Mehran Banaei
During the 1979 “Islamic Revolution” in Iran, hardly any of the partakers in the revolution paid attention to how Islamic is this so-called Islamic reform. An uprising that involved the participation of the entire country against U.S. imperialism and its despot puppet, the Shah, consisted of university students, trade unionists, socialists, Marxist feminists, Muslims, ethnic and religious minorities was subtly hijacked by power-hunger clergies. The end result was nothing short of what George Orwell elegantly depicted in his satirical novel Animal Farm. 43 years later, once again Iranians are about to make the same rudimentary mistake. What appears to be a legitimate gender equality movement is nothing but a conning plot for a prescribed regime change.
The leading pseudo-Muslim avengers of 1979 are replaced by a bunch of pseudo-feminist cheerleaders like Masih Alinejad, a U.S. citizen and a recruited mouthpiece of the CIA advocating women’s rights in Iran by military intervention and crippling sanctions. Her campaign has resulted in a new generation of disenchanted young boys and girls jamming on the streets. So intoxicated by overdoes of endorphins obtained by a thrilling ride taken on a bandwagon, their senses are totally numbed to an illusion of freedom manufactured by people who are no friends of Iranians. Not realizing the movement is being led by imperial feminism financed by CIA et al. Hardly anyone is questioning, if and how this movement is going to empower women. Or, is this just another cosmetic change, replacing one falsehood with another, under the pretext of liberty by the regime change industry only to favour the U.S. global hegemony?
In 1979, anyone who dared to warn the protesters to get out of the muddy water and avoid floating on a diverted stream would have been ostracized and labeled “counterrevolutionary”. Consimilarly, these days anyone attempting to warn the revolting crowd to think twice before embarking on in vain course of action, or watch out for opportunists and wolves in sheep’s clothing is immediately attacked and labeled as a “pro-regime apologist” or “stooge”. Tragically in such a contaminated climate, it is then not surprising to see, as Harvard philosophy professor George Santayana puts it: a nation that fails to learn from its history is condemned to repeat its mistakes.
The death of Mahsa Amini in custody, who was arrested for not wearing her headscarf in accordance with government standards, quickly sparked an unprecedented worldwide protest. For a long Hijab has been obtruded by orientalists as a symbol of women’s oppression, a woman who is wearing it, ought to be oppressed, suppressed and depressed gasping for a breath of freedom. The irony is while the Western media disproportionately is covering stories of a portion of Iranian women who resent observing the Hijab in the context of coercive misogyny, it is important to stress that currently, far more so-called democratic societies have outlawed the Hijab than theocratic regimes that have mandated it. For example, in France, in the Province of Quebec in Canada, in Bosnia and in Hindu-dominated regions of India, it is illegal to wear a Hijab. The banning of the Hijab has been upheld by courts and legislative bodies, stripping Muslim and Jewish women of their freedom of choice and rights to cover their hair and neck. The elective observance of the Hijab results in fines, job dismissal, refusal of access to education, athletic activities, Government services, etc.
Compulsory veiling laws and veiling bans are both equal ways of the state dictating to women what is appropriate or inappropriate attire. It is intriguing to see, that Femperialists object to covering where and when it suits them, yet are totally indifferent to the imposed regulation to uncover, like the former is all about controlling women, but the latter is not. Where is the feminists’ outcry for those women who are forced to uncover? A person who is vociferous with respect to one, whichever of the two, but is utterly lips-sealed with respect to the other has zero credibility and is indeed an outright hypocrite. Most such critics are too dim even to notice the similarity. One’s concerns for women’s rights, if truly genuine, cannot be so selective and bonded by geography and politics.
In the West, no feminist cares about Iranian women when they are oppressed by multilateral sanctions that are intended to cause maximum pain[1], but everyone is heartbroken when their hair is veiled. What kind of women’s rights activists can be silent about the tainted socio-economic and well-being of Iranian women, but outraged about compulsory veiling?
If the issue at hand is the tragic death of an innocent girl who died during detention, where is the outcry for countless women who have died or been beaten while in detention by Israeli and Western security forces? The deceased Iranian girl overnight became the darling of the West while no one has heard of, remembers or cares about Rachel Corrie an American protestor who was bulldozed to death by Israeli forces in bright daylight.
Consistency is the measure of validity in all claims. Selective amnesia is always the favorite gizmo of deceitful establishments. Lack of consistency gives the advantage to score a point by focusing on deplorable cases, while blithely concealing and ignoring the unfavorable cases detrimental to one’s position. For example, the use of excessive force during an arrest and the death of a detainee is far more widespread in Western countries than in any banana republic. A genuine feminist would consistently object to all identical cases which equally violate human rights be it for men or women.
To obtain the best turnover in marketing an idea or product is to predominantly concentrate on women. This approach always guarantees the best market share and the highest attention grab.[2] Particularly in political campaigns, thus, the slogan “Woman, Life, Liberty” is a marketing gimmick created and widely endorsed by Western feminists and Hollywood celebrities in support of Iranian women. Subtle mass persuasion techniques and controlling narratives to shape public opinion are the utmost undemocratic acts the advocates of “democracy” constantly engage in, to achieve their goals. The slogan that went viral in this fashion is in fact completely contrary to feminist basic tenets. What happened to feminists’ gender-neutral nouns and pronouns argument? While the 2SLGBTQIA+ acronym is getting bigger and bigger, here somehow one gender is totally excluded through the significance of language with impact in both theory and practice. All-inclusive concerns are narrowed down. As George Orwell warns, in no time one subgroup can become “more equal than others”. The proper slogan that should have been used is: “People, Life, Liberty”, but of course, having done so would have never attracted this much attention. Those who never cared about Iranian women who have been sanctioned to death by Western regimes are suddenly more catholic than the Pope. The induced crocodile tears shed have manufactured a flood on its intended passage.
Opposing the adopted slogan is not merely a linguistic objection. The injustice that Iranians are going through is not gender or ethnic-exclusive; it involves all walks of life across the board. In fact, there are far more male political prisoners, male dissidents, male strikers and far more men on the streets in Iranian cities protesting the regime than there are women. However, this movement is ridiculously presented as a women’s revolution.
There is no liberty whatsoever when colonialist and imperialist powers decide for you who your leaders ought to be. When these criminal neoconservatives instigate a wave of anti-government protests using their powerful propaganda machine, it never brings liberty or improves the quality of life for either of the two sexes. Imperial feminism is profoundly entrenched in the appropriation of women’s rights in the service of the U.S. hegemony and particularly has been utilized in justifying devious Anglo-American exploitation of the Middle East. Just as always a Western-sponsored regime change only serves their own vested interests. Exploitive interventionists and merchants of death always depict themselves as liberators and champions of human rights. One has to be overly skeptical of their intentions, and wary of their disgusting crocodile tears.
References:
1) Nephew, Richard (2018), The Art of Sanctions: A View from the Field, Columbia University Press, New York.
2) Curtis, Adam (2002), The Century of the Self, A 4-part Television Series, Episode 2: “The Engineering of Consent”, BBC Documentary.
Mehran Banaei 