A moral groundwork

From its inception, America has framed its defining conflicts as moral struggles to restore human and divine justice. For example, the Revolutionary War was not just a fight for independence; it was a battle against tyranny and a defense of individuals’ “unalienable rights endowed by a Creator” — a concept deeply influenced by Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. The Revolutionary War established core American values of individualism, egalitarianism and activism, values rooted in both Enlightenment ideals and Judeo-Christian principles that celebrate individual liberty and human dignity. These secular and spiritual ideals are embedded in foundational American documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Similarly, the Civil War, while centering on economy and sovereignty, transformed into a moral crusade with President Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to slavery. By linking the war to the liberation of slaves, Lincoln set the groundwork for a United States based on equality and human dignity.

This moral foundation has defined America’s involvement in global conflicts throughout the 20th century. In both world wars, America intervened not merely out of self-interest but out of a sense of duty to preserve democracy, aligning national interests with moral responsibility. President Franklin D. Roosevelt framed America’s fight against Nazism and fascism as a battle between good and evil, reinforcing the nation’s belief that democracy must prevail globally. Through its wartime efforts, America created a world order in which liberal values could thrive. The United Nations and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the fruits of that moral American vision whose legacy has defined international order to this day.

The Cold War further emphasized America’s commitment to spreading liberal democracy. In contrast to the communist ideology that elevated the leviathanic state above the individual, America championed the right of every human being to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Democratic and Republican presidents, from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, equally emphasized the importance of this moral vision in the free world’s fight against communism. That philosophical commitment, more than mere technological or economic might, helped America win the Cold War and led to the spread of democratic governance across the world.

The loss of morality

Today, however, US foreign policy is increasingly abandoning its moral vision. This decline stems from a significant drop in bipartisan support for promoting democracy worldwide. Domestic challenges, along with perceived failures in recent nation-building efforts abroad, have dampened the American public’s and policymakers’ interest in promoting democracy overseas. This shift has triggered an isolationist trend in US foreign policy arguably unseen since the 1930s.

Because America’s global influence is built on not just military might or economic power, but a moral mission, the recent reluctance to follow that path risks undermining a legacy carefully built following WWII. By stepping back from the world stage, America risks creating a power vacuum that authoritarian regimes are eager to fill, leaving a more isolated US vulnerable to new threats in the long term.

When President Barack Obama refrained from supporting democratic uprisings in Iran and Syria, he left in the lurch populations striving for freedom against brutal dictatorships, undermining American credibility. Similarly, President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan ceded control back to the Taliban, reversing years of progress in women’s rights and civil liberties. Now, President-Elect Donald Trump may reduce support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression when he goes back to the White House in January 2025. US foreign policy risks yet another retreat — one that could determine the fate of Ukraine’s sovereignty and, by extension, the resilience of democracy in Europe.

If Ukraine falls to Russian aggression, it could destabilize much of Eastern and Northern Europe and set a dangerous precedent for the unchecked expansion of the Kremlin’s authoritarianism westward. This scenario would ripple across the region, threatening the democratic security of the Baltic states, the Caucasus and potentially Central Europe, posing the gravest challenge to democracy in Western Europe since World War II.

A collapse of democratic resistance in Ukraine could also embolden China to expand its influence in the Asia-Pacific. If America and its allies hesitate in Europe, Beijing might seize the opportunity to assert dominance over Taiwan and pressure Japan, while North Korea could feel encouraged to take aggressive steps toward South Korea. The effects could reach as far as India and Australia. Such outcomes would jeopardize decades of democratic progress in the Indo-Pacific and destabilize an entire region critical to global economy and security.

In addition to these risks, a potential US withdrawal from NATO would not only embolden external adversaries but could also fracture Europe internally. This move could empower pro-Russian factions within the European Union to pursue closer ties with Moscow, sidelining pro-democracy and pro-American parties. An eastward European shift would strain Washington and lay the groundwork for a strategic encirclement of the United States.

Given the rise of authoritarianism worldwide, the US must renew its commitment to human rights and democracy. While both Democrats and Republicans may hesitate to champion liberal values abroad, now more than ever, the US needs to reset its moral compass, recommit to its moral foundations in foreign policy, and prioritize the promotion of democratic ideals in the world. This renewed commitment to democracy in foreign policy is essential for preserving America’s global leadership but also critical for keeping the world a freer and safer place.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post American Foreign Policy Needs to Reset Its Moral Compass appeared first on Fair Observer.

For years, followers of Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s son and the former Iranian crown prince, have advocated for a transition from an Islamofascist dictatorship to a monarchy for Iran, almost similar to what happened in Spain. They compare Pahlavi to Juan Carlos, who ascended the throne and abolished the dictatorship with the support of Franco’s military.

Pahlavi followers claim he can achieve the same with the support of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Pahlavi himself has stated many times that he is in touch with the Iranian regime and has been open to IRGC overtures.

Spain’s transition from the dictatorship of Francisco Franco to a constitutional monarchy under King Juan Carlos I was a pivotal moment in Spanish history. Franco ruled Spain as a right-wing military dictator following his overthrow of the left-wing republic in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). Ultranationalism, authoritarianism and repression and persecution of political opposition characterized his regime. Before his death in 1975, Franco designated the exiled Prince Juan Carlos de Borbón as his successor, hoping that he would perpetuate the ultranationalist regime.

Contrasting Iran and Spain’s political landscapes

Juan Carlos dismantled the authoritarian regime and moved Spain towards democracy instead of following in Franco’s footsteps. The first step was the Political Reform Act of 1976, which allowed for the dismantling of Francoist institutions and paved the way for democratic elections. In 1977, the legalization of political parties led to the first free elections since the 1930s. Subsequently, a new democratic constitution was drafted and approved by a popular referendum in 1978, establishing Spain as a democratic parliamentary monarchy and guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms for all citizens.

However, Iran today is far from Spain, and there are fundamental differences between the two countries. The most significant is that the IRGC is not a regular military like Spain’s army was towards the end of Franco’s rule. The Guards are more akin to the SS in Nazi Germany and the Red Army in the Soviet Union, created with the specific purpose of enforcing the ideological agenda of their totalitarian regime. This makes them dependent on the regime’s core belief system, values and interests to stay relevant.

Even today, the Islamist regime’s warmongering across the Middle East and crimes against humanity in Iran and around the world deeply involve the IRGC, a US- and Canadian-designated “state terrorist organization” that is also likely to be designated by the EU. It is bent on the defeat of the United States, the destruction of Israel and the conquest of the Arab world. As such, the IRGC cannot possibly provide the building block for a democracy or even a normal regime in Iran.

The general behavior of Pahlavi’s Iranian supporters has not proved promising for democracy, either. His associates and followers have started a regime of oppression in exile even before getting to power in Iran. They have assaulted non-Pahlavist protesters during anti-regime demonstrations abroad, ran campaigns of harassment and intimidation against journalists and democracy activists, pushed IRGC talking points about political prisoners and Iran’s ethnic minorities and welcomed all kinds of nefarious regime affiliates, including antisemitic IRGC members, among their ranks.

The reality of Iran’s political transition

To cap it all, Pahlavi himself recently rejected democracy and instead suggested that he roots for some kind of an authoritarian regime. By erroneously comparing Iran to Afghanistan and putting forward a fallacious essentialist argument, Pahlavi claimed that Iran’s society, like Afghanistan, has its own “traditions, norms and means of governance” and imposing an “inauthentic Western construct” like “democracy” on it will lead to anarchy similar to Afghanistan. While the West and most of the free world widely praised the recent nationwide “Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution” in Iran for its progressive values, Pahlavi boldly made that argument to the contrary.

Pahlavi’s willingness to blatantly distort the truth about Iran and what most Iranians want explains why he and his supporters were disturbed by the Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution in the first place. Not only did they not fully support it, but they also took issue with many aspects of it because the progressive nature of that revolution nullified the Pahlavist narrative regarding the “backwardness” of Iranian society to legitimize an authoritarian regime, most likely in the form of an absolutist monarchy with Reza Pahlavi as its Shah.

Unlike Spain, Iran would not transition from fascism to democracy even if they put the prince on the throne and allowed the IRGC to continue to exist. The Guards are unlikely to relinquish power and become a regular army subordinated to a constitutional system. Instead, they would exploit their newfound legitimacy as Pahlavi’s praetorians to continue their campaign of terror in Iran and abroad.

Pahlavi himself would serve as a figurehead to legitimize the existence of the new fascist order. His advocacy for what inherently goes against American values, his dynasty’s historical hostility to democracy and his followers’ reactionary rhetoric and anti-democratic bent will further empower the Guards and their Russian allies to prevent Iran from shifting towards the West once the current Islamofascist regime falls.

As we have seen in the past decade, Moscow has learned that promoting far-right positions and politicians worldwide helps keep the world divided. At the same time, it continues to push for conquest and global domination. Iran is already within the Russian sphere of influence. Still, if the Islamist regime were to fall, the Kremlin would prefer to have an ultranationalist junta run the country rather than a Western-friendly liberal democracy. In other words, the Russians don’t want to see Iran as a powerful pillar of Western security strategy like the post-WWII Germany and Japan.

As things stand, Iran risks passing from one totalitarian regime to another. If things unfold in that direction, the country will remain a hotbed of tyranny and radicalism, oppressing its people while continuing to threaten its neighbors and the wider world. The democratic world needs to intervene to help the Iranian people establish a liberal democracy and bring Iran back to the West.

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Is Reza Pahlavi Iran’s Key to Democracy? appeared first on Fair Observer.

How Khamenei rose to power in Iran

Succession has occurred only once in the history of the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900–1989), the first Supreme Leader of Iran, did not settle the issue of his succession while still alive for several reasons. First, as the supreme spiritual leader, he deemed it beneath himself to engage in a matter that would appear as political factionalism. Second, for a long time, nearly everyone accepted Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, a prominent cleric, as Khomeini’s de facto successor. Third, towards the end of his life, Khomeini suffered from rapidly worsening cancer, which likely cut short any last-minute plans.

A close-knit group of three — Ahmad Khomeini, the supreme leader’s son and confidant, Khamenei the president, and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the speaker of parliament — took charge of managing the succession issue. They plotted to rule together in a power-sharing arrangement, with Khamenei at the helm as leader, Rafsanjani as president and Ahmad carrying the torch of his father’s legacy. However, the trio eventually fractured, and in a real-life cloak-and-dagger drama filled with hidden agendas and maneuvering, Khamenei outsmarted and eliminated his rivals, solidifying his position as the supreme and unchallenged leader. 

Raisi’s rise and fall reflects Khamenei’s strategic planning

Khamenei has long tried to prevent his progeny and legacy from suffering the same fate that befell his predecessor’s. To achieve this, he purged potential disruptors and handpicked loyalists years in advance to ensure a smooth succession.

Raisi’s rise from obscurity wasn’t about him becoming Supreme Leader. The establishment positioned him, not to succeed Khamenei specifically, but to guarantee the continuation of Khamenei’s ideology, regardless of the next leader. Charisma wasn’t Raisi’s strong suit; in fact, he was utterly bland. But what he lacked in personality, he made up for tenfold in devotion to the regime and Khamenei. Therefore, if Mojtaba were to be groomed for leadership, Raisi would serve as his facilitator, not his competitor.

The death of Raisi disrupted Khamenei’s plan. Speculation abounds as to who benefits from this, but those subjected to rounds of purges and consigned to the regime’s margins are the most likely candidates, namely the so-called Reformists/Moderates and the disaffected parts of the IRGC. 

In the first decade after the 1979 revolution, the future Reformists were among Ayatollah Khomeini’s closest allies. They even called themselves the “Line of the Imam” in his honor. However, Ali Khamenei and his faction sidelined them starting in 1989. Their influence further diminished after the suspicious death of Hashemi Rafsanjani in 2017. Out of power, they pragmatically adopted the label “Reformist” and began to rebuild relations with the West.

Decades of exile haven’t dimmed the ambitions of Iranian Reformists/Moderates. Based in Europe and North America, they haven’t given up hope. They dream of replacing Khamenei with Western backing and transforming the Islamist regime into a “moderate” version of itself. These figures remain active and any hiccups in Khamenei’s succession plan could be their golden opportunity.

Within the Revolutionary Guards exists a shadowy contingent I call the Shadow Guards. Not all Guards are Khamenei loyalists. Some commanders have even challenged his authority or shown disapproval. These dissenters, if not eliminated, now operate on the regime’s fringes. Khamenei further disrupts potential power grabs by rotating commanders. This creates an amorphous entity within the IRGC. Their loyalty isn’t necessarily to Khamenei, but to the regime’s core ideology. However, they see an opportunity to gain power when the leadership changes, and have reportedly begun making connections with former adversaries overseas.

The Reformists/Moderates and the Shadow Guards are finding common ground as the Iranian regime weakens. Both sides aim to preserve Iran as an authoritarian oligarchy, albeit through different tactics. The Reformists/Moderates cloak themselves in a liberal/leftist mask, while the Shadow Guards embrace ultranationalism. They both wield extensive media influence and strong lobbying power in the West. Their strategy is to co-opt elements of the monarchist opposition and establish a new elite to secure their control.

Iran’s authoritarian grip endures

Post-Khamenei Iran will see Islam remain the foundation of the regime, with nationalism acting as a façade masking its Islamist core. Already, some monarchists advocate for Iran to revert from Alavid Shiism with revolutionary clerical rule to Safavid Shiism, where a Shah presides over a Shiite establishment. This regime will continue to exclude most people and parties from political participation. Followers of minority religions can expect continued poor treatment, if not outright persecution. The regime’s foreign policy and relationships with its neighbors and the West will remain a mystery in a box.

The democratic world must be on high alert. To derail Khamenei’s criminal plans is undeniably attractive, but we cannot lose sight of the regime’s systemic corruption. Simply removing the top leadership won’t halt the tide of radicalism overflowing from Iran. It’s a trap — just like replacing communists with nationalist remnants of the Soviet regime didn’t solve its problems. Only a transition to a liberal democracy can normalize Iran and prevent future threats to its own people, its neighbors, and the global community.

[Ali Omar Forozish edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Post-Raisi Iran: A New Chapter in Iranian Politics appeared first on Fair Observer.

The slogan “Jin, Jiyan, Azadî” (Woman, Life, Freedom) reverberated throughout Iran and gave the movement its name. Women came out in the thousands. Young men joined them too. The regime was caught on its heels.

Why Are Young People Protesting in Iran?

September 16 marks the first anniversary of Amini’s death and the popular uprising’s beginning. This is a good occasion to pose fundamental questions. What has transpired in the aftermath of Amini’s death? Has the popular uprising changed Iran? Has the Islamist regime weakened or has it managed to claw its way back?

Who are the protesters?

The Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution was not the expression of a unified political movement. Not everyone opposes the Islamist regime for the same reasons, and people from every imaginable political stripe took part. The opposition is divided, however, into two main camps, which we can identify as the “progressive” and the “reactionary” opposition.

In the progressive camp fall the various pro-democracy movements of Iran. This includes a wide sweep of ordinary people as well as politically active individuals and organizations ranging from liberal to socialist and secular to Islamist. These currents have popular bases in Iranian society, especially among middle and lower classes as well as the marginalized sections of society such as ethnic, religious and sexual minorities.

Pluralism Is the Only Way Forward for Iranian Democracy

These people typically express their demands through street demonstrations and intend to establish a political system that accounts for liberal democracy, representative rule, ethnic and cultural diversity and decentralization and circulation of power.

The reactionary camp, on the other hand, is authoritarian. It is composed largely of the Pahlavists, who claim to represent the political legacy of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran as a monarch, or Shah, from 1941–1979, with Western backing. Although the Shah’s regime was pro-Western, it was by no means democratic. It asserted tight control over Iranian society while it enriched the Shah and his allies by selling oil abroad. The Shah sought to modernize the country by promoting secular customs without loosening his grip on power. This alienated many Iranians, precipitating the 1979 revolution that led to an Islamist takeover of the country under the leadership of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

After the revolution, many of the Shah’s wealthy supporters fled to the United States. These émigrés now form an influential community on the American West Coast. Their informal leader is Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s heir. The group finds a platform for its views in a multimillion-dollar, overseas Persian-language media industry that keeps the memory of the “Good Ol’ Days” alive.

The monarchist old guard in LA and elsewhere, however, are not the ones who have been the most active in Iran’s recent unrest; these latter are the “Pahlavists.” They are mostly composed of people affiliated with the Islamic Republic, both inside and outside of Iran. These include members of the Revolutionary Guards (a military force, distinct from the army, tasked with defending the Islamic Republic and its hardline Shia ideology) and the security forces. They also include people who had formerly been supporters of the Islamist regime but now have ostensibly become supporters of Reza Pahlavi.

These types claim that the monarchy should be restored with Reza Pahlavi as the Shah. They harshly attack supporters of democracy in Iran. They exhibit reprehensible intolerance towards Arabs and Jews, as well as towards those with different social or cultural values. Their reactionary rhetoric advocates positions that even the classic monarchists in LA would not dare support.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many other pro-democracy analysts and activists, the Pahlavists’ main function is to push back against democratic aspirations and democracy activists on behalf of the regime. They pose as if they did not work to advance the regime’s agenda but acted within the boundaries of the opposition. In so doing, they hope to command legitimacy among the Iranian people and the international community. 

However, the Pahlavists can also have a secondary, more subtle function. Some of those who hold positions of power within the regime might hope to use the Pahlavists as a Plan B. That is, if the regime comes to a point of no return and is about to fall, those elites can utilize the Pahlavists to facilitate Reza Pahlavi’s ascension to the throne so that they can hold on to their privileges. That is to say, the Islamist elite could cling onto the legitimacy of the monarch, just as Spain’s Francoist elite did after the restoration of that country’s monarchy.

Reza Pahlavi is now in a similar position to that of Juan Carlos in the early 1970s, and there are obvious signs that at least parts of the Revolutionary Guards and the regime’s security apparatus promote him at the expense of democracy activists. Pahlavi himself has openly said that he is in touch with the Revolutionary Guards. He has even repeatedly proclaimed that anti-regime protesters must embrace the IRGC instead of fighting it and that the Guards should remain employed in positions of power after the fall of the Islamic Republic.

What is clear, then, is that the reactionary camp does not represent the demands of the ordinary people and those who want democracy, but the interests of power and wealth inside and outside of Iran.

The rise and fall of a revolution

The Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution at its peak had two major stages. I call the first the “real revolution.” At that stage, democracy was the central aspiration of the revolutionaries. Activists were focused on pulling down the entire system of the Islamic Republic, liberating women and empowering disadvantaged groups of people.

The revolution was a truly postmodern one, and its characteristics proved profoundly different from classic revolutions. Most important of all, it did not have individual or group leadership. Rather, its many leaders were scattered across the country and the world, but were closely connected horizontally via the Internet and local networks. The protestors used these channels to exchange ideas and plan demonstrations. They organized defense strategies as the regime launched a brutal crackdown. Different layers of society inside and outside of Iran coordinated with each other in order to confront the Islamic Republic and let the world know that Iranians wanted to establish democracy.

At this stage, the most progressive and egalitarian ideals were at the heart of the revolution. The emancipation of women was at the forefront, alongside the liberation of sexual minorities. Revolutionaries advocated pluralism, multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity. They aimed to transform Iran’s historically centralized power structure by devolving governance in Iran. They demanded the rule of law and civil and political rights, which would apply to all people equally, regardless of their origin and background. For these and many other reasons, the Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution might have been the most progressive revolution in the modern history of the world so far.

But this upswelling of revolutionary ideas was not to last. The initial stage of the revolution gave way to what I call the “fake revolution.” The Revolutionary Guards promoted the Pahlavists as a front organization and sought to bridle the democratic aspirations of the uprising and drive the popular revolution in an anti-democratic direction.

The Pahlavists attempted to impose a top-down dictatorial leadership on the diverse revolutionary people and groups. They abused — verbally and sometimes physically — Reza Pahlavi’s critics as “leftists” and “separatists.” Contrary to the pluralism and progressivism that characterized the authentic revolution, the Pahlavists propounded reactionary ideas like patriarchy, absolutist monarchy and extreme nationalism.

When their attempt to make a charismatic leader out of the playboy prince failed, the regime’s agents of influence, exploiting the mainstream Persian media overseas, pulled out all the stops to create a council of celebrities centered on Reza Pahlavi to lead the ongoing revolution. However, most of these people, including Reza Pahlavi himself, had neither an organic connection with the protesters in Iran nor the necessary experience and expertise to deal with a revolutionary situation. As a result, they were soon reduced to vitriolic infighting which led to the collapse of the celebrity council.

The Pahlavist pseudo-revolution failed to gain any traction. It succeeded only in sucking the life out of the authentic revolution. The marginalization of pro-democracy activists made protesters on the ground lose their motivation to demonstrate and to fight back against the regime. This bought the Islamic Republic enough time to make peace with its foreign adversaries, suppress most of the domestic protests and come back from the brink.

So what have we gained from this clash of ideas?

The Woman, Life, Freedom Revolution has significant strategic implications for the future. Most importantly, it has fully exposed the unbridgeable chasm between the libertarian and the authoritarian forces among opponents of the regime. Before the revolution, this gap was not fully exposed, as various trends only engaged in routine rhetorical battles. But the revolution forced everyone to stand up for their values and tested their conduct in the field of action. Pahlavists and reactionaries can no longer credibly pose as revolutionaries.

Although they have suffered a setback for now, on the timescale of history pro-democracy forces have a fair chance to determine the political future of Iran. The valuable experiences they gained during the revolution have enabled them to see the situation on the ground more clearly and brought them closer together despite their differences. Their strong support of each other in the face of the joint attacks by the regime and the Pahlavists shows that Iranian democracy activists have reached a level of maturity and inclusivity that would not have become possible without the revolution.

In the end, the future of Iran will be decided by the battle, not simply between the “opposition” and the “regime,” but between the supporters of democracy and the combined authoritarian forces of the Pahlavists and the Islamist regime.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Iran’s Mahsa Revolution One Year On appeared first on Fair Observer.

With Beijing acting more assertively as an international actor and challenging the US-centered world order, questions arise as to what might happen if China becomes the global hegemon and whether democracy will survive worldwide when that happens.

Some experts refer to the 21st century as the “Chinese Century,” because Beijing has shown the material potential, strategic patience and determination to become a hegemon. China has subtleties that its closest allies, namely Iran and Russia, lack. Without firing a shot or starting a war so far, China has projected its power on the world stage through diplomacy, economy and technology, albeit with a lot of political arm-twisting, military muscle, infiltration and espionage behind that conventional façade.

More recently, China has raised its profile by grafting itself into peacemaking efforts within several longstanding conflicts across the globe. Beijing has sponsored a Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, and is doing a great deal to resolve the conflict between Riyadh and Tehran over the civil war in Yemen. China’s successes in peacemaking deal a blow to the prestige of the US and the United Nations (UN), whose joint efforts to put an end to the decade-long bloody conflict have proved fruitless so far.

In the absence of a strong American presence in the region, more neutral or Western-friendly nations are likely to lean towards China for security. Since the stability of the Middle East is aligned with the newfound interests of Beijing, we can expect that the China-centered emerging order will calm the turbulent waters in the Arab-Iranian theater of conflict for a while, of course with the obvious exclusion of Israel.

China’s Role in the Russia-Ukraine War

After the end of World War II, the Middle East was primarily an American sphere of influence. However, since the end of the Cold War, the US has been gradually withdrawing from the region. For many in Washington, the Middle East simply does not have the strategic value that it did during the Cold War. That’s why the US has been trying to pivot to Asia to counter the rise of China in the Far East. Ironically, Beijing looks eager to fill the “vacuum of superpower” in the Middle East.

China has also been trying to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. So far, Beijing has only been paying lip service to peace. For example, while claiming to mediate between Kyiv and Moscow, China has reportedly been providing Moscow with arms, drones, and economic aid. But if it perceives that playing the role of the peacemaker in the European theater of war will further raise its global profile, China might act accordingly. Especially if the West backs off from the Russia-Ukraine war, as evidence suggests, China’s role as a global peacemaker could further grow.

The peace that Beijing establishes between Russia and Ukraine will naturally be in Moscow’s favor, but it might not be so unfair as to kill any incentive for Kyiv to come to the table. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin is now relying heavily on Chinese President Xi Jinping. Therefore, Beijing can demand concessions for Ukraine that the Kremlin cannot ignore. It should be noted that China’s intentions here go far beyond appeasing Russia, its long-time ally. Beijing is keen on presenting itself as a fair and reasonable superpower that the West and the rest of the world can trust as the new sheriff in town.

As for a head-on confrontation with America, China is currently trying to avoid that, for the US is the world’s leading military and economic power and still holds a significant edge over China. Currently, the US and China are engaged in a new Cold War, while discussions over Taiwan are also intensifying between the two global superpowers. But, this will not necessarily lead to a military conflict. However, as America’s global engagement continues to dwindle, things might take a different turn in the future.

The Erosion of Democracy

Judging by what we see today, democracy is at risk of deteriorating worldwide. In today’s  world, authoritarian regimes are willing to invest heavily in their ideological and material war on democracy. On the other hand, democratic countries generally refrain from standing up for their values, and instead resort to the myopic and short-term logic of “cost-benefit” to avoid an imminent conflict. As a result, democratic countries are leaving much less of an assertive mark on global events. If this continues, democracy is bound to decline.

So far, China has restrained itself from explicitly interfering in the internal affairs of the countries under its influence. However, there is no guarantee that China will stick to that policy once it has achieved global hegemony. Indeed, it will likely try to cast its satellite states in the same mold. This can already be seen in Iran, which is already aligned with China. But Beijing will likely try to do the same in many South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and South American countries as well.

The rise of China and its allies on the world stage is also partly predicated on some of the internal workings of the West. Far-right, populist politics have already contributed to the erosion of democracy in the West. An increase in right-wing, isolationist tendencies in the US and the EU is likely to lead to a power vacuum around the globe that China will race to fill. 

Right-wing politicians in the West tend to adopt a conciliatory approach to dictators around the world. This is due to their strong bias in favor of local and national concerns over global matters. As a result, they tend to de-prioritize human rights and democracy elsewhere. As such, the West, both in its conservative and progressive manifestations, is becoming less interventionist and more isolationist with each passing day.

The prospect of an inexorable onslaught of authoritarianism against an entrenched and confused West does not bode well for the future of democracy worldwide. However, the West cannot continue on this regressive trajectory forever. When it becomes apparent that the existential threat of authoritarianism is inescapable, a paradigm shift is likely to occur. This will lead to a recalibration of forces towards an all-out confrontation with China and its allies.

There is also a growing demand for democracy among the oppressed people living under the yoke of despotic regimes. Many people in China, Russia and Iran are now seeking freedom and democracy. The same is true for people living under Chinese and Russian influence in places such as Hong Kong, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Central Asia. The West must organize all-out efforts to counter despots. When these efforts coalesce with the resistance and inevitable revolt of the oppressed against their oppressors, then and only then will it be possible for liberalism and democracy to emerge victorious worldwide.

[Hannah Gage edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Will Democracy Survive the Rise of China? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the Shah of Iran after the Allies invaded the country in August 1941 and removed his father Reza Shah due to his leanings towards Nazi Germany. The Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist and because of his strong anti-communist stance, became the most prized ally of the West in the Middle East during the Cold War. However, his unpopularity led to the revolution of 1979 that brought the Islamists to power in Iran. His son and heir apparent Reza Pahlavi has since been living in exile in the United States.

The principal aim of the Pahlavists, whose ranks include the former prince and the ultranationalist, right-wing organizations like Farashgard and Iran Novin Party that have recently sprouted around him, is to revive the toppled Pahlavi monarchy. To do this, they have presented themselves as an ally to the United States in their animus towards communism. 

Paranoia in the USA

The period after the Second World War saw the demise of fascism coincide with the emergence of communism and the Soviet Union on the global stage, which posed a grave threat to the national security of the United States. In the 1950s, the US was seized with paranoia of Soviet infiltration; so much so that fear-mongering, denunciation, and highly publicized probes became common. The period is now known as the Red Scare and Senator Joseph McCarthy was one of its main architects.

Iran’s Regime Survives on a Well-Maintained Myth

In 1954, Congress passed the “Communist Control Act” that outlawed the US Communist Party and criminalized membership and support for all communist organizations across the nation. The Red Scare continued in stride until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. 

In recent years, the world has seen another upsurge of far-right movements. Like their predecessors, these movements, too, have resorted to nativism and xenophobia. Furthermore, some have shown a penchant for branding their enemies as communists. Such was the case of QAnon, a fringe internet movement that eventually found mainstream attention thanks to the many outlandish conspiracies they touted. 

Among them was the claim that the United States is run by a cabal of “Jews, pedophiles, and communists.” Many of President Donald Trump’s supporters who participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol were also QAnon followers. Like the protestors that stormed the Capitol, there is footage that shows supporters of Reza Shah violently attacking anti-regime demonstrators abroad. 

Out with the Old, in with the New?

The Pahlavists have gained some genuine support among conservatives in the United States and the Middle East, but it looks like their most significant advocates hail from Moscow and Tehran. As I have explained before, for the past decade, Tehran has been faced with mounting domestic and international pressure regarding Islamism. This may induce the Kremlin and pro-Russian elements within the Revolutionary Guards to orchestrate a “controlled regime change” with the aim of keeping their hold on Iran.

Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly made overtures to the IRGC, the Basij, the army, and the regime’s security apparatus. He has called them to join him in “the future government of Iran.” He’s even boasted about his relationship with the Revolulutionary Guards, the chief defenders of the ruling system. In 2019, President Trump designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, the first time a state entity was added to the list. 

The Dirty Secrets About How Reza Shah Destroyed Iran

Even if Pahlavi succeeds with his inveigling concerning the military and security apparatuses of the Islamic Republic, the foundations of the old regime will stay intact. Like its Islamist predecessor, the new regime will still remain resolutely anti-American, anti-Arab, and antisemitic. The new regime will exercise strategic continuity, like the Russian state after the collapse of the Communist Bloc.

The Past is Never Dead

In The Manchurian Candidate, a Korean War veteran was revealed to be an unwitting instrument of an international communist conspiracy. Similarly, the Pahlavists could be inadvertently advancing the Kremlin’s two-pronged agenda in Washington: maligning Iranian liberal democracy activists on one hand and promoting far-right politics on the other. As such, those in the West who have a stake in the future of Iran must tread with caution.

In the end, we mustn’t forget the inconvenient truth. The rise of Iran’s theocratic regime followed over thirty years of Western-supported Pahlavi autocracy in Iran. Rather than pushing for democracy, the West financed a dictator in the form of an absolutist monarch. This was a fatal error. Not heeding history’s lessons will mean repeating the same terrible mistake. 

It is in the long-term security interests of the United States and her allies to help Iran move towards a multiparty liberal democracy with a representative government. An Iran that embraces the foundations of Western Civilization and befriends the United States, Europe, the Arab world, and Israel will prove a much more trustworthy ally than a seemingly pro-Western dictatorship.

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Are the Pahlavists Following Moscow’s Lead in Washington? appeared first on Fair Observer.

In July of 1994, a man drove an explosive-laden van into the headquarters of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) killing 85 and injuring more than 300 people. The bombing is the deadliest terrorist incident on Argentine soil to date.

In 2006, the Argentine federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused Iran’s paramilitary force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) of designing the AMIA attack, and its Lebanese proxy force Hezbollah of executing it. However, there have been members within Argentina’s political leadership who have consistently sought to stall any investigation into the case.

More Twists and Turns

Among them was Argentina’s former president  Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, now serving a six-year prison sentence for corruption. When Fernández came to power in 2007, the country signed a memorandum of understanding  withIran.  Together with Interpol, the two governments agreed to form a truth commission.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

READ MORE

Multiple  Jewish community groups in Argentina, including the AMIA, filed a petition denouncing the memorandum as unconstitutional. Their  contention was that the evidence of Iran’s involvement in the bombing  was undeniable, and that it offered no benefit to the victims of the attack or Argentina. .

Nisman also opposed the memorandum, calling it a “wrongful interference of the executive branch” , and accused President Fernández and her government of trying to cover up Iran’s involvement.. 

Nisman  even compiled a 300-page dossier on the Kirchner government’s efforts to cover up the AMIA incident. Butt in January of 2015, before he had a chance to present his findings to  Congress, he was shot dead. His murder case as well as that of the AMIA bombing are still open.

After Mauricio Macri succeeded Fernández later that same year , his justice ministry immediately voided the memorandum. Israel’s former and most likely next prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the move as a “welcome change of direction” for  Argentina and expressed hope that relations with Tel Aviv  would improve.

However, the seizure  of an Iranian-Venezuelan Boeing 747 in Buenos Aires lastJune added  another  twist to an unfolding drama . The plan had a crew of 19 people, 5 were Iranians. Some had clear ties to the IRGC and the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s government. It was also discovered that  such flights to Argentina have been a regular occurrence for some time. 

This has raised many questions regarding the extent of Iran’s security and military presence as well as political influence in Argentina. For example, the pilot of the seized plane, Gholamreza Ghasemi, is a ranking officer of the Quds Force, the same security wing  that plotted the AMIA bombing.

Just An Argentine Cover Up?

The opposition and members of the judiciary have accused Macri’s  government of orchestrating a  cover up of these  flights of the regime-affiliated Iranian-Venezuelan aircraft to Argentina. Many of the current Argentine government officials are the same people who signed the AMIA memorandum under Fernández.

Last July, a group of US Senate Republicans sent a letter to the Biden administration demanding a rationale for their delay in delivering key information of the Iranian suspects in the Boeing case to Argentine law enforcement officials. e. They believed the administration was aware of the extent of the IRGC’s association in South America but were withholding information in order to not undermine efforts to revive the JCPOA.

Derecognize Mullahs, Forge New Government in Exile for Iran

READ MORE

Last August, Argentina arrested four Iranians with fake French passports with possible links to the  Revolutionary Guards. They were arrested at Ezeiza International Airport in Buenos Aires, intending to  fly to Amsterdam. 

The arrest warrant for the four was issued by the Federal Judge Federico Villena, who is also in charge of investigating the Boeing case.

In October, a month after protests in Iran began, Argentina released the Boeing 747 cargo plane and the 5 crew members still detained. The federal judge Federico Villena determined that there was no basis to prosecute the crew. However, the judicial investigation will still remain open.

Although the case seems closed at this point, the IRGC’s active presence in South America can be still used to  scuttle the JCPOA for good.  Flight records even show that the same Boeing plane made a brief stop in Moscow before heading to Buenos Aires. 

In light of all of these events, Washington should find no reason to appease the theocrats of Tehran with a revised nuclear deal. Hopefully, the JCPOA will finally enter the archives of failed deals with dictators.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post How is the AMIA Bombing Linked to the IRGC Aircraft in Argentina? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Tehran has tried to push this duality forward in an aggressive manner as far as it can. However, the extraneous factors and the material deficiencies of the regime over the past 40 years have forced it to retreat from its aggressive position and get entrenched behind defensive lines from time to time. In such situations, the regime has occasionally been induced to sit at one table with its self-made enemies and, so to speak, to be seen in a photoshoot with its antithesis.

Negotiating with Satan

It has always been difficult for the Islamist regime to cast a legitimate portrait of itself in such an awkwardly compromising position. The ideological zealots who follow the regime in Iran and around the world mostly do so because they regard it as the epitome of the “myth of resistance” against the West. When one blows up the battle to mythical proportions and calls the opponent the “Great Satan,” it feels fundamentally inappropriate for them to sit down and negotiate with the devil.

Therefore, when actually bowing to the will of the “enemy” in defeat, all the regime’s efforts are channeled toward preventing that mythological frame of mind from unravelling. Under such conditions, the so-called pragmatism of the regime is only a temporary measure that serves the purpose of maintaining its ideological system. Every time the Islamic Republic has pragmatically conceded to Western demands or pressure, it has done so to preserve the core of its dogma as well as the ideological image that it projects upon its followers and allies around the world.

In that regard, the regime has resorted to every kind of chicanery to uphold its myth of resistance, from completely covering up defeat to presenting defeat as victory. For instance, when Saddam Hussein’s Scud-B missiles were ploughing Tehran and other Iranian cities in the late 1980s, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, by agreeing to the UN Resolution 598 that eventually ended the Iran-Iraq War, took the decision that was “more deadly than taking poison,” but which eventually insured the survival of the regime he had founded.

Again, when the regime had been isolated from the entire world in the mid-1990s due to its widespread terrorism, it started the charade of reformism. A decade later, when Tehran was severely sanctioned for its nuclear program, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei showed “heroic flexibility” by negotiating with the “Great Satan” through the Omani channel and signing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The regime presented all those events to the Iranian people and to its supporters around the world as “victory.”

Point of Resistance

The Islamic Republic went through all these efforts to preserve the self-made epic image of itself as the ultimate point of resistance to Western imperialism, while it had, in fact, failed, and the rug had been pulled from under its feet. And this has been the secret of the regime’s survival to this day — that it has not allowed that mythical image to be tarnished in the eyes of the Iranian public as well as its supporters around the world.

In all those cases, as soon as the regime saw the opportunity, it broke its promises and began to push forward its aggressive ideology once again. A notorious example for this was the trick that the regime pulled on President Barack Obama immediately after the signing of the nuclear deal, disgracing him and Secretary of State John Kerry. On the day President Obama was delivering the 2016 State of the Union address, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detained a number of US Marines in the Persian Gulf, publicly parading their capture. The large mural of that disgraceful event is still evident in Valiasr Square in Tehran.

More recently, while teetering on the verge of economic collapse under unprecedented US and international sanctions for its pursuit of nuclear weapons and interventionism in the Middle East, Tehran upped the ante by shooting down a multi-million-dollar American drone over the Persian Gulf. Surprisingly, it managed to get away with it. The regime also stands accused of the September missile attacks on the Saudi Aramco oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia that disabled 50% of Saudi output and disrupted the global oil supply.

As such, what is of primary importance to the Islamic Republic is the maintenance of the mythological system that it has created of itself and of the world in the eyes of its followers. The regime has had to back down under pressure from time to time. Western politicians, who are the real pragmatists, have also let the regime to get away with impunity. This has allowed the regime to go back to square one when the waters are calm and start all over again.

Will you support FO’s journalism?

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

Donation Cycle

One Time Monthly Yearly

Donation Amount

$5 $9 Other

$

The IRS recognizes Fair Observer as a section 501(c)(3) registered public charity (EIN: 46-4070943), enabling you to claim a tax deduction.

You can also contribute via

X

$5.00

Per Month

Already have an account? Sign in

Payment information

Card number

Expiration

CVC

For the Islamic Republic not to be able to continue this game of cat and mouse with the West, it must once and for all be rid of ideological footing. Therefore, if President Donald Trump’s administration genuinely means to “change the behavior of the regime” in Iran, then it must force the ayatollahs and their Revolutionary Guards to accept their defeat before the eyes of the world by taking all the measures that are necessary to achieve this goal. The fall of an ideological regime starts with the collapse of its fundamental myths.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Iran’s Regime Survives on a Well-Maintained Myth appeared first on Fair Observer.