Web Letters: The Iranian Impasse

It seems that most other "developed" countries had their chance to play the game of imperialism during the late 1800s to early-mid 1900s. During this time the US was left out in a major way (aside from a stint in Central America and Asia Minor). I wonder if the US is now trying to make up for missed opportunities as the role of global conquer.

It struck me as odd that “a high university official clad from head to toe in a black chador” would be attending a lecture on "Foucault and Feminism." Perhaps the definition of feminism has taken on too much of a stereotypical aesthetic image and not enough of a political value in our own country. Can the rights of women be equated with basic universal human rights and thus degender the roles we set for ourselves in our own society?

Heather Oaks

Merrillville, IN

The authors of this review essay suggest we support the democratic reformists in Iran while opposing US intervention. Precisely how to provide such support is not broached. Perhaps we should write more articles about the need for such support in publications like The Nation? The question is, What are the consequences of such articles? If they are noticed at all in Iran (unlikely), they lend credence to the argument that the democratic reformers are simply agents of the US. If they are noticed in the US (slightly more likely), they will tend to strengthen arguments for intervention--recall that the intervention in Afghanistan appropriated arguments made by US feminists against the Taliban.

Although the US left has not been particularly effective at building a substantial alternative power to the right domestically, or even to stop US military interventions, much of it is strangely eager to advise the leaders of Venezuela, Iran et al. (none of whom appear to be soliciting the advice of the US left, for understandable reasons) precisely how to deal with their rivals. Maybe we should put first things first and commit ourselves to building political power to stop US interventions. Release from the threat of this external enemy is likely to be of far greater benefit to democratic reformers than hand-waving displays of "support." For a relevant critique (ignored in this essay) of Azar Nafisi, see "Jasmine and Stars: Reading More than Lolita in Tehran" by Fatemeh Keshavarz or this interview with Keshavarz.

Steven Sherman
lefteyeonbooks.org

Carrboro, NC

An excellent article and book reviews, but, between The Nation and C-Span, I am going broke buying books.

However, two things struck me about this article. How "progressive" change shut down with Bush's Axis of Evil speech and "progressives" opposing a war with Iran, which has an oppressive regime.

It was not helpful when Bush advised "reformers" to initiate regime change through a revolution. It is hardly surprising that a crackdown followed. Similarly, we saw Chávez crack down on the media in Venezuela following Bush's attacks on his regime. Add the various "Orange" Revolutions, and reformers are tarred by these activities. Reform has been associated with imperialism, colonialism and regime change.

What Western "progressives" can do is make it clear that imperialism, colonialism or regime change are not a part of their agenda, and quit trying to micromanage change in the Middle East. We are not George Bush! Reform movements must be Iranian and not Western, for reform to take root, it must come from within Iran. It is no accident that the two remaining Communist regimes of China and Vietnam were products of national struggles.

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA