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.” , 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.
About
Yassamine Mather is a member of the eitorial board of Critique, Journal of Socialist Theory, published by Centre for the Study of Socialist Theory and Movements, Glasgow University.
