11.07.2007
Anti-imperialism and Tehran
There is a cynically organised media campaign designed to pave the way for further sanctions or selected military strikes. Does that mean we should support the Tehran regime? Speaking at the Marxism fringe, Yassamine Mather - Workers Left Unity Iran - explains the real meaning of anti-imperialism
Every day the media publish unattributed briefings by US generals and Pentagon sources regarding Iran's connections to Al Qa'eda, the Taliban and various other terror groups. Most of the media briefings contain no details of substance and many simply repeat previous accusations. However, they are undoubtedly intended to keep tensions ratcheted up, and there is no doubt that the danger of an extension of the current sanctions against Tehran and of limited military action by the US or Israel is very real.
Of course, as many commentators inside Iran have pointed out, this has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear industry (just as the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the notorious '45 minutes' or Saddam Hussein's WMD) and indeed, even if Iran stopped the enrichment of uranium tomorrow, the threat would not go away.
As the US administration contemplates eventual withdrawal of troops from Iraq, it might be necessary to embark on yet another adventure (such as an air attack on Iran) to save face rather than accept the total failure of the Project for the New American Century. Of course, it should be added that the islamic regime in Iran, hated by its own population, thrives in crises in order to survive and overcome internal dissent.
As far the current fiasco in the region is concerned, the Iranian regime is not blameless: it applauded, indeed supported, the overthrow of its long-term enemies, the Taliban and Saddam, and throughout the last four years, since the occupation of Iraq began, it has been a constant ally of successive occupation governments, from Chalabi to Jaffari, to Maleki - many of them in fact products of Iran's theocratic regime.
Indeed the current escalation of conflict between the US and Iran has a lot more to do with strategic domination of the region and the fact that Iran is seeking to negotiate a higher price for its cooperation with the occupying forces in Iraq - it demands to be recognised as a regional power. Indeed Iran's participation in the so-called 'Iraqi conference' and its participation in both open and secret discussions with the US and UK show the desperation of the clerical regime to appease the warmongers in the US.
At the centre of all this there remains the issue of the continued devastation of Iraq, the plight of whose people is worsened by Iran's support for a sectarian and illegitimate occupation government. Of course Iran faces a dilemma on the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US-UK troops. On the one hand, in order to retain credibility in the islamic world it occasionally utters calls for withdrawal of the US troops. On the other hand, the clerics are well aware that their puppet allies in Iraqi Kurdistan (Talibani) and in Baghdad (Maleki) would not survive a day without US support. Hence the significance of the call of the Hands Off the People of Iran for the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of US-UK troops from the Middle East.
In fact Iran is neither in a position to call for such a policy nor does it wish to do so. That is why Socialist Workers Party comrades are mistaken when they confuse simplistic and often reactionary anti-western slogans by the most ardent followers of neoliberal capitalism in the region - Iran's islamic regime - with anti-imperialism. Many of us have argued in the past that the kind of political islam we see in Iran, Iraq and many other Middle Eastern countries is not a simple a return to the puritanical ideals of islamic heritage. On the contrary there are manifestations of a very modern phenomenon, firmly rooted in the contradictions of modern capitalism. The islamic 'third way' (not capitalist, not socialist) declared by shia clerics in 1979 has failed dramatically and Iran is embarking on the most ferocious neoliberal economic policies seen in the developing world.
However, I must stress here that we in Hopi do not consider ourselves 'third-campist'. Other Iranian Hopi comrades have explained how very often the so-called 'third camp' is an excuse for the apologists of the first camp (imperialism) and defenders of social imperialism, in that they simply adopt a more liberal posturing than the first-campists.
We consider ourselves first and foremost anti-imperialist and by definition therefore anti-capitalist. Naturally then, we support the workers' struggles in Iran against the neoliberal economic policies of its rulers. It is Iran's anti-government social movements, not the regime, that are in the forefront of the anti-imperialist struggle. It comes as no surprise what so ever that the reactionary capitalists in Iran's ruling circles are already in negotiations with the US-UK to save their dictatorship.
Inside Iran ordinary people, although wary of the threat of war, are more concerned with their daily struggle to survive in a religious, capitalist state. The threat of sanctions has already pushed up inflation to above 15% (although the official rate is around 13%). According to a spokesperson from Iran's national statistics office, unemployment was at 10%-11% for most of 2006. Most economists, however, put the figure at 15%-18% amongst male job-seekers. And this looks set to increase.
All factions of the regime are keen to pursue the logic of the 'new interpretation' of article 44 of the islamic constitution, under which privatisation of "major industries vital to the national interest" was previously not permitted. The plans to sell off 80% of the government's stake in a range of state-run companies in banking, media, transportation and minerals are so far-reaching that they amount to the complete abandonment of one of the regime's islamic economic 'principles'. As a result of this 're-interpretation' tens of thousands of Iranian workers could lose their jobs.
Over the last few weeks several leftwing bloggers have focused on the regime's intention to precipitate the wholesale privatisation of "major industries" and speculated as to the consequences. Last week supreme clerical leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei claimed: "Privatisation will create a national will to generate wealth." As one young blogger reminds us, in reality it will only increase poverty and devastation for the workers, while potentially providing huge fortunes for entrepreneurs ready to buy state-owned plants, sack the workforce and sell off land and assets.
According to the islamic government's own statistics, 7,467,000 Iranians live below the poverty line. The poorest sections inhabit the countryside, where in the Iranian year 1385 (2005-06) 9.2% lived well below the official threshold. In the same year the income of the top 10% was 17 times that of the bottom 10%.
Despite his populist promises, such as the 'fair distribution' of oil revenues, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad heads one of the most pro-capitalist governments Iran has seen since the launch of 'reconstruction' in 1988, when Iran first accepted International Monetary Fund loans. Every spring the IMF sends a commission to Tehran to verify the country's compliance with global capital's requirements and every year by mid-summer the Central Bank and the government propose further privatisation in the industrial, banking and service sectors - bringing further misery to tens of thousands of workers, the victims of the subsequent job losses and casualisation.
As I say, last year Khamenei suddenly discovered that the constitution allowed the privatisation of essential industries after all. This year the Iranian clergy has discovered that the petrol subsidies the regime has provided are haram (forbidden). If only the IMF knew it had such a reliable ally in this reactionary clerical state it would have declared subsides haram 10 years ago and save world capitalist plunderers millions of pounds. Last week's imposition of petrol rationing caused riots in Tehran and many other major cities. We asked a leftwing Iranian economist in Tehran what were the causes of this unrest. He listed decades of privatisation, transport polices that encourage car production and the failure to build new refineries. He added that for the ruling elite it is far more profitable to be involved in petrol imports (soon a black market will make it even more so) than to invest in the country's infrastructure.
Of course, Iranian workers are involved in daily struggles against these policies - demonstrations, sit-ins, strikes and occupations. Workers Left Unity Iran has compiled a report for one week (the first week of the month of Tir, starting June 21) and its 23 pages records over 60 incidents involving sit-ins, road blocks and other forms of protests against job losses, privatisation, casualisation and non-payment of wages. Yet the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition has virtually ignored these protests for fear of losing its islamic allies in the United Kingdom.
Over the last few months, young bloggers in Iran have also addressed the issue of the collapse of 'morality' in the islamic republic. Prostitution, drug addiction and the export of under-age sex workers to Gulf states are not usually associated with theocratic regimes, yet, 28 years after the victory of the mullahs, the realities of life in Iran contradict the stereotype of such states.
With corruption so rife and far-reaching, state officials and at times senior clerics even involve themselves in the trafficking of drugs and prostitutes. One student blogger refers to the unprecedented rise in drug addiction among the youth and blames the regime for deliberately promoting drug use to avoid having to address political discontent.
For the last 28 years the Iranian government has forced women to cover their hair. However, a recent survey carried out by the paper Etemad Melli in Tehran shows that only around five percent of those questioned considered the headscarf "important or very important for the health of society". Ayatollah Khomeini enforced the wearing of the hijab in March 1979 and the continued protests against this are manifestations of the failure of the religious state to influence the generation born since 1979, which today accounts for more than 75% of the population.
The same blogger notes that in the 1990s the student movement was influenced by a liberal ideology with illusions in western democracy. However, the total collapse of the 'reformist' faction of the regime, and the disastrous consequences of the US invasion of Iraq, have radicalised sections of the student and youth movement.
The slogans seen during the December 2006 student protests and again in March 2007 sum up the new militancy of the radicalised youth and their opposition to both the USA, with its threat of war, and the islamic regime: "Students, workers, teachers - unite and fight." "Free all student activists in prison." "Freedom for political prisoners." "Sexual apartheid shows contempt for human beings." "The Taliban republic [Iran's regime] is a denial of human rights." "We don't want war, we don't want nuclear weapons. We just want a better life." "Socialism or barbarism."
The response of the government to all dissent has been to close down newspapers, arrest activists and ban websites. It has even taken steps against rival factions of the regime. The Baztab site was shut down early in 2007 for posting video footage showing Ahmadinejad watching a female dance performance at the recent Asian Games in Qatar, in breach of Iran's prohibition on women dancing in front of men. Yet another example of the hypocrisy of Iran's islamic leaders.
The workers' and student movement inside Iran has inspired us in Britain to set up the Hands Off the People of Iran campaign. We have tried to remain faithful to their principal slogan: 'No to imperialist war, no to Iran's islamic regime.'
We are determined to support the struggles of Iranian workers, students, women and democracy activists - against war, against the Iranian government's neoliberal policies and against the imposition of medieval religious laws by the theocratic state.