11.04.2007
Double standards in London and Tehran
In the furore over the capture of British sailors and marines and their theatrical release by Iran's islamic regime, a number of essential points seem to have been forgotten by the British media, and even by so-called anti-war broadsheets, says Yassamine Mather
l Contrary to claims by senior British officers and politicians over the legitimacy of their operations in the Persian Gulf and the Arvand river (or Shatt al-Arab) - some have even referred to the troops being in "our waters" - these are Iraqi, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Saudi and in parts international waters. The peoples of that region did not invite in the British or US forces and now even some of the most reactionary governments in the Middle East - including Iran and Kuwait, which originally welcomed the US-UK navies in the Gulf, when these were threatening their long-term enemy, Saddam - are now against their continued presence.
l There was no second resolution backing the US-UK invasion of Iraq, and the UN's subsequent acceptance of the de facto occupation still does not 'legitimise' the military intervention of 2003 or the presence of dozens of frigates.
l Piracy and smuggling - including the illegal export and sale of Iraqi oil, stolen by pro-occupation government militia - is now a major problem in the region. However, the forces responsible for creating this chaos, the US and UK, are not patrolling these waterways in order to stop smuggling. The presence of the US, UK and Israeli naval forces in the Gulf is all about controlling these strategic waterways and spying on Iran. In the case of Israel, submarines equipped with nuclear warheads are being deployed to threaten Iran and discourage it from using land-to-land missiles in the aftermath of US or Israeli aerial bombardment.
l On the fourth anniversary of the occupation of Iraq, the ministry of defence decided on a public relations exercise, allowing dozens of docile journalists to report from Iraq and the Gulf. Some of this unashamedly pro-war propaganda reporting inevitably incensed ordinary people in the region and gave an excuse to governments such as Iran - and especially its islamic Revolutionary Guards, eager to create a crisis - to look for military 'spies' as hostages.
As many journalists have pointed out, conspiracy theories about the role of the British in international affairs, at times bordering on hysterical paranoia, dominate public opinion in Iran and therefore British marines were already being targeted by sections of the regime as the most suitable to seize.
Of course, once the decision to capture British forces was made, the best time to implement it was during the first days of the long Iranian new year holiday, when newspapers are not published. This ensured that any expression of opposition or misgivings on the part of rival factions could not be heard.
What followed - both in terms of the 'confessions' of the sailors and marines and the intervention of the supreme leader to order their immediate release - were predictable.
Confessions
Members of the Iranian left - both within the country and in exile - were probably the only people who were not surprised by the 'confessions' broadcast on Iranian TV. Communists and socialists who fought Iran's islamic regime, well aware of the psychological and physical tortures that the Revolutionary Guards are capable of meting out, usually went into action with cyanide tablets under their tongues, so that they did not end up in front of Iranian TV cameras, confessing to all sorts of crimes they had never committed.
They had to take such extreme measures, because, unlike the British captives, their every move was not followed by the world media and because the superpowers were not the slightest bit interested in their plight. It goes without saying that the imperialists did not negotiate for their release with the islamic government. Of course, those courageous opponents of the regime were not part of an aggressive imperialist army trying to impose its will on the region. They continued to fight for the workers and ordinary people, even though their courage and determination went unreported.
At a conservative estimate, some 40,000 Iranian communists and socialists were butchered by the islamic regime in the 1980s. For them it was not just a case of psychological pressure. Testimony from their fellow prisoners who survived makes it very clear that many faced the most horrendous physical torture - beating, burning, the amputation of limbs "¦ Yet less than 10 Iranian leftwingers, out of more than 100,000 political prisoners from radical and revolutionary organisations, appeared in front of the camera. Many died under torture rather than succumb to such humiliation.
Many of us activists in the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign owe our lives to such heroism: those comrades saved us by refusing to confess or give names. It is therefore with a sense of irony that we look at the current outcry in the British media over the 'confessions' of UK sailors and marines under 'psychological pressure'.
The Iranian left did not expect to be released with gifts after secret negotiations with the Revolutionary Guards and their reactionary leaders. What they expected was solidarity from the British working class movement. It is unfortunate, then, that very few took a principled stand in opposition to the Iranian regime and even fewer are prepared to take a principled stand today.
Political fallout
Ahmadinejad and his allies had originally hoped that the arrest, 'confessions' and maybe trial of the sailors and marines would divert attention from serious economic problems and dissatisfaction with the government's failure to reduce poverty and unemployment or keep to its promises to clamp down on corruption and fraud amongst senior clerics and their immediate relatives.
However, once the 'reformist' faction showed its face and the government became wary of US intentions to use the British captives as an excuse for military attack, they caved in. Contrary to denials by both sides, direct and indirect secret negotiations did take place, leading to the release of the second most senior Iranian diplomat in Baghdad, who had gone 'missing' since January, and for the first time in three months the Iranian embassy in Iraq gained access to five Iranian 'diplomats' - all members of the Revolutionary Guards - including the man wanted for the murder of Kurdish Democratic Party leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou in Vienna in the 1980s.
It is also no coincidence that a few days after the release of the hostages Iran gained its second diplomatic victory of the last few months, when it secured a position in the May 3-4 international conference on Iraq in Cairo.
Despite all this, political figures connected to all factions of the regime, including some of Ahmadinejad's own supporters, have been critical of the release, in the absence of an apology by Britain or any commitment to continue 'negotiations' regarding Iraq and Iran's nuclear developments. Emad Afrough, a conservative hardliner, claimed the farewell scenes were "humiliating" (for Iran), while Saeed Leylaz, a pro-'reformist' commentator, called the press conference and the showering of gifts "embarrassing".
One leftist blogger took issue with Ahmadinejad's parting message, "Movafagh bashid" ("hope you succeed"), to the sailors and marines, asking what exactly the Iranian president meant: was he suggesting the British navy should "succeed" in its mission in the Gulf, that they should "succeed" in their attempts to spy on Iran?
However, there was gushing support from the pro-Ahmadinejad media. As the 'reformist' newspaper Aftab noted last week, 'hard-line' publications, after days of calling for the 'spies' to be put on trial or even executed, changed their position overnight and hailed the 'conciliatory position of the government'.
US-UK aggression in the region is indefensible, yet the Iranian government, which welcomed Bush-style 'regime change' in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is not in any position to take the moral high ground. Those sections of the anti-war movement which, in their justified outrage at US-UK warmongering, refuse to take a principled stand against the rightwing, obscurantist islamic regime in Tehran, are, however, doing considerable harm to genuine anti-imperialism.
Instead of acting as apologists for Ahmadinejad, they should mobilise not only against the aggressive threats and actions of the US and UK, but also against the reactionary, pro-capitalist political islamists in Iran - who are, of course, engaged in constant negotiations and secret dealings with imperialism.