That Italian left in love with ayatollahs

in News Uk

Souad Sbai

Despite 40 years of repressions, torture, violations of human and civil rights (especially to the detriment of women), the left continues to sympathize with the Iranian Khomeinist regime. A phenomenon widespread both in Europe and in the United States and the rest of the West, to which Italy has always contributed significantly. Just think of Prodi, D’Alema, Bonino and Mogherini, as the tip of the iceberg in the political-institutional sphere of an entire system that truly believes that the Islamist Republic embodies a just cause.

It is understandable that economic operators push for the maintenance of good relations with Tehran, from the point of view of the search for new business and earnings. Why, on the other hand, do many foreign policy experts, academics, journalists and, basically, even diplomats, cheer on ayatollah and pasdaran? The answer is to be found in the anti-American preliminary ruling, also typical of a certain right (a minority), but rampant on the left, especially when in the United States there is no president of his own liking in the White House.

What the partisans are missing from the alleged “resistance” of the Khomeinist regime against imperialism, the times of Barack Obama’s “outstretched hand” and what would have been a great success for international diplomacy, namely the nuclear deal. The uncomfortable reality is instead obscured, removed from the minds, hearts and newspaper articles, where you woe to point out that in exchange for signing that agreement (if ever Tehran has ever respected it), Obama has given the green light to ambitions Iranians to conquer regional hegemony, an expression of imperialism intrinsic to the 1979 fundamentalist revolution. The coup d’état and the occupation of the Houthi who are the cause of the war in Yemen; the hezbollah hegemony that dragged Lebanon to the brink of the abyss; extremist militias holding Iraqi hostage; attacks on maritime security in the Gulf waters: how beautiful the Middle East is where the Khomeinist Regime with its allies dominate.

With Donald Trump, the “Great Satan” returns to the fore. So, after the drone attack on January 2 at Baghdad airport, Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Al Quds Forces responsible for the destabilization of the area, has also risen to martyr in the western media and not only in the commemorations literally staged throughout Iran under the direction of the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. A noble warrior, a romantic and legendary figure, not the patron (and travel companion on that January 2) of Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis, among the most powerful leaders of the Iraqi extremist militias.

These were glorified for defeating ISIS, it doesn’t matter if the most important victories were achieved thanks to the regular army (the one trained by the Americans). And it matters even less if these militias are nothing more than death squads, guilty of murders of human rights activists (preferably women), kidnappings and torture, in addition to being today the main metastases of the cancer of corruption that is devouring the Iraq.

Against corruption, the new generation massively rebelled and many of the more than 400 deaths were caused by the militias created, armed and financed by Soleimani, because the protest had expressly requested the end of Iranian interference. Do young Iraqis not have the right to claim the possibility of living in a fully independent and sovereign state, which is not a pawn in the great risiko of Tehran? Obviously not, for the Western apologists of the Khomeinist regime, who of Soleimani even made a defensor fidei for his alleged role in defending the Christian communities in Iraq and Syria. If the Christians were so close to his heart, why didn’t he intervene to encourage their stay during the insurgency devised by the former head of the Al Quds Forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein? Obviously not, for the Western apologists of the Khomeinist regime, who of Soleimani even made a defensor fidei for his alleged role in defending the Christian communities in Iraq and Syria. If the Christians were so close to his heart, why didn’t he intervene to encourage their stay during the insurgency devised by the former head of the Al Quds Forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein? Life was terrible, unimaginable for the inhabitants of Mosul and the other places of the Nineveh Plain that were under the control of ISIS. But the Christians left today certainly do not look favorably on the passage from one extremism to another, with the rise of the militias of which Suleimani was the deus ex machina.


Syrian Christians can testify better than anyone else that life is certainly better in the police state of Assad than in the Caliphate of Al Baghdadi, both in terms of security and freedom. On this, there can be no discussion. Yet according to the Réseau syrien pour les droits de l’homme organization, the Damascus regime was responsible for 61% of the attacks on Christian churches and places of worship in Syria, which occurred from 2011 to 2019. This means that Christians and, in general, the so-called religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria have been the subject of great exploitation, served by figures such as Soleimani to deceive the naive Westerners with respect to his real identity and real goals. Another successful operation.

It is not a question of taking sides in the United States in opposition to the Khomeinist regime, absolving Trump of the serious “guilt” of killing General Pasdaran, withdrawn Washington from the nuclear deal and imposed new sanctions. On the contrary, it is the Iranian people that must be supported, at least that part that escapes the ideological and social control of Khamenei and loudly asks for rights and freedoms, paying with prison, torture and their own lives. In this regard, the indifference of the Left speaks for itself and tells us of the black soul of those who criticized not only the elimination of Soleimani, with arguments inspired by the usual pacifism, but also the closeness shown to the Iranian people by the president American, which is opposed to the “responsible” silence of Sant’Obama during the bloody repression of the Green Wave in 2009.

A “call for greater responsibility” directed to “western institutions” was launched a few days ago, on the blog of Concita De Gregorio, by one of the many Italian academics struck by the path of Khomeinism. In the post, the academician stationed in Tehran – for whom life in Iran today seems all peace, dialogue and wonder – criticized the British ambassador Rob Macaire, because he would have participated in the demonstrations that erupted in the capital after the admission of blame by the Iranian armed forces for the shooting down of the Ukrainian Boeing in which 176 people were killed.

The academician considers the arrest of the diplomat justified: “[…] what was he doing […] at a protest demonstration?” In reality, it seems that the ambassador, after taking part in the commemoration of the 176 victims, including 4 British, was stuck in the midst of the student protests during which slogans were launched against Soleimani and the resignation of Khamenei was requested , considered the real culprit of the disaster (and not only that of the plane shot down by two missiles launched “by mistake” by the Guardian Corps of the fundamentalist revolution to which Suleimani himself belonged).

On the other hand, wouldn’t it have been foolish and unreasonable for the British diplomat to deliberately participate in an anti-regime demonstration in a hostile environment and climate to say the least? Did the academician run into the “false naivety (not to say hypocrisy) typical of political propaganda” of the Khomeinist Regime and its followers, including Italians? But you know, the communists are with the Khomeinists.

Traslated by Cecilia Sagnelli