02.05.2012

War threats and Iran's impoverished workers

The Iranian people are the main victims of the sanctions campaign, insists Majid Tamjidi

Over the last few years western governments have created an atmosphere of war against Iran and in the last few months severe sanctions have come into effect. In addition we face the threat of military attacks by Israel against Iran’s strategic centres, including nuclear facilities.

On the other hand, inside Iran the authorities - in particular supreme leader Ali Khamenei and president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - have reacted to these threats with exaggerated bravado. The regime is trying to convince the population that these are just empty threats, that sanctions have had no effect and that Iran is capable of giving a fierce response to any military attack. On sanctions Ahmadinejad’s line is: ‘Even if we don’t sell any oil for two or three years we will have enough foreign currency to survive perfectly well.’ Of course, all this is taking place against the background of both secret and open negotiations with the west.

Both sides imbue their opponents with specific characteristics. The west portrays Iran as a dictatorship depriving its population of ‘human rights’, pursuing nuclear technology and thus threatening ‘world peace’, arguing that in order for a ‘democratic regime’ to be established in Iran, another Middle East war might be necessary. The Islamic regime states that it has no intention of producing nuclear arms and claims to be a state relying on the religious and moral beliefs of its population: beliefs that are superior to western ideologies about ‘human rights’.

It is not difficult to rebuff western excuses for creating this atmosphere of war and sanctions. The west is Israel’s main ally in the region and that country is a nuclear power. The US and its allies have never questioned Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, nor have they threatened it militarily. The imperialist powers’ main interactions in the region are with Saudi Arabia, which must hold the gold medal (or at least silver) for human rights abuses. The western media do not pay attention to the real victims of human rights abuses in Iran, such as Mahmoud Salehi, the labour activist who has spent the last few years in and out of Iranian jails for organising a May Day gathering. The soft war against Iran conducted by media like the BBC Persian service and Voice of America has not mentioned Salehi’s recent trip to France as a representative of the Iranian labour movement, while people like former Islamic guard Mohsen Sazegara and other ‘democracy campaigners’ are getting wall to wall coverage to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish them from these stations’ presenters.

On the other hand, the Iranian people have shown time and again that they have no allegiance to the laws of their country and they have protested against them. The constant arrest, imprisonment and forced exile of many students, women, labour activists, writers and supporters of religious and national minorities is testimony to the fact that the Iranian people do not support Islamic legislation.

Most probably Iran has put back its military nuclear programme. However, for the regime nuclear capability has become an elixir capable of providing eternal life. So what is the conflict really about? It has nothing to do with the way the two sides portray each other. The west is not really concerned about the ‘abuse of human rights’ or Iran’s nuclear capability. The issue is that Iran remains outside the direct sphere of influence of the US and its allies, and the west is determined to bring back Iran under its direct influence. For its part the Islamic regime is trying to consolidate and strengthen its regional authority.

Is there another side to this conflict? In all the representation by the media on both sides, there are only two poles: the west and Islamic fundamentalism. If this was a true reflection of what was going on in Iran, then we could say Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” had come true. But both in Huntington’s theory and in reality another major dimension to this bipolar presentation is completely forgotten - and that is the Iranian people and their demands. In the west we are given the impression that the Iranian people are keen for imperialist intervention and (pro-western) regime change. Not just that, but, using its vast media resources, the west is creating alternatives around ‘political personalities’ - some of the most dubious political forces are portrayed as highly important individuals and organisations capable of replacing the Islamic regime.

On the other hand, the Iranian government has silenced the genuine voices of the opposition with repression and used the most obvious populist techniques to portray its population as a ‘Muslim nation’ supporting its rulers. The area I know best, where I have been active for over 30 years, is the labour movement. In order to deal with this I will leave aside the repression of the women’s movement, the abuse of the rights of writers, intellectuals, religious and national minority activists, and so on.

Assault on workers

The western media present the Islamic regime as a bunch of ignorant fundamentalist mullahs who know nothing about management and governance. Of course, it is true that the Islamic regime is a reactionary force relying on religious laws. However, this is not the total truth. As far as industry and production are concerned, the Iranian government has, especially over the last 20 years, adopted exactly the type of policies adhered to in the west. It has followed the dictates of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It has abolished subsidies and introduced ‘rationalisation’ and intensification of labour productivity in order to get rid of workers. It has ended all collective negotiations and imposed contracts enforcing post-Fordist labour policies and Toyota-ist management techniques in major industries, especially its car manufacturing plants, Iran Khodro and Saipa.

These policies have led to a situation where, out of 12 million employed workers, 80% (10 million) work under temporary contracts and managers have the right to sack these workers when it suits them. These employment contracts are known as ‘white contracts’ - the employee signs an empty page and management adds the text as and when it chooses.

More than half of Iran’s employed workers have no insurance against accidents or job loss. The worsening economic situation and the rise in the number of smaller firms taking risks have resulted in a sharp increase in work accidents in the last few years. Statistics show 25,000 work-related accidents in a year, 13,000 of which resulted in the death of workers. The minimum wage is now $270 a month: ie, one-fifth of the poverty line. The abolition of subsidies has lead to an astronomic rise in prices and, according to official statistics, 60% of workers live below the poverty line. The reality is that many of these workers are forced to take second or third jobs and have to supplement their income by renting out rooms in their house.

Non-payment of wages and the sacking of workers without warning is Iranian government policy. However, the intensification of sanctions over the last two months has led to a situation where these two policies have taken on disastrous dimensions. Many firms are bankrupt, cannot pay their debts and, of course, most of them are not paying their workers. Immediately after the Iranian new year holiday (April 1 2012) the state and factory owners used sanctions as an excuse to sack large numbers of workers - around 30% of contracts were not renewed. The atmosphere of war and sanctions is used to impose further repression on labour activists, while increasing attacks against workers as a whole. On the one hand, workers’ wages are not paid, but, on the other, there is an astronomical budget to improve military capability.

The cost of war

If there is a war, one of the two conflicting parties will win: the west led by the US or Iran’s Islamic Republic. Those, whether of the right or the left, who think there will be a third pole which can become victorious, should it be organised independently, are mistaken. If there is a war, the third party to this conflict - ie, the Iranian people and the working class - will be the main victims. In current circumstances there is no possibility of transforming a reactionary war into a revolutionary one.

Progressive forces must stand firm against sanctions and the threat of war. In the current international scene I cannot see any ray of hope for a people already hit by sanctions if a war starts. I have mentioned some of the problems caused by sanctions. If there is a military attack on Iran, the devastation caused so far by sanctions will be very little compared to the ensuing destruction. Under those circumstances the benefits of getting rid of the Islamic regime will be nothing in comparison to the kind of damage to the economic and social state of the country.

Some say a sharp shock attack will do the job. But even those who make such claims know full well this is just a bluff. Saddam Hussein’s army fell with little resistance. However, returning Baghdad to the city it was under Saddam will take decades. The dictator was eliminated, only to be replaced by tens of dictators.

Following the first military attack on Iran a full-blown war will start and all that has been built step by step, at terrible cost - prison, torture, forced exile - by the workers’ movement, women’s movement and other social movements will be destroyed. Those who claim to be defenders of human rights while supporting the war will ensure that human rights and its activists will be the first victims of the conflict. We all remember how Saddam’s military attack against Mehrabad airport in September 1980 marked a serious blow against the revolutionary movement and its activists. War broke the back of the opposition movement, especially that of the workers and the oil workers in particular.

The way to overthrow the Islamic Republic is not through starting another war in the Middle East. The way to put pressure on the Islamic regime is not through economic sanctions, which is taking hostage the basic needs of the Iranian people. The way to create a democratic Iran is by strengthening the ranks of those fighting for equality and freedom in the country’s social movements. The way to replace the Islamic regime is not through the creation of an artificial opposition - a false alternative, based on anti-democratic, anti-freedom forces. The way to create an alternative is to strengthen the genuine forces fighting for freedom and equality. If we really believe in the construction of a post-Islamic Republic Iran based on democratic, egalitarian rule, we must stand firm against sanctions and war, and support those who are paying a heavy price for this in prison and under torture.

We will judge those claiming to defend human rights in Iran by the way they react to prison sentences against Vahed bus workers’ leader Reza Shahabi, who was recently handed a six-year prison term. We will judge them on how they react to the continued incarceration of Ali Nejati from the sugar workers’ union, who is still in prison despite his illness. We will judge them on their support for the Shahab Khodro workers and metal workers who have been protesting on the streets of Tehran.