19.10.2011

Strange political symbiosis

The US and the Iranian regime need each other, argues Yassamine Mather

The familiar pattern of fraught United States-Iran relations has been repeated once again by the furore around the alleged plot of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to bomb the Saudi embassy in Washington and kill the ambassador. The renewed threats of military attack by the US in retaliation for this should also come as no surprise.

Those who possibly had a hand in initiating this (probably a rogue faction of the Revolutionary Guards) and those who have seized on it (the Obama administration) clearly have a keen shared interest in keeping the threat of war and conflict very much alive.

A week after the US attorney accused Iran of this dastardly plot, the threat of US retaliation continues to dominate the Iranian press and media, as the various factions of the Islamic regime contend with their different interpretations of the accusations and the motivations of the accusers. Last week, almost every trend in the religious state from the ‘reformists’ to the conservatives denied the allegations. The one significant exception was the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his allies in a section of the Revolutionary Guards.

This prompted speculation in Tehran that Ahmadinejad, or at least staff close to him, might have had a hand in the apparently botched Washington debacle. In Tehran both supporters and opponents of the regime are in agreement that a faction of the Revolutionary Guards must have been involved in this plot if it had any legs whatsoever as a theory. By October 17, this speculation had gained such momentum that Ahmadinejad felt forced to make a statement denying any role and condemning such adventures. However, on the day foreign minister Akbar Salehi called for an internal inquiry, Ahmadinejad immediately responded by dismissing the idea out of hand.

In all this mess and with fingers pointing at the president, it is no surprise that the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, announced this week the possibility of actually abolishing the post of president and returning to a system in which the supreme leader rules via a prime minister. Clearly the conservative-supporting factions of the regime are infuriated by the incompetence of those involved in the ‘plot’ - one paper from this political spectrum commenting that the choice of a stupid second-hand car salesman to front it was typical of some people (clearly implying their assumption that Ahmadinejad and his supporters in Al Quds were involved).

Iran’s leaders have claimed that the US needed a diversion from the Occupy Wall Street protests. Yet, as students in Tehran have pointed out, in turn the Iranian leaders themselves had every reason to embark on yet another adventure abroad to divert attention from internal problems. This news breaks in the midst of a major financial scandal in the country. A $2.6 billion fraud has shaken the government and already the heads of three of the country’s major banks have been ousted; the governor of Bank Melli has fled to Canada. Nineteen people have been arrested for a scam involving the fraudulent creation of bank letters of credit by the Amir Mansour Aria investment group and 20 members of Iran’s parliament have signed a petition to impeach economy minister Shamseddin Hosseini over the affair.

With the ‘reformists’ ousted, political conflict within the ranks of the conservative wing of the religious state (between Ahmadinejad and the supporters of the supreme leader) have reached such a level of intensity that half of the Islamic parliament accuses Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff of masterminding the fraud.

While bank officials and associates of Ahmadinejad are stealing billions, the majority of Iranians are finding life increasingly unbearable, as inflation spiralled to 18.3% in September, while job losses and unemployment mount. In this situation the Islamic leaders might be regretting having drawn attention to the Wall Street protests: this week the slogans on Tehran campuses have been ‘Occupy Bank Melli!’ and ‘Occupy Ferdowsi Street!’ (where most of the major Iranian banks have their headquarters).

Meanwhile, 6,000 workers at the Mahshahr petrochemical company are on strike in protest against unscrupulous contractors; the majority of the population cannot afford and refuses to pay utility bills. Almost every industry, every financial institution is feeling the effects of US/UN sanctions (the national airline is now facing more of the same from the International Air Transport Association). The new academic year has started with major student protests on university campuses - students inspired by the Arab awakening are making their voices heard. The Azari nationality is rebelling against the government for its failure to save Lake Urumiyeh - a major environmental disaster. Faced with all of this, the Iranian state clearly needed something to distract attention from its domestic travails.

The brutal truth, however, is that the US is in no better a position. The two wars it has waged in Iraq and Afghanistan have left Iran’s Islamic republic in a relatively strong political position in the region. In the aftermath of the Arab awakening, and following the fall of Iraq, rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia has taken on new dimensions. This expresses itself not simply along Shia/Sunni fault lines, but also in terms of Realpolitik.

The trace-marks of this rivalry can be spotted throughout the region, from Afghanistan to Iraq and Lebanon. Each side supports competing reactionary forces and, of course, the US should take all the ‘credit’ for this geopolitical meltdown. Yet in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1920s, and at a time when youth’s rebellious voice can be heard challenging the basic tenets of the capitalist system in every major financial centre in the US, from New York to Chicago, to San Francisco, what better way to defuse this crisis other than to engage in yet another military adventure (or at least threat of one) in the Middle East? (The US has now lodged an official complaint against Iran and the case will go to the United Nations security council in the near future - an ominously familiar pattern begins to emerge).

Clearly the clumsy Iranian plot in Washington was not new or particularly ominous. The culprits have been arrested and there was no ‘clear and immediate danger’, as the relevant phraseology goes. Yet some in the US administration, including secretary of state Hillary Clinton, are still talking of the need for retaliation against the Iranian state. Why?

Well, it cannot be any coincidence that the current crisis erupted just a week before Congress was to discuss sanctions against Iran’s central bank. Reports from Washington indicate that the Obama administration is now “actively” considering their implementation and has joined Republican congressmen in baying for revenge for the alleged Iranian assassination plot. A move like this would severely cripple Iran’s already enfeebled economy and potentially provoke an even more hysterical response from Tehran.

So now, once more, there is talk of attacking Iran - but this time no-one is mentioning Iran’s allegedly ominous nuclear capability in justification. The economic situation in both Iran and the US might have more to do with the sabre-rattling and the edging of both sides towards the precipice. As this paper - and Hands Off the People of Iran - has repeatedly made clear, despite the real strains and conflicts between them, the two reactionary ruling elites in Washington and Tehran also share a strange political symbiosis at this stage in history