In mid-June
Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad. He flew in unannounced; the Prime
Minister Al Maliki was only told five minutes before he met Bush that
he was in the country.
Bush spent five
hours in the Green Zone, (a heavily fortified area through which you
must pass seven checkpoints in order to gain access) within which the
Iraqi government and the US administrators are incarcerated, never stepping
foot into the “real” Iraq. His visit was ironically meant
as a boost to the new government but it was also to try to signal that
the US had made a step forward in its war against the “resistance”
movement after the killing of Zarqawi.
The next day US troops and Iraqi security forces patrolled the streets
of Baghdad in an attempt to stop the sectarian killings and claimed
to have killed 150 and detained 700 in raids against Al Qaeda. This
operation was spun as a major success. For a few days the streets of
Baghdad were “safer” as there was a fall off in sectarian
attacks and attacks on the US and Iraqi forces. Yet what is proclaimed
as a success exposes the weakness of the US occupation - the only way
they could temporarily reduce the violence in Baghdad was to put 70,000
troops onto the streets and impose a curfew at 9.00 pm! At the same
time, reported attacks and bombings took place in Kirkuk, Tikrit and
Basra killing and injuring hundreds.
These events speak volumes about how the US is losing its war of occupation
in Iraq, but they also help explain its apparent about turn in relation
to its dealings with Iran. Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, US imperialism
doesn’t have the capacity for another pre-emptive war.
The Bush administration’s announcement that it was prepared to
hold talks with Iran for the first time in 27 years is a major climbdown.
For three years the US has threatened to impose new sanctions and take
military action against Iran if it didn’t halt its nuclear power
programme. Some amongst the Bush administration and its advisors have
even suggested that the use of tactical nuclear missiles against Iran’s
nuclear projects, or launch a full scale invasion. This shift towards
diplomacy and compromise is a recognition that US imperialism is suffering
from a military and economic overstretch. It is recognition of what
many of the Bush regime’s military advisors have been telling
him, that there is no military option open to them in regard to Iran
at this time.
The deal which was delivered by Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief,
includes “acceptance of a civil nuclear energy programme, equipment
and co-operation on the construction of reactors by big western nuclear
engineering contractors and the prospect of ultimately keeping some
national uranium enrichment projects”, The Guardian 8 June 2006.
Attempts by the Bush administration to fully isolate Iran have failed
as Russia and China refused to support sanctions against a country that
is an important trading “partner”. This is a defeat for
the US administration which was attempting to get an enforceable UN
Security Council decision that they could use to justify or threaten
a military attack on Iran. Even Tony Blair refused to back military
action against Iran due to the negative impact that the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have had on the popularity of the Labour Party, which
is currently behind the Tories in the opinion polls. Opinion polls are
also worrying the Republican Party as George Bush’s approval rating
is below 38% and a majority of Americans are opposed to the war and
occupation in Iraq. With the death toll of US troops now over 2,500
and US spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approaching $1 trillion,
Bush cannot afford the potential domestic backlash from another military
adventure. Even if his domestic political standing were stronger it
would still not be possible for the US to invade Iran as some neo-cons
have been urging.
The shift away from sanctions and military action by the US was underlined
by comments from Condoleezza Rice who said “The Iranian people
believe that have a right to civil nuclear energy...We acknowledge that
right”. In response Iran’s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki
said, “We think that if there is goodwill, a breakthrough to get
out of a situation they have created for themselves is possible”.
The US military is stretched to its limits, bogged down in an unwinnable
war in Iraq. The Iraqi resistance movement has dealt major blows against
the US military including demoralising its troops who are forced to
carry out long and repeated tours of duty in a country in which they
are hated and everyone is a potential enemy.
The US invasion forces in Iraq were not greeted by cheering crowds waving
flags and throwing flowers, but neither did they incur major resistance
from the civilian population. There was no stomach amongst the Iraqi
people to “rise” up and risk their lives in military action
against the US invasion in order to defend the hated regime of Saddam
Hussein. However, Iran is fundamentally different. Iran is ruled by
a reactionary Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship dominated by the Shia
clergy. This regime is hated by the majority of Iranians. However in
the event of a US or Israeli military assault or even invasion, the
majority of the Iranian population would nevertheless rally behind the
regime in order to defend Iran from their imperialist aggressors. Iran
is also a country many times the size of Iraq with twice its population
that hasn’t suffered the ravages of 12 years of UN sanctions resulting
in the deaths of up to two million people as in Iraq.
The Bush regime is also wary of military action against Iran because
of how it would impact on Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and
across the Middle East. Through their links to Hezbollah in Lebanon
and Islamic Jihad and now Hamas in the Occupied Territories, Iran could
make life very difficult for the US and its allies in the Israeli government.
An invasion or an attack would cause a reaction amongst a majority of
Arabs and the other nationalities of the Middle East, but in particular
the Shia. But it is in Iraq that an attack or invasion of Iran would
have the biggest repercussions. The “new” Iraqi government
is dominated by the United Iraqi Alliance, a coalition of Shia forces.
The largest and
most influential of these forces, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution
in Iraq (SCIRI) led by Ayatollah Al Sistani and the representatives
of Muqtada Al Sadr and others, are influenced by the Iranian regime.
Reports indicate that Iran’s religious dictators have been “restraining”
Shia forces in Iraq, pushing them towards involvement in the US backed
“political process”. It is not in the interests of the Iranian
regime to have the majority Shia population engaged in an all out confrontation
with imperialism as this could spill over into Iran and impact on their
own discontented populous. This would change in the event of an attack
or invasion of Iran and could lead to a fragmentation and collapse of
Iraq’s coalition government and a move by thousands of Shia into
military resistance against the occupation forces.
Iran’s president Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005 on the back
of promises to take radical measures to combat 30% unemployment and
24% inflation and to alleviate the conditions facing the poor. So far
he has failed to take measures which have fundamentally impacted on
the lives of working class people and the poor. Opposition to the Iranian
regime is growing amongst the working class and rural masses. In order
to deflect this anger away from his government and the clerical dictatorship,
Ahmadinejad has tried to whip up nationalist fervour by using the nuclear
power issue and feeding off the threats from US imperialism. Ahmadinejad’s
anti-Semitic rants that included a claim the Holocaust never happened
and that Israel should be destroyed have made him a hero of Europe’s
neo-nazis. But they also expose him as a dangerous demagogue, who rather
than bringing in reforms to help the working class and poor, has instead
been engaged in vicious anti-worker attacks.
Opposition to the Iranian clerical dictatorship has been growing. Strikes
and protests against the government have been occurring sometimes on
a daily basis and involving thousands of workers.
While the world has been focused on the nuclear stand off, the Iranian
regime has been cracking down on any opposition from workers, women,
students or national minorities.
100,000 attended this year’s May Day “protest” in
Tehran. It was a gathering organised by the Workers’ House, the
official state union and was meant as a token gathering at which pro-government
and anti-imperialist rhetoric would be trotted out. However workers
used it as an opportunity to vent their anger against the regime, and
chanted slogans calling for strikes, the right to organise, etc. The
organisers called in the security forces to break up the protest. It
is illegal in Iran to go on strike or engage in collective bargaining
because Ayatollah Khomeini declared them un-Islamic!
A demonstration of 5,000 women took place in Tehran on 12 June. This
was the biggest protest by women since Ayatollah Khomeini’s counter-revolution
consolidated its power in 1981. The women and their supporters were
protesting for the basic rights they are denied under Iran’s theocratic
laws. The state sent in four mini-buses of police officers who attacked
the women with batons, tear gas and pepper spray and arrested 60. A
strike by thousands of drivers employed by the Vahed Bus Company in
Tehran demanding better pay and working conditions was brutally repressed
and its leaders jailed. In an extract from an appeal by the workers,
they outline the measures that workers engaging in struggle can expect
to be used against them.
Attacks
“On behalf
of the 17,000 workers of the Vahed Bus Co. of Tehran we inform the workers’
organizations of the world and all those who have been moved by the
suppression of the most basic human rights, that today, January 28th,
our widespread strike was confronted by the unprecedented attack of
the agents of the Islamic Republic.
“On the previous night they attacked our homes, even took our
young children to prison, and a large number that is certainly over
hundreds, were arrested.
“What was the strike about? For the release of Mr. Ossanlou and
other leaders of the union, who were also without any reason and through
bullying thrown into jail; signing a collective contract; union recognition;
for a pay rise and the like. Can you believe that for these demands
such a merciless and massive war was started? The Islamic Republic has
done this and we have no choice other than to continue our struggle
in a more determined and united way”.
Ahmadinejad’s government is also facing growing opposition amongst
some of Iran’s national minorities (who make up 40% of the population).
The Azeris have been involved in protests and recently troops fired
and killed demonstrators. There are 100,000 troops stationed in Iranian
Azerbijan because of the unrest.
The Iranian working class and rural masses have a rich tradition of
struggle. During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah,
the workers and peasants moved towards overthrowing capitalism. After
a four month long general strike, the Shah fled the country and the
working class established Shora (councils) to take control of their
factories. Elements of workers’ control of production and dual
power existed as the peasantry also seized the land and Shora were established
by rank and file soldiers in the army. The main parties of the left,
Tudeh (Communist Party), Fedayeen and the Mujahadeen (who had more support
in Iran than the Mullahs) all followed the Stalinist two-stagist theory
that it was first necessary to develop a democratic capitalist state
before a struggle for socialism could be waged.
So incredibly they
backed Khomeini! They allowed his forces to take control of the mass
movement, and takeover the Shora, thus they handed the revolutionary
struggle over to counter-revolutionary forces. In the years that followed,
Khomeini’s dictatorship murdered tens of thousands of opponents
aping the methods of the Shah’s regime and implemented draconian
fundamentalist Islamic law and controls. It was Ayatollah Khomeini and
his faction of the Shia clergy along with the betrayals of the Iranian
left that saved capitalism in Iran.
Threat
to cut oil
Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Khamenei prior to the recent compromise proposals threatened to cut
Iranian oil exports in the event of sanctions or a, military assault
on Iran. As the worlds fourth largest producer of oil, (second largest
proven oil and gas reserves) this in itself would pose problems for
world capitalism which is already dealing with a supply crisis. He also
threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz through which 30% of the world’s
oil travels. If this had happened or indeed if it were to happen in
the event of the US/EU proposal being rejected by Iran and the situation
escalating towards confrontation once again, US imperialism would send
its fleet to the Strait and use force against Iran to keep it open.
Yet Iran cannot just cut its oil exports without major consequences.
Iran’s income from oil exports is $53 billion a year half of the
country’s annual budget. The economy is already in a mess and
political and social opposition to the regime is growing as a consequence.
A major drop in its oil revenues would deepen the problems facing Ahmadinejad.
Therefore it is likely that both the US and Iran will try to find a
way out of this crisis through compromise rather than confrontation.
Oppose
nuclear power
The Socialist Party
is opposed to nuclear power. We are also opposed to nuclear weapons
because they truly are weapons of mass destruction and we stand for
unilateral nuclear disarmament. All nuclear powers should immediately
disarm and dispose of their nuclear weapons. Therefore we do not support
the Iranian government developing nuclear power stations or nuclear
weapons. It is not in the interests of the working class and masses
of Iran or the Middle East that a mini-nuclear arms race occurs. However
we are opposed to the hypocrites from the biggest nuclear power on the
planet, the US, using sanctions or military force against Iran to stop
its nuclear programme.
As socialists we support the overthrow of the theocratic dictatorship
that rules Iran. But we believe that it is up to the working class and
the rural masses of Iran to overthrow this hated regime, not US imperialism.
You only have to look at the nightmare of Iraq to see that US imperialism’s
intervention into Iran would be a disaster for the Iranian people.
Socialists in the west should campaign against US aggression against
the Iranian people as well as giving whatever assistance and solidarity
we can to Iranian workers engaged in struggle against the Ayatollah’s
dictatorship. Building on the true traditions of the 1979 Iranian revolution,
the working class and rural masses can achieve freedom from repression
and economic exploitation through a struggle for a socialist Iran in
which all of the country’s huge wealth can be utilised for the
needs of all.
