IT was unprecedented in one of the most restrictive societies in the world — people pouring out into the streets, first protesting against crushing economic woes and then demanding an ouster of the Islamist dictatorship that has had a firm grip on Iran since 1979. Women tore off their hijabs, crowds defiantly chanted “Death to the dictator,” activists waved the flag of pre-revolution Iran, making it instantly a symbol of their rejection of repression.
And everywhere around the world, there was support for this popular uprising. Iran, after all, was not a friend to many, since Reza Pahlavi, the Shah, was deposed and Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to inaugurate a fascist version of a theocracy. It has long chanted “Death of the USA. Death to Israel.” And death was indeed its ally. I was in college then, and it shocked me just how many people were executed every day for being “enemies of God.” That, of course, is the trouble with any “theocracy,” for where rulers claim to have been vested with the mantle of authority by God himself, then their enemies are the enemies of the Deity as well!
Donald Trump, still savoring his capture of Nicolas Maduro and his wife, threatened the regime — and went beyond that. In true “Trumpian” fashion, he pledged: “Help is on the way.” He warned the regime against killing protesters and civilians, promising those in power that he would hit them hard. Emboldened, more protesters took to the streets, for surely, the message that the fearless Donald Trump had their backs had made its way through the narrowing corridors of communication that the regime had not yet managed to block off.
Reporters give different reports. Human rights groups say that 2,000 have been killed. Others give five-digit figures. Now, it seems, there was never a red line. “Locked and ready” was Trumpian braggadocio. Only that, and nothing more. I mourn the dead. My heart goes out to their families, moving from one body bag to the other in hopes of finding the remains of their loved ones. I fear for those who must now await in dread reprisal after having boldly defied the regime, granted interviews to reporters, and made the world know what the Iranians on the streets of Tehran, Kermanshah, Shiraz and other cities of the country truly feel toward their government. I pray for the safety of the women who publicly tore off their hijabs, bared their hair, and rejoiced in their fleeting liberation from the strictures of an asphyxiating religion.
What made Donald Trump scurry away, leaving the brave Iranian protesters out to dry? We are told of the intervention of the Gulf States and even of Israel, supposedly cautioning against any military action against Iran lest it spark a regional conflagration. That may well be true — and yes, it would be unwise to ignite a powder keg in that already volatile region of the planet. But all that talk of keeping the tense detente, of protecting Israel from punishing reprisals, and of confining the situs of confrontation is the talk of elites. It is the narrative of power. Borrowing familiar terms, this is the “grand narrative”: geopolitics, political alignment, balance of power, spheres of influence and alliances.
The trouble with the talk of elites is that it has no room for the petite narratives of the protesters who took to the streets, clearly crying out for freedom, the women who have for so long been denied rights women around the world boldly and jealously claim, the students who know that more years under a geriatric leadership propped up by heavily armed thugs can only mean more years of misery. In the calculus of geopolitics and strategic maneuvers, these do not matter.
What I find appalling was that Iranians were lured into believing that America had their backs, that they could freely go into the streets because “help was on the way,” that they had to keep the names of their oppressors — those who killed, tortured and maimed because the day of reckoning was not far off. The protests will die out — as will the dreams of freedom, and perhaps, the world is wiser now, because it realizes that for all of Trump’s bellowing, nothing is in the offing. I am by no means suggesting that there should have been armed action. But I certainly would not mourn the demise of the kind of religious autocracy that has kept the Iranians under its thumb for too long now, and I certainly think that it was a moral responsibility of the United States to see that effective guarantees were in place for the protection of those who mustered the courage to tell the world that they have had enough. At the very least, Trump could have extracted from Iran concessions on the release of prisoners who are locked up because of their role in the protests, that death sentences imposed on “enemies of God” are commuted, and that international minimum legal standards in respect to human rights are served. And this is not interference in the domestic affairs of a State. This is vigilance for human rights that has been, for some time now, a concern that transcends borders and political divides.
And for us, in the Philippines, it might be helpful for us to ask if the assurances in the Mutual Defense Treaty and other related documents are worth anything more than the paper on which they are written.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
rannie_aquino@sanbeda.edu.ph
rannie_aquino@csu.edu.ph