18.12.2008

War threat remains real

This is an edited version of the speech by Torab Saleth given to the December 13 annual general meeting of Hands Off the People of Iran

Hopi has always had a straightforward and frank position on the attitude the anti-war movement should adopt to US military threats against Iran, insisting on a principled political stand. I have to say that our experience of last year proves this insistence on principles was not in the least a hindrance, but a major help.

Although Hopi has been falsely accused of wanting a ‘narrow’ campaign, my own experience - and I have seen it and heard it so many times that it is probably the same for everyone - is that most anti-war activists out there are already convinced of this principled approach and one of the main reasons why a lot more of them do not participate in the Stop the War Coalition locally is precisely because of the positions of the likes of the Socialist Workers Party and Communist Party of Britain.

At the 2007 conference of the STWC these two organisations struck up a holy alliance in order to refuse us affiliation. Whilst Hopi and Communist Students were being treated in this way, the friends of the SWP and the CPB from the Iranian-government-financed Press TV were filming the proceedings. Amongst those who voted against us belonged to the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, which was set up by pro-Islamic republic lobbies abroad - its representative here in the UK is a darling of the Iranian regime.

So what was this sin of ours that brought about such a tragicomic alliance? Of course, a lot of falsehoods were spread by our opponents, but, contrary to what they have tried to make you believe, our differences were neither over who wanted to build a broader campaign nor over who underestimated the threat of US imperialism. Allow me to repeat again. We welcome as broad an anti-war movement as possible and with the sole and central aim of opposing imperialist sanctions and military aggression against Iran. So this is not what our difference is about - the issue is a lot more basic. In fact it is precisely its basic nature which has so much angered the leadership of the STWC. It is always the most basic questions which catch out those with no principles.

Apologetics

What we said and should continue saying is very simple: to build an effective and broad campaign opposing US war against Iran means we should not align ourselves with those who in the name of support for the Iranian people are actually aiding the plans of US imperialism to control and dominate the Middle East. Nor should we align ourselves with those who in the name of anti-imperialism and anti-US militarism, apologise for the Iranian mullahs’ theocratic hold on power. To this day, not one of our critics have given a straight answer as to why this statement is wrong.

The leadership of the Stop the War Coalition in Britain says this basic approach is too complicated for so-called ordinary folk to comprehend. Nevertheless, inside Iran it has taken the form of a widely used slogan, accepted and repeated in countless demonstrations and statements - ‘No, we do not want a US war or US regime change; and, no, we do not support the current regime either, but are in fact already actively involved in overthrowing it.’ Why is it so difficult for the STWC leadership to understand that the majority of Iranian people have already rejected both sides? A high school student in Tehran who was asked “So who do you want to win in this conflict?” gave a typical reply: “Neither! One will lead to military occupation and many deaths, and the other will prolong the rule of the thugs who are already occupying our schools and killing us.”

If any one of those workers, students or women who have to constantly defend themselves against the atrocities of the Iranian regime were as lucky as the SWP-CPB leadership in being able to access Press TV, I am sure the first question they would ask these champions of anti-imperialism would be: ‘You say you are against this war because of the death and destruction it will bring to the Iranian people. Then how come you do not defend the very same people against the death and destruction currently being rained upon them by the Iranian regime itself?’

Let’s face it; despite all the subterfuge and all the slanderous comments they have used over the last year, everyone knows they cannot answer this simple question, because even to pose it is too embarrassing for them. How can you discuss if a certain alliance is good or bad for any cause if you have forged it yourself yet are too ashamed to even admit it?

This is precisely where our difference with these currents lie. All the subterfuge is designed to cover up the simple truth that within the anti-war movement they represent those who believe that against US imperialism it is not only perfectly legitimate, but even beneficial, to form alliances with the active supporters of the Iranian regime. In other words, they are telling us it is OK for them to form a united front with a semi-fascistic regime which was helped to power by the US in order to crush the Iranian revolution - the same regime which has been massacring all progressive elements in Iranian society for 30 years, and the same regime which is right now collaborating with US imperialism in the occupation of two of its neighbours - but it is not OK for us to question or criticise this!

All the arguments and excuses offered at the last STWC conference to justify the policy of exclusion were in fact nothing but a crude attempt to gag those who oppose the Iranian regime. Not only do they expect us to accept this latest rehash of the class-collaborationist popular fronts of the 30s, but also keep quiet about it, because even its discussion will ‘confuse’ the anti-war campaign!

No! We will continue saying - and this time with the voice of experience - the only thing this debate has confused is your cosy alliance with the supporters of theocratic fascism, the likes of Casmii or Press TV! By refusing Hopi ’s affiliation, because we oppose the Iranian regime, the organisers of the STWC conference were in fact calling on millions of Iranians who have been struggling against this brutal dictatorship for 30 years - not to mention those who precisely because of this opposition have been forced into exile - to keep quiet and stop criticising the Iranian regime because it may embarrass the SWP and CPB comrades in front of their pro-Islamic regime friends.

Didn’t we say then, if you want to kill the anti-war movement, just follow the SWP-CPB line? They haven’t even announced when they are planning to hold the next conference. On the other hand, just take a look at the broad list of organisational or individual affiliations to Hopi; or just go over the list of meetings and events we have organised up and down the country over the last year. Can anyone find one piece of evidence that apologising for the Iranian regime helps the anti-war movement? No! In fact, the vast majority of the numerous anti-war activists we meet not only do not find what we say confusing, but find it very odd that those who claim leadership of the anti-war movement have not even reached the basic level of political maturity to realise that it is at best counterproductive to enter into a united front with the mullahs to fight imperialism (or with imperialism to fight the mullahs). Is there anyone who can seriously argue that being tainted with support for the Iranian regime will help the anti-war movement?

Reports from almost every corner of the globe have left no doubt for most of us that indeed the biggest danger confronting the international anti-war movement, not only in Britain but almost everywhere it exists, is for it to be hijacked by the pro-Iranian government political lobbies or the so-called Iranian NGOs abroad. Many of these, which were set up during the Khatami presidency and later disowned by the more hard-line faction, have been revived in recent years, precisely as part of the Iranian regime’s diplomatic efforts abroad. They are now directed and controlled by the office of the president. And don’t for one minute think that it is only the US which has enormous funds. We have seen how lavishly the Iranian government too has spent money over the last few years to buy international support.

They have recruited an army of ‘peace negotiators’, whose line is always the same. Yes, we agree there are problems with the Iranian regime, but who in the Middle East isn’t there a problem with? And, yes, this regime says it is Islamic fundamentalist, but it has shown it is one with which the west can do business. But the west must also take into account Iranian interests. Therefore the best solution is to sit down and negotiate.

You find, amongst Iranian exiles, a strange mix of people from different backgrounds and political currents all singing the same tune - peace with the Iranian regime. Of course, none of them appear with a label on their forehead saying who they really are. Some amongst them may even be on the left or very critical of the Iranian regime. But the litmus test is precisely to ask them, ‘What is your position on defending Iranian workers, students and women against the regime?’ You will soon know who they really are when you observe the physical and mental contortions they have to go through to cover up their apologetics.

Take George Galloway, in reply to a caller on Press TV who asked him rhetorically, “Are you aware you are appearing on a TV station which forces its female presenters to wear a hijab?’, he said, “As far as I am aware this is not the case”! Now you can imagine how confused an anti-war movement can become, if those claiming its leadership couldn’t themselves pass this simple test of taking sides with the oppressed, and, worse still, because they themselves know they do not pass the test, they exclude and slander those who do.

Velvet revolution

The second danger is, of course, the opposite one - allowing yourself to be fooled by the sudden enthusiasm of a whole batch of international charitable institutions and foundations in imperialist countries that call for democracy and human rights in Iran.

When president Bush himself announces his undying support for Iranian bus workers, you should ask why it is that after almost 30 years of total silence on the plight of the Iranian workers at the hands of a brutal regime, all of a sudden you see regular statements from international bodies and institutions championing trade union rights and democracy in Iran? Look closely and you will see that those recently converted to the cause of humanity are almost all linked to various pro-imperialist institutions, whose role has always been to fight the propaganda war and build a network for a velvet revolution. Some are already stained with the blood of ‘velvet revolutions’ elsewhere.

We are not talking here about a simple signature to a petition. These charitable angels of US imperialism give not just verbal support, but also material support - funds, venues, marketing and media back-up. We have now so many ‘free’ TV and radio channels that most have run out of things to repeat.

In Britain this is probably not the biggest danger, at least not within the anti-war movement - although it must be said that we now have the comical situation of a left group claiming to be anti-war which is in reality an apologist for Zionist colonialism. Well, if there is a faction supporting theocratic fascism in the anti-war movement, is it so incredible there is also a pro-war wing?

Even if this phenomenon is regarded as a joke, amongst us Iranians in exile this is indeed a much bigger danger than the first. You can see what a recipe for confusion the above situation can be for the Iranian opposition. These days, before you can understand what someone is saying, you have to know which funds they have received and from which country.

Some, of course, fall for this charade out of desperation. But others do it knowingly - often they have never acted any differently. To them, the threat of war against Iran is like manna from heaven. Now, they don’t even have to pick up the phone - everybody seems willing to come to them. The same International Confederation of Free Trade Unions which didn’t give Iranian workers the time of day for 30 years now calls for international days of action. Add to this another fact and you have a recipe for disaster. The organisational disintegration that usually follows political exile has produced a myriad of loose circles and associations, each with its own set of private heroes and demons, who have now become the natural victims of such imperialist solidarity. Especially when coupled with financial inducements, free trips or even your very own radio station or TV slot.

We now have numerous projects around a whole range of issues, funded from suspect imperialist sources, but managed and staffed by Iranian exiles, in almost every western country. For example, some left individuals are now “earning a living” (their phrase) working for a project innocently training Iranian women journalists or providing radio services for Iranian youth, thanks to funds provided by the Dutch government. This openly racist rightwing government suddenly discovered the cause of democracy in Iran and donated €15 million of humanitarian aid to 11 such Iranian projects - if you recall, this is the same government that was jokingly referred to by the Dutch left as “fascists in Armani suites”. A year later it was exposed in the press in Holland itself that these funds had in fact nothing to do with the Dutch government, but originated in the US.

OK, you may say, just another story of fools being fooled, but unfortunately these acts never remain confined to the few simpletons in the donor country: they actually endanger the lives of activists inside Iran. For example, a number of unsuspecting young women were recently arrested and tortured by the security forces simply because of links with such a project. It now turns out the organisers never told them of the source of their funds and hoodwinked them into believing they were simply signing up to free seminars and training courses plus the chance of free travel abroad.

Or let us look at another example - relevant here in Britain, as their main characters are active here, and funnily enough, the darlings of both the pro-mullah and the pro-Israel wing of the anti-war movement. This is a group which claims it represents the ‘International Alliance’ of Iranians abroad in defence of the workers’ movement. You can guess from the name that it must be a total phoney, and it is. The number of committees they claim they represent is more than the number of individuals associated with this group! But the real danger arises when some institution like the ICFTU or the CIA-led and financed Solidarity Centre come to such deluded individuals and not only agree with whatever they say and sign whatever they circulate, but also flatteringly give them recognition and material support. They then turn to workers inside Iran and say: ‘Look how important we are! Look how we are mobilising international support for you!’

This is when it becomes dangerous. You can see how such people, even those with good intentions, will soon become the fixers and pushers of the future velvet revolution. Unsuspecting worker activists in Iran, keen to publicise their struggles internationally, can easily fall for such traps. When a group of ineffective individuals with no significant importance or influence have you believe they are some kind of ambassadors for the movement, sitting around a table behind closed doors and wheeling and dealing with the ‘big boys’ is then easily justified. It was no surprise when it was revealed that this self-appointed group of foolish ambassadors were actually giving lists of worker activists in Iran to their international backers and arranging meetings with them, thus giving the Iranian security forces ample excuse to arrest and isolate activists. The damage this type of link has caused is now a cause of major concern for the workers’ movement inside Iran.

I can name you hundreds, from campaigns for human rights to trade union rights, from support for the religious minorities to the heroic struggles for freeing South Azerbaijan, from projects for the empowerment of women in Islamic countries to saving ancient Persian monuments, who have received funds from all sorts of dodgy institutions claiming to be doing good and noble work in the cause of democracy in Iran - a kind of support which the activists inside now refer to as the kiss of death.

Not everybody advertises their dubious links and there is room for genuine mistakes. But for us the test to find out who is genuine has always been very simple. Just say, ‘Thank you very much for your support, but what is your position on the threat of war?’ You will soon know who these people really are and why they have suddenly become interested in Iran. Inside the Iranian opposition we have even tested this further. We now know who they are as soon as they question the validity of the question itself!

New period

For us, imperialism is the main enemy. At the end of the day a defeat for imperialist militarism will benefit all of humanity, but why should anyone think this somehow justifies giving up our fight against a criminal regime? As the economic situation deteriorates in Iran, we will witness a lot more clashes between the repressive apparatus of the regime and the mass of workers, students and women. This will require a firm and principled stand in the anti-war movement in support of the Iranian people. Where will the apologists of the Iranian regime hide then?

It is with the above principles firmly in mind that we now enter a new period for Hopi. On the one hand, given the sad situation in which the leadership of STWC has plunged the whole anti-war movement, we must redouble our efforts to build this movement from the bottom up. If you wanted to say, just in one sentence, what every member of Hopi should be doing next year, it must be: rebuild local units of the anti-war movement. If the STWC leadership is not doing this or is running them down, then we must start building a lot more active and self-standing local, city-based units. We have already tried our hand at a few and tested the water in more, but we need many more and they need to be a lot broader than just Hopi supporters.

On the other hand, the two major developments that have taken place since last year’s conference - the global recession and the election of a new president in the US - make the next period very different. How do changes affect the threat of war? It can, for example, be argued that since Obama was elected on the back of a popular reaction against the war in Iraq, then obviously the next US administration will find it a more difficult to launch another war.

This is a fact, but bear in mind this situation existed even before the elections. Even if Bush himself had been able to carry on, he would have found it more difficult to once again fabricate reasons and browbeat his allies into yet another war in the Middle East, especially in the midst of a financial crisis. Therefore, the difficulty facing the US ruling class if it wants to launch another war is nothing new. But let us agree that this is even more the case now than before the election. So does this mean the threat of war is over?

Firstly, the current situation is not defined by just the threat of war. The war is already being waged elsewhere in the Middle East, steadily dragging in an ever increasing number of countries. Let us not forget, another important event this year has been the extension of this war to Pakistan. The likelihood of its immediate extension to Iran is, therefore, not the sole question which determines the seriousness of the threat. But even specifically in relation to Iran, it is well passed just being a threat. Militarily, Iran is already encircled. On the Afghan and Iraqi borders the imperialists already have their own armies and bases with a command that has gained a lot of experience dealing with local warlords.

Furthermore, when the Israeli government - which with imperialist backing bombs its neighbours, kills civilians and imprisons whole populations - boasts daily of its ability to bomb Iran, it is obvious that at least one trigger that could quickly turn this threat into a full-scale war is already in place. Whatever difficulty the US government may have to start with would be quickly overcome if it could claim it is defending Israel. The Israeli prime minister-in-waiting has actually said so, while the next US secretary of state has openly admitted that this is indeed a likely scenario.

In addition, it is a war which has already started in the form of UN sanctions against Iran, constantly bolstered by additional ones separately imposed by the US and EU - albeit a ‘soft’ war, before the hard one, complete with not-so-smart uranium-laced bombs, gets underway. It could be said Hopi hasn’t done enough on the question of sanctions. Their devastating effect inside Iran cannot be underestimated. Already, inflation is running at around 40%, with unemployment projected to reach 30% soon. The recent fall in oil prices has pushed the government to the brink of fiscal bankruptcy and it now has to run to the IMF for loans to bail itself out. The flight of capital from Iran during the last year has been greater than at any time over the last 30 years - a period which includes the 1979 revolution. But, whilst Iranian capitalists watch from Dubai or London, their political representatives in the Iranian regime continue to add to their instruments of internal repression.

The people of Iran, the opponents of both imperialist domination and theocratic rule, are thus the first victims. After the experience of Iraq, you would have thought imperialism would have realised that sanctions will not weaken a vicious dictatorship - they actually destroy the people’s will to resist it. But should we really believe the imperialists when they say sanctions are imposed for such a purpose? Does experience not show that they are in fact a cynical move against the population, driving them out of the political arena, making them so used to misery that days and months of aerial bombardments later will not seem like too much to bear, and most importantly push them so far back that they are in no position to resist regime change imposed from outside?

Regime provocations

The Iranian government has obviously used this situation to its own advantage. Whilst on the international stage it boasts there is no threat of war and that neither the US nor Israel will dare attack Iran, inside Iran itself leading activists are arrested, tortured and imprisoned under the pretext of “endangering national security” in the face of a foreign threat.

Whilst, for example, bazaari merchants associated with the government have imported and are hoarding enough sugar for six years, they blame the wholesale closure of most of the Iranian sugar industry on UN sanctions and jail workers’ leaders for siding with Iran’s enemies. Whilst a few years ago we witnessed a turning point in workers’ struggles for independent class organisations, the vast majority of strikes over the last year have been about non-payment of wages. So the war is already going on inside Iran too, and is being felt by the vast majority of Iranian people.

Another point we have always emphasised is that we should not make our campaign dependent on the immediacy of the threat of a military attack. We have always warned against the possibility of a deal. Anyone who has studied the Iranian regime knows that if it was possible for it to get some form of guarantee from the US as to its own future political existence, it would capitulate and sign a deal tomorrow. There is already tremendous pressure inside the ruling class to do so.

The next presidential elections in Iran will probably better reveal how the balance of forces within these ruling circles has changed. But it is already being openly asked, even inside Ahmadinejad’s own governmental corridors, is it not an opportune moment now to make a goodwill gesture and offer the new US president a deal? Even some of the hardliners inside the Iranian regime had already stated, before Obama’s election, that if in exchange for voluntary suspension of the uranium enrichment programme the US was prepared to sit around a table and negotiate a comprehensive settlement, including international recognition, then it would be worth considering.

The ruling cliques inside the Islamic republic are still in disagreement about how to react, but one should never rule out this possibility. This probably explains why at first Ahmadinejad writes a letter congratulating Obama and then two days later is forced to backtrack and denounce him. And did you notice the curious ‘official’ protests of the Iranian government against the leaks of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report to western media? This concerned the amount of low-grade enriched uranium Iran has already accumulated, which led to renewed speculation about the number of bombs Iran can produce if it enriches this further. Obviously if you were planning to postpone enrichment as a ‘goodwill gesture’, you would not want it revealed that you already have enough material for a bomb.

Therefore, we have always said, don’t be surprised if the mullahs make a deal. In fact we have warned, be careful such deals do not lead to either international legitimisation of this murderous regime or the overlooking of the long-term military intentions of the US in relation to the whole region.

US strategy

Let us forget Iran and the mullahs for one minute and just look at the military map. The shah has come and gone, Saddam has come and gone, but one thing has not changed. And that is the constant increase in the number of US military bases in and around the Middle East.

There is an almost complete circle of US military bases enclosing an area, from the north of the Caspian Sea to the south of the Dead Sea. The very term ‘Greater Middle East’, now fashionable in US government circles, became widely used precisely in order to explain where this military encirclement is taking place. This is not just an accident of history. This did not happen because of 9/11 or Saddam’s supposed links with al Qa’eda. The US has obviously a long-term strategy for control. Let us remind ourselves, this is the region which contains the largest global sources of known oil reserves.

For 20 years strategic studies have been warning of the dangers facing the US by the 2020s, when global oil production is expected to have reached its peak, whilst consumption continues to rise. One Russian military strategist has even said it seems the US picks a fight simply to fill in the gaps in its military encirclement strategy. There is more than an element of truth in this. Just remember the way it cooked up reasons to justify the occupation of Iraq. Or just look at what it is trying to do right now in Georgia. Does anyone really think US imperialism will tolerate a military force right in the centre of this circle over which it has no control? The simple fact that there are now nearly 30 US military bases around Iran will eventually have to lead either to the capitulation of the Iranian army or to a military conflict.

The threat of war has therefore not been removed and was never dependent on a change of president. Obama himself has not really offered any change in US policy either. All he has actually said adds up to nothing more than a simple shifting of a few thousand US soldiers from one military base to another.

To sum up, although we cannot predict what the new US administration will or will not do in the immediate future, we can say with reasonable certainty that the current tensions and the threat of war against Iran will not die down in the near future. If anything, the current batch of sanctions will probably be further bolstered by new US and EU measures. Of course, at the moment, everyone’s attention is focused on the economic crisis, and this has also further changed public perceptions about the immediacy of war, but in the long run the crisis itself will probably make the threat of war a lot more real - not only this war, but many like it. Let us not forget the last major economic crisis of world capitalism led to a world war and 60 million dead.

None of us are saying there will be another world war in five years time, but if during a period of global economic growth and relative peace US imperialism was busy building military bases around the Middle East, do you think in a period of decline, when its interests are more likely to be challenged, it will not become an even more blatant force of aggression against the people of the region? In the course of the coming period we must therefore expect to see a more belligerent and aggressive imperialism.

Even inside Iran itself, the current economic crisis seems to have strengthened the hand of the reformist wing of the theocracy, whose differing factions are now trying to unite behind a common candidate for the next presidential elections. But let us not forget there is also the possibility that the same economic crisis, alongside the increased strength of the reformist faction, may also worry the faction already in power to such an extent that it may provoke an external conflict itself. Judging from past experience, even if the new Obama administration was about to soften the US stance on Iran, which it is not, the current Iranian regime may in fact harden up and become more provocative.

We therefore insist once again that the threat is real, it is already there and it is being used against the Iranian people on a daily basis. We must not only continue to campaign and mobilise against this threat and demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all imperialist forces from the region, but further increase our efforts to oppose imperialist sanctions - sanctions which hurt most of all those who are the only real force for change.