TEHRAN -- “Because of the West's deep-seated 'orientalist' approach, non-Western societies, especially those in the Middle East, have been portrayed as the 'other'. The post-colonialist literature reveals how this 'other' has been painted as exotic, pre-modern, barbaric, and devoid of all the beautiful and admirable values embedded in the superior western cosmos,” author and political commentator Richard Javad Heydarian has said.

He made these remarks during an email interview with Iranian journalist Kourosh Ziabari this week.

Mr. Heydarian who is based in Manila, the Philippines, writes for Foreign Policy in Focus, Alternet, Counterpunch, Antiwar.com, Iran Review and Asia Times Online. 

The Middle East and North Africa are going through the birth pangs of change. The Tunisians and Egyptians have successfully deposed their dictators and Yemenis have made autocratic ruler Ali Abdullah Saleh fled the country while the Bahrainis are still struggling against the odds. In North Africa, the Libyans ended a 42-year rule of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi but now are engaged in a new effort to save the country from the neo-colonialists. 

The Tehran Times discussed all these developments with Mr. Heydarian, and also Western hypocrisy on human rights, unilateral sanctions on the Islamic Republic, Iran-West relations and the role of corporate media. 

I think most analysts, including myself, were surprised by the depth and scope of protests, which have engulfed much of the Arab world, but the more surprising thing was how this entire “transnational” popular movement started in a relatively open and integrated Arab country such as Tunisia. Nonetheless, when one digs deeper it is very clear that structural conditions for revolutionary upheavals were always there: poor economic performance, endemic unemployment and poverty, glaring inequality; state repression, absence of competitive elections; hollowing out of productive industries, lack of genuine developmental policies; and increasingly unpopular foreign policies. No region is completely immune to these challenges, but the Arab world has been facing a uniquely intense set of social and economic challenges. So one could argue that these uprisings were long in the making and perhaps even inevitable. Moreover, looking at protests and social movements in recent years, one could say that the secular trends towards a revolutionary upheaval were definitely there. The uprisings are a rejection of untenable, secular autocracies, which have plagued the Arab world in the post-colonial period. 

Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been at the center of “resistance” to oppressive and imperial policies of Western powers and Israel. 

Undoubtedly, the Iranian revolution has served as an ideational inspiration for resistance movements across the region, from Iraq to Lebanon and Palestine. It was a revolution that toppled the most powerful ally of the U.S. in the region therefore it reinforced the notion that people could also dislodge Arab autocrats allied to powerful foreign patrons. 

Given how most protests have occurred in pro-U.S. autocracies -- from Tunisia to Egypt and Yemen -- it shouldn't surprise us that the ancient regime and its foreign allies would try to 'discredit' and delegitimize such genuine, multi-sectoral, and broad-based mass protests by linking them to some imaginary 'Iranian conspiracy'. If one looks at the composition, content, and dynamics of these protests, it is crystal clear that these uprisings are largely democratic and popular, meaning they are spontaneous reactions to bankrupt and unresponsive political systems, which have failed at providing basic political and economic freedoms for the majority of people. Sure, Iran has some influence among certain sections of Arab societies, but to accuse Iran of fomenting mass protests aimed at regime change is far from the truth. 

The case of Bahrain is a stark indication of how reactionary Arab regimes, with possibly an implicit approval from the U.S., are using the 'Iranian conspiracy' rhetoric to justify direct and brutal intervention, in a theoretically sovereign country, in order to suppress genuine democratic protests. The intervention was sanctioned by a group of monarchies that opposed democratic change; it was not approved by a popular, representative parliament, which could invoke the provisions of a 'mutual defense treaty' to justify the entry of foreign troops to protect national security. 

Sectarian issues might have suffused protests and political movements across the region, but it is utterly disingenuous to claim that elements connected to the Iranian government have somehow 'organized' these protests. A quick look at the protests would reveal how multi-ethnic, multi-sectoral, large-scale, and popular they are. To claim that hundreds of thousands of protesters are acting as some 'fifth column' for the Iranian government is preposterous. If anything, it is the U.S. that has been deeply involved in the politics of most countries that are currently experiencing popular uprisings. For decades, Washington supported autocrats, financially and politically, and influenced the contours of many Arab states. Then by logic, it is more appropriate to accuse the U.S. of 'interfering' in the affairs of Arab societies. 

Back in 2008, the Obama administration represented the greatest hope for the much-needed genuine dialogue between the Islamic world and America. After decades of imperial interventions and military misadventures in the Middle East, President Obama, as expressed in his famous 'Cairo Speech', promised a post-9/11 order where values of conciliation, inter-civilizational harmony, conflict resolution, mutual respect, and democratization take the upper hand. However, such 'good will' was somehow lost in translation when policies came into effect. The blunders started with his failed attempt at 'resetting' U..S-Iranian relations, then came his inability to stop settlement expansion in occupied territories. Instead of de-militarization, U.S. escalated its military operations in Afghanistan, while arms exports to Persian Gulf Arab states intensified. The 'progressive shift' somehow lost momentum to 'realpolitik'.   

The Arab uprisings have revealed America's lack of a genuine commitment to democratization in the Middle East. Even the Obama administration, with its more liberal inflections, has waivered in its support for these democratic uprisings. In the case of Egypt, the U.S. waited until the last minute -- when protests paralyzed the nation and the military threatened to intervene -- before calling for 'compromises' on the part of Hosni Mubarak and his acolytes. In the case of Bahrain, America's 'silence' on the brutal repression of protests has been highly noticeable especially in light of Washington's deep geo-strategic interests in the Persian Gulf. In Libya, the U.S. prioritized evacuation of its citizens while the government was engaging in en masse violence. Later, instead of exploring a workable diplomatic 'settlement' to the Libyan crisis, the U.S. supported 'military intervention' and gradually delegated operational tasks to European partners. Over all, Washington has showed little consistency in its response to popular protests across the region. Sure, each country represents a unique geo-political reality; however, Arab uprisings have been fundamentally consistent in their spirit and message, thus demanding a more coherent response from Washington and others who claim that they favor democracy.   

The 'Arab street' has been very critical of American policies in the region. Even the more liberal sections of the society have vehemently opposed American interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and later in Libya. Major surveys have consistently reflected America's deep unpopularity -- in the realm of foreign policies - in the Arab world and even in Turkey. However when one looks at the protests, you could see more signs of frustration with Arab regimes rather than hatred of America and Israel. People are deeply critical of foreign powers, but profound poverty, long periods of political exclusion, and simmering disenchantment with Arab political systems is the main driving force. Sentiments on foreign policy issues have simply complemented and reinforced predominantly domestic concerns.

If the uprisings pave the way for a more pluralistic and democratic political system, it is normal to expect some changes in Arab states' foreign policy. For instance, one could expect more independence on certain issues that involve Iran. Arguably, new Arab regimes would prioritize normalization of bilateral relations with Tehran and adopt a more balanced approach to its nuclear program. For instance, Egypt is already exhibiting some changes in its foreign policy posturing, with the post-Mubarak government tilting towards Iran and taking a more pro-active stance on Israeli-Palestine relations. One could also expect a more critical stance by Arab states on Israel's oppressive policies. However, given America's deep integration with many of these Arab states -- both in the realm of economics and security –- it would be difficult to envisage an abrupt 'Arab decoupling' from the U.S. In this sense, a more likely scenario -- if the democratic transition takes place -- is the emergence of more assertive and independent Arab regimes that don't shy away from establishing good ties with Iran and criticizing U.S.-Israeli policies. In short, Arab uprisings could signal the end of the 'Yes Man' era, where Arab autocrats simply followed the U.S. line on certain foreign policy issues. 

Unfortunately, the 'human rights' issue has always been instrumentalized by major powers in order to pressure their adversaries. Unless the U.S. improves its own record on human rights -- from abolishing 'rendition' practices to closing the Guantanamo Prison and putting an end to tortures and random incarceration of 'enemy combatants' -- it has no 'moral ascendancy' to even question other countries' human rights record. More strikingly, the U.S. has failed to pressure many of its allies in the Middle East to improve on their human rights record. By any standard, one of the most brutal regimes in the Arab world are U.S. allies, while Israel -- America's top ally in the region -- continues to build settlements and bombard highly-populated civilian areas in clear violation of international law. Given how America continues to support one of the world's most undemocratic and oppressive states -- by any standard -- it is clear that human rights, in its true sense, does not play a central role in America's foreign policy doctrine. Instead, stability and geo-political interests -- U.S. bases and safety of hydrocarbon transport and reserves -- continue to dominate Washington's agenda in the Middle East. This is why the U.S. was almost silent on the brutal suppression of protests in Bahrain and continues to stand by Israel despite growing international condemnation from all corners of the globe, including majority of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development' (OECD) members.    

First of all, it is hard to expect fair and balanced coverage by the corporate, mainstream media, where the main concern is profit and audience-satisfaction at any cost. Often, truth and complexity are the first casualties in the Darwinian media business model. However, when it comes to Iran, there are two aspects to the mainstream media' coverage: 1) Because of the West's deep-seated 'orientalist' approach, non-Western societies, especially those in the Middle East, have been portrayed as the 'other'. The post-colonialist literature reveals how this 'other' has been painted as exotic, pre-modern, barbaric, and devoid of all the beautiful and admirable values embedded in the superior western cosmos. 2) Geo-strategic and ideological factors have created sufficient incentives for both Western governments as well as a wide array of institutions -- from the media to the civil society -- to 'demonize' nations, which are perceived to be opposing West's political, cultural, and economic interests. 

Iran represents a country that has rejected a wide range of Western models and values in favor of a uniquely indigenous political model, which is supposedly closer to the true spirit of the Iranian nation. Iran has also been American's major adversary in the Middle East. Iran has not only rejected neo-liberal market-economics, but it has also rejected liberal democracy as the foundation of its society. Therefore, the Iranian model is an antithesis, alternative to many established Western models of governance and lifestyles. 

Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been a major victim of constant black propaganda, where only a handful of foreign people, mostly from the epistemic community and liberal circles, have a true knowledge of the complexities and nuances of the Iranian society. Political differences and the relative isolation of Iran have also prevented constant and deepening social and cultural exchange between scholars and people from Iran, on one hand, and Western individuals, on the other. 

Crediting Iran's achievements does not only create psychological dissonance for the Western audience -- given pre-conceived negative perceptions of Iran -- but it also contradicts the official line of many Western governments, which seek to either weaken Iran or totally change it. Therefore, for many media installations it is more business-friendly and politically convenient to stick to the 'established line', where Iran is portrayed as some backward, irrational, and aggressive country opposed to fundamental values of a supposedly universally accepted Western model. A combination of ingrained and systematic ignorance, on one hand, and deep political interests in isolating Iran, on the other, has reinforced and sustained efforts at constant discrediting and criticism of Iran. Therefore, despite Iran's impressive achievements in the realm of socio-economic and scientific development, very few people have a balanced view of Iran. 

 

We should separate the United Nations as a global institution for development and peace, on one hand, from the UN Security Council, which is a predominantly political body that is composed of powerful states with specific interests, on the other. Second, it must be clear that almost all sections of the Iranian society, across the political spectrum, support Iran's quest for peaceful nuclear technology, given the immense prestige and economic benefits that comes with it. Third, we should distinguish between the UNSC resolutions, on one hand, and unilateral sanctions by the EU and the U.S. The UNSC resolutions were more a function of political interests of certain countries rather than a true manifestation of legal concerns vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear program. Up to this date, no international agency can provide credible evidence that shows that Iran has violated the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which means any hint at Iran's 'weaponization' of its program belongs purely to the realm of speculation. 

Unfortunately, unilateral sanctions -- more than UNSC resolutions -- have prevented Iran from fully exploiting its immense economic potentials, but more importantly they have placed immense pressure on the Iranian populace. Sanctions have raised transaction and import costs, restricted basic-commodity and sensitive medical-technology imports, and even affected the import of spare parts for Iran's aviation industry. As a result, Iran has faced immense problems with aviation safety, availability of cheap and affordable food and other essential commodities, the establishment of stable and deepening channels of communication in the realm culture, education, and scientific cooperation. At the end, the sanctions are simply hurting ordinary Iranians, but they fail to fundamentally alter Iran's foreign policy and social configuration. By restricting people's access to basic goods and services, these sanctions are violating individuals' inalienable rights to food, shelter, safety, and health. By constraining Iran's ability to fully exploit its vast economic potentials, sanctions are violating the aspirations of millions of Iranians, who strive for a better, more modern, and developed Iran. 

Nonetheless, the Iranian government has remained intact, and it has moved ahead with major projects across the country in a quest to push Iran nearer to its vision of becoming a regional hub and center for scientific, socio-economic and technological excellence. 

Instead of sanctions, the West should work on a 'solution' that addresses Iran's deep economic and technological concerns both in the realm of nuclear technology as well as civilian economy. However, more importantly, the West should focus on resolving and clarifying a range of security and foreign policy issues with Iran. The only way forward is a 'grand bargain', where Iran and the West address a range of interrelated issues across different dimensions in a hope to resolve differences on both sides. Limited, haphazard, and cynical policies do not simply work.