Iran and the western left?

Interesting take and I see your point. It's been obvious for some time that many in the Labour party despise the working class that founded it while purporting to represent them.

Of course. Channel crossing is a chaotic and not a good system, it’s unsafe and drives vast profits to the sellers. It is possible to have humanitarian schemes as we have done and other countries do.

I would support a targeted refugee programme for Iran, and also a general burden-sharing agreement with other European countries (ie allowing applications offshore) for other countries.

The fiendishly difficult thing is how to manage incentives. Almost any set of rules you define for who qualifies for asylum will capture a far greater number of people than the UK can handle (as in, a few percent of the world’s population, plus at least the same again of people we can’t distinguish from the first group). And if you remove the channel as your filtering mechanism and process applications remotely then you will get a huge number of applicants that meet the criteria and far more refugees than we can handle.

Yet the channel is a terrible filter too. It filters the wrong people and it’s deadly. It also doesn’t make sense in that it accepts only those who are already in a safe country.

Not sure what the ideal answer is, but I might be persuadable that we should have zero ‘general’ (as in not country specific) asylum route. Then we need to do our moral duty another way by funding refugee support closer to source (where the same money helps a lot, lot more people, so is arguably morally preferable). And if we are having no ‘general’ route then returning all channel crossers is sensible to remove the incentive. Obviously remove to France, not to their origin country. How to get France to agree is a different matter, they are probably quite pleased to see a portion of their asylum seekers move on to the UK.

Yes 100% but it would depend on a relatively peaceful transition or like Syria, a civil war, Syrians who have come back, have come back to ruins.

I just think that those who are now supporting the Iranians, should also look at their views on asylum seekers... which have been abhorrent, send back any Iranian, Afghan asylum seeker, with no appeal no listening to their case, no exceptions and pay these rotten regimes to take them back... to be killed.. lovely.

Anyway, both Badenoch and Farage have more local issues to deal with now 😂

@strawberrybubblegum I've tried to answer your question, not that I think you will take my answer in good faith:

Nowhere have I said I support either of those actions. I don't know whether protests in other countries are successful in influencing either Israeli public opinion or its government's actions- I suppose those who organise them must think they have an effect or they wouldn't bother. I was putting forward my opinion on what the OP had asked.

I do think it is possible to be concerned by the Israeli government's actions in Gaza and the illegal settlements in the West Bank; without supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, or Palestinian attacks on Israel. In fact, based on conversations with real British people in real life, of all political persuasions, this is where a lot of public opinion sits.

If Iran becomes a good place to live again there will be less migrants. Freedom for people in Iran is a win situation for UK as well, not just the right thing. Downfall of the regime will mean less funding for terrorists abroad, and importantly women of Iran be free again. Prayers to them.

@ScholesPanda

Do you think that preventing a British Jewish MP from visiting a school in his constituency due to Palestine protests - or banning Israeli football fans from a match and pretending it was due to their previous behaviour... when in fact it was because UK Muslim groups were known to be arming themselves in order to to attack them - will encourage Israel to stop defending themselves?

Defending themselves against people who entered their country and tortured and slaughtered 1219 of their civilians - families and young festival goers - in a genocidal 'kill-as-many-jews-as-you-can' attack...and are still armed, still firing missiles into Israel, and still consistently say their aim is to destroy Israel. Which still means 'kill Jews'.

Really?

Or can you see that the protests have a different purpose?

Whilst I'd love Iran to become a secular, democratic state, once bitten, twice shy. We were told that Iraqis and Afghans would jump at the chance to be democratic and westernised- and even you must see where that led. Last time there were protests in Iran that got rid of the Shah and were supported by the 'Western Left', instead of democracy the Iranians got theocracy. Not exactly a great track record and western intervention doesn't really seem to help much.

Iraq and Afghanistan were never westernised though - Iran was until 1979, when it went back to the Middle Ages (and those who had the means to flee did so). They are also tribal communities, with Sunni Islam in the majority (Afghanistan) or comprising a much larger portion of the population (Iraq).

The Shah was basically a shill for the West, and the anti-capitalists rejoiced when he was deposed.

Plenty of Iranians want to make Iran Persia again, as the excellent Telegraph article says.

The best way to think about modern western politics at this level is as a status struggle within the middle class. There’s barely any difference between the two sides, but the successful ones code as right and the less-successful ones code as left.

The ‘left’ is constantly trying to supplant the ‘right’, which leads them to attack anything that supports the system within which the ‘right’ is successful, which in this context ends up meaning any established order except those parts which the ‘left’ is confidently in control of.

Hence you get the odd phenomenon where certain parts of the state—universities, NGOs, the NHS—are beyond criticism, while others are irredeemable. And any poor sod who ends up trying to ride both horses while being ‘of the left’ becomes hated more than anyone.

Foreign policy doesn’t really matter except as a tool for rhetoric, so it becomes pure ‘enemy of my enemy’ stuff. So don’t look there for principles – they will support whatever is useful to make the successful part of the middle classes look bad, it’s not about supporting causes for their own sake.

I am left-wing, so part of the western left I guess, although I'm more interested in domestic than foreign policy and don't spend my life pontificating on social media.

I can only speak for myself, because funnily enough people who are left-wing are not a hive mind who agree on everything:

1. Israel is a western style democracy with a range of views within its own domestic politics and freedom of speech etc. I do not attend pro-Palestinian protests, but I can see that there is mileage in encouraging a country like that to adhere to democratic norms and international law.
2. Whilst I'd love Iran to become a secular, democratic state, once bitten, twice shy. We were told that Iraqis and Afghans would jump at the chance to be democratic and westernised- and even you must see where that led. Last time there were protests in Iran that got rid of the Shah and were supported by the 'Western Left', instead of democracy the Iranians got theocracy. Not exactly a great track record and western intervention doesn't really seem to help much.

Who’s ‘they’ in that last post?

Don’t engage if you are avoiding that. I’m for that agreement. Stick to your scrolling on by 😬

Of course but a blanket ban on ALL X ch migrants, regardless circumstances, with no other means to reach say family already here, is not showing concern for Iranian people at all.
Because what it "could" mean is an Iranian woman who manages to get her to be with Iranian parents or indeed her adult children is sent back....

Both Badenoch and Farage have said is "No exceptions..."

As for anyone who things sending back asylum seekers to Iran, Afghanistan etc, well thats beyond the pale.

To the pp.... there is no such ban on women and children getting asylum BUT if there was, surely they'd be in total support of that, given previous views on migrants.

Labour have pretty much ended asylum for women and children as they won’t meet criteria to get in. Not much about that of course.

And it still doesn’t excuse the lack of care from some about the Iranian people.

It’s totally consistent to:

• be outraged at the Tehran regime’s behaviour, and
• want to stop the cross-channel asylum route.

I think there are much more humane and cost-effective ways of selecting and supporting refugees and asylum seekers. Surely that doesn’t mean I should be indifferent about Tehran.

(Neither a Tory nor a Reform supporter, but I don’t think they need to be indifferent about Tehran either).

I've noticed some of the dregs of the far right as well as the far left showing their arses on this issue, usually because of Israel/Jews. It's a horseshoe issue in that respect. Reminds me of Ukraine, and of course the Iranian regime is allied to Putin.

Should also be remembered, despite their so called concern, its those on the right ie Tories and Reform that are promising to deport ALL cross channel migrants, regardless of where they come from or any claim to asylum... from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan... etc ... including women and children.

So please spare me the faux outrage

That is a fair point that the Iranians I know left Iran for the UK - some as young people after 1979, some more recently - which is a self-selecting group. They have family still there, but they are urban middle class: whose opinions won't be completely representative. I know that previous protests against the oppressive theocratic regime - such as following the police murder of the young Kurdish Iranian woman for not wearing a headscarf in 2022 - were mainly in the cities, whereas it seems that these protests are more wide-spread.

It is, yours is a good post.

The Iranian regime do suppress minority ethnic groups within the country. They've starved people to death in prison, along with expansive other tortures, and they supply weapons to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis who in their turn use these weapons to attack civilians. They also propped Assad up as he murdered Syrians in their thousands. Iranian regime interference within the region has killed so many innocent people.

The Iranian regime also admit to have killed 2000 in this round of protests, over the last 3 weeks. This is is a higher daily death rate than even Hamas claim has occurred in Gaza.

But people don't know this. Your post is a good example of that.

Corbyn hasn't been silent, he just hasn't been reported....

I am appalled by the killing of protesters across Iran in recent days. The Iranian people have the right to demonstrate peacefully and have their voices heard, without fear of violent repression at home or intervention from abroad

The people of Iran, and only the people of Iran, must determine their own future

He has talked about this across different platforms, a simple google search would have shown you this... if you re that bothered...

Its like a leading Tory on R4 yesterday, blasting the BBC for NOT reporting demo's/killings in Iran... but they have, across all outlets, TV Radio, national and world service, since they began.

Just stirring up division, no real interest in Iran.

The difference between the 2, as you asked, is Israel is backed and armed by the West, uses our weapons to kill 70,000 people and even after the so called ceasefire, IDF has killed a further 500 (approx) people, Western Govt's silent as are the pro Israeli lobby...

Gazan deaths? Don't matter... but Iranian ones do..... oh really.

We also have no influence over Iran, we wont even ban the IRGC, despite them being a known security threat here, PA is... why is that?

I have no idea what the western left say about Iran, but this clip from the Telegraph appears a bit out to me. " These dissidents are pro-freedom, pro-America and pro-democracy. They curse Hamas and Hezbollah,and demand the end to Tehran’s handouts to its proxies, anathema to our useful idiots.".

I don't know what the western left are saying because I am in a country that like Iran, is at the bottom of the tables for internet freedom.

And this is something I keep seeing disregarded all over. Iran is effectively a closed country, more closed than where I am. And when there is very little western media, pro-America and pro-democracy, is not really going to be a massive widespread thing. At least not something that can be accurately gauged.

Because think about it. Twitter, facebook, BBC etc all banned. And there is no point saying "get a VPN' because they are banned too. And how to get a VPN anyway, because the VPN sites are blocked, the payment system is separate so people can't just google VPN and pay for it.

Not easily anyway.

And on top of social media, there is state controlled news media to consider too. Iranians can't just switch their TVs to see what Trump is saying on Fox. The Regime in Iran control what people can watch.

So, I have no comment really on what western left are saying, because when I say I have no idea what they are saying, it's because its not easy to read what they are saying.

And all these things above might lead to a skewed view of Iran, and what the people think, because the view into Iran via western social media is going to be very narrow. Especially if sat dishes are being smuggled in.

It's not as if the regime faithful are using a sat dish to log into twitter to let the west know what they think. No, the people doing that are the pro democracy folk, so it skews the picture.

Women are rising up against religious control and some on the left will turn away from that.

And other reasons below.

They're probably still trying to find some way to blame the Jews for the Iranian Islamist government's oppression and massacres of their population.

After all, they've convinced themselves that Hamas murdering Gazan civilians for being gay - or for opposing them politically - is Israel's fault, so why not Iran?

Watch this space...

OP, I think the answer is clear. Israel is not directly involved in the Iranian protests and government massacre so there’s no need for Western socialists to get involved.

I think the Western Left DO support the Iran protestors. They're just less vociferous about it. I think there are at least a couple of reasons for this.

1. Free Palestine has a long and visible history as a 'cause' on the Left, unlike any kind of 'Free Iran' campaign. It's not a well branded bandwagon that already exists that everyone can jump on and that reaffirms their identity as one of the in crowd.
2. The barely concealed (and sometimes explicit) support for Hamas/Hezbollah as 'freedom fighters' against Israel makes condemning the Iranian government feel a little bit awkward at the moment.
3. A part of the outrage on Israel/Palestine issue is because they see it as white ppl/the West oppressing brown people/Arabs (Jews don't count btw) so the Iranian situation is of less interest to them because it doesn't fit into the colonial white supremacist oppressor narrative.