The justification of assassination in the name of women’s rights
-
Recently, the assassination of Iran’s military leader has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding Western justifications for the act. Many commentators in the West have framed the assassination as justified, not only for geopolitical reasons but also in the context of “protecting” Iranian women from oppressive policies. This rhetoric brings to mind the colonial narratives that Samia Khatun critiques in Australianama, where she discusses how colonial powers misrepresented non-Western societies to justify imperial control. For instance, Khatun references how British colonialists invented terms like "brideprice" to depict Muslim women as being bought and sold, reinforcing the idea that these societies were backward and in need of Western intervention.
In the case of Iran, there’s a similar narrative at play: the West often portrays itself as the savior of Muslim women, whether through sanctions, military intervention, or, in this case, assassination. This narrative suggests that by removing oppressive leaders, the West is somehow liberating the women of these nations. Khatun’s critique is relevant here when she says, “The cry to ‘save Muslim women’ comprised a key strategy to mobilize Western popular support for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001” (Khatun, p. 144). Just as the U.S. justified its invasion of Afghanistan under the guise of protecting women from the Taliban, we now see similar reasoning applied to the killing of Iran’s leader, suggesting that his removal will somehow benefit Iranian women.
This raises an important question: Can the assassination of a leader truly be justified as a means of liberating women, or is this just another instance of the West imposing its narrative of "rescue" on cultures it doesn’t fully understand? The idea that military action or assassination can advance women’s rights highlights the colonial mindset Khatun critiques, where interventions are framed as necessary to save oppressed women, without considering how such acts may actually harm them in the long run.
For example, Iranian women’s rights activists have expressed concerns that this assassination, along with increasing tensions between Iran and the West, might make life harder for them. Just as in Afghanistan, where the U.S. invasion led to years of instability, women in Iran might face greater repression as a reaction to Western intervention. So, are these acts really about helping women, or are they more about advancing geopolitical interests, with women’s rights being used as a convenient justification?
This brings us to the broader issue Khatun touches on: How do Western powers continue to justify violent interventions in the Global South by framing them as moral acts, particularly in the name of women’s rights? Are we repeating the colonial mistake of imposing Western values under the guise of "protection"?
while it’s easy for Western commentators to frame the assassination as a victory for women’s rights, Khatun’s work reminds us to be critical of these narratives. We need to question whether such actions actually empower women or whether they perpetuate the same colonial dynamics of imposing external solutions without truly understanding the cultural and political complexities at play.