I do share in your opinion..I find it hard to believe when Iranian leaders keep saying the uprising in the region are Islamic..They're not. They only have Islamic flavors to them and that's about it.
The protesting Arab masses do not want western liberal democracy nor continued dependence on the global empire. I don't buy the notion that the Muslim Arab youth craves for either western secular liberalism à la Iranian "Green movement", pseudo-Islamism à la Erdogan, or wahhabism. Western media peddle such notions because they are seeking to cover up the anti-imperialist dimension of these protests. Whether the revolutions will succeed or end up being hijacked by extra-regional powers is another matter, but their essence is Islamic and anti-colonial, in the sense that those are the major popular aspirations.
I'm wanting to believe this whole Arab Spring thing has been the Western empire's way of clearing out their old long-standing puppets, who've outlived their usefulness and replaced with new ones hiding behind the Islamic banner..
The US empire isn't omnipotent. It cannot simply order the Arab populations to rise up by pressing a button. The global arrogance had no prior knowledge of events in both Tunisia and Egypt, even though it was not as dumb as not to have devised contingency plans for such situations, or kept aside a few alternative puppets to succeed the lackey dictators in case of need. However, the western-based secular Arab opposition, and even Muslim Brotherhood type of Islamic parties were all caught by surprise at the spontaneous popular mobilization.
Iran, contrary to the west, never changed its narrative regarding the Islamic Awakening, was the first country to officially support the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, and always qualified them as popular uprisings. This is well documented.
Al Jazeera championed the overthrow of Ben Ali,Mubarak,Qaddafi and now Syria.Will Al-Jazeera be so brave to cover Bahrain or discontents in Qatar and Saudi Arabia?? Over the years I've grown to believe the opposite of anything Al-Jazeera supports when it comes to the Middle East.
Al-Jazeera is not to be trusted, but the very examples of Bahrein and Saudi, which you cite, and al-Jazeera's relative silence on them, tend to show that not every Arab uprising is a pre-planned US conspiracy. I suppose we agree that current US policy towards Saudi and Bahrein consists in protecting the wahhabi regimes at any cost. Should the Islamic Awakening gain momentum there, and should the west then suddenly and hastily revise
its strategy by propping up new puppets to replace the wahhabi rulers, some analysts are likely to over react and fatalistically conclude that the Bahreini and Saudi revolutions were also "CIA-engineered" from the outset, which clearly they weren't. The same goes for Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen at least.
It makes Iran's stance on Syria a bit hypocritical..How can one claim to support Islamic uprisings and yet criticize other "Muslims" wanting "freedom"(power) in Syria? It just sends out the wrong kinda message..
Asad never was a western or zionist lackey, and Islamic Awakening implies anti-colonialism. Also, Syria (possibly along with Libya) is the most valid example of Muslim aspirations being completely hijacked by the enemies of Islam. As Rahbar (ha) said, the determining factor is whether a popular movement actively opposes western and zionist occupation, or not. This is the main question, all the talk about "democracy", etc, being secondary to irrelevant.
I think Iran should've kept quiet from the beginning and let things flow..
In my opinion it would have been a great mistake for Iran to remain passive and let the US and zionists reap all the benefits. From Iran's standpoint, there is no reason to be defeatist. Imperial powers, no matter how powerful from the material point of view, will never manage to entirely "control" fluid social dynamics like those presently at work in the Arab world. Actually, it is the imperial powers that are trembling at the many possible outcomes of the Islamic Awakening. Western economies are in shambles, and the legitimacy of western regimes is increasingly questioned by their own war-weary and demoralized populations.
The imperial powers have everything to loose after the fall of their lackey dictators, and the ensuing necessity to rebuild new, outside-dependent political orders from scratch; while Iran has everything to gain. Think about it this way, brother: when could Iran bring accross its Islamic revolutionary message to the Arab world with so little restrictions as it can now? When could Arab decisionmakers and thinkers visit Islamic Iran in such an unhindered fashion? I trust George Galloway when he reminds that Islamic Iran has a huge and growing clout in the Muslim world. This is a crucial transition period, and it seems that Iran, thanks to its active stance, is right now making important gains that will pay off in the mid to long term, inshallah.
Plus, don't forget that each Islamic conference held in Tehran means that the US and their PGCC lackeys will have to spend many billions more, in order to "contain" the Islamic Revolution in Arab countries. Eventually, confronting Iran will become too costy for them. As suggested before, Iran's grand strategy against the global arrogance resembles an inverted, asymmetric and much more sophisticated version of the Reagan-era arms race, which made the USSR realize it cannot keep up, and therefore capitulate. The same fate as the USSR awaits the US empire, thanks to the spirited resistance put up by Islamic Iran and its allies.