Full-Spectrum Idiocy: GOP and Chavez on Iran

When approaching Iran, the Republican Party line and the Hugo Chavez line are running in opposite directions -- but parallel. The leadership of GOP reaction and the leadership of Bolivarian revolution have bought into the convenient delusion that long-suffering Iranian people require assistance from the U.S. government to resist the regime in Tehran.

Inside Iran, advocates for reform and human rights have long pleaded for the U.S. government to keep out of Iranian affairs. After the CIA organized the coup that overthrew Iran's democracy in 1953, Washington kept the Shah in power for a quarter century. When I was in Tehran four years ago, during the election that made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president, what human rights activists most wanted President Bush to do was shut up.

But Bush played to the same kind of peanut gallery that is now applauding the likes of Sen. John McCain. The Bush White House denigrated the 2005 election just before the balloting began -- to the delight of the hardest-line Iranian fundamentalists. The ultra-righteous Bush rhetoric gave a significant boost to Ahmadinejad's campaign.

Denunciations and threats from Washington are the last thing that Iran's reform advocates want. And Iranians certainly don't need encouragement from Uncle Sam to do what they can to bring about democratic change.

John McCain doesn't get it. And neither does Hugo Chavez.

Of course, Chavez has practical reasons for his warmth toward Ahmadinejad. (Practitioners of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" usually do.) While sharing Washington as a common adversary, their oil-rich countries have the makings of a world-shaking energy bloc. And they're on similar pages with well-founded antipathies toward institutions like the World Trade Organization, the IMF and the World Bank.

But human rights -- whether food, shelter and health care or freedom of speech, press and elections -- should not be matters of winks and nods.

As voting began in Iran on June 12, Chavez praised Ahmadinejad as "a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution, the defense of the Third World, and in the struggle against imperialism."

Nine days later, with a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters gaining momentum, Chavez declared that "Ahmadinejad's triumph was a triumph all the way." The Venezuelan president condemned those "trying to stain Ahmadinejad's triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution."

I'm among millions of progressive North Americans who admire much of what Chavez has been doing for economic equity and social justice in Venezuela. But that admiration is no reason to be quiet when Chavez makes common cause with repression in Iran.

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have nothing to be smug about. The day after President Obama toughened his criticisms of Iran's rulers at his June 23 news conference, a venerable human-rights organization named the Quixote Center was noting that more than 1,200 people had sent letters and faxes asking the Obama administration "to denounce the violent repression of peaceful protests organized in response to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement" -- a massacre of indigenous people in the Peruvian Amazon.

What happened during that massacre on June 5? "A hundred people were wounded by gunshot, and between 20 and 25 were killed," the Center for International Policy reports.

"The Obama administration," the Quixote Center noted, "remains silent on the massacre in Peru."

But the fact of some hypocrisy from President Obama does not change the fact of some idiocy from President Chavez.

On Wednesday (June 24), the Associated Press reports, "Chavez reiterated his support for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a close ally, and said he is 'completely sure' Ahmadinejad fairly won re-election on June 12."

For good measure, Chavez ascribed the protests in Iran to Washington and its allies. "He said protests and violence that have rocked Iran since the contested vote appear part of a recurring strategy by U.S. and European intelligence agencies to destabilize enemy governments." Chavez declared: "From my point of view, that's what's happening in Iran."

It seems to be beyond the vision of both Hugo Chavez and John McCain to see that vast numbers of Iranian people, fed up with repression, are able to grasp the historical moment on their own while opposing the regime. The last thing they need or want is "help" from the U.S. government as they struggle for a democratic future.

Comments

[DonCosenza]

Big surprise that one autocrat is supporting another. Chavez doesn't want to see street demonstrators affecting real political change, because his leadership might be next when Venezuela's middle class takes to the streets.

With 30% inflation in 2008, the only long-term economic equality he may be bringing his people is equal poverty.

[wereeverywhere]

Chavez is a rank hypocrite. The Venezuelans came out in droves during the coup and saved him. In Iran, 100,000's in the streets are rebelling against Ahmadinejad, and Hugo stabs them in the back. This leftist thanks you Norman Solomon for pointing out that reality is more complex than US bad, anti-US good. I've read 100's of your pages where you point out evils of US, but there's no reason to reduce everything to simple anti-Americanism. The IRI can manufacture plenty of social ills, too all by themselves. Hopefully the Iranians will end the nightmare of IRI.

[zumliya]

A message to HuffPoers:

I always thought you folks were the enemy. I am a lifelong leftie who does not hate Israel and has been almost driven mad by the support (tacit or blatant) given to Islamists (not Muslims - I can genuinely say that about a quarter of my friends IRL are Muslim - I do live in the most Muslim part of London, none of them are pro-Jihad, though a few are sincerely anti-Zionist and definitely not ant-Semitic).

Consequently I was driven into the arms of the Neocons.

The morality and decency that most Huffers have displayed in their attitudes towards this foul situation (and criticism of the fool Chavez!) is rapidly making me reevaluate my opinions on my former foes.

I've always thought it a virtue to reevaluate opinions and you guys have helped me. Thank you.

(PS - it looks like your arch-nemesis at LGF is also beginnng to feel the love for HuffPo too!)

[Urbnplanner22]

Thanks for keeping an open mind. Hopefully you can look past those on the left who would seek to defend Chavez, Castro, or other tyrannical, anti-democratic leftists in the name name of ideology and at the cost of forsaking the principles of political freedom for all. Neocon philosophy, as I am sure you have learned, is predicated in part on the false notion that western military might is limitless and therefore a more potent weapon than diplomacy and abiding by the "western" principles (which I would argue are universal) that supposedly make western culture superior to all others.

Thanks again for not stopping at listening to the coarsest voices on the left. There are principled progressives out there who disagree with leftist extremism.

[DonCosenza]

Are those really your only two options? Marxist Populism or neoconservatism?

[zumliya]

Hi Urbnplanner22 thanks for your warm welcome.

Hi DonCosenza, in what will probably end up a rambling incoherent response:

No. But I am sure my definition of neoconservatism is probably different to yours. I'm still all for the the milder neocon aims of spreading democracy by aiding the 'good guys' in countries with bad regimes, but I never supported the invasion of Iraq and am not a fan of war in general.

Of course you are right and now I have been trawling through previous HuffPo threads I see that there is a whole range of opinions here and discussion tends to be civilised.

I guess I was drawn down the Manichean route because here in the UK things are very polarised. The Guardian has many fine journalists but I always feel like I need a shower after reading the comments posted there - it's like a leftie Stormfront to me!

This place has restored my faith in the left I grew up with and became alienated by this decade.

[Kache]

Having been the recipient of numerous U.S. directed/supported attempts to overthrow him, I can understand Chavez's assumption that the opposition in Iran must be the doing of the CIA. And, by comparison to the previous Iranian government's economic policies, one could make a case that Ahmadinejad is a "socialist". But by the same measure, Chavez could align himself with Sarah Palin. She too is anti-Washington and by taxing and redistributing Alaska's oil wealth could likewise be called "America's most socialist" governor. But I believe that if these three were stranded on an island together there would be no survivors at the end of the week.

I wonder if Chavez has contemplated the possibility of having to grant asylum to Ahmadinejad. The enemy of your enemy might be your friend, that doesn't mean you want to have to live with the guy.

[mcmchugh99]

It's a mistake for the Left to defend a fascist regime against its own people, no matter that fascists sometimes say they also dislike capitalism, big banks and global corporations. We leftists and progressives can never really be allies with THEM, not if we mean what we say when we insist that socialism must be democratic--and definitely not National Socialism.

[ForeverXL]

Agreed.

[Prometeo]

Hugo Chavez is demonstrating the intolerance that comes when a person is more idealist than human. And yes, that when idiocy comes into play.

[JustAnotherScreenname]

Thanks Norman, it's nice seeing members of the independent left crowd who don't reflexively defend Ahmadi and Chavez simply because they they think US foreign policy is misguided.

[Jesusland]

Constructive Engagement. Evil when Reagan did it with Apartheid, the height of virtue when Obama does it with the mullahs.

That's politics, folks. Ain't it grand!

[Urbnplanner22]

Chavez, like most leaders cast in the mold of Lenin, is an anti-democratic politician who fancies himself the savior of not just his own country, but his entire continent. His moves to control the judiciary as well as overturn term limits are indicators that he wants absolute and lifelong power to shape Venezuela in his own image. His support for Ahmadenijad only bolsters his anti-democratic credentials. Norman, to say as a progressive that you appreciate "what Chavez has done for economic equity and social justice" is disturbing to me as it seems to feed into the stereotype that we progressives our at our core anti-democratic. I would encourage you to take a closer look at how Chavez's socialist policies are not sustainable over the long term. I for one believe that we can have a strong, well regulated free market without sacrificing efforts to attain social justice.

[Loculi]

I'm in complete agreement, and personally am tired of the Chavez apologists who seem to be willfully ignoring his dictatorial behavior.

[escher123]

Mr Solomon,

I don't understand the following statement from your posting: "I'm among millions of progressive North Americans who admire much of what Chavez has been doing for economic equity and social justice in Venezuela". What exactly are these values that Chavez has been fomenting because the reality on the ground is another with Caracas as the most violent city in South America, prosecution of the opposition, and nationalization of even the unions. Even though your analysis of the friendly behavior of Mr. Chavez is due to his "enemy of my enemy" rethoric, it is important for him to show that he is with the party stopping the protests. It is also interesting his timing since in the morning it was shown that relations with the US were going to be restored and a condemnation of US policy was given in the afternoon. This is probably to get either the reversal of US policy, which he can later claim as another show of "imperialistic" attitude or to have the White House quite, which he would probably claim as an advancement of Obama's mentality towards a Bolivarian ideology. I believe what a Venezuelan once told me: The most important thing for Chavez (you can also put Kim Jun Il here) is to be noticed. It doesn't matter if it is good or bad press, he has to make the news.

[SaltySaltillo]

As a leftist (not a "progressive", but a real, left-of-progressive leftist) I take issue with Mr. Solomon's statement. Chavez is the worst kind of politician for the people. He panders, cajoles, abuses, and manipulates the poor in order to advance his own position of power. His modus operandi has nothing to do with empowering people with capabilities to live richer fuller lives - he needs to maintain the animosity and hostility and economic divide that separates the rich and the poor because that divide, and the frustrations and disatisfactions of the poorest Venezuelans, is what empowers him. In that sense, he is very much like an American Republican politician - ruling by dividing... finding wedge issues to exploit for self-advancement. The great wedge issues Chavez uses to rule like a Republican autocrat are economic hostilities between the rich and the poor, and cultural/n­ationalist hostilities between Latin Americans and Anglo-Americans. The fact that he engages in occasional and sporadic welfare indulges does nothing to solve the real problems of Venezuela. If you pay attention to any real indicators of economic development, Chavez has accomplished nothing of significance in the 10 years he has ruled that country, and many countries not ruled by traditional, "leftists" have made much better progress in improving the lives of citizens. As a leftist, I am ashamed of his rule. He is not a model of leftism anywhere in the world.

[Henry]

Why is it so many of the protest signs in Iran were written in english? Go figure.

[topgenius]

Henry is trying to parrot a comment of Mike Huckabee on Fox news, who asserted that Iranians want American cheer leading because they twittered in English. Huckabee doesn't realize that the vast majority of those tweets are not from Iran.

As for this guy, all the protest signs in English I've seen came from rallies outside of Iran. Whatever. He's sure he understands the situation.

[kgb999]

He's also missed the huge grassroots translation efforts that so many nameless contributors have been a part of. Most of the stuff originates in Farsi.

[1dogs2]

Because English is the international lingua franca, understood by more persons in more countries all over the world than any other, and the protesters want the whole world to know what is happening in Iran. The same phenomenon is seen in protests all over the world.

[ForeverXL]

Believe it or not, but students in Tehran learn English.

Next.

[wereeverywhere]

F_XL, Henry is not alone- I've been arguing for 2 weeks with his ilk. Some people think Iranians are very backwards.

[Kache]

Simple. Because the CIA fired all of their gay people who knew farsi. Or something like that. Noodle on it for a while, Henry, I'm sure you can come up with some doozy of a quote to pass on to a Republican Congressman that will make a total fool out of him when he screams it from the floor of the House. Be our guest.