Reason is that excepting the US and UK, rest of the world feels Iran is being unfairly targeted by both US and UK for their own geo political interests..Another reason is that like Muammar Qaddafi and Hugo Chavaz ,President of Iran is seen as a man who challenges US openly which most of the world’s leaders would like to do but are not or can not.
Anti-government protests in Tehran over the weekend have left at least eight people dead and over 300 people arrested.
The bloody images splattered across the world’s media say it all. This is Iran’s next revolution in the making say Des Pardes .
For other’s it’s the start of civil war.
Broadly speaking, the tone of the editorials is one of supporting the plucky protesters over the “ruthless” Ahmedinejad regime.
The President himself insists the country is “united”, but just because many outside Iran find his views and statements unpalatable, why is there such unflinching support for the demonstrations ?
So should the world step in or stay out ?
Roger Cohen believes it’s time to opt for inertia.
‘The west must not respond with the sledgehammer of sanctions whose message is “our way or the highway”. Rather, it must borrow an Iranian lesson: inertia. When the Berlin Wall came down, Francis Fukuyama famously predicted “the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”. In Iran now, many of the forces of 1989 are present, but the reformists’ quest is not for something “western”.’
This piece in Forbes suggests the regime is in its final days anyway.
The Tretnonian agrees adding that it’s only a matter of time before democracy comes to Iran
And last week the Iranian opposition rival Mehdi Karroubi told the Times that “The challenges in this country should be solved by its own people.”
So is the best thing that the West can do for Iran is learn from the revolutions of 1989 and do absolutely nothing?
Why isn’t the world supporting the democratically elected government of Iran ?
Leave a Reply