlikely that Iran would have been able to maintain in such a robust manner its resistance to persistent attempts at political and economic capture by the US without that resistance being firmly grounded in the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic State that developed from it. Key factors in my thinking comprise:

1) The largely ubiquitous nature of the Shia religion in the country means that nearly everyone has an engagement with it – providing a point for unity, the maintenance of morale and the development and exercise of popular discipline, especially when western attacks are at their most severe.

2) Islam, provides a series of moral imperatives that legitimises and empowers resistance against what is viewed as an amoral (if not immoral) neo liberal ideology characteristic of late-stage western capitalism / imperialism.

3) Ayatollah Khomeini’s writings in pre revolution exile explicitly politicised Shia Islam with a moral responsibility to resist and oppose the external meddling in the affairs of any state and its people. As such it chimes with anti-imperialist movements (largely in the global south) that promote the sovereignty of individual states.

I don’t think that the alternatives to the setting up of the Islamic Republic (ii) as a result of the overthrow of The Shah would have had its staying power and would have probably enabled a US led counter revolution to re-establish a dictatorship with a re-instatement of the internal state oppressive apparatus. This would have:

1) Allowed the West to continue to plunder Iran’s oil reserves at knock down prices and open up its economy to imperialist value extraction and financialisation – to the detriment of ordinary Iranians.

2) Enabled Israel to more successfully progress its ‘Greater Israel Project’ that would have continued to contribute to dividing and destabilising Arab states in the region at the behest of, and in the interests of, the US (iii).

3) Empowered the US to control oil supplies to China, thus slowing what has become a phenomenal economic development and restricting its challenge to US global hegemony.

Of course, political elites in the West (aka The Ruling Class) argue that Iran continues to pose a threat (militarily, ideologically and economically) to the stability of the region and indeed to the self-evident wholesomeness of its hegemonic ‘rules-based order,’ which combined with human rights abuses, provides more than ample justification for its attempts to bring about its collapse.

Consideration of human rights abuses and the inherent violence of revolution is beyond the scope of this piece, but I will make three general points:

1) Western, dominant countries citing universal human rights as a crude stick to beat developing countries whose economies, societies and polities have been grossly distorted by colonialism and imperialism need to be challenged. These views are simplistic and often self-serving.

2) UN resolutions explicitly forbid external attacks (military, economic sanctions, covert regime change etc) on the basis of confronting human abuses. The logic being that external attacks increase resistance to change.

3) The violence involved in the revolutionary overthrow of a regime rarely ends with the establishment of a new government. Counter revolutionary forces remain at large, their potency often enhanced by funding and material support from countries who had supported the previous regime.

As a member of BRICS, inhabiting a key geographical trade location with abundant energy resources, Iran does indeed have the potential to become a regional superpower – and one that can and is making a significant contribution to challenging US global hegemony and the US $  financial system that underpins it. So, the Western Ruling Class is absolutely right to see Iran as a threat – primarily to itself. The extent to which waging war, imposing economic sanctions and promoting regime change in Iran is in the best interests of the majority of the populations in the West is moot – and one that a class analysis would suggest otherwise. Then there is the very real risk that this will all spiral out of control into a global conflict that includes the exchange of nuclear strikes ……..

That aside, the evidence that Iran poses a military threat to the stability of the region seems to me to be thin (iv). I view this as a classic propaganda strategy by the West – to accuse your adversary of doing the very bad things that you yourself are doing. To my knowledge Iran hasn’t invaded any other country or sought to impose its ideology or values on other states. It has undeniably supported groups in other countries in the region seeking to resist US and Israeli invasion / ethnic cleansing /  genocide in  Yemen, Lebanon, the West Bank  and , of course, Gaza.

Is that a reason to attempt to destroy it?

— x —

Footnotes:

i) ‘Often’ is my addition – even JFK’s speech writers need a little help sometimes!

ii)  Alternative groups that contested the outcome of the revolution included constitutional, nationalist, leftist and marxist groups. It is undeniable that many of us secular ‘progressive leftists’ in the West have felt uncomfortable and critical of the establishment in Iran of what is termed a dictatorial theocracy – a view it has to be said that plays directly into western propagandising. Reflection on JFK’s comment would seem in order here.

iii) Tail and dog analyses are common in both western mainstream and alternative media. I think the power relationship between the US and Israel is well captured in the title of Stephen Gowans 2019 book – ‘Israel, A Beachhead in the Middle East: from European Colony to US Power Projection Plan.’ Nevertheless, Israel certainly has agency in this relationship – and one that Netanyahu, in desperation, is pushing as hard as he can. It may well be that the changing balance of global geopolitical forces is resulting in Israel becoming an increasing mixed blessing for the US.

iv) The evidence is that Iran is calibrating its military responses to attacks from the US and Israel very carefully in order to exact significant degradation of bases and materiel whilst signposting the threat of escalation in the event of further aggression. It has, so far, avoided the ever-present trap set by Israel to ‘over-react’ and thus bring further attacks upon itself, including the possibility of an Israeli nuclear strike.