The right and left have converged in their moral confusion on Iran

Globe and Mail

6 hours ago

One of the most vicious institutions on Earth is the Evin Prison in Tehran, where prisoners, many of them political dissidents, are subject to abuse, torture and rape. In her memoir, Prisoner of Tehran, Marina Nemat, who was sent to Evin at 16 for engaging in 'activities against the Islamic government,' provides a firsthand account of the mercilessness and brutality to which those in Evin are subject. In one part of the book, a fellow prisoner describes how she's heard that prison guards will rape girls scheduled for execution because 'they believed virgins went to heaven when they died.' It's just one example of the unconscionable cruelty that upholds Iran's brutal theocracy.
This is the Iran that most people in the West don't see, or choose not to see. It is where women are violently removed from the streets – and in the case of Mahsa (Jina) Amini, beaten to death – for wearing their hijabs improperly; where gay people are publicly hanged, and where women cannot engage in various aspects of normal life without permission from their husbands. And the Iranian regime isn't only an oppressive force on its own people – it is a threat to the world through its terrorist proxies and nuclear enrichment activities. When its leaders chant 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel,' they are not speaking figuratively.
Yet, many in the West seem to be suffering from a sort of moral confusion about how to view one of the most objectively vile theocracies on Earth. After Israel carried out targeted killings of Tehran's military and nuclear leadership, as well as strikes on nuclear sites, protesters took to the streets in London and Toronto to oppose 'unprovoked' action by Israel. Ontario's largest public-sector union lent its support to a 'Hands off Iran' rally.
Opinion: The Iranian people are caught between forces they cannot control
After the U.S. bombing of three nuclear enrichment facilities Saturday, the L.A. County Sheriff's Department issued a statement saying, 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,' as if there were families eating dinner at the Fordow enrichment facility when B-2 bombers dropped bunker-busters. In Canada, the NDP released a statement condemning this 'illegal escalation of violence.' As far as I am aware, the NDP did not release a similar statement about the many times Iranian leadership has pledged to wipe Israel off the map and attacked it through its terrorist proxies, nor did the party do so in response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's finding that Iran had breached its non-proliferation obligations.
This moral confusion is no doubt rooted in the antipathy many in the West hold for both Israel and the United States. Their reflexive response thus appears to be to lurch in defence of Israel's enemies – its targets – even if those targets, according to thousands of documents obtained in 2018, have long pursued nuclear weapons.
The war in Gaza is undoubtedly shaping Western perspectives on the operation in Iran, but what it shouldn't do is obscure the danger of a nuclear Iran. Indeed, one can abhor the actions of Israel in Gaza, but also accept that Iran poses a bigger threat to the West.
Opinion: The U.S. military's show of force in Iran sends a message to every global capital
This conflict has revealed a curious convergence of opinion between the pacifist left and the isolationist right – the latter of whom are wary of another Iraq-style 'forever' war and, similar to those on the left, believe that the actions from Israel and the U.S. were largely unprovoked.
These are individuals such as broadcaster Tucker Carlson, former congressman Matt Gaetz, comedian-turned-pundit Dave Smith and others, who are supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump but loudly opposed U.S. intervention in the region. Mr. Smith, for example, condemned Mr. Trump's 'war of aggression' on 'a country who posed no threat to us' (never mind the proxies that killed American citizens in Gaza, targeted shipping routes and launched attacks in the Red Sea) and later praised the Iranians for showing restraint in their ballistic response.
What appears to be happening among this cohort is that opposition to the U.S.'s timing and manner of action in the region is clouding the view of the isolationist right to this violent theocracy's stated goals.
One could make the argument that it was wrong for the U.S. to join Israel's operation (though if there was any time to intervene militarily, it would be with Hamas pummelled, Hezbollah decapitated, the Houthis weakened, Bashar al-Assad in exile, China distracted, and Russia still fighting another war), and that none of this was worth the unfortunate but inevitable civilian casualties. But that argument is distinct from one that claims that Iran's 60-per-cent enriched uranium is nothing to worry about. We should be clear-eyed about the brutality, the viciousness and the threat posed by the Iranian regime.