Protests in Iran
After a recent wave of protests against the Iranian government, the American media responded hysterically. They ignored the pro-government counter-protests that followed and instead talked about how this “democratic revolution” would bring about revolutionary change in the country. One article in The Federalist, a libertarian and conservative-leaning website, trumpeted these protesters and criticized those in support of peace with Iran for allegedly “leading from behind.” The article, along with others in mainstream sources, repeatedly portrayed Iran as an oppressive and totalitarian regime. This publicized, oversimplified characterization of Iran veered into even more disturbing territory. According to Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting, a non-partisan journalistic accountability group, both liberal and conservative western media uploaded images to their websites of protesters in Europe and America, without mentioning that those protesters were not actually in Iran at all. This misreporting is only one example of how the press throughout the Western world has unfairly decried Iran.
Frequently, Americans point to Iran as one of the most oppressive countries in the world. They underline its supposed lack of democracy and human rights as well as its oppression of women and religious minorities. Many of these critiques are certainly valid. However, American sources sometimes exaggerate. For example, Iran is often accused of not embodying the traits of a real democracy. But, on the contrary, Iran has competitive elections for a parliament and president. Iran’s last legislative election in 2016 was one of the most competitive in the country’s history. The people faced a legitimate choice between parties: the democratic reformist party “List of Hope” (which supported the moderate president Hassan Rouhani) and the “principalists,” supported by Iran’s fundamentalist clergy and a group of moderate conservatives. Despite the fact that the supposedly all-powerful mullahs and ayatollahs supported the fundamentalist candidates, the moderates and moderate conservatives won an overwhelming victory.
Similarly, blatant misconceptions have been formed regarding Iranian treatment of religious minorities and women. Although there are definitely too many restrictions on both marginalized groups, Christians, the largest remaining religious minority, are allowed to worship openly but banned from converting. While certainly oppressed, many Middle Eastern Christians view Iran as a place of refuge from the threats and abuse they face on a day-to-day basis in other countries, such as Iraq.
Mainstream media has also failed to accurately represent the full extent of rights that Iranian women enjoy. According to the Huffington Post, they make up one of the highest proportions of university students of any country in the globe. And while the media has continually posted headlines like “Iran Bans Women From Universities,” they ignored that even in 2011, under the leadership of Iran’s pro-fundamentalist president Ahmadinejad, an attempt to segregate university classes was suppressed. While women are required to cover their head, there is also the option of wearing a light covering that leaves their hair and face visible. Obviously none of these laws are particularly progressive by American standards, but they do not approach the level of Iranian totalitarianism touted by American media outlets.
Western policy on Iran is particularly hypocrictical if you consider who else America supports in the region. Certain neoliberals in America portray their opposition to Iran as based on democratic principle. Many of the national security experts who supported George Bush and Hillary Clinton saw attacks on Iran as a sort of “neoliberal crusade” against an oppressive, anti-democratic power. But many of these men and women were happy to work with Saudi Arabia and had no concerns about their lack of human rights and democracy. In fact, the organization “Freedom House,” a generally pro-American organization, rated Iran as “Not Free” but gave it a higher freedom rating than Saudi Arabia.
Even if Iran is indeed totalitarian, the US still needs the country to prevent other, more severely totalitarian groups from gaining power in the Middle East. Iranian-supported militias in Iraq played a crucial role in defeating the Islamic State in Iraq. The Popular Mobilization Forces, an organization of citizen soldiers, was one of the largest of these. It was formed by ordinary men and women, mainly Shiites, who wished to protect their homeland from the Sunni “Islamic State.” PBS, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, interviewed Iraqi commanders of the militia, who described Iran’s crucial role in helping fight terrorism and accused American-allied powers of supporting and funding the organization. One commander told PBS, “While the whole world watched as Iraq was collapsing, in fact, it was only Iran that stood with us.”
As Iran moves into the future, it could face more turmoil. Nevertheless, Iran plays a crucial role in defending the Middle East and maintaining a Sunni-Shia balance in the region. If Iran disintegrates, either a Sunni caliphate could seize power and control the region or the overall region could descend into political instability. A strong Iran means a stable, peaceful Middle East. Regime-change hawks should keep that in mind as they gloat about a crisis in the country.