Western commentary on Iran’s current unrest is once again saturated with the familiar language of freedom, human rights and support for the Iranian people. Yet this moral posture collapses under even modest historical scrutiny. The West’s relationship with Iran has never been one of principled engagement; it has been a sustained project of domination, disruption and regime manipulation stretching back over seven decades.
It has little to do with the freedom of the Iranian people. It is about extinguishing that freedom by installing compliant leaders who will answer to Washington, remain subservient to American power and safeguard the Zionist project.
The roots of today’s crisis can be traced to 1953, when the CIA, under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr., a grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, engineered the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. His offence was neither tyranny nor repression, but the audacity to nationalise Iran’s oil, long dominated by British interests through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP).
This episode stands as one of the earliest and starkest examples of Western regime change in the Global South, driven not by a commitment to democracy but by the imperative of resource control, and intended as a warning to other nations contemplating similar acts of independence. The coup dismantled Iran’s fragile democratic institutions and reinstalled the Shah, whose rule was authoritarian, corrupt, and brutally repressive, yet critically aligned with Western, particularly American, strategic and economic interests.
The industrial and military engines of the United States depended on uninterrupted access to cheap energy, and no challenge to that demand for boundless wealth extracted from the world’s resources would be tolerated.
Then came the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which meant a transition from client state to enemy No1. It was a mass uprising against decades of dictatorship imposed and sustained by Western power. When the Shah fell, Iran ceased to be a Western client state and became, overnight, an enemy. From that moment on, Iran’s sovereignty itself became intolerable. It was, in effect, “ingratitude” towards USA hegemony. The bullying had stopped. For a short while. Then came the imposed wars, sanctions and economic strangulation.
The West’s tools used in response to Iran resisting colonisation has been relentless.
- Support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), including intelligence, weapons and diplomatic cover, despite Iraq’s use of chemical weapons only to abandon him when he realised that he was being used as a tool to maintain a presence in the region. He was subsequently assassinated.
- Crippling sanctions, not targeted at elites but at the population, banking, medicine, fuel, trade, designed explicitly to make everyday life unbearable.
- Sabotage and assassinations, particularly against Iranian scientists.
- Attacks on Iran’s civilian nuclear programme, despite Iran being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The stated aim has always been “non-proliferation” and “regional stability”. The real aim has been to prevent Iran, or any other nation, from becoming an independent regional power capable of resisting Western and Israeli dominance.
The Hypocrisy of Nuclear Morality is glaring. The West, (the USA in particular being responsible for dropping the atomic bomb on hapless Japanese citizens), claims the right to develop, possess, and deploy nuclear weapons, while insisting that no other nation, particularly non-white, non-aligned states, may even develop the capacity to defend themselves.
Israel, which is not a signatory to the NPT and possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal, enjoys unconditional Western support. Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, is treated as an existential threat. This same logic has defined the Palestinian experience for decades: one side armed to the teeth with Western backing, the other denied even the most basic means of self-defence. Power, not principle, determines legitimacy.
The current protests in Iran takes us from genuine grievances to manufactured chaos. There is no denying that the initial protests in Iran were genuine. They reflected real economic suffering, soaring prices, unemployment and hardship. But this suffering did not arise organically; it is the direct result of sanctions designed to cripple the Iranian economy.
Crucially, reports indicate that:
- The protests remained largely peaceful for the first ten days
- Violence escalated only later
- Most of the reported deaths are police and army personnel, deployed to contain unrest
This pattern is not new. It mirrors previous destabilisation campaigns elsewhere, where legitimate grievances are deliberately exploited, escalated and militarised.
Perhaps the most telling development is the burning of mosques, an act virtually unheard of in Muslim societies, even during intense political upheaval.
Mosques are not merely religious buildings; they are sanctuaries, community centres, and symbols of collective identity. Historically, Muslims do not attack them, even in civil conflict.
That this line has been crossed strongly suggests the involvement of a “third force”: organised provocateurs whose objective is not reform, but chaos. The presence of smuggled weapons, targeted attacks on security forces, and symbolic desecration point not to spontaneous uprising, but to external orchestration.
The fingerprints are familiar. The United States and its Western allies, encouraged and informed by spooks from Zionist Israel, have repeatedly used covert operations, proxy actors and information warfare to destabilise governments that resist their hegemony.
Iran’s resistance stands out precisely because it has not been captured. Contrast this with:
- Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose security architecture is inseparable from U.S. military protection
- Egypt, where Western-backed authoritarianism ensures regional compliance
- Pakistan, locked into dependency through military aid and strategic pressure
These states are not sovereign in any meaningful sense. Their survival depends on remaining aligned with Western geopolitical priorities. True stability will not come from sanctions, sabotage, or regime change.
What we are witnessing in Iran today is not a spontaneous moral awakening by the West, but the continuation of an imperial project, one that now dresses itself in the language of human rights and freedom. The West’s “support” for the Iranian people rings hollow against a history of coups, wars, sanctions, assassinations and economic warfare. When violence erupts after peaceful protest, when mosques burn, and when security forces bear the brunt of the dead, it is reasonable to question who benefits. This is not about democracy. It is about control.
It is against this historical and geopolitical backdrop that South Africa’s current dilemma must be understood. Pressure from the United States to deny Iran’s navy access to South African waters, or to criminalise those who facilitated joint naval exercises with Russia and China, is not a neutral request. It is a test of sovereignty. Should South Africa succumb to such pressure, the risks are profound and long-lasting.
First, it would signal that South Africa’s foreign policy is conditional—subject not to constitutional principles or national interest, but to external approval. This would fundamentally undermine the post-apartheid doctrine of strategic non-alignment, a position painstakingly built on the moral authority of the liberation struggle and articulated most clearly by Nelson Mandela himself. Once precedent is set that Washington may veto which states may dock in South African ports, the country’s autonomy in defence, trade, and diplomacy becomes negotiable rather than sovereign.
Second, acquiescence would expose South Africa to selective enforcement and permanent leverage. History shows that appeasement does not end pressure; it institutionalises it. Today it is Iran’s navy. Tomorrow it may be Russian trade, Chinese infrastructure projects, Palestinian solidarity, or African continental security cooperation. Compliance becomes a rolling concession, not a shield.
Third, the consequences for South Africa’s standing within BRICS would be deeply corrosive. BRICS is premised on resistance to unipolar dominance, respect for sovereignty, and the creation of alternative political, financial, and security architectures.
If South Africa is perceived as the weak link willing to subordinate collective BRICS interests to USA pressure, it risks marginalisation within the bloc. At best, its credibility would be questioned; at worst, it would be viewed as an unreliable partner incapable of independent strategic decision-making.
Moreover, denying Iran naval access while hosting or accommodating Western naval presence would expose South Africa to charges of double standards, eroding trust among Global South partners. BRICS is not merely an economic club; it is a political statement against coercive diplomacy. Undermining that principle from within weakens the bloc as a whole and diminishes South Africa’s influence in shaping an emerging multipolar order.
Fourth, such a move would have direct economic consequences. Iran remains a significant energy, industrial and geopolitical player, particularly within the Global South. Alienating Tehran under U.S. pressure bars future trade, energy cooperation and strategic partnerships, precisely at a moment when South Africa seeks diversified markets and reduced dependence on Western financial systems.
Finally, there is a moral cost. South Africa’s own history is one of sanctions imposed to force political outcomes, of foreign powers deciding which leaders were acceptable and which relationships were forbidden. The current witch-hunt over Iran’s naval presence is therefore not about maritime protocol or security concerns. It is about discipline. It is about reminding South Africa that deviation from the Western script carries consequences. That script, however, is increasingly written by a declining empire struggling to preserve hegemony through pressure rather than persuasion.
Mandela understood this clearly when he warned that no external power would dictate South Africa’s friendships. To forget that lesson now would not only betray Iran, or BRICS, or the Global South. It would betray South Africa itself.
* Shabodien Roomanay is the board Chairman of Muslim Views Publication, founding member of the Salt River Heritage Society, and a trustee of the SA Foundation for Islamic Art.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of or Independent Media.
