Over the last week, we have witnessed an escalation in the level of threats against Iran and an increase in the American military presence in the Persian Gulf, with the aim of controlling key waterways, should Iran retaliate against a potential US military threat. At the same time it is quite clear that indirect negotiations are taking place between the United States and Iran and the current US threats are an integral part of that.
Irrespective of the outcome of this latest stage in the US-Iran conflict, the events of the last few days stress once more the urgency of building a principled campaign - not only against the threat of war, but in defence of Iranian workers, women, students and national minorities. Of course, in the UK, Hands Off the People of Iran is not the first campaign to oppose war against Iran, nor is it the only one acting in solidarity with the struggles of the long-suffering peoples of Iran against the theocratic regime. However, it is the only campaign stressing that these two aspects (against war, against the regime) must be inseparable parts of a single campaign.
In October 2006, Action Iran, Iran Solidarity and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII UK) merged to form a single organisation, called Campaign Iran. For Iranian socialists, inside and outside the country, neither the three components nor the new merged organisation address the essential issues concerning the plight of the Iranian people at a time when the threat of some form of imperialist intervention must be taken seriously. The accusation of appeasing a reactionary regime is echoed by many left activists in Iran.
Action Iran campaigned against “any form of military intervention or sanctions” and called for “a non-interventionist, non-military dialogue with Iran”, while Iran Solidarity aimed to expose “the war-mongering motives of the United States of America”. CASMII UK called for “immediate negotiations … without any preconditions”.
Totally missing form their material - as it is from Campaign Iran’s statements - is any criticism of the islamic republic. Nor is there any mention of the rising struggles of Iranian workers fighting the neoliberal economic policies of the shia regime; of the demonstrations of Iranian women against misogynist laws and their daily battles against the forced wearing of the veil; of the radicalism of the anti-war, anti capitalist Iranian student and youth movements.
Campaign Iran fails to “inform the peace movement” that the clerics who set up the first islamic regime in our region 28 years ago are amongst its most hated rulers. Iran’s clerics have created one of the most corrupt, unequal and, of course, undemocratic regimes ever known. We are talking of a country where the phrase ‘political islam’ is considered synonymous with ‘Mercedes-driven mullahs’, where the majority of the population and in particular the youth do not trust a word uttered by their leaders. Does this sound like a regime capable of fighting an anti-imperialist war?
Campaign Iran also fails to mention one of the most pertinent facts about the current situation in the Middle East: the US-UK invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is directly responsible for Iran’s emergence as a regional power. Chalabi, Maleki, Jaafari and other pro-Iranian shias played a crucial role in the US-UK propaganda regarding Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Some go as far as blaming Iran for the entire WMD fiasco. Will Campaign Iran inform its supporters that on February 15 2003, when most of us were on demonstrations against the Iraq war, pro-Iran mosques throughout the UK, as well as the Iranian embassy in London, were advising Iraqi shias to write to Tony Blair encouraging him in his warmongering ambitions? That the Iranian government banned any demonstrations opposing the US invasion of Iraq?
Will Campaign Iran remind its supporters that on March 19 2003, when most of us watched in horror as US-UK bombs pounded the Iraqi capital, Iran’s islamic regime was distributing halva (a sweet used at feasts) in celebration? No wonder they celebrated - the imperialist invasion of Iraq gave them unprecedented influence in Iraq.
Supporters of Campaign Iran assert that, given the threat of imperialist war, any criticism of the islamic regime plays into the hands of the pro-war lobby - this is ‘not the right time’ to criticise the clerics in power in Tehran. For some it never has been ‘the right time’ to criticise the theocratic regime: in 1979, for example, it had just deposed the shah, in 1981 it was at war with Iraq and in 1986 we had the Irangate fiasco.
Over the last few years the Iranian student and youth movements have changed dramatically - from a force calling for liberal democracy to one that takes up many of the slogans of the international anti-capitalist movement. Today workers’ protests raising slogans against the neoliberal policies of the regime have become daily events, yet sections of the left in the UK do not think it is ‘the right time’ to mention such struggles. Is this what they mean by ‘anti-imperialism’ and ‘international solidarity’?
As Mike Macnair put it, “Marxists are to shut up about proletarian internationalism and … the workers’ movement in the Middle East … in order to build a broad movement … [But] the dynamic of Marxists shutting up about our elementary ideas … is not that the Marxists win hegemony over the broader movement, but that the capitalist class and its political parties and political methods do so” (Weekly Worker September 14 2006).
HOPI has also been criticised from the other side of the spectrum. Some have argued that our call for “immediate unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from the region” will leave minorities in Iraq vulnerable and would set back labour struggles.
On the first issue I am afraid the claim that western troops are there to support ‘minorities’ and stop civil wars is not seriously believed by anybody in the Middle East. Rather it shows a profound ignorance of the strong anti-colonial, anti-imperialist sentiment in the region. Although some national or religious conflicts, such as the sunni-shia divide, have their roots in events that happened many centuries ago, there is no doubt that over the last two centuries almost every sectarian/civil war in the region has been fuelled by colonial or imperialist intervention. Current borders, themselves the source of disputes and war, are direct consequences of colonial and imperialist intervention. Colonial powers fermented divide and rule across the region (for example, in the way Kurdish borders were set up after the collapse of the Ottoman empire) in order to weaken the emerging states.
The intentional or unintentional US-UK support for shia rule in Iraq has added to this situation and every day the occupying US troops remain increases the ranks of islamist fighters and jihadists. Immediate and unconditional withdrawal is essential if we want to see an end to daily carnage and mayhem in our region.
As far as workers’ struggles are concerned, anyone who has followed the daily confrontations with the Iranian regime will have no doubt that, faced with the ravages of neoliberal capitalism and a theocratic state that uses repression to control the labour movement, a factory worker (say, in the Iran Khodro car plant) who goes on strike or takes part in a demonstration in Tehran is not simply demanding trade union rights or even just fighting a religious state. That worker is well aware that his/her struggle is as much against international capitalism and the Peugeot/Renault or Saipa factory owners as it is against local management. He/she believes that, despite differences and inter-imperialist rivalries, imperialist military presence in our region will in the long term support the interests of both international capital and ruthless local capitalists, such as those of Iran Khodro. Try explaining to such a worker why he/she should support US military presence in the region in the interests of the labour movement.
Over the last decade both the Iranian economy and the labour movement have changed dramatically. Young workers have internet access and are often well informed on international issues. Today’s labour movement is not limiting itself to trade union struggles, nor is it simply fighting ‘islamic’ capitalists and their legislation. Its leaflets and declarations show it to be against capitalism, imperialism and, of course, western military intervention.
What is more, to reduce the Iranian workers’ movement to minimalist economic struggles is to underestimate and ignore the historic role of our class in leading revolutionary battles. After all, this is the working class that played a crucial role in the overthrow of the shah’s regime.
The same comrades object to our opposition to Israel’s aggression in the region. But for the Iranian left the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been a major issue, and the continued US financial/military support for Israel is correctly regarded as part and parcel of imperialist strategy in the Middle East, adversely affecting radical political struggle throughout the region. In addition, for those of us who refuse to take a hypocritical stance on nuclear weapons - turning a blind eye to the Zionist state, while condemning the aims of the islamic regime - the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not a separate issue.
And finally a response to an anti-imperialist US academic regarding HOPI, who believes that we are campaigning on “distinct issues that should be separated for an effective campaign”. While “75% of Americans oppose any kind of military threat against Iran, let alone war” and “opposition to the Iranian theocracy is even more overwhelming”, there is no basis for demanding “radical internal change within the western industrial societies” - the “groundwork for that call hasn’t been laid”.
If we accept that wars are the continuation of politics by other means, there is no doubt that, whatever the outcome of the current stage of conflict between Iran’s islamic republic and the United States, in the long term only “regime change from below” in both countries can kill the spectre of war. Our founding statement asserts this, in line with our understanding of the position socialists should take in the anti-war movement.
Of course, no-one claims that our call will mobilise the US or UK masses right now. However, for us the issue is not about setting up the usual short-lived and often meaningless ‘broad’ campaign and implicitly accepting the hegemony of bourgeois ideas in the hope this will make us more popular. It is about advancing the cause of the international working class.
We will maintain our principles, however difficult that might be. HOPI has made its stand and it is now up to others to choose. I certainly hope many in the British and European left will show similar courage and determination.
In October 2006, Action Iran, Iran Solidarity and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII UK) merged to form a single organisation, called Campaign Iran. For Iranian socialists, inside and outside the country, neither the three components nor the new merged organisation address the essential issues concerning the plight of the Iranian people at a time when the threat of some form of imperialist intervention must be taken seriously. The accusation of appeasing a reactionary regime is echoed by many left activists in Iran.
Action Iran campaigned against “any form of military intervention or sanctions” and called for “a non-interventionist, non-military dialogue with Iran”, while Iran Solidarity aimed to expose “the war-mongering motives of the United States of America”. CASMII UK called for “immediate negotiations … without any preconditions”.
Totally missing form their material - as it is from Campaign Iran’s statements - is any criticism of the islamic republic. Nor is there any mention of the rising struggles of Iranian workers fighting the neoliberal economic policies of the shia regime; of the demonstrations of Iranian women against misogynist laws and their daily battles against the forced wearing of the veil; of the radicalism of the anti-war, anti capitalist Iranian student and youth movements.
Campaign Iran fails to “inform the peace movement” that the clerics who set up the first islamic regime in our region 28 years ago are amongst its most hated rulers. Iran’s clerics have created one of the most corrupt, unequal and, of course, undemocratic regimes ever known. We are talking of a country where the phrase ‘political islam’ is considered synonymous with ‘Mercedes-driven mullahs’, where the majority of the population and in particular the youth do not trust a word uttered by their leaders. Does this sound like a regime capable of fighting an anti-imperialist war?
Campaign Iran also fails to mention one of the most pertinent facts about the current situation in the Middle East: the US-UK invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq is directly responsible for Iran’s emergence as a regional power. Chalabi, Maleki, Jaafari and other pro-Iranian shias played a crucial role in the US-UK propaganda regarding Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Some go as far as blaming Iran for the entire WMD fiasco. Will Campaign Iran inform its supporters that on February 15 2003, when most of us were on demonstrations against the Iraq war, pro-Iran mosques throughout the UK, as well as the Iranian embassy in London, were advising Iraqi shias to write to Tony Blair encouraging him in his warmongering ambitions? That the Iranian government banned any demonstrations opposing the US invasion of Iraq?
Will Campaign Iran remind its supporters that on March 19 2003, when most of us watched in horror as US-UK bombs pounded the Iraqi capital, Iran’s islamic regime was distributing halva (a sweet used at feasts) in celebration? No wonder they celebrated - the imperialist invasion of Iraq gave them unprecedented influence in Iraq.
Supporters of Campaign Iran assert that, given the threat of imperialist war, any criticism of the islamic regime plays into the hands of the pro-war lobby - this is ‘not the right time’ to criticise the clerics in power in Tehran. For some it never has been ‘the right time’ to criticise the theocratic regime: in 1979, for example, it had just deposed the shah, in 1981 it was at war with Iraq and in 1986 we had the Irangate fiasco.
Over the last few years the Iranian student and youth movements have changed dramatically - from a force calling for liberal democracy to one that takes up many of the slogans of the international anti-capitalist movement. Today workers’ protests raising slogans against the neoliberal policies of the regime have become daily events, yet sections of the left in the UK do not think it is ‘the right time’ to mention such struggles. Is this what they mean by ‘anti-imperialism’ and ‘international solidarity’?
As Mike Macnair put it, “Marxists are to shut up about proletarian internationalism and … the workers’ movement in the Middle East … in order to build a broad movement … [But] the dynamic of Marxists shutting up about our elementary ideas … is not that the Marxists win hegemony over the broader movement, but that the capitalist class and its political parties and political methods do so” (Weekly Worker September 14 2006).
HOPI has also been criticised from the other side of the spectrum. Some have argued that our call for “immediate unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from the region” will leave minorities in Iraq vulnerable and would set back labour struggles.
On the first issue I am afraid the claim that western troops are there to support ‘minorities’ and stop civil wars is not seriously believed by anybody in the Middle East. Rather it shows a profound ignorance of the strong anti-colonial, anti-imperialist sentiment in the region. Although some national or religious conflicts, such as the sunni-shia divide, have their roots in events that happened many centuries ago, there is no doubt that over the last two centuries almost every sectarian/civil war in the region has been fuelled by colonial or imperialist intervention. Current borders, themselves the source of disputes and war, are direct consequences of colonial and imperialist intervention. Colonial powers fermented divide and rule across the region (for example, in the way Kurdish borders were set up after the collapse of the Ottoman empire) in order to weaken the emerging states.
The intentional or unintentional US-UK support for shia rule in Iraq has added to this situation and every day the occupying US troops remain increases the ranks of islamist fighters and jihadists. Immediate and unconditional withdrawal is essential if we want to see an end to daily carnage and mayhem in our region.
As far as workers’ struggles are concerned, anyone who has followed the daily confrontations with the Iranian regime will have no doubt that, faced with the ravages of neoliberal capitalism and a theocratic state that uses repression to control the labour movement, a factory worker (say, in the Iran Khodro car plant) who goes on strike or takes part in a demonstration in Tehran is not simply demanding trade union rights or even just fighting a religious state. That worker is well aware that his/her struggle is as much against international capitalism and the Peugeot/Renault or Saipa factory owners as it is against local management. He/she believes that, despite differences and inter-imperialist rivalries, imperialist military presence in our region will in the long term support the interests of both international capital and ruthless local capitalists, such as those of Iran Khodro. Try explaining to such a worker why he/she should support US military presence in the region in the interests of the labour movement.
Over the last decade both the Iranian economy and the labour movement have changed dramatically. Young workers have internet access and are often well informed on international issues. Today’s labour movement is not limiting itself to trade union struggles, nor is it simply fighting ‘islamic’ capitalists and their legislation. Its leaflets and declarations show it to be against capitalism, imperialism and, of course, western military intervention.
What is more, to reduce the Iranian workers’ movement to minimalist economic struggles is to underestimate and ignore the historic role of our class in leading revolutionary battles. After all, this is the working class that played a crucial role in the overthrow of the shah’s regime.
The same comrades object to our opposition to Israel’s aggression in the region. But for the Iranian left the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been a major issue, and the continued US financial/military support for Israel is correctly regarded as part and parcel of imperialist strategy in the Middle East, adversely affecting radical political struggle throughout the region. In addition, for those of us who refuse to take a hypocritical stance on nuclear weapons - turning a blind eye to the Zionist state, while condemning the aims of the islamic regime - the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not a separate issue.
And finally a response to an anti-imperialist US academic regarding HOPI, who believes that we are campaigning on “distinct issues that should be separated for an effective campaign”. While “75% of Americans oppose any kind of military threat against Iran, let alone war” and “opposition to the Iranian theocracy is even more overwhelming”, there is no basis for demanding “radical internal change within the western industrial societies” - the “groundwork for that call hasn’t been laid”.
If we accept that wars are the continuation of politics by other means, there is no doubt that, whatever the outcome of the current stage of conflict between Iran’s islamic republic and the United States, in the long term only “regime change from below” in both countries can kill the spectre of war. Our founding statement asserts this, in line with our understanding of the position socialists should take in the anti-war movement.
Of course, no-one claims that our call will mobilise the US or UK masses right now. However, for us the issue is not about setting up the usual short-lived and often meaningless ‘broad’ campaign and implicitly accepting the hegemony of bourgeois ideas in the hope this will make us more popular. It is about advancing the cause of the international working class.
We will maintain our principles, however difficult that might be. HOPI has made its stand and it is now up to others to choose. I certainly hope many in the British and European left will show similar courage and determination.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Why the campaign 'Hands off the People of Iran' has been set up
30.01.2007 16:12
In the November-December issue of Radical philosophy, Étienne Balibar and Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond write that “both the crusade against the ‘axis of evil’ and the renewed calls for the elimination of the ‘Zionist entity’ and for jihad are still tearing the Arab world apart. It is obvious for all to see that Bush and Ahmadinejad need each other and that the rhetoric of one is modelled on the rhetoric of the other.”
They could have added that the supporters of ‘regime change in Iran’ (including forces deluding themselves that calls such change, imposed from outside, will improve the plight of workers, women and national minorities) and the apologists of the islamic regime in the anti-war movement also need each other and that “the rhetoric of one is modelled on the rhetoric of the other”.
Events of the last few weeks of 2006 showed once more the perilous nature of both positions. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have not altered the threat of military aggression and, now sanctions against Iran are a reality, the US-UK governments have not given up plans for regime change from above.
At the same time a rainbow of rightwing and reformist groups inside and outside Iran, some even claiming to support workers’ rights, are playing up to this gallery, at times unaware of the disastrous consequences of simply calling for trade union, women’s and democratic rights, while failing to mention the role of imperialism and its barbarous wars in the region. They cannot see that singling out islamic regimes such as Iran’s shia republic as the only forces of ‘evil’ plays into the hands of world capital. Such campaigns, whatever the intention of their supporters, add up to no more than direct or indirect support for imperialist scenarios of ‘velvet revolution’.
On the other hand, the apologists for political islam in the Stop the War Coalition have chosen to turn a blind eye to the most ridiculous situation in Iran’s islamic republic, where Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and a range of fascists and anti-semites made a mockery of anti-Zionism and anti-imperialism, in the fiasco of Ahmadinejad’s holocaust denial conference. They fail to see the appalling economic and social results of the widespread privatisation and casualisation being pushed through by the theocracy in Iran.
In the midst of all this madness, Iranian students and workers have been showing the way. Around 1,500 students protested in Tehran on Wednesday December 6 on the eve of Iran’s national student day. Although some news agencies tried to portray the demonstration as a pro-reform rally, the students’ slogans and placards were clearly very radical: ‘Socialism is way to emancipation’; ‘Socialism or barbarism’; ‘Students, workers, teachers - unite and fight’; ‘Freedom for political prisoners’; ‘We don’t want war, we don’t want nuclear weapons - we just want a better life’.
Then there was: ‘Annihilation of the Taliban’ (students often refer to the islamic regime in this way); ‘Sexual apartheid shows contempt for human beings’; ‘Equality, freedom - these are the people’s slogans’; ‘Students fight, reactionaries tremble’; ‘Execution must be abolished today’; ‘Free all student activists from prison’; ‘Freedom for independent student organisations’.
Police blocked off roads surrounding the campus. Thousands of students angry at the repression in the universities broke down the doors of the faculty of science and clashed with security forces. Activists say that since Ahmadinejad’s election 181 students have been summoned to university disciplinary boards and 105 of them have been suspended as part of a crackdown against the politically active. Then on December 11, The Iranian president’s speech at Amir Kabir university was interrupted by protests and firecrackers, as students set fire to photographs of Ahmadinejad. One placard read: “Fascist president, the polytechnic is not your place.” This was a clear reference to Ahmadinejad’s sponsoring of the holocaust denial conference.
Meanwhile, there were scores of workers’ actions, as 2006 drew to a close. Eight hundred workers from the Iran Sadra factory went on strike in protest at non-payment of wages, as did workers from the Ghove Pars factory in Alborz, who mounted a demonstration outside provincial offices on December 12. Workers from the Farsh Pars Ghazvin carpet factory gathered in front of the local governor’s office on December 9 to protest at the closure of their factory and the fact that they have not received any wages for over four months.
Protesting workers from Poushineh Baft in Ghazvin blocked roads in response to the uncertain future facing them following the privatisation of the plant, while a meeting of council workers in Yassouj - again over the non-payment of wages - was broken up by the military when they tried to enter the municipal offices. Dozens were involved in skirmishes with the security forces and a number were subsequently arrested.
Of course, over the last few months many rightwing, pro-imperialist forces have shed crocodile tears for Iranian workers. Tony Blair, New Labour and some rightwing trade unions claim military action in the Middle East has helped defend workers’ rights against islamists. Yet Iranian workers have shown in their daily struggles that, as far as they are concerned, the battle for democratic trade union rights are an integral part of the struggle against contemporary global capital - irrespective of whether it appears under an islamist, christian or neoliberal banner. Time and time again these workers have made their position against war and sanctions clear and it is to them that the anti-war movement should look.
Western radical forces struggling against imperialism and its wars in the region have genuine allies in this revolutionary movement of workers and youth inside Iran. It is time the left in the anti-war movement woke up to this reality and took up a principled stance not only against imperialist wars and sanctions, but also against theocratic regimes such as Iran’s islamic republic. I urge such forces to support the recently launched Hands Off the People of Iran campaign, whose founding statement embodies precisely this principled stance.
Yassamine Mather (repost)
e-mail:
nowaroniran@yahoo.co.uk
Hands Off the People of Iran campaign
30.01.2007 16:14
US imperialism and its allies are intent on regime change from above and are seriously considering options to impose this - sanctions, diplomatic pressure, limited strikes or perhaps bombing the country back to the stone age.
In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its nuclear weapons programme to divert attention away from the country’s endemic crisis, deflect popular anger onto foreign enemies and thus prolong its reactionary rule.
The pretext of external threats has been cynically used to justify increased internal repression. The regime’s security apparatus has been unleashed on its political opponents - workers, women and youth. The rising tide of daily working class anti-capitalist struggles has been met with arrests, the ratification of new anti-labour laws and sweeping privatisations. Under the new Iranian government, military-fascist organisations are gaining political and military strength, posing an ominous threat to the working class and democratic opposition.
Paradoxically, the US-UK invasion of Iraq has actually increased the regional influence of Iran’s rulers - it led to the election of the pro-Iranian shia government currently in power in Baghdad. This means that any support from the anti-war movement for the reactionaries who currently govern Iran and repress its people is in effect indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq.
We recognise that effective resistance to this war can only mean the militant defence of the struggles of the working class in Iran and of the rising social movements in that country. We want regime change - both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.
We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join with the activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism’s plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students and youth.
Our campaign demands:
* No to imperialist war! No to the theocratic regime!
* The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from the Gulf region!
* Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!
* Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
* Support for socialism, democracy and workers’ control in Iran!
* For a nuclear-free Middle East!
If you support the struggle for an Iran free of the oppressive clerical regime, but oppose the war plans of the imperialists - join us!
Communist Party of Great Britain
Workers Left Unity- Iran
Iran Bulletin - Middle East Forum
Communist Students
HOPI
No to war, no to mullahs
30.01.2007 16:21
On Saturday February 4, following a concerted effort by the US administration, supported by European countries, the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution to report Iran to the United Nations security council.
No one in the scientific community is in any doubt that this particular decision regarding Iran’s nuclear industry was politically motivated, and nuclear experts agree it will take from three to eight years for Iran to obtain nuclear weapon capacity. However, this is academic. The decision had already been made by agreement between Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and China in London earlier last week.
Of course, no-one should have any illusions about the IAEA. In the words of the head of this organisation, Mohamed El Baradei, speaking in Davos: “The present system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is at an end, is bankrupt.” Timothy Garton Ash, writing in The Guardian, comments: “The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is not adequate to the task and is often honoured only in the breach. The most telling charge against established nuclear powers such as the US and Britain is that of double standards: why is there one rule for you and another for the rest?” (February 2).
Countries which themselves possess sufficient nuclear weaponry to destroy the world several times over, and are continuing to add to their arsenal, are laying down the law to others - or to some of them. The US and its EU allies have for decades turned a blind eye to Israel. To some Iranians it looks like some people have sovereignty while others do not.
Development of nuclear power plants and enrichment of uranium may not be the fastest way, but it is quite clear that Iran’s nuclear programme has only one aim: the development of nuclear weapons. Repeated attempts to purchase nuclear detonators contradict the regime’s claims of a peaceful programme. Of course Iran’s bravado in pursuing this policy can only be understood if one considers its current strength as a regional power - itself a direct, albeit unwanted, consequence of the US-UK invasion of Iraq and the coming to power of a shia, pro-Iran government in Baghdad.
The recent pronouncements by the governments of the USA and UK regarding Iran’s nuclear programme have more to do with Iran’s close relations with all factions of the occupation government in Iraq and the long-term consequences of such influence.
That is why, before the anti-war movement falls into the trap of supporting Iran’s reactionary rulers, they should consider if such a move would lead to indirect support for the occupation government in Iraq and be in confrontation with ordinary Iranians and Iraqis who are victims of these regimes. Whether wearing a turban or a suit, the super-rich corrupt shias in power in both countries oversee dictatorship, poverty and destitution for the majority of the population. In other words, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
The anti-war movement should also remember that two wrongs do not make a right: just because the United States is opposed to Iran’s nuclear policy, or just because Israel has nuclear weapons, the left inside and outside Iran cannot take the opportunist position of defending nuclear proliferation in Iran while opposing it in the rest of the world. First of all, Iran, a country with the second largest oil and gas reserves in the world, does not need nuclear power. Secondly defending the Iranian people is not synonymous with defending the repressive, corrupt regime in power in Tehran.
Iran’s capitalist government has embarked on an unprecedented programme of privatisation, accompanied by the systematic non-payment of workers’ wages, including those in the state sector, while constantly citing financial difficulties. Many are questioning the wisdom of spending astronomic sums on the purchase of nuclear technology on the ‘black market’ by a government that claims to be short of funds and to be unable to pay the wages of its public sector employees.
Over the last few years, every day - and at times more than once a day - workers in Iranian cities and towns have protested not only against the non-payment of wages, but against unemployment, job insecurity, and low wages. For most Iranians, shia islam in power has become synonymous with corruption, greed and clerics gathering huge fortunes. In Iran they are called Mercedes-driven mullahs, who accumulate huge wealth at the expense of the masses.
Of course the left inside and outside Iran should oppose any sanctions, as well as limited or protracted war - not only because it is the imperialist countries who call for such measures, but because the main victims of any action, be it sanctions or war, will be the ordinary people in Iran, most of whom are opposed to the current regime and many of whom have been involved in social and political movements against it. The anti-war movement should also emphasise that sanctions will make the rich clerics richer and the poor poorer.
Some of the worst periods of repression and mass execution of socialists and communists in Iran took place during the Iran-Iraq war, as the islamic regime used the excuse of the conflict to unleash terror on its own civilians. The anti-war movement should oppose any military action against Iran - not in support of the current regime, but in defence of ordinary Iranians and in particular to avoid another period of mass murder of opposition forces by the shia state.
The practical solidarity of the anti-war movement should be directed primarily towards the Iranian people and in support of the daily struggles of Iranian workers for the right to survive.
In a week when news about Iran was dominated by the decisions of the IAEA, it is worth reminding everyone outside Iran that inside the country the most important event was the brutal attack by security forces on the bus strikers on January 28 and the subsequent arrest of 1,200 workers who demanded the right to set up independent unions. Families of labour activists, including children as young as two, were taken hostage to force their husbands to go to work. Many of these workers were on strike defending fellow workers who have not received wages for eight months.
If you want to show solidarity with Iran, support the majority of its population, Iran’s workers and toilers, against international capital, against warmongers - but also against the pro-capitalist islamists in power.
Yassamine Mather (repost)
Homepage:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/611/iran.htm
What a load of verbal crap
31.01.2007 13:25
red letter
WE NEED TO PROTEST NOW!
22.02.2007 14:13
The USA ARE going to invade Iran. We need to organise mass protests NOW. And any and all contacts will people in the USA in of primary importance. They are the ones who could stop this. I promise you, they are the only people who can, but we must show them, and the world, our support and objection to this latest attrocity. We cannot allow these evil facists in control of the US to continue the mass murder of innocents. They are ensuring the world remains unstable for as long as people buy and sell weapons, and there´s oil under the ground, which, along with money and power, is their only interest.
Scott
e-mail:
scott-rios@hotmail.co.uk