A quarter century has passed since I was working in Iran, but I believe that Iranian foreign and defence policies remain substantially as they were then. The clerics and civil administration were opposed to nuclear weapons on both ethical and practical grounds, but they favoured the use of nuclear energy as more sustainable and environmentally preferable to fossil fuels. (Some of us might dispute the latter, but that is what they believed). I don't think that anyone in the US or Israel seriously believes that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. They do believe, however, that Iran poses an obstacle to the further expansion of the State of Israel. They never really wanted a settlement. As you say, the one they had, they ripped up. A settlement under which Iran gave up the right to nuclear energy would only have been useful to the West as a precedent for forcing Iran to concede many other aspects of its national sovereignty, and Iran was not prepared to do that.
I need to comment on the role of the New Zealand left in all this. Those to the left of Labour have pretty consistently upheld the rights of Palestinians and have condemned the western genocide in Gaza. But at the same time they have demonized Iran, the only significant world power to have materially resisted the genocide. Thereby they have played into the hands of Israel and the US. The New Zealand left itself has done nothing except wring its hands while the Iranians are now comrades-in-arms and fellows-in-martyrdom with the people of Palestine. It is a moral disgrace which the Realm of New Zealand will never outlive.
Thanks Geoff. I imagine that would have been a very interesting time to be in Iran - was that around the time Bush Jr was demonising Iran as part of the 'war on terror' rhetoric? How did you find living there? Would like to visit Iran if I get the chance, once things have calmed down of course.
I'm not that keen on nuclear power either, but my aim above is to try and understand the Iranian position. Iran has some geothermal power plants as well, perhaps that is something they could work with New Zealand on?
Some of the hesitation among the left concerning Iran is likely to be due to its poor human rights record. Some will also remember the what happened to the left in Iran following the revolution. While elements of the Iranian Left helped to bring down the Shah in 1979, most were rounded up or killed off by Khomeini and the conservatives by 1982.
Another factor - some of the Iranian expat community who left the country due to the revolution sometimes appear to had preferred life under the Shah, despite his secret police being infamous for their use of torture and arbitrary detention. The son of the Shah is even being positioned to take over in some versions of regime change, and would be likely to be a useful puppet for Western interests.
A key problem with the war on terror rhetoric is that it tends to improve the position of conservatives in both Iran and the US. As Prof Paul Rodgers noted in 2007, the "strong US rhetoric on Iran is singularly useful for the Ahmadinejad government". One example I found particularly inspiring was the Tehran bus drivers union in 2005 who left the lights on their buses and refused to collect fares after union leaders were arrested by the Iranian govt. The leader of the union Mansour Osanlou was sent back to the notorious Evin prison in July 2007 and was held without charge. Facing lower popularity in Iran at the time, Ahmadinejad got a boost by being able to react to the antagonism coming out of Washington.
About the only example I can think of where the 'left of labour' in New Zealand might have demonised Iran was when former Green MP Golriz Ghahraman put out an odd statement in 2022 calling for the greater use of terrorist designations and supporting the position of 'traditional allies'. I can't imagine Keith Locke ever issuing a statement like that. Many on the left, including me and people I know in the Green party were rather annoyed at that Golriz press release and found it hard to fathom.
We have some family friends where one of the daughters married an Iranian. They are now very concerned for his family who live just outside Tehran. They have been in my thoughts.
The left has by and large uncritically adopted the right's view of Iran: an authoritarian, undemocratic state hostile to women, homosexuals and non-Muslim religions. This is the view propagated across all mainstream media and politics, and also in the forums of the left (for example The Daily Blog and the various "Peace and Justice" movements). However although the left subscribes to this view, it does not understand that the necessary and intended consequence is that the Western powers and Israel would combine to wage war against Iran in order to be able to complete the genocide in Gaza with impunity. The left is generally opposed to the genocide (in theory, if not in practice) but it has helped create the conditions for the war against Iran which is an essential part of the US/Israel strategy for the genocide.
The failure of the left in general (I would call it criminal negligence) is a result of a combination of poor intelligence (they haven't been in Iran, they don't know the true complexity of the situation there, they are blind to the positive elements and dependent on western news sources for their information) and flawed political logic. Under the influence first of Marxism, and then liberal secularism, the left has failed to properly understand the role of religion in the social and political dynamics of the working class and in society as a whole. They are particularly unable to understand the constructive role of Shia Islam in the Middle East. Those who do understand are in the CIA, the US State Department, Mossad and the IDF, and they see the necessity, from their point of view, to destroy Shia militancy wherever it arises.
By accepting the logic of its enemies the left made itself impotent in the affairs of the middle eastern region, and domestically here in Aotearoa.
A quarter century has passed since I was working in Iran, but I believe that Iranian foreign and defence policies remain substantially as they were then. The clerics and civil administration were opposed to nuclear weapons on both ethical and practical grounds, but they favoured the use of nuclear energy as more sustainable and environmentally preferable to fossil fuels. (Some of us might dispute the latter, but that is what they believed). I don't think that anyone in the US or Israel seriously believes that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. They do believe, however, that Iran poses an obstacle to the further expansion of the State of Israel. They never really wanted a settlement. As you say, the one they had, they ripped up. A settlement under which Iran gave up the right to nuclear energy would only have been useful to the West as a precedent for forcing Iran to concede many other aspects of its national sovereignty, and Iran was not prepared to do that.
I need to comment on the role of the New Zealand left in all this. Those to the left of Labour have pretty consistently upheld the rights of Palestinians and have condemned the western genocide in Gaza. But at the same time they have demonized Iran, the only significant world power to have materially resisted the genocide. Thereby they have played into the hands of Israel and the US. The New Zealand left itself has done nothing except wring its hands while the Iranians are now comrades-in-arms and fellows-in-martyrdom with the people of Palestine. It is a moral disgrace which the Realm of New Zealand will never outlive.
Thanks Geoff. I imagine that would have been a very interesting time to be in Iran - was that around the time Bush Jr was demonising Iran as part of the 'war on terror' rhetoric? How did you find living there? Would like to visit Iran if I get the chance, once things have calmed down of course.
I'm not that keen on nuclear power either, but my aim above is to try and understand the Iranian position. Iran has some geothermal power plants as well, perhaps that is something they could work with New Zealand on?
Some of the hesitation among the left concerning Iran is likely to be due to its poor human rights record. Some will also remember the what happened to the left in Iran following the revolution. While elements of the Iranian Left helped to bring down the Shah in 1979, most were rounded up or killed off by Khomeini and the conservatives by 1982.
Another factor - some of the Iranian expat community who left the country due to the revolution sometimes appear to had preferred life under the Shah, despite his secret police being infamous for their use of torture and arbitrary detention. The son of the Shah is even being positioned to take over in some versions of regime change, and would be likely to be a useful puppet for Western interests.
A key problem with the war on terror rhetoric is that it tends to improve the position of conservatives in both Iran and the US. As Prof Paul Rodgers noted in 2007, the "strong US rhetoric on Iran is singularly useful for the Ahmadinejad government". One example I found particularly inspiring was the Tehran bus drivers union in 2005 who left the lights on their buses and refused to collect fares after union leaders were arrested by the Iranian govt. The leader of the union Mansour Osanlou was sent back to the notorious Evin prison in July 2007 and was held without charge. Facing lower popularity in Iran at the time, Ahmadinejad got a boost by being able to react to the antagonism coming out of Washington.
About the only example I can think of where the 'left of labour' in New Zealand might have demonised Iran was when former Green MP Golriz Ghahraman put out an odd statement in 2022 calling for the greater use of terrorist designations and supporting the position of 'traditional allies'. I can't imagine Keith Locke ever issuing a statement like that. Many on the left, including me and people I know in the Green party were rather annoyed at that Golriz press release and found it hard to fathom.
https://www.greens.org.nz/stronger_action_needed_to_stop_iran_regime_violence
We have some family friends where one of the daughters married an Iranian. They are now very concerned for his family who live just outside Tehran. They have been in my thoughts.
The left has by and large uncritically adopted the right's view of Iran: an authoritarian, undemocratic state hostile to women, homosexuals and non-Muslim religions. This is the view propagated across all mainstream media and politics, and also in the forums of the left (for example The Daily Blog and the various "Peace and Justice" movements). However although the left subscribes to this view, it does not understand that the necessary and intended consequence is that the Western powers and Israel would combine to wage war against Iran in order to be able to complete the genocide in Gaza with impunity. The left is generally opposed to the genocide (in theory, if not in practice) but it has helped create the conditions for the war against Iran which is an essential part of the US/Israel strategy for the genocide.
The failure of the left in general (I would call it criminal negligence) is a result of a combination of poor intelligence (they haven't been in Iran, they don't know the true complexity of the situation there, they are blind to the positive elements and dependent on western news sources for their information) and flawed political logic. Under the influence first of Marxism, and then liberal secularism, the left has failed to properly understand the role of religion in the social and political dynamics of the working class and in society as a whole. They are particularly unable to understand the constructive role of Shia Islam in the Middle East. Those who do understand are in the CIA, the US State Department, Mossad and the IDF, and they see the necessity, from their point of view, to destroy Shia militancy wherever it arises.
By accepting the logic of its enemies the left made itself impotent in the affairs of the middle eastern region, and domestically here in Aotearoa.
Your other points are well taken.