 |
| Leaders of Denmark and the United States, Mette Frederiksen and Donald Trump (Image: Wikimedia Commons) |
Donald Trump has his eyes on two countries dear to my heart (Iran and Denmark), and it is utterly terrifying. I will write about Iran - where much of my DNA comes from - later in this article, but first, let's address Denmark, a nation that has been a sanctuary and home for much of the Iranian side of my family for almost 40 years.
Prior to recent times, Denmark has been among the quieter countries in global politics. It doesn't consistently rank high in the 'happiest nations in the world' for a laugh. Should you visit it for the first time, you will find it clean, respected and harmless. If it were a person, it wouldn't hurt a fly. It also runs a number of smaller territories, including the Faroe Islands (situated between Scotland and Iceland) and Greenland, a large island to the east of Canada.
For so long, the only time you would hear Greenland in the news was because of climate change - with outdoor temperatures rising globally year-on-year, ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. If the process isn't slowed, the island's landscape could risk becoming a shadow of its glorious past. If anyone told me that Greenland would be known for much else in the modern global news agenda, I'd have looked at them with some bewilderment. But of course, Trump finds a way.
The US President has identified the need to 'take over' the territory for 'national security'. According to him, Russia and China will have control over it if the States doesn't first, and that Denmark can't handle them. While it is true they have a presence in Greenland, there is very little to suggest their interests lie any more than what they're doing there at present. They know too well of the consequences if they dared try do more - even Russia, whose leadership consistently make clear that it wants to bring back the Soviet Union, to which Greenland was never part of.
Denmark's government has responded to Trump's commands with its usual wry vigour. To summarise, "No, you can't take over Greenland, however, you can house as many troops as you want there." Reportedly, there are more than 100 American military personnel in the territory right now, significantly lower than in recent past. Putting it simply, Trump can have 2,000 troops based there and all be okay with the US's 'national security'.
However, the President has been feeling rather buoyant. Just weeks ago, he had threatened to topple the government in Venezuela, launching an unprecedented military intervention costing US taxpayers an apparent $1 billion, resulting in the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro and gallons upon gallons of Venezuelan oil. Maduro, by all counts, is a notorious, fraudulent dictator, but that wasn't the reason why he was captured, otherwise Trump would have taken down his entire government, which is constantly accused of corruption and human rights abuses. Maduro's deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, is in interim charge.
I highly doubt Trump wants to do what he did in Venezuela to Denmark. Its Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, should not worry about her position, largely because she has most European leaders on her side. Even Sir Keir Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, who has done everything in his power to keep Trump sweet, insists that the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland and Denmark's government. This line of defence has given Trump the hump, and he had threatened tariffs on eight European nations - the UK included - thinking that would put them off from backing Denmark. However, he has since withdrawn this threat after a 'framework deal' was agreed.
I dread to think what Trump does next. His war of words risked wrecking a positive diplomatic relationship between the US and Europe. It's unheard of, for two or more NATO nations to have such an open squabble. Any further escalation of tensions could result in that key alliance falling apart for the first time since its inception in 1949. The consequences are unimaginable, and you cannot help but compare his insistence of wanting Greenland to Russia's Vladimir Putin and Ukraine - and it is Russia who will benefit from a NATO collapse, as a collapse opens the door for his Ukraine mission to advance in ways we would not want to know. Trump is walking on ice so thin, it would drown even Torvill and Dean.
If it isn't Greenland (or Cuba, or Colombia, which is another subject for another day), then it's Iran. For almost a month, Iran has been witnessed to huge protests. Initially, it was shopkeepers and bazaar workers who took to the streets in their thousands, angry because of the collapse of the country's currency. After a few days, these initially peaceful and civil marches grew violent and turned into protests against the current regime. Fast forward to today, it is feared that thousands have been killed as a result of clashes with civilians and the IRGC, Iran's revolutionary guards.
As a half-Iranian, you can imagine my social media feeds have been flooded with countless posts from people I do not choose to follow (thank you, algorithms) about the horrors that have occurred in recent weeks. As I write this, the country is enduring a nationwide internet blackout, so it is hard to get a true picture of what is happening. However, some verified footages have managed to get out in the open and they make for uncomfortable viewing. This has provoked a highly speculative and emotive narrative which does little to help those in Iran connect with the wider world.
Anti-regime protesting in Iran isn't a recent phenomenon. There have been uprisings dotted throughout the past 47 years the country has had a 'Supreme Leader' and been an 'Islamic Republic'. The draconian laws introduced by, firstly Ruhollah Khomeini, and then Ali Khamenei since 1989, have seen its people suppressed ways very few of us want to comprehend. Like many Iranians outside of Iran, I utterly despise the regime, and too right people there call for it to go. However, I truly feel that in order for this to be truly achieved, it has to be done carefully and strategically, and - partially quoting Starmer on Greenland here - must be decided by people in Iran only.
Unfortunately, the narrative of the latest protests are driven by those outside of Iran, in part, thanks to Trump because he has an opinion about everything and says anything to make himself relevant (he has said for weeks he wants to help, but he hasn't, and he won't, as he'd risk riling Iran's key ally Russia, to which he has done a great job of keeping sweet up to this point). But the narrative has been largely driven by Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah, who was toppled in 1979 as a result of the previous revolution that led to the 'Islamic Republic' we see today.
Pahlavi is endeared by corners of the very loud Iranian diaspora, but is also a controversial figure. He has significant backing from Israel (a country's government is accused of committing 'genocide' in Palestine by dozens of countries, including Iran, a rare area most of its people and the Supreme Leader currently agree on) and is doing his utmost to try and convince Trump to get him on a plane to Iran's capital, Tehran, and forcefully begin that power transition. Trump is currently unmoved.
Going against the dominant narrative on my social media algorithms, I genuinely have problems with Pahlavi. I think he's a dangerous man. The latest protests started out peacefully, and may have come to an end with very few casualties, had it not been for his constant video addresses, directly calling on Iranians to line up on the streets and fight the regime, knowing full well the consequences of thousands being killed as a result. Allegedly, Israeli forces have provoked much of the violence in Iran and we will never know the extent of their involvement in this dark moment of Iran's history. It's a bleak, full picture, where Pahlavi should bear significant responsibility along with the Supreme Leader.
If Pahlavi had called for calm in Iran and assurance that the regime's days are numbered even without the protests, we would never see the number of deaths reported today. He knows what he's doing, and the fact that so many of the diaspora can't see his cynicism is driving me to frustrations I never knew I had. He's seen a few videos featuring relatively small crowds in Iran chanting for 'the Shah,' and he concludes that he is, therefore, called upon, to continue his father's legacy. His tactics of talking as an exile, mirrors that of Khomeini when he was living comfortably in France just before Pahlavi and his family fled in 1979, by promising the world to the millions yearning for a better life, and then replace it with something potentially worse, painting it as something amazing. It sounds like the worst déjà vu.
Besides, if people in Iran really wanted a Pahlavi back in power, they'd have done it by now. Unfortunately for him, while he is still seen as a highly influential figure, and I can say this with relative confidence, Iran is a split country. You ask people there what they want to replace the current regime, and you will get a long list of possible ideals - at present, there is no majority of those who want one thing over another. It's hard to even know whether most want to actually get rid of the system as it stands to begin with.
We can only truly know when Khamenei passes on and then discussions can truly be had, without fear. There is no clear successor for Supreme Leader and speculation is mounting that the current crop of Ayatollahs have no desire to continue the 'Islamic Republic,' hence why Khamenei is seen to be 'clinging onto power'. With this in mind, forcing change will not improve the situation - we've seen it in 1979, we don't want to see history repeating. The quicker people in Iran can steer away from protesting under the influence of either Pahlavi or Khamenei, the smoother the country's next chapter will be.
Comments
Post a Comment