Ciao!

For the anti-imperialist/pro-democracy left, the situation in Iran is a difficult one, as illustrated by this article from Foreign Policy In Focus: http://www.fpif.org/papers/iran2003.html

"For the global peace movement and the left, this situation presents several interlocking dilemmas. How is it possible to promote human rights and democracy in Iran without strengthening Washington's drive to dominate the world in general and the Middle East in particular? How is it possible to oppose European support for the Islamic Republic without undermining the development of a much-needed united front for the containment of U.S. aggression? How is it possible to encourage disarmament and restrict the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction while discouraging U.S. threats against Iran and other countries?

... Today we need to build democratic alternatives to the tyranny of the mullahs, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the devastation that the U.S. has wreaked on Afghanistan and Iraq and now threatens to visit on Iran.

The goal for the global antiwar movement and the left should be a nonviolent transition to democracy in Iran complete with human rights and freedom from domination by outside powers. The movement should aim to empower the Iranian people against the mullahs, the U.S., the EU, or anyone else who would treat them as pawns for self-serving agendas."

I always find this position funny. Since the US is, historically, the least imperialist of all the great powers. That said, first, I think promoting democracy and human rights takes precedence over any possible US interests in the region (which, by the way, is mainly to strengthen liberal democracy). Second, if promoting democracy in Iran helps strengthen the American position in the region (i.e. it's insistence that the region democratize and liberalize), I'm willing to do that. Your argument assumes that containing US power is as equally important a goal as promoting democracy. This is based on a false premise that balance-of-power politics is A) inevitable and B) necessary. Neither is necessarily the case. The US is the world's most powerful liberal democracy, containing its influence means containing the spread of liberal democratic values. If the world's hegemon was a relatively benign democracy (certainly more benign than any other global power in the history of global powers) I wouldn't make containing its influence a top priority.