It is not only European political leaders who have submitted to the American empire and its erratic emperor, Trump. Established media outlets are also competing to legitimize the US empire’s wars, violence, and dismantling of international laws and conventions. With a few exceptions, European leaders condemn Iran’s self-defense and its response to the illegal bombings carried out by the US–Israel alliance against the country and the killing of civilians, just as in Gaza.

Regardless of the fact that the Iranian government and the repression it imposes on its own people, the country has now been subjected to a brutal war for the third time since the establishment of the Islamic Republic without the attackers even bothering to legitimize their aggression. A brief historical reflection can place this aggressive warfare against Iran within the context of the country’s long struggle for independence—a struggle that is not directly linked to the current political regime.

In the early 1980s, the United States encouraged Iraq to attack Iran because Iran had committed the “crime” of carrying out a revolution against the American empire and the Western powers that had controlled its government and monarchy.

In the early 1980s, the United States encouraged Iraq to attack Iran because Iran had committed the “crime” of carrying out a revolution against the American empire and the Western powers that had controlled its government and monarchy.

The United States and other Western countries could neither accept nor tolerate an independent and sovereign Iran.

The people who participated in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 united around three central demands and hopes: independence, freedom, and a republic, instead of 2500 years of monarchy. Khomeini and his radical religious supporters, however, managed to change the demand from a republic to an Islamic Republic. Although Khomeini and his religious base preferred in the first place a purely “Islamic government” rather than a republic. The were however forced by the people’s movement to accept the majority’s demand for a republic. Independence, however, remained decisive for the people, as colonial and imperial powers had long obstructed Iran’s independent development.

READ: Trump: Israel attacked Iran’s south pars gas field without US or Qatari involvement

Iran had already experienced the Constitutional Revolution in 1905, which forced the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and sought national independence from colonial powers of Greate Britain and Russia. The constitutional and democratic Iranian government tried to get support from several so-called democratic Western countries to help build an independent state system and stabilize the country’s economy—but received no real assistance. Independence was the red line for Western powers because it would have limited their unrestricted access to the country’s raw materials and oil.

It should be noted, however, that one country actually attempted to help constitutional Iran build its military forces to defend the revolution—and that was Sweden. A group of Swedish officers and soldiers, led by Harald Hjalmarson, arrived in Iran in 1911 and helped the democratic government organize and strengthen its military forces to defend the young Iranian democracy. Some of these Swedish soldiers lost their lives in confrontations with groups mobilized and supported by Britain to fight the constitutional Iranian government. Eventually, Britain and Russia forced the Swedes to leave the country so that these colonial powers could once again dominate the situation in Iran.

While the October Revolution in Russia (1917) reduced Russian influence in Iran, Britain seized the opportunity to carry out a military coup in 1921, bringing Reza Shah Pahlavi—the grandfather of the current exiled prince Reza Pahlavi—to power.

While the October Revolution in Russia (1917) reduced Russian influence in Iran, Britain seized the opportunity to carry out a military coup in 1921, bringing Reza Shah Pahlavi—the grandfather of the current exiled prince Reza Pahlavi—to power.

A few years later, in 1925, he crowned himself king. When Reza Shah later attempted to move closer to Nazi Germany in order to reduce British influence in Iran, he was removed from power in 1941 by the Allied forces and sent into exile, where he died a few years later. The Allied powers occupying Iran then decided to install his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as the new king.

When the dictatorship temporarily weakened and democracy gained some room again, Iranians once more began striving for independence. A strong national movement emerged demanding the nationalization of the country’s oil industry, which Britain effectively controlled. As a result of this movement, the leader of Iran’s National Front, Mohammad Mossadegh, became prime minister in 1951 and implemented the nationalization of Iran’s oil industry.

The United States and Britain, of course, could not accept this.

Through a military coup in 1953, Mossadegh was overthrown and a military government was installed under the protection of the king. This meant that Iran effectively lost much of its independence.

Through a military coup in 1953, Mossadegh was overthrown and a military government was installed under the protection of the king. This meant that Iran effectively lost much of its independence.

Among other things, so-called capitulation laws were introduced, granting American military personnel and staff diplomatic privileges and immunity in the country. These laws were officially passed by Iran’s parliament in October 1964 and became a symbol of the king’s—and thereby the country’s—submission to the United States.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was largely a reaction to decades of Western intervention that had undermined Iran’s independence and autonomous development. The revolution’s three central slogans were independence, freedom, and republic. Of these, the demand for independence may be the only one that has survived in any meaningful sense as a unifying ideal.

However, this independence could not be accepted by the United States and its Western allies, which viewed an independent Iran as a threat to their geopolitical interests. The current war of aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran must therefore be understood in the context of a long history of anti-imperialist movements in Iran that have resisted foreign domination and political influence.

READ: Khamenei says “criminal killers will soon pay” after Larijani killing

Mainstream media often shows limited interest in the struggles of peoples in the Global South for independence. Instead, they frequently reproduce the worldview formulated in Washington and other Western centers of power. Iran, for example, is often accused of being a state that supports terrorism in the so-called “Middle East.” The term Middle East itself is a Eurocentric concept that takes Europe as the center of the world. Regions are then defined in relation to Europe: The Middle East, the Far East, the Near East, and so on. Such concepts have long shaped Western political, academic, and media discourse.

At the same time, there is a long tradition in Western countries of labeling anti-imperialist resistance movements as terrorism. Historically, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, Vietnamese resistance to the United States, and various liberation movements in Latin America, Asia, and Africa have often been described in such terms. By contrast, the terror and violence exercised by great powers and their allies—through military coups, wars, and military interventions—are often presented as “necessary humanitarian interventions” intended to create stability. In practice, this often means accepting a world order in which powerful states claim the right to dominate other countries and control their resources.

Mainstream media bear a significant responsibility for legitimizing the colonial and imperial wars and violence launched by United States and Western powers. They use the same discursive frameworks as American and other Western media by systematically referring to the Iranian side as “the regime in Tehran” or “the terrorist regime in Tehran,” while the political leadership of the United States is described as “the American administration” or “the US government.”

It is time to stop demonizing non-Western countries and peoples, and instead to understand their struggles for independence and dignity.

OPINION: The popular uprising in Iran and the role of Western powers

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor