Christopher Hitchens has a new piece in Slate chastising President Obama for his restraint and caution in approaching the Iranian protests and arguing for an essentialist view of Iran as a state driven entirely by an irrational hatred of all things Anglo-Saxon:
One of the signs of Iran’s underdevelopment is the culture of rumor and paranoia that attributes all ills to the manipulation of various demons and satans. And, of course, the long and rich history of British imperial intervention in Persia does provide some support for the notion. But you have no idea how deep is the primitive belief that it is the Anglo-Saxons—more than the CIA, more even than the Jews—who are the puppet masters of everything that happens in Iran.
I think it’s easy to say that Hitchens is completely wrong here; as is the case in most countries, Iranian politics and Iranian policy are the product of internal Iranian concerns. Even if that weren’t the case though, it’s hard to deny that if there is any political efficacy in denouncing Western powers, its because they have repeatedly intervened in Iranian affairs with often terrible effect. Indeed, Iranian paranoia isn’t “primitive,” it’s a perfectly rational reaction to the long and painful history of Western imperial intervention in Persia.
But frankly, this isn’t even the most troublesome part of Hitchens article; that comes towards the end, where Hitchens makes an implicit argument for intervening in Iranian affairs by asking his readers to consider Iranian intervention in our affairs:
There is then the larger question of the Iranian theocracy and its continual, arrogant intervention in our affairs: its export of violence and cruelty and lies to Lebanon and Palestine and Iraq and its unashamed defiance of the United Nations, the European Union, and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the nontrivial matter of nuclear weapons.
This is embarrassingly stupid, even for Hitchens; Iranian “interference” in the internal politics of its neighbors (whether they’re our “affairs” is debatable) and its refusal to adhere to international law (which is understandable, even if it is problematic) is categorically different from Western intervention in the internal politics of Iran. Our interests in Israel, Palestine and Iraq are critical to maintaining the stability of the region but don’t actually have much of an effect on our domestic life. And while it’s certainly not good that Iran bankrolls terrorist groups in Lebanon, I have a hard time believing that that will have any negative effect on American security. By contrast, our direct intervention in Iranian politics – which took place over an almost thirty year period – left the world with a hell of a lot more dead Iranians than we would have had otherwise, and they have every right (and every reason) to be suspicious of further Western actions.
You’re wrong on both points.
The residual paranoia of Iranians about foreign intervention is certainly justified, and has springs from a long history, but the fact is that Iran hasn’t suffered foreign intervention (from the West) in three decades now. Thats more than a generation now.
If what you say is true, then certainly other nations should feel the same way. After all, Iran isn’t the only nation that suffered imperial intervention at the hands of Britian and/or the US.
By the same standard, India should be up in arms at the sight of the UK or the US anwhere near it’s borders. Instead India is closer to the UK and US than ever, and amiably so. The deep irrationality of Iranian fears of the West is perfectly displayed by the regime this week: blaming the protests in Tehran and elswhere on foreign agitators (US and UK), and cutting off ties to the UK.
As for the second point, the flaunting of regulations of nuclear weaponry while simeltaneously threatening the destruction of neighboring states and the United States is certainly our business. And Iranian interference in the internal affairs of neighboring states is categorically different: the United States has never armed and funded mass murder at the hands of totalitarian movements in the region, as Iran has been doing the past few years in Iraq.