Target both US aggressors and the Iranian regime
March 22, 2006
The wolves are howling once again. An escalating crisis, ostensibly over Iran's nuclear programme, is reaching explosive potentials. For the left, and for all those who oppose the looming war, the issue superficially appears straight forward. An aggressive US and its lesser allies is bent on an imperial project of restructuring the Middle East. The aim is to totally subjugate this strategic region, with its rich oil and gas deposits, to US will. Any government not directly a US vassal, so called "rogue states", has to be swept away.
Afghanistan and Iraq were acts one and two of this new colonial model. At its most ambitious lies the project for a "Greater Middle East", where larger and potentially more powerful political units such as Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia will be split up, Balkanised into smaller, more manageable entities. And the pretext for this grand design is "terrorism", weapons of mass destruction, and now nuclear weapons. Act three is Iran. Clearly any sane person must oppose such a project.
In the case of Iran, if nuclear weapons were not an issue -- and they clearly are -- they (or something else) would have to be invented. The Islamic regime has indeed been on the trajectory to acquiring nuclear weapons, although they are probably 5-10 years away from making one. Despite the rhetoric coming out of some western media, these weapons are not a threat to the US. Nor does the Islamic regime have plans to nuke Israel. For this crisis-ridden regime, nuclear weapons are ropes to stop them drowning.
And that reactionary regime will be drowned by its own people, if they are not thwarted in their efforts by the aggressive policies and machinations of the US and its allies. And, just as importantly, if the people are not frustrated by the mistaken policies of well meaning, if misguided, friends. I will explain what I mean later, but first I need to digress and recap on some recent history. Understanding the roots of the Islamist movement is critical to both analysing the current events accurately and for developing a meaningful policy and response.
Roots of Islamism
The present Islamist movement is a response to the global capitalist restructuring of the Middle East. Faced with a failed and discredited nationalist movement, and in the absence of a credible left, the people of the region were offered no alternative but to flock to the banner of the newly emerging Islamist movement. In this sense the Islamist movements -- which go under a variety of names such as "political Islam", Islamic fundamentalism etc -- are a new creation, a response to capitalist uprooting and pauperisation of huge sections of the population of these countries.
But the Islamist's programme was, and is, utterly reactionary, repressive and deeply anti-democratic [see Political Islam and its relations to capital and class. Ardeshir Mehrdad and Yassamine Mather. Critique]. And for that reason it is a feeble bulwark against the global capitalist project.
In Iran the Islamist victory, and the first Islamist government in the Middle East, was achieved in a brutal contest with an equally vibrant anti-imperialist democratic movement of the Iranian people. Over the ensuing quarter of a century the people of Iran have shown again and again that they do not want this regime which has tried to completely stifle its every democratic right.
And the resistance continues to this day in the numerous vibrant movements inside the country active today: the many women's movements for rights and equality, the nation-wide labour movement for independent association and other demands, the struggle of the national minorities for their basic rights, and many others.
Iran is alive with activity -- all of which reject the Islamist straitjacket imposed on them. Remember two third of the voting population rejected the current president: Ahmadinejad -- and the competition was the universally hated Rafsanjani. Given the choice, most Iranians chose to stay home [see New-conservatives, regime crisis and political perspectives in Iran. Mehdi Kia and Ardeshir Mehrdad].
It is against this backdrop that the dark clouds of war are collecting on the horizon of the country: an imperialist aggression targeting an ultra-reactionary government rejected by the majority of its people. And the new Iranian president has explicitly enunciated his threat to use force to put down dissent, and is relying on the US war drums to put down such dissent.
We saw it when the regime violently crushed the Teheran bus drivers strike, beating and arresting most of its leaders, alongside 1,200 workers, and even wives and small children in January. The bus drivers were labelled the "enemy within" -- jog any memories? They showed it by beating up women who had demonstrated on International Women's day. They did so it again by publicly hanging two young Iranian Arabs from Ahwaz after a kangaroo court this month, accused of being foreign agents.
At the international level too this regime is stoking tension with quixotic statements, denying the holocaust, claiming to want to push Israel into the sea and such like. With this backdrop, to focus on the warmongering policies of the US without also directing some arrows at the Islamist regime will emasculate the anti war movement. Why?
Because regime's like the Islamic Republic of Iran are themselves part of the problem. By repressing their own people they make it easier for imperialist aggressive policies to be realised. At the very best an anti-democratic regime, like the one ruling Iran, leaves its people passive and indifferent to foreign attack.
At worse, they welcome the US in the mistaken belief that it will relieve them of their current misery -- the "it-can't-get-any- worse" mentality. We saw elements of both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can anyone deny that if Saddam had been forced to retreat one tenth's of the retreats he had made to US pressure to the demands of his own people they would have been so indifferent to foreign invasion of their country?
By raising regional tension, as well as by their repressive policies at home, regimes such as those ruling Iran make it easier for the imperialist powers to justify their aggression to public opinion at home. Thus the current crisis with Iran is two-sided: a Pax Americana with clear colonial designs on the country, and an ultra-reactionary government that makes their task easier. For the antiwar movement the responsibilities are therefore not as simple as we made out above.
Clearly the antiwar movement must reject any and every interference or intervention on Iran in any shape or form. The movement needs to mobilise the widest and broadest spectrum of people from across the world in order to put a credible pressure on their governments.
They can only achieve that end, however, if they also make it clear that they oppose the Iranian regime's repression of its people. Specifically the antiwar movement must support the legitimate rights of the people of Iran, the worker, the women, the national and religious minorities, the teachers, the nurses etc in their day to day struggle for their basic rights. These two arms of the struggle are inseparable.
In order to stop the warmongers in their tracks the antiwar movement cannot ignore the Islamic regime that is suffocating its people. The warmongers greatest asset in the region is a people alienated from their government and without hope of changing it from within.
If you want to make war less likely you not only have to stop the warmongers nearer home but you also need to strengthen those within Iran who are the natural dam against foreign aggression. A strong independent civil society is the best guarantee against US designs. The US is well aware of this.
The US, and its allies in the Iranian "opposition movement" such as the monarchists and the Peoples Mujahedin of Iran were the first to support the Tehran bus drivers strike. Radio Israel was the first to broadcast the attack on women on March 8. Do either the US or the Zionist state care one iota about the fate of the labour or women's movement in Iran?
If the progressive and left movement fails to vigorously support the people of Iran in their democratic struggle they will be abandoning the people of Iran to the octopus of the Islamic state or to imperialist vultures. Either way it paves the way for the success of the US project to control the Middle East. The choice for the antiwar movement is clear: target both simultaneously or sink into impotence.