> But there's another question too: is the world better
> off with or without cracks in the imperial system and
> holdouts against it? Is an independent Iran better for
> the overall world picture than a re-hegemonized one --
> even if the independent Iran is less "progressive" and
> "modern" and "democratic" and secular than we (and no
> doubt plenty of people in Iran) would like to see?
>
> Personally, I feel strongly that cracks in the imperial
> system are an unalloyed Good Thing, but here as everywhere,
> opinions may differ.
But Iran, as it currently exists, is "independent" and unhegemonized only in the ideological sense. Which is to say, not much at all. The clash between presidents and administrations makes for good copy, but it doesn't necessarily indicate the ways in which the world functions. Materially (economically), Iran is far from independent. With its huge foreign currency reserves and exports to countries like China, Japan, and South Korea, it's clearly integrated with the world-capitalist system (though probably not as much as it could be given its huge population and oil and gas reserves). The workers and citizens of Iran, however, are not linked up with the rest of the world, and it seems clear that this is at least part of the reason for the protests.