Why are none of the people I saw posting non-stop about Palestine saying anything about Iranian freedom? Would honestly love to hear a genuine response from anyone who is against the movement in Iran. Or even conflicted about it.
1. Iran has frequent large protests that consistently get crushed. So while I assume the vast majority of Americans oppose the Iranian government, it’s hard to get worked up for the 5th, 6th time.
2. The US doesn’t support the Iranian government. We already sanction them. What additional support can US citizens lobby for? In the case of Israel, decreased US support would have a tangible effect. Unclear how increased US support for Iranian protestors would matter.
The US does support the Saudi government, though, and the collective response from the concerned citizens brigade about their relentless 10+ year pulverization of Yemen has been... nothing.
I've been curious myself about why the activist class seems weirdly quiet on this issue.
On a quick scan of media feeds I've seen a couple of things that stand out (I do not confirm or deny how true these claims are)
1) Current Iran is a enemy of the USA and thus activists can't support the destruction of the current regime. Iran is able to create nukes so can put pressure on the USA in Middle East Politics (esp. Palestine and Israel)
2) The uprising and the Shah are CIA/Western Backed and thus supporting the protestors is de-facto colonialism/imperialism.
3) Contrary to popular belief Iran is not actually a Muslim nation, only the leadership is. The population is significantly more varied and people do not want to be seen supporting the firebombing of Mosques because Islamphobia.
I don't know how widespread these opinions are, but it IS very strange how I don't see more outrage.
Sure one side would march for pride and the other hangs gays on cranes.
However, in foreign policy both explain anything as some product of colonialism, a phenomena that essentially disappeared 60 years ago.
This is due to the effect Edward Said had on US humanities, which was in turn was influenced by Muslim Brotherhood thought in his home country of Egypt
But that's the most optimistic take I can conjure.
The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.
Many politicians want to use the protests as a pretext for military intervention in Iran, and my blunt opinion is that they don't actually have the interests of Iranians in mind. There are many reasons to believe it will end up worse for both America and the Iranians than our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A valid response would be to say that you think abuses in Iran are bad enough that a military intervention is justified and that it will lead to a better outcome for Iranians. My intuition would be to disagree with that, based on the results of past interventions, etc...
Also... Are the executed protesters not also death and suffering? What about victims and conflicts resulting from the groups Iran funds?
And the executed protesters are a bad thing. But I don't think military intervention will lead to a better outcome.
Supporters of Palestine had pretty specific requests, none of which apply to Iran (conditioning weapons sales, divestment, etc...)
And yet they are silent on the death and suffering in: Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo, Myanmar, Libya. Just to name current active conflicts where people are dying, to say nothing of all the others that have flared up and subsided in my decades on this earth as I've watched "activists" ignore them all so they could hyper-focus on whatever Israel was doing at the time to protect its citizens and the Jewish diaspora. The word "exhausting" doesn't even scratch the surface of how it feels to deal with otherwise smart, educated people who roll around in this hypocrisy-laden dogpile.
Considering that reality, does it not make sense that Americans would be more vocal when it comes to this conflict, because we actually have agency to affect it?
I genuinely want to know what your response is to that argument, because it's not a new one, and seems very obvious to me.
The United States is far and away the Saudis' most important and pivotal ally. We almost single-handedly ensure their security and and diplomatic standing. Now, many believe the "side causing excessive suffering" in that conflict is actually the Houthis. I would be interested to know if you fall in that camp, while (it would seem) not feeling the same way about Hamas, as that would do a better job of making my point than I could ever do on my own.
Beyond that, the Houthi / Saudi conflict is a lot less asymmetric, which I think plays a factor in people's response to it. The Houthis have more territorial control, weapons, agency. It's closer to a state-state war. Gaza is quite literally boxed in--air, sea and land.
If you're actually interested in the geopolitics of this I suggest you just spend some time tonight reading about these relationships and their history.
I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.
Well, yes. If someone doesn't like Jews (and many many many people do not), that is the only "particular aspect" they need. The one good thing about antisemitism is that it's been around for so long that it's pretty easy to spot, even when the bigots try to swap some of the terminology around.
BTW its not just left here, I originally hail from India and you can feel the pin-drop silence from left on Iran there too. They just hope the rebellion gets crushed by regime like other ones and they'll pretend status quo.
My TLDR takeaway: Muslims only care about when they are oppressed & Left is completely aligned with them right now.
However, I have seen these thoughts spread to more seemingly mainstream geopolitical subs as well. I am not sure how much astroturfing is going on here. Probably quite a lot.