“A State that Massacres Its Own People Cannot Be a Force of Liberation for Others”
-
@CrimethInc fantastically blinkers-on interview running cover for Israeli military aggression in the region at the same time as the US' tinpot dictator prepares for a massive invasion of Iran. a trite piece that manages to say nothing at all because it must balance a distaste for Iranian authoritarianism with the fact that every other player in the field against them is also a colonizing, imperialist force. no thought, let alone space, is given to the idea that Israel "aids" ethnic minorities in the region as a smokescreen for destabilizing their governments so that it can invade, topple them, and colonize their land, as it has already done for the Golan Heights, the reason Syria's government is attacking the Druze at all. practically anti-intellectual
I didn't say that you worked for the CIA, although frankly, I hope at least some of you do -- it would be considerably less depressing than the idea that you are doing their work for them and not even getting a paycheck out of it
You say:
> no thought, let alone space, is given to the idea that Israel "aids" ethnic minorities in the region as a smokescreen for destabilizing their governments
It is obvious enough that the Israeli government is doing that, no? If your answer is to sweep the struggles of ethnic minorities under the rug, and to attack anyone who discusses them as being (knowingly or not) in service to the CIA agenda, that will only *serve* the interests of Israel.
In fact, as the interview calls for, there has to be a grassroots alternative, a form of internationalist solidarity that gives people (in Palestine, in Iran, in Lebanon, everywhere) an alternative to seeking support from whatever repressive or outright genocidal regime will offer it.
By trying to suppress the conversation about that, you are de facto enabling Israel to pursue its strategy in the region.
The interviewees are clear about the ways that Israel is intervening in Iran in the absence of the kind of principled solidarity you are trying to suppress:
> In this uprising, monarchist-aligned groups appear to be gaining influence. They maintain a strong anti-left discourse, positioning themselves against the 1979 revolution. They have substantial resources and financial backing from Saudi Arabia and Israel.
-
@CrimethInc are you abolishing all editorial standards as well? do you take no responsibility for the words you publish on your website? would you publish the perspective of an Israeli as well, if they wished to pen a glowing defense of the "most moral army" and how it has undermined authoritarianism in the Middle East? pathetic
We have published texts from Israeli citizens before (there is one linked above), but only texts in which people describe their efforts to act in solidarity with Palestinians, Lebanese people, and others targeted by Israeli violence in the region by resisting Israeli settler-colonialism.
But you know this already, don't you?
-
We have published texts from Israeli citizens before (there is one linked above), but only texts in which people describe their efforts to act in solidarity with Palestinians, Lebanese people, and others targeted by Israeli violence in the region by resisting Israeli settler-colonialism.
But you know this already, don't you?
@CrimethInc so you do imply that you would reject texts if they were unduly sympathetic to the genocidal apartheid state of Israel or otherwise worded to sympathize with Israeli settler-colonialism. and yet this interview did not apparently raise any eyebrows for the blog-runners, who I presume read it in its entirety, and did not pick up on any of the ways in which it carries water for the dominant imperialist powers in the region or bloviates about how authoritarian governments are bad but when they shoot our enemies, it's good
-
@CrimethInc so you do imply that you would reject texts if they were unduly sympathetic to the genocidal apartheid state of Israel or otherwise worded to sympathize with Israeli settler-colonialism. and yet this interview did not apparently raise any eyebrows for the blog-runners, who I presume read it in its entirety, and did not pick up on any of the ways in which it carries water for the dominant imperialist powers in the region or bloviates about how authoritarian governments are bad but when they shoot our enemies, it's good
@CrimethInc
> A state that massacres its own people cannot be a force of liberation for others. A state that kills people in the streets, blinds them, imprisons them, executes them, cannot claim to be fighting for justice elsewhere.this is the central thesis of the entire interview, the literal headline, and yet Roja apparently fails to see its applicability to their own anecdote and instead suggests that we must twist ourselves into logic whereby we acknowledge and are grateful for Israeli support without "supporting them," whatever the hell that means. let alone realize that Al-Jolani is in power because Israel invaded the country and killed the man who had instituted state policies which protected her people from these very crimes!
-
@CrimethInc
> A state that massacres its own people cannot be a force of liberation for others. A state that kills people in the streets, blinds them, imprisons them, executes them, cannot claim to be fighting for justice elsewhere.this is the central thesis of the entire interview, the literal headline, and yet Roja apparently fails to see its applicability to their own anecdote and instead suggests that we must twist ourselves into logic whereby we acknowledge and are grateful for Israeli support without "supporting them," whatever the hell that means. let alone realize that Al-Jolani is in power because Israel invaded the country and killed the man who had instituted state policies which protected her people from these very crimes!
@CrimethInc no words are wasted on the idea that we recognize the stick and the carrot as being administered from the same hand. the "concrete conditions of survival" are evidently all that matters, even if they drive us further into the hands of those who engineered our suffering in the first place.
if only "tankie apologists" would call you out for doing the CIA's dirty work, at the precipice of the US almost certainly preparing to massacre untold numbers of Iranians and destroy Arab self-governance for generations, because objection supports Iran's government, then surely only "Mossad agents" would push back against criticism of this tripe because it feeds into the narrative of Israel doing good for minorities in the region
-
You say:
> no thought, let alone space, is given to the idea that Israel "aids" ethnic minorities in the region as a smokescreen for destabilizing their governments
It is obvious enough that the Israeli government is doing that, no? If your answer is to sweep the struggles of ethnic minorities under the rug, and to attack anyone who discusses them as being (knowingly or not) in service to the CIA agenda, that will only *serve* the interests of Israel.
In fact, as the interview calls for, there has to be a grassroots alternative, a form of internationalist solidarity that gives people (in Palestine, in Iran, in Lebanon, everywhere) an alternative to seeking support from whatever repressive or outright genocidal regime will offer it.
By trying to suppress the conversation about that, you are de facto enabling Israel to pursue its strategy in the region.
The interviewees are clear about the ways that Israel is intervening in Iran in the absence of the kind of principled solidarity you are trying to suppress:
> In this uprising, monarchist-aligned groups appear to be gaining influence. They maintain a strong anti-left discourse, positioning themselves against the 1979 revolution. They have substantial resources and financial backing from Saudi Arabia and Israel.
@CrimethInc here is a wild, tankie, authoritarian, censorious suggestion for you: if you were absolutely bound and determined to publish an interview which moralizes for Israel and equivocates against Iran, you might have at least delayed publication until *after* the US was not actively in the process of preparing to invade Iran and seeking to justify this act. or is this too suppressive of internationalist solidarity?
-
@CrimethInc no words are wasted on the idea that we recognize the stick and the carrot as being administered from the same hand. the "concrete conditions of survival" are evidently all that matters, even if they drive us further into the hands of those who engineered our suffering in the first place.
if only "tankie apologists" would call you out for doing the CIA's dirty work, at the precipice of the US almost certainly preparing to massacre untold numbers of Iranians and destroy Arab self-governance for generations, because objection supports Iran's government, then surely only "Mossad agents" would push back against criticism of this tripe because it feeds into the narrative of Israel doing good for minorities in the region
First, you are aggressively misrepresenting the arguments in the text. You're an intelligent person and you are surely aware of the ways that you are doing so.
If you (or any other readers) want more perspective from Iranians about why they emphatically do not want Trump invading Iran, some of which is from some of the same people involved in this interview, read this:
Iran: An Uprising Besieged from Within and Without
Three perspectives on the uprising that began in Iran on December 29, 2025, and the forces that threaten it from within and without.
CrimethInc. (crimethinc.com)
Also, it sounds a bit like you are defending Assad and suggesting that it was unfortunate that he lost control of Syria. It's difficult to justify supporting an autocrat who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The tankie/campist position is that it is too bad that there was ever an uprising against Assad in the first place. If only his autocratic reign had been permitted to continue unopposed, no one would have had to die.
Maybe someone can convince people in the English-speaking world of this. But people in Syria were bound to revolt. Autocracy always provokes resistance. The problem is not that people revolted, but that there was not enough support for projects of liberation in Syria for them to outmaneuver authoritarian groups (like the ones that became the current government).
Hence the urgency of real internationalism.
-
@CrimethInc here is a wild, tankie, authoritarian, censorious suggestion for you: if you were absolutely bound and determined to publish an interview which moralizes for Israel and equivocates against Iran, you might have at least delayed publication until *after* the US was not actively in the process of preparing to invade Iran and seeking to justify this act. or is this too suppressive of internationalist solidarity?
See the answer to your previous message: precisely because of Trump's threats, it is important to emphasize that there are Iranian perspectives that oppose both the ruling government and the astroturf alternative that Trump and Israel are promoting.
***
As a minor detail, when you suggest that a US attack on Iran would threaten *Arab* self-governance, is that because you don't know what ethnicities are common in Iran? (If you don't, you'll find a helpful map in the interview that you are complaining so bitterly about.)
Or is because of some sort of notion that only Iranian backing can preserve Arab self-governance elsewhere in the region? For example, did Assad's government constitute "Arab self-governance," but the Saudi government does not? That would be a difficult position to defend.
From our perspective, of course, none of the authoritarian governments in the region represent an "Arab self-governance" worth defending as such, though various social movements pursue it.
Or perhaps you simply slipped up and typed "Arab self-governance" because you are still reeling from the horrific US invasion and occupation of Iraq. That, at least, would be understandable.
-
First, you are aggressively misrepresenting the arguments in the text. You're an intelligent person and you are surely aware of the ways that you are doing so.
If you (or any other readers) want more perspective from Iranians about why they emphatically do not want Trump invading Iran, some of which is from some of the same people involved in this interview, read this:
Iran: An Uprising Besieged from Within and Without
Three perspectives on the uprising that began in Iran on December 29, 2025, and the forces that threaten it from within and without.
CrimethInc. (crimethinc.com)
Also, it sounds a bit like you are defending Assad and suggesting that it was unfortunate that he lost control of Syria. It's difficult to justify supporting an autocrat who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The tankie/campist position is that it is too bad that there was ever an uprising against Assad in the first place. If only his autocratic reign had been permitted to continue unopposed, no one would have had to die.
Maybe someone can convince people in the English-speaking world of this. But people in Syria were bound to revolt. Autocracy always provokes resistance. The problem is not that people revolted, but that there was not enough support for projects of liberation in Syria for them to outmaneuver authoritarian groups (like the ones that became the current government).
Hence the urgency of real internationalism.
@CrimethInc firstly, no support for Assad is necessary to recognize the fact that he explicitly guaranteed their relative autonomy and carved out protections for them in the Syrian state. nor does one need to support him to recognize that these protections were erased when Israel, without justification, invaded the country, murdered him, and occupied the demilitarized zone. these facts ARE, however, things that should be taken into consideration when talking about how Israel saved the Druze from persecution at the hands of Al-Jolani; a leader that Israel itself helped install. criticize Iran all you like, but it did not engineer the genocide in Palestine in order to "save" the Palestinians from it by toppling their government and occupying them. these are simply self-evidently not the same thing, regardless of how you feel about anyone involved.
-
@CrimethInc firstly, no support for Assad is necessary to recognize the fact that he explicitly guaranteed their relative autonomy and carved out protections for them in the Syrian state. nor does one need to support him to recognize that these protections were erased when Israel, without justification, invaded the country, murdered him, and occupied the demilitarized zone. these facts ARE, however, things that should be taken into consideration when talking about how Israel saved the Druze from persecution at the hands of Al-Jolani; a leader that Israel itself helped install. criticize Iran all you like, but it did not engineer the genocide in Palestine in order to "save" the Palestinians from it by toppling their government and occupying them. these are simply self-evidently not the same thing, regardless of how you feel about anyone involved.
@CrimethInc it's shameful to publish something which erases the nuance in that to the benefit of the US and Israel and to insult Palestinians by suggesting their struggle being supported by Iran is in any way a similar situation to Israel "supporting" the Druze. but oh, she always wore her keffiyeh! such a good ally
as shown by the fact that you are directly using this argument to suggest that killing Assad by any means, even Israeli, is a positive outcome for anyone, this merely carries water for Israel and suggests that the arm of the genocidal ethnostate can be a force for good under certain circumstances when it materially seems to benefit the oppressed at the time.
-
@CrimethInc it's shameful to publish something which erases the nuance in that to the benefit of the US and Israel and to insult Palestinians by suggesting their struggle being supported by Iran is in any way a similar situation to Israel "supporting" the Druze. but oh, she always wore her keffiyeh! such a good ally
as shown by the fact that you are directly using this argument to suggest that killing Assad by any means, even Israeli, is a positive outcome for anyone, this merely carries water for Israel and suggests that the arm of the genocidal ethnostate can be a force for good under certain circumstances when it materially seems to benefit the oppressed at the time.
@CrimethInc the Kurds the authors express sorrow over in the interview are the very victims of this logic! they accepted the aid of the US, #1 genocidal colonizer in the world, and had that rug pulled out from under them by their capricious and disinterested benefactor, only to be immediately crushed and subjugated. do you not think that they would be better off right now if they had refused any support from the US at all? because that is also the same situation the Druze are in, and now they apparently laud their real oppressors as their saviors, the most prolific anarchists oblivious to the wool pulled over their eyes. nothing was learnt from history, and thus "real internationalism" continues to walk behind the pace of the treadmill.
-
@CrimethInc firstly, no support for Assad is necessary to recognize the fact that he explicitly guaranteed their relative autonomy and carved out protections for them in the Syrian state. nor does one need to support him to recognize that these protections were erased when Israel, without justification, invaded the country, murdered him, and occupied the demilitarized zone. these facts ARE, however, things that should be taken into consideration when talking about how Israel saved the Druze from persecution at the hands of Al-Jolani; a leader that Israel itself helped install. criticize Iran all you like, but it did not engineer the genocide in Palestine in order to "save" the Palestinians from it by toppling their government and occupying them. these are simply self-evidently not the same thing, regardless of how you feel about anyone involved.
Sorry, did you say that Israel invaded Syria and murdered Assad? We can agree that Israel invaded Syria and is occupying some of its territory, but Assad is living in Russia in luxury.
Or is there any other way to read what you are saying??
Assad family live in Russian luxury as Bashar ‘brushes up on ophthalmology’
Family friend, sources in Russia and Syria, and leaked data help give rare insight into life of dictator’s reclusive household
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
-
Sorry, did you say that Israel invaded Syria and murdered Assad? We can agree that Israel invaded Syria and is occupying some of its territory, but Assad is living in Russia in luxury.
Or is there any other way to read what you are saying??
Assad family live in Russian luxury as Bashar ‘brushes up on ophthalmology’
Family friend, sources in Russia and Syria, and leaked data help give rare insight into life of dictator’s reclusive household
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
-
Sorry, did you say that Israel invaded Syria and murdered Assad? We can agree that Israel invaded Syria and is occupying some of its territory, but Assad is living in Russia in luxury.
Or is there any other way to read what you are saying??
Assad family live in Russian luxury as Bashar ‘brushes up on ophthalmology’
Family friend, sources in Russia and Syria, and leaked data help give rare insight into life of dictator’s reclusive household
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
@CrimethInc oh, whoops, that's my bad; I misremembered the news at the time when it happened and thought I recalled him being killed because a bunch of his soldiers were killed including infiltrating the army's headquarters. yes he's alive (somehow) but it changes nothing material about my point
-
@CrimethInc oh, whoops, that's my bad; I misremembered the news at the time when it happened and thought I recalled him being killed because a bunch of his soldiers were killed including infiltrating the army's headquarters. yes he's alive (somehow) but it changes nothing material about my point
@CrimethInc I probably mixed him up with Nasrallah lol
-
@CrimethInc I probably mixed him up with Nasrallah lol
If you've missed it, you could also see the below message asking why you are speaking about "Arab self-governance" in reference to Iran.
-
If you've missed it, you could also see the below message asking why you are speaking about "Arab self-governance" in reference to Iran.
@CrimethInc nah I was typing up a reply when I saw the question
-
See the answer to your previous message: precisely because of Trump's threats, it is important to emphasize that there are Iranian perspectives that oppose both the ruling government and the astroturf alternative that Trump and Israel are promoting.
***
As a minor detail, when you suggest that a US attack on Iran would threaten *Arab* self-governance, is that because you don't know what ethnicities are common in Iran? (If you don't, you'll find a helpful map in the interview that you are complaining so bitterly about.)
Or is because of some sort of notion that only Iranian backing can preserve Arab self-governance elsewhere in the region? For example, did Assad's government constitute "Arab self-governance," but the Saudi government does not? That would be a difficult position to defend.
From our perspective, of course, none of the authoritarian governments in the region represent an "Arab self-governance" worth defending as such, though various social movements pursue it.
Or perhaps you simply slipped up and typed "Arab self-governance" because you are still reeling from the horrific US invasion and occupation of Iraq. That, at least, would be understandable.
@CrimethInc I appreciate the concern and respect that you attempted to derive a non-moronic argument from my statement. yes, the notion implied is that the Arab governments in the region are almost entirely now the servile bootlicking dogs of the US, forbidden to govern themselves against its interests. this lack of real Arabic self-governance (governance by Arabs is not the same as Arab self-governance when they govern on behalf of the West) is the reason why Palestine, which once was defended by force of arms by practically every nation in the Middle East, is now almost entirely left to the slaughter. the US is invading Iran as part of its agenda to topple these last holdouts so that Israel can murder and cleanse all the peoples of the region, Arab or not, as it pleases. they are quite open about this, I'm sure I don't need to show you the "Greater Israel" maps
please don't conflate it with asserting that all residents of the Middle East, or even all Muslims, are Arabs
-
@CrimethInc I appreciate the concern and respect that you attempted to derive a non-moronic argument from my statement. yes, the notion implied is that the Arab governments in the region are almost entirely now the servile bootlicking dogs of the US, forbidden to govern themselves against its interests. this lack of real Arabic self-governance (governance by Arabs is not the same as Arab self-governance when they govern on behalf of the West) is the reason why Palestine, which once was defended by force of arms by practically every nation in the Middle East, is now almost entirely left to the slaughter. the US is invading Iran as part of its agenda to topple these last holdouts so that Israel can murder and cleanse all the peoples of the region, Arab or not, as it pleases. they are quite open about this, I'm sure I don't need to show you the "Greater Israel" maps
please don't conflate it with asserting that all residents of the Middle East, or even all Muslims, are Arabs
We would argue that Assad was not an especially reliable support for Palestinian liberation, either, and that, while it is understandable that Palestinian, Iranian, Kurdish, Druze, etc. people might look to local or international imperialist powers of one camp or another, the horrors will go on until a consistent internationalism emerges.
-
We would argue that Assad was not an especially reliable support for Palestinian liberation, either, and that, while it is understandable that Palestinian, Iranian, Kurdish, Druze, etc. people might look to local or international imperialist powers of one camp or another, the horrors will go on until a consistent internationalism emerges.
@CrimethInc He clearly was not, but he was better for the Druze than Al-Jolani, which is what letting Israel choose who governs you will result in, and viciously toppling his government benefited no one but the Israelis, which is why they did it
