29.03.2006

Fighting on two fronts

Mehdi Kia of Iran Bulletin - Middle East Forum addressed the March 26 London Communist Forum on the question, 'Will Iran be next? Should we align ourselves with the ayatollahs?' This is an edited version of his speech

When considering the threat of an impending war or other form of aggression against Iran, as well as the question of how the left should approach islamism, it is important that we get the methodology right. For a start, we need to separate the islamic regime in Iran from the Iranian people themselves. Sometimes they are referred to as if they were one and the same.

Any discussion on Iran must start by looking at the Middle East in more general terms. In central Asia and the Middle East, the US has been able to establish a range of client or semi-client regimes - except for Syria, Iran, Iraq and a couple of smaller countries. Palestine and Iran are now two key issues for US foreign policy. All along, the plan has been to control this key area of the world - not just because of the gas and oil deposits, but mainly for geopolitical and strategic reasons. It is a key area that the US needs to dominate in order to dominate the whole world.

There are different scenarios on how to achieve domination, but what they have in common is their imperial and colonial nature. A couple of years ago, this was openly expressed in the project to create a 'greater Middle East', whereby no single power in the region would be strong enough to resist imperial interests. To achieve this, Iran, Syria, Iraq and even Saudi Arabia need to be weakened and eventually split up.

Islamism: a reaction to advanced capitalism

This quest for control of the Middle East is, of course, nothing new and long antedates Bush. About 25-30 years ago, a qualitative change took place when neoliberal measures and policies were introduced across the region. It was these changes that really triggered the islamist movements. We can only understand these movements as a response - albeit a reactionary response - to what was essentially a structural change in the entire Middle East. And that structural change was the imposition of neoliberal policies, which forced large section of the population into poverty and destitution.

The fact that people turned to islamism should be viewed in the light of the failure of two counter-forces, which could themselves have filled this political vacuum. The first is the nationalist movement, which ran into a crisis following Nasser's attack on Israel and the consequent defeat in 1967. But the idea of pan-Arabism and a single Arab nation was starting to wane long before then.

Alongside this was the failure of the left and the workers' movement. There was a clear class vacuum in the Middle East, where neither of the main classes in society was powerful enough to impose itself. But there was also an ideological vacuum, which neither the left nor the native bourgeoisie were capable of filling. Indeed much of the left aligned itself - over and over again - with a range of regimes that later resorted to oppression, including against those same left forces. There was a whole series of disastrous decisions. The fate of the Communist Party of Egypt is a good example of the consequences of this inability of the left to stand up for independent working class politics.

Indeed the left in many Middle Eastern countries actually supported the introduction of neoliberal measures, and it was the islamist movements that took on the question of poverty and the negative effects of neoliberalism by providing welfare provisions to the people, which is, of course, exactly what happened in Palestine and which has led to the election of Hamas. Once in power, however, the islamists too have inflicted neoliberal policies - as witnessed in Iran and now in Turkey.

In this vacuum the islamist movement was able to cohere, develop and take shape. In that sense, islamism is not a religious movement - it is a new, and deeply political, movement, although, of course, it expresses itself in archaic religious terminology and enforces a highly reactionary set of policies and extremely anti-democratic measures.

In the absence of any real opposition from below, this new 'anti-imperialist' force developed into a highly reactionary movement (see A Mehrdad and Y Mather, 'Political islam and its relations to capital and class' Critique www.critiquejournal.net/islam.html).

Nuclear threat?

If we look at the Middle East today, it is quite a bleak situation for the left. There is not a single government we could have any hopes in. Iraq is engulfed in a civil war and occupied by imperialist powers. Afghanistan is an occupied mess, where the status of women and the people in general is no different from before, and where ruling war lords supply heroin to the rest of the world. In Israel we will certainly get a Sharon mark II and will see the attempt to establish a greater Israel. Undoubtedly, they will keep large chunks of the West Bank, incorporating it into Israel proper. And, of course, in Palestine we have seen the victory of Hamas, which is rather reminiscent of what happened in Iran in 1979.

In Iran, we recently witnessed the election victory of the most rightwing, the most fundamentalist, the most fascistic segment of the islamist movement. However, I believe that a physical attack on Iran is not imminent. The US would need to prepare public opinion for that, which would take time. But the US will not tolerate islamist regimes, and taking on Iran is definitely part of US long-term strategy.

Indeed with the election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the relationship between Iran and the US has reached almost crisis point. But the nuclear issue is just an excuse for the US to increase the pressure. If this was not an issue, another one would have to be invented.

Of course, the Iranian regime is trying to develop nuclear weapons - even the shah had this strategy. It might take another five or six years, but the development is going on. The point is, though, that Iran does not intend to attack either America or even Israel with this weaponry. Essentially, the islamic regime needs nuclear weapons to prolong its own existence. With them it hopes to be able to survive longer in the face of outside aggression - but also internal opposition. Their possession would strengthen the regime. This is the ultimate tragedy of nuclear weapons for the people of Iran.

Some might argue that Iran has the right to produce its own nuclear weaponry and that we must defend its self-determination. But from the point of view of the labour and democratic movements in Iran, it would be an absolute disaster. Nuclear weapons would prolong the life of this dreadful regime and increase the oppression of our movement.

But then the current 'debate' is not really about nuclear weapons or even Iran - it is about Iraq. By putting pressure on the Iranian regime, the US hopes to force it to exercise pressure on the shi'ites in Iraq to comply with American wishes. However, the Iraqi shi'ites are not mere puppets of the Iranian regime - though clearly, the Iranian regime would like the US to be bogged down in Iraq for as long as possible to distract attention from itself.

Can islamism be reformed?

One has to ask oneself why anti-Americanism can be observed less in the people of Iran than in any other country in the Middle East. Twenty-five years' experience under an islamic regime is clearly enough to make even the great Satan palatable. Iran today is, of course, not the same as it was 25 years ago and to a degree it has moved forward - for example, on the question of abortion rights.

The question is: has this happened because of or despite the islamic regime? On the one hand, the reality of the world in the late 20th and early 21st centuries imposes its own logic even on the most archaic regime - one trying to revive laws written 13 centuries ago. On the other, numerous movements from below have caused the regime to retreat on many issues - the women's movement, the nationalities movement, the labour movement, etc. Despite the many massacres and continuous suppression, the regime has never succeeded in destroying these movements from below, which are more alive now than ever.

But does that mean that the islamic regime can be reformed into a democratic one, answerable to its people? My answer is a clear no. The failure of the reformist movement to do just that is the proof of the pudding - despite the backing of 70% of the population and despite all the various efforts the reformist regime made. It did not work because it could not work, simply because it wanted to reform the regime from within.

More than two thirds of the population did not vote at the last election. Those were exactly the people who had voted for the reformists five years ago. They have seen with their own eyes that the islamic regime could not be reformed from within. The islamist system ruling Iran is fundamentally based on having a strong leader - if you take the leader away, you have nothing. It is structured top down.

Ahmadinejad's comments on the holocaust and his threat to drive the Jews into the sea might look like the words of a stupid man. In reality he is anything but stupid. Ahmadinejad is trying to recreate and rekindle the social base of the islamists. He promises them the earth - and he believes he has the earth to give to them. With the dramatic increase in oil prices, he had over $60 billion to hand out after the elections.

Tasks of the left

Of course, the left outside Iran must forcefully oppose military action, indeed any action, against Iran. Through the anti-war movement we have the duty to target our own bourgeoisie. However, it should also be obvious that we will not be able to create a mass movement against any military aggression if we do not simultaneously fight for the democratic rights of the Iranian people - and openly criticise the islamic regime.

Without being clear on this important question, there is very little chance that anybody apart from the hard left will take to the streets to fight against a war. People can see what this regime does to its own people, so why should they support it? One of the reasons the left internationally is still so small is the fact that the main organisations have not grasped the idea of fighting for democracy. Unless the left understands this concept, it will remain totally impotent.

There is also another dimension to this. The islamic regime prevents any independent organisation of civil society - be it women, workers or nationalities. It atomises and weakens society. That society is thereby inherently unable to resist imperial aggression. Why would a people rally round a government that is repressing them? In order to be able to do so, people need to able to empower themselves. They need to develop their own democratic structures and organisations. This has been happening recently, with the first attempts to build an independent trade union movement, which was the central demand of the brutally suppressed bus drivers' strike.

This is an immensely important point and must be grasped by the anti-war movement in this country. It is simply impossible to oppose US aggression against Iran without also addressing the need for the Iranian people to enjoy democratic rights and freedoms. These two questions cannot be separated. They might appear to be two different issues, but they are not: they are interacting with each other. Imperialist aggression helps keep in place the repressive policies of these regimes; and the repressive policies of these regimes alienate and weaken the people, thereby helping imperial policies.

There is another reason why we must fight against both US aggression and the Iranian regime. If we refuse to attack the regime then in effect we are saying to our comrades that they have to suspend their struggle against their oppressor.

Had Saddam been forced to concede to the Iraqi people a fraction of the concessions he was forced to make to the US, would the people have stood aside and let the imperialists walk in quite so easily? As the islamic regime in Iran increases its oppression, the potential of the Iranian people to resist is becoming weaker and weaker "¦ until they become bystanders and simply watch as the invading troops come in - which is exactly what happened in Iraq. At worst, they could become collaborators.

The west and the imperial powers understand that very well. When the bus drivers' union organised a strike, and were called the "enemy within" by the islamic regime (sounds familiar?), the US and its monarchist allies were the first to offer solidarity. Radio Israel was the first station in the world to report the regime's attacks on the women's demonstration on International Women's Day on March 8. They did not do so because they care about the women's and workers' movement in Iran - but because they know that independent organisations are the only ones that can really take on the regime. Needless to say, imperialism and its Iranian allies would like to be able to control any such organisations for their own ends. Will the left and progressive forces leave the field open to them?

In the last few years, some important developments in the movement from below have occurred within Iran. The national and ethnic minority movements are beginning to develop along class lines, as national oppression is affecting the most deprived sections of Iranian society. Simultaneously the labour movement is gaining confidence on a national scale. For the first time in decades, there is a real potential to build a united, national labour movement in Iran. The women's movement is as vibrant as ever.

Our task must clearly be to support these struggles. The left has traditionally had great difficulties in fighting on two fronts at once. It is either soft on imperialism or it is soft on reactionary regimes. Every time the left has not stood on its own two feet it has been decimated and brutally punished. After all, Iran had the largest left movement in the Middle East. Sudan had the largest left movement in Africa. Indonesia had the largest left movement in Asia. All of these movements were destroyed because they started playing on someone else's terrain. We must learn from this history that it is a disaster for the left to align itself with reactionary regimes or to be soft on them.

The left must ask itself of every tactical or strategic decision: which class benefits from my policies? To call on our brothers and sisters to halt their struggle until the imperialist threat has passed is not only utterly reactionary, it also displays a total lack of tactical acumen and, most importantly, the lack of any strategy for self-liberation from below. If the left in Britain wants to tackle its own bourgeoisie, it has to help the Iranian people take on their own ruling class. Most importantly, if we do not support these struggles, the imperialists and the monarchists will - not because they want to see genuine empowerment, of course, but to divert those struggles to serve their own ends.

At the end of the day an anti-war movement that fails to oppose both imperial aggression and the reactionary regimes it threatens will be impotent. Paradoxically these two apparent opposites feed on each other. To attack both will strengthen the anti-war movement outside and the genuine anti-imperialists inside the country. Such a strategy is both principled and effective. Anything else is a disaster.