Hands Off the People of Iran [1] held a successful launch conference on earlier this month (December 8). Nearly 90 members and observers packed the Somerstown Community Centre in central London. Comrades from many different political organisations and persuasions ensured that the conference was lively, with a wide range of views expressed and amendments and motions voted on.

Iranian comrades played an active role in the discussions, helping provide the basic understanding of the situation to enable informed debates. It was clear that the democratic culture of Hopi ensured that everyone felt comfortable speaking and putting forward their ideas. A 17-member national steering committee was elected unopposed, with most groups and tendencies represented.

Conference was opened by Yassamine Mather from Workers Left Unity Iran (WLUI). She said that the last year has been a success in getting Hopi established, and went on to describe how and why the campaign was initiated and the links we have established with, for example, recent student protestors in Iran. Torab Saleth from WLUI led a commemoration for the 180,000 people killed by the islamist regime, and conference stood for a minute’s silence in their memory.

General discussion
The authors of the four briefing papers on the conference website opened a general discussion on the situation in Iran and internationally. Mike Macnair of the CPGB opened the session by discussing the current splits in the US ruling class, the possibility of an Israeli military attack on Iran, and the irrational logic of current US policy. From the point of view of US imperialism’s immediate interests in Iraq, a Georgian or Lebanese-style ‘colour revolution’ or a simple military coup would aim to install a regime in Tehran that would reduce the influence of Iranian client parties in Iraq. Such a change would, of course, in no way benefit the working class and oppressed of Iran. Military threats used for this purpose could easily tip into open war.

David Mather from Hopi Glasgow explained that it is the working class of Iran that suffers most from sanctions. Sanctions should not be seen as an alternative to war, but as a prelude to it. He also discussed the capitalist character of the ‘anti-imperialist’ Tehran regime: it is more compliant with the IMF and neoliberalism than many other ‘third world’ regimes. He referred to the current imprisonment of the leadership of the bus workers syndicate, and criticised the common view that political islam is in some sense ‘part of the anti-globalisation movement’.

Mark Fischer (CPGB) discussed fighting on two fronts and solidarity campaigns. Comrade Fischer argued that independent working class politics was essential, as the working class are the only meaningful anti-imperialists; it “should be in our DNA as socialists” not to subordinate working class politics to other forces. Comrade Fischer finished his address by saying that the anti-war movement can “walk and chew gum”: ie, we can fight on two fronts - against imperialist war, against the theocratic regime.

Israeli socialist Moshé Machover discussed the nuclear issue and the threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as well as the splits within the US ruling class. He argued that, though Iran has become an obstacle to US imperialism’s immediate plans in the Middle East, “our enemy’s enemy is not our friend.” This applied to both sides: Iranian oppositionists who saw the US as a friend were as deluded as western leftists who presented the Iranian regime in the same way. He argued that it was a betrayal of the working class in Iran for socialists to take the side of either the imperialists or the regime.

The general discussion which followed addressed two issues: the international situation and Hopi’s relationship with the wider anti-war movement. On the first issue, Stuart King from Permanent Revolution (PR) said that the evident divisions and dissent within the US ruling class show that Bush is in a weak position to launch a military attack on Iran. Hence Hopi should focus on campaigning against sanctions and the ongoing US policy of destabilising Iran, and on building even stronger links and contacts within Iran.

Mike Martin from Hopi Sheffield said that the threats to Iraq are part of the general war drive - “still very much about oil” - and that the ultimate target is China. Tami Peterson from the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) urged Hopi to highlight the struggles and repression of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Iran. She also criticised comrade Macnair’s briefing paper and the argument that the US is “exporting destruction” to keep its own economy afloat: the framework of Ellen Meiksins Wood’s Empire of capital - that imperialism is now primarily a matter of domination through purely economic means - was more useful.

On our relationship with the wider anti-war movement, Kath McMahon from Hopi Edinburgh explained how she had ensured that her local Stop the War Coalition group was working with Hopi. She made the point that we should not underestimate the intelligence of the STWC membership when opposing the war and being in solidarity with the Iranian progressive movements. Anne Mc Shane from Hopi Ireland told conference about the situation there: Hopi now seems to be accepted as a legitimate component of the anti-war movement by Socialist Workers Party comrades in Ireland. Comrade Mc Shane also highlighted the smear campaigns against Hopi, especially on Indymedia, and she expects the tensions between the apologists and Hopi to increase.

Andrew Coates (Ipswich) talked about his disappointment with the STWC and said that Stop the War “could not rise to the occasion” in generating the necessary political challenge and in backing the Iranian working class. Steven Monaghan from Hopi North West spoke on the situation in Manchester and the hostility and lies that have been encountered by Hopi supporters. He also urged comrades to stay in the STWC and fight for our politics within it. John Bridge (CPGB) agreed with comrades McMahon and Monaghan that we should not write off STWC, but underlined that we should expect increasing hostility from the SWP and the Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain.

Founding statement
We then moved on to discuss amendments to the founding statement. The procedure adopted was to take one speaker for and one against each proposed amendment and, once all amendments had been moved and opposed, to have an open discussion. The text of the existing founding statement, and how it would look as amended were projected by way of a laptop to facilitate discussion. This also allowed the meeting to consider amendments from the floor, the proposed text being typed in immediately and presented. The resulting discussion was on occasion somewhat chaotic; but was always open, democratic and creative. In this report I have simplified the discussion by attributing comrades’ comments to the proposal they were addressing.

A number of the amendments either had a drafting character or were uncontroversial. Thus Permanent Revolution proposed an amendment to add explicit reference to Iraq to the original formula “the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from the Gulf region”, so that the amended text reads: “the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region”. This was passed unopposed. Hopi North West proposed to add a new bullet point making clear our opposition to sanctions against Iran. Even though Hopi has always been against sanctions, we needed to clearly say this in our founding statement. This amendment was also unopposed.

Yvonne, a supporter from Brighton, proposed to add support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people’s rights and struggles in the founding statement. She argued that LGBT issues had been swept under the carpet in STWC and we should not do the same here. This amendment was passed unanimously.

More controversial were proposed amendments which seemed to comrades (both their supporters and their opponents) to touch on Hopi’s fundamental mission: that of combining rigorous opposition to US imperialist threats to attack Iran with opposition to the Tehran regime and solidarity with the Iranian workers’ movement and its allies.

A PR amendment moved by comrade King sought to delete two paragraphs which referred to the US as having strengthened the regional position of the Iranian regime and to the role of Tehran’s Iraqi clients in the US-sponsored ‘government’ in Iraq. In their place PR proposed to put a paragraph summarising the tasks of Hopi. Yassamine Mather spoke against, pointing out that the Iranian regime had supported the occupation of Iraq. It is also true that the US-UK invasions have strengthened Iran’s regional influence by getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Comrade Mather explained that Iran was playing an “active participatory role in imperialist policies”.

Nick Rogers (CPGB) supported PR’s proposal. He pointed out as an aside that, like Tami Peterson, he did not agree with comrade Macnair’s analysis of imperialism. But this was not being put to the vote. The two paragraphs PR proposed to delete were analysis, not political line. We should not tie ourselves down to one particular analytical position. Sachin Sharma (CPGB) argued against comrade Rogers’ contribution, saying that we must break through the existing left on a sound political basis. The conference decided to add in the new paragraph but keep the existing paragraphs above it.

Nuclear arms
PR’s second amendment was to delete the demand for a “nuclear-free Middle East as a step towards a nuclear free world”. Comrade King argued that the campaign as such does not really need to take a position on the issue; PR, for its part, defends the right of what he called semi-colonies, like Iran, to develop nuclear weapons. This is a matter debated among socialists, not something on which a campaign should take a position. Comrade Machover spoke against but agreed that more clarity was needed in the clause. He said it was important to take into account the hypocrisy of Israel as a major nuclear power that complains of Iranian proliferation, and we needed to solidarise with anti-nuclear campaigners in Israel and to ensure that we raise in the wider movement the point that there is a real and grave threat of a nuclear attack on Iran.

In the general discussion, Gerry Downing from the Campaign for a Marxist Party said that the demand for a nuclear-free Middle East was unworkable, as Israel already has nuclear technology and that any demand against nuclear weapons should be aimed at Israel’s nuclear weapons programme. Comrade Downing argued that the reason why Iraq was attacked was because it has no weapons of mass destruction and presented an easy target. Charlie Pottins (Jewish Socialists Group) reminded conference of the ‘workers’ bomb’ idea held by orthodox Trotskyists in the 1960s about Soviet nuclear weapons. He said that with hindsight the cost of the nuclear arms race helped in the collapse of the Soviet Union, so the bomb should not be seen as an effective defence against imperialism. It would be wrong to support the Iranian regime getting its hands on nuclear weapons and as socialists we must be against the proliferation and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

Mike Macnair agreed with comrade Pottins, but argued that the nuclear-free demand should refer explicitly to Israel, and US and UK nuclear-armed forces in the region. Steve Freeman from the Revolutionary Democratic Group said that we should concentrate on being against nuclear weapons in Israel. But comrade Bridge asked whether socialists should be advising the Iranian regime to nuke Israel if they entered into a conflict, while comrade Mc Shane argued that the workers’ movement should not support arming our class enemies.

The PR amendment was defeated in the vote, but an amendment from the floor drafted by comrades Machover and Freeman, adding specific reference to US, UK and Israeli nuclear weapons, was adopted.

Hopi North West proposed that we should add to the slogan against Israeli expansionism the words “and support the heroic Palestinian struggle for self-determination and the right to return”. Steven Monaghan, moving, argued that Israel is the “spearhead” of imperialism in the Middle East and that it is essential for us in Hopi to take a clear position of opposition against the systematic terror and ethnic cleansing. Moshé Machover spoke against, saying that, as worded, it implied support for the current Palestinian leaderships (Fatah and Hamas) and support for a two-state solution.

Comrade MacMahon argued that the Palestine issue was beside the point, that we should keep the campaign aims succinct and that it really does not need to be there. Comrade Monaghan responded by saying that it is Zionism which is fuelling a lot of the trouble in the Middle East and that Israel is a launch pad of imperialism. Conference remitted the amendment to the steering committee to be reworded.

Main enemy
Hopi North West also proposed to add: “The main enemy is imperialism. The Iranian regime is not an anti-imperialist force.” The second sentence was revised in the course of the discussion to: “The Iranian regime does not represent a progressive or consistent anti-imperialist force.” Sachin Sharma (CPGB), moving the amendment, argued that the main enemy is imperialism, and that time and time again we have been accused of giving equal weight to the slogans, ‘No to imperialist war’ and ‘No to theocracy’. Comrade Sharma also argued that Iran is not an anti-imperialist force.

Azar Majedi from the Organisation for Women’s Liberation Iran spoke against the first sentence of the amendment. She argued that the main enemy is not imperialism but that the working class of Iran is faced with two poles of terrorism: the theocratic regime and imperialism. Comrade Machover also spoke against the amendment, arguing that it was too simple a formulation and that there is such a thing as reactionary anti-imperialism that we should take into account. Comrade King was another who spoke against, arguing that the amendment was simplistic. Under some circumstances US imperialism would be the main enemy, but under others the regime would be. Comrade Bridge said that we should discuss the differences and issues more, but that he did not support what comrade King was saying.

Azar Sheibani from Women’s Campaign Against All Misogynist Laws in Iran said that the proposed war on Iran was a war against humanity and it would harm the movements in that country. She said that the regime was using the threat of war to attack the social movements. Comrade Sheibani argued that it would be ordinary people who would organise and fight imperialism: the Iranian regime was not anti-imperialist. Comrade Macnair argued that if the main enemy is imperialism then the only alternative is socialism; he went to say that it is an illusion that Iranian capital is anti-imperialist.

Comrade Fischer said that it is correct to insist that the main enemy is imperialism: if Iran was attacked, the lesser evil would be the victory of the Iranian regime - not that we should positively advocate such an outcome. Tony Greenstein (Jews Against Zionism) argued that the main enemy is the one immediately confronting you; therefore the main enemy of the Iranian working class is the theocracy. Houzan Mahmoud from the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq said that STWC misleads the anti-war movement, as it supports islamist forces, and that it is wrong to think that the left and the islamists can fight together against imperialism. Does the STWC leadership think “bin Laden and Al Sadr should replace Marx, Lenin and Engels”?

The adapted version of the amendment was passed.

Whar regime, what alternative?
Comrade Sheibani proposed an amendment to change references to the regime from “the theocratic regime” to “the Islamic republic regime”. Comrade Sheibani said that this would give greater clarity on its capitalist nature. Mehdi Kia from the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (Rahe Kargar) agreed with her, noting that the Iranian regime was not theocratic, but that it was a capitalist regime using theocracy. A number of comrades spoke against the amendment, stating that the word ‘theocracy’ made clear that we are first and foremost against the political nature of the regime - rather than the fact that it happens to claim to be islamic as opposed to claiming to be christian. The proposal was defeated.

Comrade Kia proposed an amendment which sought to change one of our campaign demands, so that it would not specifically state that Hopi “supports socialism, democracy and workers’ control in Iran”. He proposed that instead Hopi should “support all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran”. Comrade Kia warned that the existing text potentially narrows our appeal, as it implies “you would have to be a socialist to support Hopi”. He argued that we need a broader movement to challenge imperialism.

Comrade Yassamine Mather spoke against the amendment, arguing that we should not water down our politics and that our support for socialism will make the campaign go in a specific direction. Comrade Mather urged that accepting the amendment would change the content of what the campaign is. Ben Lewis (CPGB) also spoke against the amendment, arguing that socialism is part of the basis of the campaign and it is why the campaign has the support it does. He argued that socialism is not abstract on the struggle for democracy and that the Iranian workers’ and students’ movements were “socialist in nature”. Comrade Lewis urged conference to have faith in our politics. Conference voted for a combination of the original text and comrade Kia’s amendment, which still maintains a clear “support for socialism”.

The founding statement, as amended, was overwhelmingly agreed.

Motions
Conference then moved on to motions. The first was from the CPGB, moved by Nick Jones of Communist Students (CS). It repeated our opposition to the STWC’s decision to deny Hopi the right to affiliate and urged members not to abandon STWC, but to fight within it against the exclusion of Hopi and against the apologist politics of the leadership. Mike Martin, technically opposing the motion, said that Hopi is something different to STWC: a campaign with a clear positive line, not a pure protest group. The motion was passed.

The second motion was also from the CPGB (moved by comrade Fischer) on the priorities for Hopi over the coming year. He said that our trade union work must be dramatically stepped up and that, with the immediate threat of war seeming to subside, we must concentrate on building stronger links. Laurie McCauley (CS) put forward an amendment that Hopi should build links with other international campaigns which are similar to Hopi. This amendment was accepted.

A second amendment came from comrade Majedi, that we should support all the people who are against the regime, not just the working class. John Bridge argued against comrade Majedi, saying that the motion was saying that we should in particular focus on the working class in Britain in our forthcoming work. Comrade Machover also opposed the amendment, saying that not every opposition to the regime in Iran is worthy of support. The second amendment was rejected and the motion, together with the first amendment, was passed.

The third motion was from CS and argued for continuing to develop solidarity with the Iranian student movement. Ben Lewis, explained that this movement was both anti-imperialist and against the regime. CS has good contacts with students in Iran, and Hopi needs to expand on campuses and begin to coordinate actions here and with the Iranian students.

Vicky Thompson from Hopi North West proposed an amendment to this motion to delete specific reference to Communist Students. The reference in the text as drafted would “elevate one section of the campaign above all others”. Her amendment was readily accepted. Comrade Sheibani said that the students movement has become an important force and that, with the recent arrest of student activists, Hopi should send a message of solidarity and demand their immediate release. This was accepted by conference. The amended motion was passed.

Torab Saleth urged conference to support the Workers Fund, which was established to provide help for those in struggle in Iran. George Binette (PR) argued that we must overcome the SWP’s apologist approach by using trade union resolutions and emphasising the fight in the working class movement.

Mehdi Kia put forward an amendment to specify that our “active rank and file solidarity with Iranian workers” includes “their struggle for independent workers’ organisations”. He argued that it was not just trade unions that are used to fighting and organising against the Iranian regime. The amendment was accepted and so was the motion as a whole.

The final motion was put moved by Comrade Sheibani. This focused on supporting women’s struggles in Iran, exposing the regime’s suppression of the women’s movement and calling for the immediate release of women who have been arrested for dissent. As the motion was only drafted on the day, the conference remitted it to the steering committee for rewording.

CONSTITUTION

1. Aims

1:1 Hands Off the People of Iran (Hopi) is an anti-war campaign in solidarity with the Iranian people. It fights against the threat of military attacks, economic sanctions or any other imperialist intervention in Iran. Hopi is in active, practical solidarity with the grassroots progressive and democratic forces in Iran that are struggling against the islamic regime - the militant women’s, LGBT, workers’ and students’ movements.

2. Affiliates and members

2:1 Hopi invites all organisations who accept our aims to join us in this fight and affiliate to the campaign:

l local organisation £25

l small national/regional organisation £50

l large national/regional organisation £100

2:2 Hopi also encourages individuals to become members of the campaign:

l £10 waged

l £5 unwaged

2:3 Hopi aspires to build a national network of autonomous, self-activated branches that can respond quickly to international political developments.

3. Conferences and meetings

3:1 The steering committee must call an annual Hopi conference with a minimum of one month’s notice; emergency conferences require one week’s notice. Alternatively a conference can be called at the request of a minimum of 25% of the membership.

3:2 All properly convened Hopi conferences can decide by a simple majority to:

* amend the constitution;

* amend the ‘founding statement’;

* adopt new policies or motions;

* support other campaigns;

* elect or recall the steering committee as a whole;

* elect individual members onto the steering committee or recall individuals from it.

3:3 All individual Hopi members and affiliated organisations have one vote at all Hopi conferences and membership meetings.

4. Steering committee

4:1 The Hopi founding conference shall directly elect a recallable steering committee.

4:2 All affiliated organisations have the right to send a representative with full speaking rights to steering committee meetings.

4:3 The steering committee has the right to coopt individuals and representatives of affiliates as full voting members. These voting additions to the steering committee must be subsequently ratified by the Hopi conference.

4:4 This committee (made of up the directly elected persons, voting and non-voting affiliates) shall decide amongst itself how to divide up the work of the campaign, though as a minimum the following posts should be considered: secretary, chair, press officer, treasurer.

4:5 Meetings of the steering committee shall be advertised in advance, are open to observers (who are members of Hopi) and its minutes shall be circulated to all affiliates and supporters, as well as published on the website. The committee should aim to meet every six weeks as a minimum.

4:6 Subject to security considerations, Hopi will publish its annual accounts and make these publicly available via its website.

4:7 Amongst the responsibilities of the SC are: steering Hopi, taking political decisions on behalf of Hopi in consultation with the members whenever possible, devising a timed work plan for Hopi’s campaigns and activities, broadening the support base of Hopi, organising gatherings, rallies, demonstrations, seminars and conferences, preparing leaflets and other publicity material for the campaign, planning and organising AGMs, organisation and collection of affiliation fees and financial supports

Debating The Rules
Tina Becker (CPGB) moved the draft constitution. She argued that the constitution must be flexible, democratic and transparent, and the minutes of the steering committee openly available. Tami Peterson put forward two amendments. The first was to include LGBT struggles among the aims (as in the founding statement) and this was accepted.

The second was that the campaign should to aim to have 50% women on the steering committee. Comrade Majedi argued that there should be no positive discrimination for the steering committee, while Sachin Sharma said that conference should elect the best people for the job instead of basing their choice on gender. Comrade Thompson said she hoped she would be elected to the steering committee on her own merit, not by virtue of being a woman. Comrade King, however, argued that such an aim was something socialists had now been urging on trade unions, and so on, for some years. The proposal was defeated.

Nick Rogers proposed that we add: “Hopi aspires to build a national network of autonomous, self-activated branches that can respond quickly to international political developments.” He pointed out that some branches have already been established; they should have a place in the constitution. This amendment was passed. Also passed was a proposal from comrade Machover to clarify the provision for observers attending steering committee meetings by limiting this right to Hopi members.

David Mather put forward an amendment to change the first sentence of the draft constitution, where Hopi is described as a “solidarity campaign within the international anti-war movement”. This should read: “an anti-war campaign in solidarity with the Iranian people”, he emphasised. Yassamine Mather said the original phrasing was an error on the part of the drafters of the constitution, but a serious mistake nevertheless. It had been agreed from the outset that Hopi should be an anti-war campaign committed to solidarity, not a “solidarity campaign”, of which several already existed. Comrade Kia agreed with her on this. The amendment was passed. The conference then voted to accept the constitution as amended.

With the constitution passed, the next task was to elect a steering committee, for which 17 names had been put forward. Though some comrades felt that this number was too large, the majority of the conference agreed that at this stage we should try to involve all the different trends in the campaign, and the conference voted by a large majority to accept the 17 people proposed as the steering committee (see p8)

Modest in Size, Bold in Aims
Hopi is modest in size, but not in its aims. It is certain to grow because its fundamental principles are both principled and ‘common sense’. We can, as comrade Fischer said, “walk and chew gum”. Or, as comrade Machover said, our enemy’s enemy is not necessarily our friend. We can oppose any imperialist attack on Iran, the ‘sanctions’ regime, and the special forces and NGO-operations aimed to promote a ‘colour revolution’ or military coup, without acting as apologists for the neoliberal, kleptocratic ‘islamic’ regime. We can oppose the Tehran regime without acting as apologists for the ‘democratic’ war criminals of US imperialism or its British or Zionist attack-dogs.

Hopi will also grow because we are committed to a democratic campaign. The conference demonstrated how such a campaign can work. We took decisions on the basis of open debate, not bureaucratic manoeuvres and exclusions. It was a truly democratic conference, which ensured that all viewpoints were heard.

Our principled anti-imperialist politics are gaining strength.

Founding Statement
We recognise that there is an urgent need to establish a principled solidarity campaign with the people of Iran. The contradictions between the interests of the neo-conservatives in power in the USA and the defenders of the rule of capital in the islamic republic have entered a dangerous new phase.

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.

The main enemy is imperialism. The Iranian regime does not represent a progressive or consistent anti-imperialist force. In Iran, the theocracy is using the international outcry against its alleged 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, youth and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people. 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.

The tasks of the anti-war movement in Britain and of Hopi are threefold. Firstly, to fight against any imperialist attack on Iran and support the Iranian peoples’ right to defend themselves by any means necessary. Secondly, not to flinch from publicising the reactionary nature of the Tehran regime and its attacks on the workers and democratic movement. Thirdly, to build links with all progressive forces fighting the regime - workers, women, trade unionists, socialists.

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 activists of the Iranian left in both opposing imperialism’s plans and organising practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students, youth and LGBT people.

Our campaign demands are:

* No to imperialist war. For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region.

* No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran.

* No to the theocratic regime.

* Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression.

* Support for all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression.

* Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements there.

* Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards worldwide nuclear disarmament.