"the ideological line being critiqued here very closely resembles the old Communist Party edict which, in so many words, stated that any left criticism of the Soviet Union was OBJECTIVELY counter revolutionary. So, best keep your mouth shut for the sake of unity, comrades."
But I don't think that is what Yoshie, or I, are saying in defending Iranian sovereignty.
I think we are saying, as Lenin did, the main enemy is at home. It does not mean that criticism of those states that your own is in conflict with is forbidden. It just means that demands ought to be framed with a regard to whom they are addressed. There is no point lecturing British and Americans about the shortcomings of the Islamic Republic of Iran - they have no great illusions in the Islamic republic of Iran. People in Britain and America ought to support the RIGHT of the Iranian state to arm itself in its own defence, and to develop such energy sources as it sees fit. The determination of what POLICY is best for Iran is for the Iranian people, through whatever political process they make available for themselves. As far as analysis goes, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr Ahmadinejad's government is hostile to the interests of the Iranian people (not because it is too aggressive in its opposition to western domination, but because it is not aggressive enough). But since I am not writing in Farsi, I don't intend to make it a central component of my agitation.
Where I do think that there is a useful point to be made against Islamism, is in debate with those self-hating western liberals who think that justice is on the side of Al Qaida and so on. There, I don't think we need any restraint in arguing not only that Islam is a moronic intellectual framework, but that it is, if it were possible, even more moronic than that US baptism that passes for Christianity these days.