Iran is convulsed by one of its largest protest movements in
years, driven not by some abstract ideological rebellion, but by grinding
economic hardship — a direct consequence of tightening sanctions and economic
isolation that have decimated ordinary livelihoods. These sanctions are widely
opposed by international human rights actors because they disproportionately
punish the populace rather than the political elite, exacerbating inflation and
scarcity while eroding the state’s capacity to address domestic grievances.
Into this tinderbox enters a U.S. administration
increasingly willing to ‘lock and load’ at the first sign of violent
repression. Statements from US officials threatening lethal force against
Iranian leadership if protests continue to be crushed are not isolated
soundbites — they are symptomatic of a broader policy framework that conflates
authoritarian repression with existential threat. The arrest of Venezuela’s
president and the subdued global response appear to have emboldened hardliners
in Washington who now see regime decapitation as a plausible extension of
coercive diplomacy.
This is not to romanticize theocratic rule in Tehran. But
conflating internal unrest rooted in economic despair with a casus belli
against the Iranian state risks legitimizing harsher US interventions that
increasingly look directed not at human rights but at regime change itself. The
deeper injustice lies not just in Iran’s domestic repression, but in the US
foreign policy calculus that has, through sanctions and threat of force,
nurtured the very suffering it now claims to oppose.

No comments:
Post a Comment