War, Power, and the Price of Intervention

Commentary: By Salim Muwakkil, host of the "Salim Muwakkil Show" on WVON 1690 AM, journalist, and community activist.

Well y'all ... the US and Israel attacked Iran during the holy fasting month of Ramadan, opening a bodacious new chapter in US imperialist intervention and marking the second time in eight months the Trump administration has used military force against the Islamic Republic. The strikes also come just a little while after a bellicose US military intervention in Venezuela killed dozens and abducted that nation's president Nicolas Maduro. This follows a pattern of beligerence etched by the Trump's admistration's attack on seven nations in its two presidential incarnations.

Iran was often chided for ”supporting terrorism” with its aid to groups like the Houthis (i.e., “Ansar Allah”) in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza, three 'Middle Eastern' regions under relentless assault by the expansionist, Zionist state of Israel--an assault undertaken with absolutely minimal accountability or global pushback. Iran has been the lone supporter of these outgunned opponents of Zionist tyranny. As an ironic result, these groups are often demonized as malicious Iranian “proxies," while in fact, they're courageously seeking to resist Zionist dominion of their land, and Iran seems to be their only source of succor in a hostile region.

But there’s also a sectarian dimension to this struggle. In Yemen, for example, the Houthis’ (Ansar Allah) primary enemies are Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates --two 'petro-monarchies' ruled primarily by Sunni Arab Muslims. The Houthis are Zaidi, a Shia sect, more in theological alignment with the Persian Shiites of Iran. These unfortunate sectarian divides have come into focus as Iran has dispatched drones across the region, targeting other Gulf 'petro-monarchies' like UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia, provoking the ire of its Sunni neighbohrs.

Israel provoked this war because it was in the Zionist state's interest to do so while Iran was uniquely enfeebled. Inflaming intra-Islamic dissension in the region is a bonus for Israel. For several weeks Iran has been struggling with growing dissent following nationwide protest about resource inequality and other domestic turmoil. Israel sensed an opportunity to exploit this dissent, so Benji Netanyahu enlisted the Trump-afflicted U.S. to join it in an imperialistic duet.

Pumping its considerable martial muscles, the IDF air force put together what it called the largest ever military flyover in Israel’s history; one of its most concentrated attacks was on the compound that housed Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It turns out, that attack killed Iran's 86-year-old Leader, a man who has led the Islamic Republic since succeeding Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 Islamic Revolution and who died in 1989. Prior to becoming Supreme Leader of the theocracy, Khamenei served as the President of Iran from 1981 to 1989. At the time of his death, he was the longest-serving head of state in the Middle East.

The Israeli attack also targeted other members of Iran’s leadership. But even if the US/Israel imperialist hit squad succeeded in wiping-out Iran's top leaders, regime change is not guaranteed and neither the US nor Israel have articulated a vision for what new leadership would look like.

However, these imperialist maneuvers seem to be timed right, with growing dissent in Iran following nationwide protests about the economic crisis, political repression, infrastructure falure and domestic inequality. In fact, Iran’s theocratic leadership appeared to be at its weakest political position since the Islamic Revolution nearly 40-years back. And, quite frankly, there is increasing justification for assisting the Iranian people -- the famously ingenious Persians -- in freeing themselves from the "smothering theocracy" (as has been characterized by many social theorists) that has hemmed them in for nearly a half-century.

Although, at one point in history it was Shia Islam that acted as the primary force of progressive change against the brutally autocratic regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Shah was an "ancestral leader," who had been forcefully inserted into real political leadership through a US/UK-orchestrated coup to oust the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossaddegh (1953)-- which was an action taken primarily to stop Mossaddegh's nationalization of Iran's oil industry. The Western-imposed, petroleum-fueled Shah ruled until the Islamic revolution of 1979 that inserted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni.

Now ... I’m no fan of theocray, as it often distorts the dialectics of material accumulation and privileges the ethical/political interests of those with cultural hegemony. Ethnic, cultural and theological diversity (as well as scientific exploration) are often sacrificed for the good of the dogma in such socieities. And ... there’s little doubt that the notoriously creative Persian people deserve the opportunity to shape their own future without being constrained by theocratic dogmatism.

But wouldn't this have been more humanely accomplished by supporting Iranian movements for greater freedom and democracy while minimizing external intervention? Balancing these goals would have required careful diplomacy to avoid unintended consequences and to prioritize the well-being of the Iranian population over geopolitical interests. Of course, these kinds of careful, egalitarian maneuvers are something entirely extrinsic, not just to Trumpian sensibilities, but to US tradition in general. Trump is just singing a familiar American lullaby about the deceptive allure of Demon Imperialism.