By Sadegh Zibakalam 

 
The reaction of Islamic Iran and its leaders to the events in the Arab world has gone unnoticed outside Iran.
This issue is all the more important given the democratic nature of the Arab revolutionary movement and the fact that the movement has reached Syria, an arch strategic ally of Iran.

As far as Iranian leaders are concerned, the struggle in the Arab world is inspired by the Islamic revolution and struggle against the “arrogant powers” (meaning the United States, the European powers and Israel). The movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain and the rest of the Arab countries are led, or have been, by the Muslim masses. These movements are religiously oriented; they aim to overthrow the pro-Western regimes of these countries and replace them with radical, anti-Western Islamic regimes similar to that in Iran. Pictures of street prayers and women in Islamic scarves are frequently published in Iran’s state-controlled media to prove the Islamic nature of the upheavals – as are photos of Arab demonstrators carrying pictures of Iranian leaders.

Given the anti-Western and particularly anti-American posture of the Iranian regime, the Arab Spring is also described as being anti-Western and anti-American. Anyone listening to Iranian media and leaders, and who does not have access to independent media, would have no option but to conclude that the Arab revolt will produce revolutionary regimes similar, if not identical, to the Iranian regime.

That being the case, the West in general and the U.S. in particular, according to Iranian media, are desperately trying to derail these movements from their “revolutionary objectives.” Statements and comments attributed to Western, U.S., and Israeli leaders, officials and newspapers are frequently reported by Iranian media to demonstrate the West’s acknowledgement that the Arab uprising is influenced by the Iranian revolution while at the same time reflecting Western fear of Iranian influence in the Arab world.

There is no mention of the democratic nature of the current Arab upheaval. The fact that these movements are against despotism and dictatorship is completely absent in official Iranian coverage. Nor, for that matter, is there any mention of the other democratic aspirations of the Arab masses: freedom of the press, freedom of thought, support for the rule of law, freedom of expression, free elections, the release of political prisoners and so on.

In particular, events in Syria have created a serious stumbling block for Iranian leaders. The revolution there has in effect poured cold water on much of the Iranian propaganda contention that the Arab upheavals are anti-Western. The Syrian regime is anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Hamas as well as pro-Hezbollah and, most important of all as far as Tehran is concerned, forms part of the “resistance alliance.” Yet the uprising in “revolutionary Syria” is far more ferocious than in Egypt or Tunisia.

The Iranian regime’s dilemma has been resolved by simply not reporting any of the events in Syria. There is very limited coverage in the more independent newspapers, but the government press and Iranian Radio and TV do not mention anything about the country. Only a few Iranian academics have pointed to the Syrian regime’s atrocities and drawn parallels with those of the Saudis and Bahrainis.

In contrast to the news blackout on Syria, there is continuous media bombardment concerning the suppression of Bahraini Shiites by the Sunni al-Khalifa regime, backed by Saudi and Emirati forces. Iranian newspapers report atrocities perpetrated by Saudi, Bahraini and Emirates forces against the innocent Bahraini people. There are daily “fatwa” by Iranian religious leaders condemning the Saudi leaders as “infidels” for their crimes in Bahrain.

Another dilemma the Arab Spring has placed before Iranian leaders is the situation in Libya. Cooperation between NATO forces and the Libyan people has poured more cold water on the Iranian regime’s interpretation of the Arab Spring. While not mentioning this anti-Gadhafi cooperation, Tehran has accused the West of trying to save the Libyan leader by prolonging its military operations. State-run media have declared that had NATO leaders desired to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, they could have done so in much the same way that they did Saddam Hussein in 2003. Instead, the West allegedly wants to keep Gadhafi in power, but as a weak leader. This enables it to penetrate Libya and control its huge gas and oil resources. There is no mention of the social issues involved in the Libyan crisis.

As far as Islamic Iran is concerned, the point of the Arab Spring is neither democracy nor human rights. Rather, it is about creating Islamic states like Iran on the one hand, and securing Middle East energy resources – a strategy that Iran argues will not succeed – on the other.
Sadegh Zibakalam is a professor of political science at Tehran University. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.