Well, OK, first of all I don't think that Russia, India, or Iran are exemplary "standard bearers of anti-imperialism." They are semi-great powers whose behavior is probably best understood in the realist framework of international relations theory, as advancing their perceived military and economic self interests in a semi-anarchic world of nations and (now) other powers. Venezuela, Bolivia, and to a far lesser extent today Cuba (Cuba's pretty tired), might count as "standard bearers of anti-imperialism." Which does not mean that they are wonderful in every way, but I am a lot more comfortable with Chavez than Ahmadinejad.
Iran's national interests make it a counterweight to US and European imperialist ambitions in the region. Iran's national interests ultimately center on securing stable and safe markets for Iranian oil. As far as anti-imperialism goes, Iran is a balance to Israel and a thorn for the US, but is like Russia (also a thorn for the US and balance to US interests in Europe), a regional imperial power in its own right.
If Iran gets the bomb and the Israelis don't freak out, it would probably help stabilize the region by establishing a balance of terror. I do expect the Iranians will get the bomb pretty soon.
Iran's interests in Iraq are complex because, on the one hand, Iran has an interest in getting the US out and being itself a force for stability, that is, repressive and anti-democratic peace in the region. Anarchic war and a witches brew of terrorist activity that offers fertile grounds for al-Qaida, no friend of Iran, and related groups, is not in Iranian interests.
On the other hand Iran has benefited by having the US first cripple (by the first Gulf War and the sanctions) and now destroy its main rival for regional hegemony and hated antagonist (former backed by the US) in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Iran has benefited from the US destruction of Iraq as an oil power. In addition, Iran has Shia sectarian interests in promoting Shia interests and its own power in Iraq, maybe in splitting of Shia sections of Iraq off to form an Iranian dominated rump state.
It is hard to say for sure, but from here it my guess is that Iranian interests in stability, that is, dominating the region as an oil and military power, along with Saudi and an oil power and Israel as military one, now trump Iranian interests in further destruction of Iraq. Iraq has been, thanks to the US, annihilated, and is now more of a problem for Iran as a source of instability, and the Iran would probably be able to overshadow a post-withdrawal Iraq without actually having the state smashed up.
Thanks to the US occupation and destruction of Iraq, Iran will inherit regional dominance after the US withdrawal.
So, long and short, Iran is a semi-great power regional counterweight to US and Israeli imperialism with regional imperialist interests of its own. Its basic interest is oil profits, and I am sure the Iranians never forget that. In terms of Iran's place in the world system, the analogy to Russia is probably closest.
That cold-blooded and nonmoralistic enough for you?
>
> Re: standard bearer of anti-imperialism: what else
> is there, outside
> of maybe Castro and Chavez (each flawed in their own
> ways)? Tom
> Friedman's India? Putin's Russia? (actually, yes
> perhaps the latter,
> for much the same reason as Iran).
>
> I find it hard to believe that one person's
> particular take on a
> country can trigger a forwarding of articles
> regarding abuses in Iran
> -- irrespective of one's own opinion on the matter?
> So, why not you
> gents, on the other side, give us your take on Iran?
> Not just
> instances of abuses you find in the society or by
> the government, but
> in the context of the problem of imperialism, etc?
>
> --ravi
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com