Unless you're an Islamist, a tankie or a Jew hater, all of whom loathe individual freedom, secular liberal democracy and capitalism, you'll be elated at the sight of thousands of Iranians worldwide cheering on the attacks by the US and Israel on the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Of course international relations lecturers, the UN and international law advocates will all claim that the attacks are "illegal", which may be true. They cite the inviolability of state sovereignty - the concept that all states are entitled to have inviolable borders and to be free from aggression.
The point of this is that people should be free from war, but the single biggest philosophical question in the context of the attack on Iran, is how legitimate is that principle when it protects a regime that wages war on its own people.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a tyranny, a misogynistic theocratic autocracy that does not hesitate to imprison, torture and execute dissidents. From its oppressive ultra-conservative treatment of women, to its global sponsorship of terror and promotion of its bigoted intolerant brand of theocratic totalitarianism, it is wilful blindness for anyone to claim that this regime was in any way peaceful, or had any remote sense of moral authority.
The celebration of Iranians in the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere for the killing of the Supreme Leader is a message of the illegitimacy of a regime that does not tolerate challenge, does not allow for peaceful transitions of power, and suppresses freedom of speech and the media egregiously.
The Iranian Islamist regime has funded, trained and armed terror groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Israel, and has provided arms for Russia's aggressive revanchist war against Ukraine.
There are fair and reasonable questions to be asked about the attacks on Iran:
- Will the Islamic Regime actually be overthrown? Or could it remain in power through sheer brutal force against Iranians who seek to overthrow it?
- What sort of government will replace it, and could it be worse (more radical)?
- How will its proxies, such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas respond, spreading conflict further?
After all the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime saw the power gap replaced by an Iranian backed regime following the disaster of ISIS. The regime of Muammar Gaddafi was followed by civil war and bifurcation of the country. The US couldn't sustain the overthrow of the Taliban. So there is good reason to be sceptical about the US being willing to do what is necessary.
However, it is not a reason to cite the belief that the Islamic Republic of Iran is entitled to protection under "state sovereignty" because it doesn't respect the sovereignty of multiple sovereign states, nor does it respect the autonomy of its people.
Those granting the Iranian regime moral equivalency to Israel, the United States, to any liberal democracy, are either completely banal, or morally bankrupt.
When the Iranian revolution happened in 1979, there was much domestic opposition in Iran to the regime of the Shah, which was itself autocratic and intolerant. Some liberals and many Marxist activists backed the Islamic Revolution, and were promptly arrested and had their political movements suppressed.
Anyone who supports individual freedom and peace will want the end of this regime, let's just hope it happens, and Iranians, the Middle East and the world will be freer and more peaceful after this action against one of modern history's most brutal, terror promoting and fascist regimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment