Share

Full-Spectrum Idiocy: GOP and Chavez on Iran

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
In Iran, protests continue with supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi contesting election results. (Photo: Newsha Tavakolian / Polaris / The New York Times)

     When approaching Iran, the Republican Party line and the Hugo Chavez line are running in opposite directions - but parallel. The leadership of GOP reaction and the leadership of Bolivarian revolution have bought into the convenient delusion that long-suffering Iranian people require assistance from the US government to resist the regime in Tehran.

     Inside Iran, advocates for reform and human rights have long pleaded for the US government to keep out of Iranian affairs. After the CIA organized the coup that overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953, Washington kept the Shah in power for a quarter-century. When I was in Tehran four years ago, during the election that made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president, what human rights activists most wanted President Bush to do was shut up.

     But Bush played to the same kind of peanut gallery that is now applauding the likes of Sen. John McCain. The Bush White House denigrated the 2005 election just before the balloting began - to the delight of the hardest-line Iranian fundamentalists. The ultra-righteous Bush rhetoric gave a significant boost to Ahmadinejad's campaign.

     Denunciations and threats from Washington are the last thing that Iran's reform advocates want. And Iranians certainly don't need encouragement from Uncle Sam to do what they can to bring about democratic change.

     John McCain doesn't get it. And neither does Hugo Chavez.

     Of course, Chavez has practical reasons for his warmth toward Ahmadinejad. (Practitioners of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" usually do.) While sharing Washington as a common adversary, their oil-rich countries have the makings of a world-shaking energy bloc. And they're on similar pages with well-founded antipathies toward institutions like the World Trade Organization, the IMF and the World Bank.

     But human rights - whether food, shelter and health care or freedom of speech, press and elections - should not be matters of winks and nods.

     As voting began in Iran on June 12, Chavez praised Ahmadinejad as "a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution, the defense of the Third World, and in the struggle against imperialism."

     Nine days later, with a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters gaining momentum, Chavez declared that "Ahmadinejad's triumph was a triumph all the way." The Venezuelan president condemned those "trying to stain Ahmadinejad's triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution."

     I'm among millions of progressive North Americans who admire much of what Chavez has been doing for economic equity and social justice in Venezuela. But that admiration is no reason to be quiet when Chavez makes common cause with repression in Iran.

     Meanwhile, in the United States, we have nothing to be smug about. The day after President Obama toughened his criticisms of Iran's rulers at his June 23 news conference, a venerable human-rights organization named the Quixote Center was noting that more than 1,200 people had sent letters and faxes asking the Obama administration "to denounce the violent repression of peaceful protests organized in response to the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement" - a massacre of indigenous people in the Peruvian Amazon.

     What happened during that massacre on June 5? "A hundred people were wounded by gunshot, and between 20 and 25 were killed," the Center for International Policy reports.

     "The Obama administration," the Quixote Center noted, "remains silent on the massacre in Peru."

     But the fact of some hypocrisy from President Obama does not change the fact of some idiocy from President Chavez.

     On Wednesday (June 24), The Associated Press reports, "Chavez reiterated his support for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a close ally, and said he is 'completely sure' Ahmadinejad fairly won re-election on June 12."

     For good measure, Chavez ascribed the protests in Iran to Washington and its allies. He said, "protests and violence that have rocked Iran since the contested vote appear part of a recurring strategy by US and European intelligence agencies to destabilize enemy governments." Chavez declared: "From my point of view, that's what's happening in Iran."

     It seems to be beyond the vision of both Hugo Chavez and John McCain to see that vast numbers of Iranian people, fed up with repression, are able to grasp the historical moment on their own while opposing the regime. The last thing they need or want is "help" from the US government as they struggle for a democratic future.

  

»


Norman Solomon is co-chair of the national Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign, launched by Progressive Democrats of America. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For more information, go to: www.normansolomon.com.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

In his revolutionary zeal

In his revolutionary zeal Hugo may have lost sight of what is "right" and what is left. Nonetheless his knee jerk reactions may have more merit than we know now since this "revolution" may have been more planned than televised. Less attention was given to Netanyahu declaring in the midst of all this "Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons" as if this was laying ground for opportunistic intervention. That was pretty insensitively innappropriate.

Solomon is right. The

Solomon is right. The Republicans need to make headlines. They have no discourse of their own. Their brains seem to be "atrophied". They think any opportunity is good to0 show their "cojones". Let's pass it. But to Chavez, Iran is not going to help him being reelected( that what he wants). He might have some good social policies but oftenly he is overboard anatagonizing with some supporters because of his out of context remarks.

How can ordinary people make

How can ordinary people make sense of a situation when it's been difficult to trust the media around such subjects which arouse highly defensive positions as taken by the elite media ownership in this country? Combine with that the repression of media coverage in Iran. What are we to make of accusations that the CIA is secretly orchestrating this protest in Iran? Chavez knows from personal experience that the US routinely interferes in other countries politics, even to the point of staging a coup, as occurred in April 2002 in Venezuela. So how about Iran? In all this it seems Chavez is a voice of experience, but it is also clear he has ideological interests to protect. And so the enemy of my enemy is my friend analogy makes sense because Ahmadinajad is a hard right conservative of George W. Bush's ilk. That the two countries both have a lot of oil is beside the point: Chavez intensely dislikes the American gov't. Whether or not Chavez is correct on any of it, the Iranian people have reason to protest their gov't. If the CIA is involved, it is putting ordinary citizens' lives on the line in an effort to destabilize Iran's government, and so Americans must also realize that no one will be immune from this treatment when it serves govt interests, including Americans. Please tell us something we don't know about John McCain.

Economic equity and social

Economic equity and social justice in Venezuela. Are you completely insane. They have so much economic equity they can´t even feed their own people. The opposition, that which is not incarcerated, has no means of communicating with the people because of the government´s closing of opposing media institutions. What idiocy.

My comment on this piece is

My comment on this piece is that it is long past time for progressive Americans, of whom I am one, to look critically at Chavez. I have lived and traveled to Venezuela since 1984. In spite of his rhetoric, Chavez has wrecked Venezuela's hyper-inflating economy, creating an open class war, and presiding over some of the worse urban crime and corruption in the world (OK, he doesn't get all the blame for the last two.) Meanwhile, he has done very little to lift people out of poverty, after ten years in power. They are all still there. Just because Chavez was Bush's enemy doesn't mean he's our friend.

I think the Republicans who

I think the Republicans who have been critical of President Obama's statements on Iran are opportunists. These Republicans are counting on the ignorance of the American people. People who have intelligently followed what is going on Iran are very thankful that McCain is not president.

I agree with Mr. Solomon, on

I agree with Mr. Solomon, on both counts. Those in the US who would readily intervene in Iranian internal affairs, as Bush acknowledged he was attempting to do via promoting internal destabilization, either are reflecting the Likudnik/Zionist/Israeli war-mongering posture, the not-so-subtle interests of the international oil corporations, are just plain ignorant, or some combination of these. Virtually the same for those who are frothing at the mouth over Chavez' posture vis-a-vis right wing & (possibly) CIA efforts to undermine his regime in Venezuela. Chavez should be called out on his support for Ahmedinejad and the repressive mullahs, which reflects badly on his own efforts to democratize Venezuela. His espousal of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is understandable, but in this instance, short-sighted and counter-productive of his own aims in his own country. Viewed another way, however, it could be seen to be little (if any) different from the alignment of the US with repressive regimes all over the world when the corporatocracy deems it to be in their oligarchic interests. Sort of brings ideas of casting stones and glass houses to mind.

What was done to the

What was done to the demonstrators in Iran is appalling, and Ahmadinejad is not a sympathetic figure to progressive Western eyes. Yet it must be remembered that successive US administrations have instigated Iran's neighbors against it, repeatedly and very credibly threatened it with a devastating war of aggression (the preparations for which are still in place as far as I know) and pushed hard to isolate and weaken it economically. The US leaders, their allies and the corporate media have waged an unrelenting propaganda against Iran since the fall of their fascist puppet in 1979, and the amount of reliable news reaching most Americans is nearly zero. And finally we must recall that Congress authorized and Bush spent hundreds of millions of dollars on destabilizing Iran, supporting several groups that would be denounced as terrorist if the shoe were on the other foot while at the same time funding "moderate" (pro-Western) political groups. There is no good reason to believe that this effort has been fully stopped. So Chavez' words must be weighed against the fact that Venezuela has also been the victim of the same kind of aggression, for the same reason - oil - and that Venezuela needs the support of the enemies of its enemies.

Colombian Paramilitary death

Colombian Paramilitary death squads are causing a great deal of violence in Venezuela,their modus operandi is to massacre civilians,a different kind of violence from common criminality; the USA government has supported the Colombian government in their attempts to destabilize Hugo Chavez;the Venezuelan west border is infiltrated by the Colombian paramilitaries. Is the USA government,willing to condemn this violence,or just the Iranian repression of the opposition?

Exactly the same CIA-backed

Exactly the same CIA-backed institutions which have been meddling in Venezuelan affairs and concocting "popular dissent" have been at work in Iran. I would direct people to Diana Barahona's detailed Monthly Review report on Freedom House, 95% financed by the U.S. State Department and with a board of trustees full of the likes of former CIA director James Woolsley, former Rumsfeld aide Kenneth Adelman, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and other neo-conservatives. Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy, CIPE, and USAID are among a multitude of "pro-democracy" destabilization instruments of the U.S. government. Iran and Venezuela have been the principle recent targets. In addition, Iran and Venezuela are both targets of U.S. military intervention. U.S. Special Forces were in Iran as early as summer 2004 selecting bombing sites (reported by Seymour Hirsh in the New Yorker in Jan 2005). The recent reactivation of the U.S. 4th Fleet in Latin America is largely directed at Venezuela (which ranks well down the list of Latin American countries for military spending but which has been the target of a U.S. backed coup and which is bordered by Colombia with its massive U.S. military funding and involvement). While Solomon is expressing concern about the silence of US citizens while Iran and Venezuela make "common cause", perhaps he can write next about our excessive quiet while the U.S. government foments destabilization in much of Latin America (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, among others) with $100s of millions invested in what are essentially subversive non-governmental organizations. For more, check also the writings of Eva Gollinger, Kurt Nimmo, and Salim Lamrani.

I wish the U.S. government

I wish the U.S. government would stay the hell out of my life too.

Well, Jon: You'd like that,

Well, Jon: You'd like that, wouldn't you? If Chavez really hadn't lifted anyone out of poverty. You sit with your Oligarch friends near Caracas, sipping expensive wine - made a little harder to get by tariffs, one guesses - claiming to have traveled and lived in Venezuela. You must've been sent down there by the Economic Hitmen and you're still bitter because Chavez won't let you haul in the World Bank and re-ruin the Venezuelan people. Maybe Chavez isn't our friend; maybe Chavez has no reason to be our friend, after the US-backed coup attempts. Norm Solomon is very good at parsing verbiage; I don't think he would miss the disingenuousness in yours.