Hmmmm? Arent the whole western media seeing the matter through Western eyes. If it is a matter for the Iranians why is there wall to wall coverage on CNN and concern that Obama speak out more etc etc. How come you aren't shouting from the rooftops to stop all the time spent on Iran and protesting that more time should be spent on healthcare reform or other domestic issues. Why is that the US has spent millions in programs to destabilise Iran?
I posted an explanation of what you called some wacky anti-imperialist line. I asked if you got it? You didn't answer the question but went off rambling on about our eyes being from the wrong direction. Do you understand the line?
The line implies that if you support the protesters and their leaders such as Mousavi and Rafsanjani then you are supporting a group that will probably help advance the interests of US imperialism--not that they themselves are interested per se in that. As another poster pointed out in the past they have often been involved in conflict with the US. I posted the reasons why they would be expected to co-operate with and be more accomodating to US imperialism than Ahmadinejad. From what you have said I gather you support the protesters. If the line is right then you are objectively acting in a way to encourage those who probably will end up creating a situation where US imperialist aims are better advanced than if Ahmadinejad, cruddy character and ignoramus that he is, got in.
Now of course this is fundamentally the interest of Iranians not us. But it is surely our interest to support changes we think are in the direction we think best whether in our own country or elsewhere. Perhaps you think that US imperialism is progressive and modernisation of Iran a great boon but then I guess that couldn't be because it sounds suspiciously like seeing things through western eyes insofar as I can grasp what that means.
Cheers, ken hanly
Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
--- On Mon, 6/22/09, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Hamid Dabashi on Iran
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, June 22, 2009, 10:03 PM
>
> On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:51 PM, northsunm at yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> > More to the point than his Holocaust denial is that if
> Ahmadinejad tomorrow miraculously aquiesced to Western
> objectives in the Lebanon (ie stopped supporting Hezbollah),
> and opened Iran to Western capital, then Iran would
> overnight cease to be a "paraiah," and Ahmadinejad would
> overnight become either a reformer or a strongman, and no
> more of an "embarrassment" than is a King Abdullah, a
> Mubarak or an Abu Mazen. And Iranian elections would become
> no more of an issue than Egyptian, Palestinian or Saudi
> elections are today.
>
> So what? I don't care about how Iran is perceived or framed
> by Western imperial interests - I care about what the regime
> does to Iranians. And many many Iranians, maybe even most,
> want to be free of the mullahs - which, do I have to say
> this? - is fundamentally the business of Iranians, not us.
>
> I'm not the one seeing everything through Western eyes -
> you and several others are, except you're just flipping the
> signs from negative to positive.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>