07.06.2006
Fight on two fronts
On the eve of the Stop the War Coalition annual conference on June 10, Mark Fischer spoke to Mehdi Kia of Iran Bulletin/Middle East Forum about the tasks of the anti-war movement in this country. Does our opposition to imperialist threats against Iran mean we must suspend criticism of the monstrous theocratic regime that oppresses the country?
The possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Iranian government is clearly being used by the US as a pretext to ratchet up tensions. But what should be our attitude to this regime's possible access to weapons of such awesome power?
Clearly, in abstract Iran has the same right as any other country to possess nuclear weapons - or not. However, from the point of view of progressive forces in Iran we have to seriously ask what a reactionary regime such as the Islamic Republic would actually do with nuclear weapons. In reality, it would strengthen the regime's hold over the people and the forces of the opposition. From that point of view, socialists and democrats must oppose Iran's capability to produce such weapons - they will merely prolong the life of this ultra-reactionary regime.
However, we must be very aware that this is not the reason why the US is making such a big fuss about the issue. Clearly, if the question of nuclear weapons had not arisen, the US would have made up another reason for its aggression. The reality is that Iran does not fit into US global plan for world imperialism.
The fact that it does not fit the template for the new world order clearly propels the regime into some sort of oppositionalist position. But what are we to make of its anti-imperialism?
For the Islamic Republic of Iran to survive, it has to be opposed to the new world order that the US is trying to enforce. In that sense alone, the regime is anti-imperialist.
But it is self evident that the only truly anti-imperialist force is that force that can address the imperialist aggression by projecting a better alternative. It is the democratic, women's, workers' and other democratic movements fighting for their basic rights that form the core of any genuine anti-imperialist struggle, pointing to a society beyond capitalism. The Iranian regime, on the other hand, has crushed our democratic movements and has been desperate to become a serious capitalist player. All the factions in the islamic regime are in agreement over the need to introduce neoliberal policies - in fact, they see the further extension of Iranian capitalism into the world capitalist order as a way to prolong the life of the regime.
I am reminded of the period when Khatami came into power and the 'official communist' Tudeh Party told us that we should suspend our struggles for democracy, because the regime was purportedly anti-imperialist. They continued to argue for the suspension of the class struggle even while the regime was systematically taking away every single democratic gain that was made during the revolution. The official left failed to see that the regime was putting on an 'anti-imperialist' charade.
Some on the left, particularly the SWP-sponsored Action Iran, seem convinced that the Iranian regime is in a process of democratic self-reform.
We must be absolutely clear that the Iranian islamic regime is inherently anti-democratic. About five or six years ago, we witnessed a dramatic retreat of the regime in response to the huge popular and democratic movement that culminated in the election of Khatami. But because Khatami was not able from above to fulfil the hopes of reform of those below, major disappointment set in. He did not even put the smallest of his promises into practice and as a result the reformist movement suffered an implosion and has almost completely evaporated. This total failure of "reformism from above" is a living testimony of the unreformable character of the islamic regime.
Plus, the Iranian economy has been going downhill, with dramatic levels of inflation, increased corruption, etc. Many normal working class people have had to take up two or three jobs just to survive. This is another reason why pressure from below has apparently lessoned.ac
Having said that though, the women's movement is still going strong. And we have recently seen a resurgence of the labour movement - most notably, of course, with the strike action of the Tehran bus drivers. All over the country we have seen the setting up of workers' and democratic groups and the first attempts to form transnational labour organisations. They are demanding the basic human and democratic rights that are taken for granted in most other countries. Moreover, movements for basic minority national rights have also become very active.
You might ask why then the last election has brought into power a fascistic regime. First of all, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the million-strong basij ('mobilisation') militia as a semi-political party and got each militia member to mobilise 10 voters - that's already 10 million votes. Ahmadinejad also ran a very populist campaign and promised to be tough on corruption. Many, many people in Iran voted not so much for Ahmadinejad as against Rafsanjani, one of the most unpopular and corrupt politicians in the country.
In recent months, Ahmadinejad's regime has really started to crack down on the newly emerging labour movement in Iran: wives and children of the striking bus workers were beaten and arrested and many of the leaders of the strike are still being held. Numerous student activists, and many intellectuals, have been detained and tortured. A demonstration on International Women's Day on March 8 was brutally attacked. Demonstrators were also attacked in Kurdistan and Azerbaijan and arabs in the oil-rich province of Kyuzistan asking for minimum basic rights have been arrested and executed.
This is clearly an ultra-reactionary, anti-democratic regime. Some on the left in Britain have compared this regime to Venezuela under Chávez. This is absurd beyond comprehension. The fact that Chávez - out of desperation - is looking for allies even in Iran should not lead us to support this regime. In Iran, the majority of the people and the islamic regime are on opposites sides. We must be very clear about that.
The only way to fight imperialism is through our democratic socialist movements - naturally on an international level. The least we should expect from the left forces outside Iran is that they do not harm our small, re-emerging democratic organisations. If you cannot help us, at least don't harm us.
But surely we should expect more from international socialists and revolutionaries? How could the anti-war movement in Britain practically help the recovering left forces in Iran?
The formation of a strong, global movement against imperial aggression would be the first important task for the left outside Iran. But in order for such a movement to become a mass movement, it needs to address the plight of the people in Iran. It can never grow beyond the small, existing left if it does not openly and honestly criticise the Iranian regime and what it is doing to the women's, workers', national and democratic movements. Unless the left addresses this crucial question, the anti-war movement will never be strong enough to make a real difference.
This is also a very important point when it comes to Iran itself: if we do not address the lack of democracy and the fascistic aspects of the regime, the imperialists will. We saw that during the strike of the bus drivers the American government lost no time in coming out in support of it. The first media outlet that reported the attacks on the March 8 demonstration was Radio Israel. The failure to address the plight of the Iranian people will drive the democratic movement into the arms of imperialism. On the other hand, our support for the struggles of those movements in Iran would serve to embolden and strengthen the re-emerging forces of democracy and make them feel less isolated. If Saddam had been forced to make his own people one tenth of the concessions he made to the imperialist forces, would they have stood aside and watched the invading armies ravage their country?
'Hands off Iran' is therefore not a sufficient slogan and it would be a failure if the anti-war movement took the view, 'Leave Iran to sort its own problems'. The slogans under which the left outside Iran marches clearly matter.
The left has historically been unable to fight on two fronts at the same time - a real sign of our weakness. Instead, the left has often ended up on the side of forces that were clearly anti-democratic, if not mortal enemies of the left. And as soon as such forces get into power, they do not hesitate to point the gun at their former 'allies' on the left. There are really too many historical examples that should warn us to remain firmly on the side of democracy and secularism.