At a time when liberals and the left are talking about an imminent attack on Iran the imperialists and the Tehran regime are discussing ways to co-operate on improving the security situation in Iraq. By helping bring about a US withdrawal "with honour" the Iranian regime will be able to restore and normalise relations with the "Great Satan".
The twists and turns of diplomacy
Although the snide remarks exchanged between Condoleezza Rice and Manuchehr Mottaki in Egypt fell far short of the direct talks the US held with the Syrians, nevertheless the other diplomats and officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and American delegations worked together on improving the security situation in Iraq.
Ever since the international conference on 10 March in Baghdad, where ambassadors from the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the EU and Iraq's neighbours discussed ways of clamping down on the insurgents' attacks and sectarian violence in Iraq, various working groups were set up to progress this work. Expectations had been raised that at the meeting in Sharm el Sheikh, where the foreign ministers of these countries would be attending, there might be some kind of ice breaking move between the two countries. US imperialism desperately needs to get out of its second Vietnam and is therefore easing the pressure on the IRI in exchange for help in preparing the conditions for a withdrawal. The puppet Shia-Kurd government in Baghdad is already close to the Iranian regime, but for a US withdrawal, there needs to be a lot more help.
Alas the conference on 3-4 May just resulted in the first direct talks between the US and Syria since the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the Lebanese Prime Minister. Dr Rice and Mr Mottaki, her Iranian opposite number, merely exchanged a few brief comments during lunch, and then in a later session Mottaki accused the US occupation of being the root cause of the violence. The final gala dinner, where they were placed at the same table opposite each other, did not yield anything either - Mottaki apparently left the hall objecting to the way the woman violinist was dressed!
Yet despite this seeming 'missed opportunity' for dialogue the US-Iran relationship is actually in the best shape it has been for 27 years. In a recent interview Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, stated that "regime change" was never the policy of the Bush government in relation to Iran! Dr Rice insisted that the US is interested in "a change in regime behaviour" (Financial Times, 23 April 2007). Although some people may dismiss Rice's comments as a trick to make the Iranian regime lower its guard, it must be recognised that this has been one of the Iranian regime's main preconditions for any talks. Even though Dr Rice tried very hard to present this as not a new policy, however, to all those who have followed the Bush regime's twists and turns since the "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, it is clear that this is a fundamental policy shift. And yet, it is not a new policy and dates back to several months ago.
Even before the latest setbacks suffered by the Bush government the US imperialist state had serious problems. After the heady rhetoric of 2002 (after the overthrow of the Taleban) and 2003 (after the overthrow of the Baathists) the US quietly dropped the general threat of 'regime change' off the agenda. Nine months ago, at a meeting of the Center for the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights, Elliot Abrams, a senior National Security Council aid, and Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State, played host to various Iranian opposition groups. During this meeting they stressed that there are many regimes that the US government disliked but 'regime change' was not US policy and went on to say that it is for the Iranian people to change the regime (Financial Times, 28 July 2006).
Abrams, called the "neo-cons' neo-con" by his critics, and Burns, who handles the Iran portfolio at the State Department, concentrated on the regime's nuclear programme and using US diplomatic channels at the UN to stop it. Significantly, even though this meeting was held in the middle of the Lebanese war, they did not raise the issue of that conflict or the IRI's support for Hezbollah. The Israeli army's disastrous campaign was probably the last nail in the coffin of 'regime change' as they recognised the military fiasco in Lebanon had changed the balance of forces in the Iranian regime's favour.
Since then the Bush government has had further mounting problems. The Republicans have lost control of both the Congress and the Senate and Bush has had to sack Donald Rumsfeld. Nearly all the neo-cons have been humiliated and marginalised to various degrees:
"Paul Wolfowitz is hanging on to his job at the World Bank by his fingernails. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé, is facing prison; Douglas Feith, who worked with Mr Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, is an "untouchable" who is floating around the margins of academia.
"As for their patrons, Donald Rumsfeld, Mr Wolfowitz's patron, was sacked from the Pentagon amid accusations that he had lost the Republicans their majority. Dick Cheney is so unpopular that he has provoked protests even at Brigham Young University, a Mormon redoubt which is as conservative as they come. Conrad Black, one of the movement's most generous sugar daddies, is on trial for fraud."
On top of the misfortunes of the individuals involved the whole movement has become discredited: "But, more important, neocons have been discredited for ideological reasons. Most of the recent mistakes can be traced back not just to flawed execution but to flawed thinking." (The Economist, 19 March 2007)
The Bush government is now in so much trouble that it is "suffering from a rapid depletion of high-level officials and growing difficulties in trying to fill prominent vacancies, say insiders" (Financial Times, 9 May 2007). This haemorrhaging of officials is even affecting the conduct of the war in Iraq!
The new policy
The nuclear issue is the main problem area: it encapsulates the Iranian regime's ranking in the region (and beyond). That is why even though the US has no problem about the IRI having nuclear power, and the Iranian regime's official position is that they do not intend to develop any nuclear weapons, it is proving so hard to have direct negotiations.
Javier Solana, the EU Foreign Policy Commissioner, who also represents the interests of the 'west' in discussions with the IRI, recently resumed negotiations with Ali Larijani, the regime's security chief. The meetings on 25-26 April were said to have been "good and constructive" and they agreed to hold a further round of talks within two weeks.
It has been claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, has given Larijani "the authority for compromise" over the nuclear programme in talks with the European Union. After these meetings in Turkey, Solana called on the US to hold direct talks with the regime. Since then Dr Rice has ruled out 'regime change', the regime has played along with the Iraq conference and now, officials from Britain, the US and the EU have offered Iran new incentives to suspend nuclear enrichment so that talks may begin. One option being floated is that an international consortium will enrich the uranium on Iranian soil. Nicolas Burns told the Financial Times that "once we get to the table, either side can raise anything they wish. So we are certainly interested in what they have to say and we will listen [to] what they have to say at the table." (7 May 2007)
Furthermore, in an interview with the Financial Times, Abbas Araghchi, the regime's Deputy Foreign Minister, who attended the Sharm el Sheikh conference on Iraq's future, "offered Tehran's co-operation to the US in developing an "exit strategy" from Iraq." He said that "America and Iran had the "same interests" in a stable Iraq and that direct talks leading to a "face-saving withdrawal" were possible with Washington's goodwill." Araghchi also "welcomed the outcome of Sharm el Sheikh, identifying four principles emerging as acceptable to Iraq's neighbours: support for the elected government in Baghdad; greater authority for the government in "politics, economics and especially security"; boosting the Iraqi army and police; and help for reconstruction." (9 May 2007)
Of course, the long-standing problems between US imperialism and the peculiar form of capitalist dictatorship that developed after the defeat of the revolution in Iran will take some time to resolve. But the current situation is far removed from the position of those who claim that there is going to be an attack and that it is their anti-imperialist duty to "defend Iran"(?!).
The left: out on a limb
As US imperialism sinks ever deeper into the Iraqi quagmire of its own making it has had to make serious personnel and policy adjustments. For example, Prof. Eliot A. Cohen, who has even been critical of the Iraq Study Group, referring to it as "a fatuous process yields, necessarily, fatuous results", was recently brought in as an advisor to Dr Rice! (Washington Post, 2 March 2007). As for the policy change, this is patently obvious.
Just as it has embraced old critics within America it has been extending its hand of friendship to "rogue regimes" like Syria and Iran. Yet the various 'internationals' claiming (or dreaming of) leadership of the world proletariat, from nefarious sects like the International Committee of the Fourth International to more balanced groups like the United Secretariat of the Fourth International (and many others) are talking about an attack on Iran as an impending and almost inevitable disaster. Just when there is amnesia about 'regime change' in Washington our 'leaders' are forgetting their fundamental task - helping the class struggle in Iran - and are gearing themselves up for further historical mistakes (to rival those made during the Iranian revolution).
The ICFI
The Editorial Board of the website, i.e., the leadership of the ICFI, recently issued a statement entitled Stop the US war drive against Iran! It begins: "The World Socialist Web Site condemns the military and political provocations with which the Bush administration is laying the foundations for an attack on Iran" and that it is "… not only escalating its military operations in Iraq, but recklessly plunging towards a new war against neighboring Iran." The statement quotes the Washington Post that John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, had said that the government "considers 2007 'the year of Iran' and indicated that a US attack was a real possibility."
"… by menacing Tehran it hopes to force the Iranian regime to capitulate to all of its demands. [...] The neo-cons … continue to press for "regime change" in Tehran as part of a broader strategy of refashioning the Middle East under US domination."
The ICFI concludes: "The fight to put an end to the continuing war in Iraq and the threat of a new and even bloodier assault on Iran … requires uniting the struggles of working people all over the world based on the perspective of building a mass international socialist movement. This is the task undertaken by the parties of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)." ('Stop the US war drive against Iran!', 14 February 2007)
But how is this "uniting [of] the struggles of working people all over the world" going to come about? The ICFI has no concrete ideas about practical and organisational steps that have to be taken to build a revolutionary working class party in Iran. (It does not even seem to know the basics of Iranian history. For example, it keeps referring to Reza Pahlavi as the Shah who was overthrown in 1979! Yet as any schoolchild in Iran knows Reza was the man who, following the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941, was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of his son Mohammad-Reza.)
The USFI
The USFI provides a much more nuanced analysis than the ICFI. "The regime of the Iranian mullahs is seen by the Bush administration as an Islamic equivalent of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela: a regime that relies on the margin of autonomy with which its oil resources provide it to reject the domination of Washington and to oppose its regional hegemony. Members of the US establishment prefer to stress the possibility of coming to a modus vivendi with Tehran, pointing out the opening of the Iranian regime to neo-liberalism, which strongly distinguishes it from the social radicalisation that is under way in Latin America."
"… [it] is considerably increasing its pressure on Tehran, multiplying military gesticulations which give the impression that it is preparing an attack against Iran. … [it has] a regional policy whose aim is to counter the influence of Iran by stirring up religious tensions between Shiites and Sunnis on the level of the whole of the Middle East."
"… [it] has very ostentatiously engaged in preparations for war against Iran and does not hesitate to broaden the regional scope of its military action ... It is urgent to re-double efforts to build a powerful anti-war movement for an immediate and unconditional end to imperialist expeditions ..."
"In this battle, the Fourth International will establish particular links of solidarity with the trade union and political forces that are conducting a progressive struggle in the region. It will seek to favour the re-emergence of a Left in the Middle East that is at once democratic, feminist and anti-imperialist." ('The Imperial Fiasco', International Committee resolution - February 2007, International Viewpoint, No. 387, March 2007)
Yet this more balanced analysis does not translate into a better guide to action:
1- It ignores the consistent help the IRI gave the imperialists in invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, and providing aid, loans, trade, technical assistance, security co-operation to both puppet regimes, and therefore, to the Americans. Looking beyond the military planning and preparations, we can see that for over five years the Iranian regime has been helping the US in attacking and occupying its two neighbours. There is a long list of trade, security and other deals which have been signed with these regimes. E.g., in July 2005 the IRI signed a deal with the 'government' of Iraq to import 150,000 barrels of light crude from Basra and in exchange provide it with refined oil products like petrol, fuel oil and so on. Two pipelines are going to be built for this purpose. This is obviously aimed at overcoming shortages due to the ongoing insurgency and will not only prop up the puppet 'government' but assist US imperialism with its plans for Iraq.
Ignoring this ongoing co-operation means that the USFI does not realise that an attack is highly unlikely.
2- What, in concrete terms, are "particular links of solidarity with the trade union and political forces that are conducting a progressive struggle in the region"? Why does the "Left in the Middle East" have to be "democratic, feminist and anti-imperialist", and not, first and foremost, proletarian?
Does the USFI not realise that the people of Iran are not merely a homogenous mass? Or that class stratification in today's Iran is far more advanced than in the Russia of 1917! The Iranian workers are in no way less working class than their brothers and sisters in America, Britain or any other G7 country. What would the USFI suggest as the way forward for them? If the USFI had an Iranian section today, like the one it had (and let down!) during the Iranian revolution, what would it recommend as the policy to adopt in the current situation? Are Iranian revolutionary socialists supposed to join forces with the Hezbollah, Pasdaran, Basij and other arms of the bourgeois state in an anti-imperialist bloc?
So why are our 'internationals' so off key about the true state of relations between US imperialism and the Islamic regime? This is probably because they base their analyses on articles that have (for well over a year) been reporting about covert operations inside Iran and US-Israeli preparations for a war.
The influence of the liberal and radical journalists
Recently journalistic 'noise' over US plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has reached a crescendo. Although there has been talk of an attack since George Bush's "axis of evil" speech in January 2002, what to many seems to have given credibility to the latest round of articles is that they have not been written by the usual right-wing columnists and editors. These characters have used up much of their standing among the American or British public because of their role in relation to the attack and occupation of Iraq.
It is, rather, the role that left-leaning and/or well-meaning journalists like Seymour M. Hersh, John Pilger and others have played in their sincere attempt to prevent another calamity like Iraq. They have, despite their good intentions, confused the true nature of the US-IRI disagreements by putting two and two together and reaching five.
Seymour M. Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize winning US journalist who exposed the Mai Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, wrote at the beginning of George W. Bush's second term: "The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term." ('The Coming Wars', The New Yorker, 24 January 2005) He also alleged that the US has been conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. In a more recent article, Hersh reported that the Bush government was planning for a "major air attack" on Iranian targets - including using bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons. ('The Iran Plans', The New Yorker, 17 April 2006).
Similarly John Pilger, the acclaimed British-based Australian journalist, has been writing about an attack on Iran even before the US overthrew the Baathists in Iraq. "For the expansionists running Israel, the prize is not so much the conquest of Iraq but Iran. A significant proportion of the Israeli air force is already based in Turkey with Iran in its sights, waiting for an American attack." ('What now?', New Statesman, 17 March 2003). Since then he has diligently followed the issue in many articles. ('Iran: the next war', 10 February 2006; 'Iran: a war is coming', 1 February 2007; 'Iran may be the greatest crisis of modern times', 12 April 2007; and 'Empire and Israel', 27 July 2006).
An incredible amount of heat has been created - with little light - on the US-IRI relationship. Yet no-one seems interested in the fundamental economic and political trends in this relationship that go back to 1979. Some of the left-wing groups therefore make grave errors, or at best, confused statements, based on these articles. A Socialism Today editorial by Lynn Walsh of the Socialist Party begins with the following sentences: "Alarm bells have been ringing, left and right. John Pilger, the radical journalist, wrote an article, Iran: The War Begins (New Statesman, 3 February), warning that a US air attack on Iran was imminent.
"The US journalist, Seymour Hersh, reported that Bush had ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for air strikes against Iran, and special US forces were already carrying out undercover operations inside Iran. (Guardian, 26 February) At the same time, the veteran cold-war warrior, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was warning the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) of a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran"". ('Will Bush bomb Iran?', Website of the Committee for a Workers' International, 26 March 2007).
Although the CWI article starts in an alarmist tone it later mentions the issue of negotiations. Not so with League for the Fifth International! In Workers Power, the paper of its British section, it says: "… if Iran is attacked by the US and its allies then it is the duty of the antiwar movement worldwide to work for an Iranian victory." ('Hands off Iran!', Workers Power, 313 - March 2007) This call for working towards an "Iranian victory"(!) is again based on material in these articles: "… the Pentagon … is in the advance stages of planning a bombing mission against neighbouring Iran."
"Hersh … has made detailed claims that the US is now capable of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities and military targets at just 24 hours notice. […] Vice President Dick Cheney and security adviser Elliot Abrams (who was convicted in the Iran-contra affair in the 1980s) have been charged with leading the operation […] working closely with Saudi Arabia ..." It also claims that "There are other signs of a coming military attack on Iran" and "Echoes from the build-up to the Iraqi war are unmistakable". Clearly, in addition to not seeing the importance of the workers' struggle in Iran, this group is incapable of understanding whether the military plans or the diplomatic manoeuvres are the primary option that imperialism is pursuing. ('Hands off Iran!', Workers Power 313 - March 2007)
A unique capitalist state
What the liberals and these comrades lack, of course, is the historical and class perspective that can put the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and its roller-coaster relationship with US imperialism into context. They either do not know, or choose to forget, that the unique form of capitalist dictatorship in today's Iran is the result of a counter-revolution headed by the Shia hierarchy and sections of the bourgeoisie that had been excluded from the normal paths of capital accumulation under the Shah.
This was a counter-revolutionary alliance that assumed the leadership of the revolution by using 'anti-imperialist' rhetoric and antics like the seizure of the US embassy. With the Iraqi attack in 1980 it managed to smash its 'internal enemy' totally. All independent activity and opposition within the masses - especially the workers' councils - were crushed. Nationalisation and the politicisation of the production process became tools used against the working class!
Then once the war ended in 1988, it began making gradual attempts to undo the 'revolutionary zeal' of the early days by launching a rebuilding programme, used rhetoric about 'civil society' to dupe the masses and is now resorting to crude nationalism and hand-outs (from the surplus oil fund) to shore up its crumbling social base.
The most important recent moves by IRI's elite have undoubtedly been the re-launching of its stalled privatisation and foreign direct investment drives - not Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic rants! These economic policies, and the response of the 'international community', hold the key to future relations. If we just consider the World Bank, as an example, then we see that lending to Iran resumed in 2000 (after a seven-year break) and the current portfolio consists of six operations totalling $791 million. The Bank recently also said that it will give serious consideration to the proposed $7 billion gas pipeline between Iran and India.
It is true that the second (1737) and third (1747) UN Security Council resolutions have hit the regime - but not as hard as some commentators believe. Although initially rattled by resolution 1737, the regime now knows that these resolutions are strictly aimed at individuals and institutions that are directly linked with the nuclear and missile technology developments, plus the Pasdaran (the so-called Revolutionary Guard). But it is possible to work around the sanctions. For example, one of the individuals on the sanctions list, Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, travelled to Moscow in early April. He is No. 7 on the blacklist of 15 officials who are banned from travelling abroad by resolution 1747. (The Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2007)
Nevertheless, the sanctions have dampened the enthusiasm of European and Japanese capital for investment in Iran - particularly in the oil and gas industry where serious money and technical know-how are needed. There is also the pressure from the US which forced Japan's Inpex to stop short of finalising its involvement in developing the Azadegan oil field and has now meant that its stake has been cut to 10 percent. The regime has now become more flexible, giving France's Total a few more months to make its final decision regarding the South Pars gas field.
Will there be an attack?
It is beyond doubt that using cruise missiles US imperialism can at any time hit dozens of targets deep inside Iran without any immediate risk to its personnel. The important question is: why have they not done this? The US knows full well that not only will its troops in the region become targets for many groups, but its allies, particularly Israel and Britain, will be exposed too. There could also be the possibility of action outside the region. But this, in itself, would be a minor point.
When discussing military conflict there are many people who like quoting Clausewitz about war being a "continuation of politics by other means". Marxists, in particular, have been keen on this ever since Lenin discussed it in 1915. Lenin said: "With reference to wars, the main thesis of dialectics … is that "war is simply the continuation of politics by other [i.e., violent] means". Such is the formula of Clausewitz, one of the greatest writers on the history of war, whose thinking was stimulated by Hegel. And it was always the standpoint of Marx and Engels, who regarded any war as the continuation of the politics of the powers concerned—and the various classes within these countries—in a definite period." (The Collapse of the Second International, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p 219)
If we compare Lenin to today's left-wing groups we see two fundamental mistakes:
1- They do not bother to analyse what the policy behind a war is - i.e., the war's aims. If we clarify this then we can see what is going on. Just seeing aircraft carriers in the Arabian Gulf, or the capture of five 'diplomats' in Arbil, and so on should not produce a reflex reaction among people who claim to be Marxists.
2- They do not bother to analyse the class forces in either the US or, more importantly, in Iran. Although there are "various classes" in Iranian society, there are just two main classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. This is nothing new, it was the same in 1978-79!
Few, however, stop to think this trough. Clausewitz and Lenin are talking about using military conflict to implement a definite policy. Yet if we look at the policy of the current US government we see that it has become less clear-cut as the crisis in Iraq became deeper. During the past few months, however, it has become clearer and points away from a military conflict (especially since the Democrats took over of Congress and Donald Rumsfeld had to be replaced, and the hawks within the government became undermined).
What are the possible aims of a military attack?
i- invasion and regime change,
ii- stopping nuclear weapons development,
iii- realigning the balance between the US and IRI before negotiations,
Let us look at each one briefly.
i- invasion and regime change
A full-scale invasion, as was the case with Afghanistan and Iraq, was never seriously on the agenda. As discussed above the continuing heavy losses of the US military in Iraq (despite the start of the troops 'surge'), the mounting financial cost of the war, the political damage to Bush and the Republicans (losses in the Congress, Senate and cabinet), the Baker-Hamilton report (and the findings of many other government and independent studies), and the morale of the US Army and its serving (or former) leaders, have clearly further weakened George Bush's government. The American people see the high price in lives and dollars with none of the promised peace, security or democracy in sight.
In addition, a crucial element of the Afghan and Iraq wars was the "coalition of the willing", particularly the support of British imperialism. Yet during the past few months one of the most demonstrative aspects of Tony Blair's lack of authority as prime minister was that he could not even secure an exemption for his beloved Catholic adoption agencies when it came to considering applications by gay couples as adoptive parents! His own cabinet would not accept his lead on this.
From now until the end of June Blair will be desperately trying to secure a 'legacy' other than the Iraq war - he will not be in a position to start a new one. And when Gordon Brown takes over, faced with the shrinking support for Labour in Scotland and the English counties, and the worsening economic conditions, he will have to concentrate on how 'new' his Labour has to be in order to beat the Tories at the general election.
ii- stopping nuclear weapons development
Technically there is not going to be much of a problem hitting the sites involved in Iran suspected nuclear weapons programme. A few dozen cruise missiles (and perhaps even some stealth bomber sorties) could easily strike a whole number of targets. The cost, considering that the Iraq war is costing over a $1 billion a week, would not be prohibitive.
Yet it would not address its stated purpose. The information that became available about the Esfahan and Natanz facilities was leaked by the Mojahedin-e Khalq (although there are rumours that this was handed over to them in order to protect the true sources inside Iran). These facilities had remained undetected until then. There could easily be many other unknown facilities. The known facilities are spread out and, of course, the scientists and technicians who are not killed in the attacks will carry on the work. There could even be a parallel military nuclear programme - as with Saddam's regime.
Various experts have estimated that this will merely delay the process of acquiring weapons by a few years. So this is an option with many risks and just a short-term benefit.
iii- realigning the balance between the US and IRI before negotiations
This, we believe, is the policy that US imperialism is following. Does this mean that there will never be any bombs and missile dropping on Iranian territory? Of course not. But it not only makes such an attack highly unlikely but also would put it in a totally different context. First, a serious breakdown in the recent bridge-building would have to come about. Second, this would be a limited attack of a few dozen cruise missiles (and maybe a few hundred sorties) and the targets are likely to be limited to Esfahan, Natanz and other nuclear and/or military facilities. Third, the ultimate purpose would be push the IRI back to the negotiating table - but with diminished demands.
This does not rule out a 'cold war'. Indeed such a war has been going on for many months. The activities of US and Israeli covert operatives inside Iran, the mysterious death of a nuclear physicist, the seizure of the five officials in Arbil (in Iraqi Kurdistan), the detention of a diplomat by forces linked to the Americans in Iraq, the abduction of British sailors and marines, the disappearance of a former FBI operative in Iran, and so and so forth (for details of some of these refer to 'The Covert War and Elevated Risks' by Fred Burton of Strategic Forecasting). The Iranian regime is known to be training thousands of the Shia militiamen (The Independent, 15 April 2007). But on top of this the US and Britain are coming up with ever more outlandish accusations like the regime is supposed to be helping the Sunnis in Iraq and the resurgent Taleban in Afghanistan!
These acts and accusations, and their counter moves, are designed to keep up pressure on the other side. Once the fundamental issues between these two reactionary forces have been resolved then this sparring will also mostly end. With these differences resolved, and trade and diplomatic relations 'normalised', the door will be open to a variety of organisations that will prepare Iran for exploitation by foreign capital. Initially these will be primarily UN organisations, like the International Labour Organisation, NGOs and charities.
The regime's crumbling base and the growing dissent
Anyone who looks beyond the headlines knows that for a number of years, particularly in the past few months, what we have seen is that the regime's own base (of 10-15 percent of the population) is crumbling. Members of its own students' organisation, the Office for Consolidating Unity, which seized the US embassy in 1979, are openly declaring that they are socialists and prepared to be punished for it.
There have been even more significant developments within organisations set up to suppress the workers' movement: the Labour House and the Islamic Labour Councils. The Labour House, which two years ago was openly attacking genuine trade unionists like the Vahed bus drivers, has sacked the editor of its daily newspaper, Kar-o Kargar (Labour and the Labourer). Since then Kar-o Kargar, which has a circulation of around 200,000, has published Lenin's 1899 article 'On strikes' and a photograph of him.
Even state bodies sometimes seem to work at cross purposes: e.g., the uniformed police and security forces have on a number of occasions sided with protesters against the plain-clothes officers. This was particularly noticed on May Day 2006 in Tehran.
Alongside the weakening of the regime's base we have seen significant developments in the independent movements of women, students, national minorities as well as the workers.
The new labour movement
The working class in Iran is going through a crucial stage in its history. Only five years ago, on 15 July 2001, when the workers of two textile firms went to the IRI's parliament to talk to deputies about their unpaid wages, they were beaten and shot. At least four workers are believed to have died on that day. This was when the 'reformists' had a majority in parliament and Khatami was the 'President'!
Since then the general balance of class forces has changed in favour of the workers. The Vahed bus drivers and other workers have been subjected to a systemic campaign of harassment by the regime. At one stage nearly 1300 were in prison, their wives and daughters were abducted to put pressure on them, their bank accounts were frozen, their office was smashed up, leaders injured, and so on. Their leader, Mansour Ossalou, was for many months imprisoned in Evin jail where he was often in solitary confinement and was also denied urgent medical attention. But the repression has not cowed the Vahed workers - they were one of the most active groups during the recent May Day ceremony in Tehran.
Recently we have even seen the teachers come out in force. It is important to bear in mind that the teachers are a very conservative layer of the working class. As they are state employees they must be 'good Muslims', have a thorough knowledge of Shia doctrine and the IRI system, before they can be hired. Their dire economic situation has forced them to come out in protest in many cities. In Tehran over 50,000 protested in March for better pay and conditions. Many teachers were arrested and mistreated.
This is the treatment meted out by the regime against workers even though time and time again they have said that their demands are not political but merely for trade union rights and better wages and conditions. This is because the regime is even more afraid of the workers than it is of the Americans - simply because they are a bigger threat to its survival. Yet the logic of its drive to normalise capitalist relations (after the nationalisation and the politicisation of its early days) pushes this regime to make the workers ever more impoverished and restive.
That is why even though this is still one of the most repressive regimes in the world, especially in relation to the labour movement, there has, however, been a great shift during the past few years. This is due to the workers' own combativeness in response to the worsening economic conditions and the international solidarity that has been mobilised in their support.
The most recent initiative has been the formation of a united action bloc named the Co-ordination Council of Labour Organisations and Activists. If this body is able to overcome the sectarianism and division of the previous period then there are great hopes for the re-emergence of a combative and confident movement like that of the 1978-80 period.
The importance of international solidarity
International solidarity is vital for all labour and other activists struggling for basic rights in Iran. Without this type of pressure, whether solidarity messages, signatures or pickets, the regime will have a free hand to do whatever it likes.
About two and a half years ago we saw the effect of an international campaign of pickets in putting pressure on the Iranian regime and its sham 'legal system'. The sentences against the seven labour activists arrested in Saghez were not carried out. Then last year a different type of international campaign helped secure the release of Yashar Qajar and Abed Tavancheh. More recently Mansour Ossalou, the leader of the Vahed bus drivers, was released following protests involving trade unionists in many countries. Yet again we have seen that the struggles of workers, youth, women or national minorities, when coupled with this solidarity, can make the regime retreat.
Recently, however, there have been a number of setbacks: the re-arrest of Mahmoud Salehi (one of the Saghez activists) and the brutal treatment of workers in Sanandaj. But we are confident that the new confidence of the Iranian working class, and the support of its class brothers and sisters around the world, will improve the balance of class forces inside Iran and lead to new victories.
Morad Shirin
13 May 2007