Latest Negotiations: War By Other Means

Following the Geneva talks, the threat against Iran is as real as ever

Those concerned about the prospect of Iran being bombed back into the stone age may have been encouraged by the recent attempts at diplomacy and negotiations between the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran over the weekend of July 19-20.

After all, it is the first time there have been formal high-level diplomatic talks between the US and Iran since the Iranian revolution of 1979 - although, of course, secret negotiations and deals have been rife throughout this whole period. That the negotiations took place in Geneva, for example, is quite ironic. Switzerland has been pivotal in secret agreements - such as the one whereby Israel has actually flouted sanctions by importing Iranian crude oil indirectly via that country.1

Within the context of Barack Obama attempting to prove himself a reliable statesman by dropping in on occupying forces in Iraq, and with Gordon Brown’s speech to the knesset underlining his readiness to “stand firmly by Israel’s side” and call for “further sanctions and isolation” if Iran does not halt its alleged nuclear weapons programme, it is quite clear that the Geneva talks have not reduced the threat of a military strike. Things are precariously balanced and even the slightest incident, accident or diplomatic faux pas could trigger another bout of destruction and slaughter.

Ruling class contradictions
These talks may, however, reflect some of the tensions brewing within the US ruling class in a situation that is increasingly getting out of hand. While Israeli hawks are upping the ante, there are deep divisions within the US over how to react. In light of the potentially disastrous ramifications that a US-led or US-backed attack could have in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Hormuz Strait, the lack of enthusiasm for it amongst some sections is quite understandable and these latest developments do represent a nod in their direction.

The reasons presented for the continuing threats are farcical. The possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme is nothing but a pretext for actions to further the interests of US imperialism: they certainly include dealing with this particular ‘rogue state’ (whose influence has expanded precisely because of US intervention against Iran’s regional rivals - Saddam Hussein and the Taliban). In this context, Brown’s vaunting of the “unbreakable partnership” based on “liberty, democracy and justice” between a nuclear Israel and nuclear UK is the most blatant hypocrisy.

However, as we saw in the threadbare justifications for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the ruling class will always come up with serviceable lies for their imperialist adventures. While Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful purposes and fully within the remit of its national rights as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the general consensus is that Tehran is a long way from nuclear weapons capability. Indeed, a CIA intelligence report from December 2007 - much to the embarrassment of the hawks - actually suggested that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme had been junked in 2003.2

Carrots, sticks and soft war
The current carrot being offered to Tehran in the form of a diplomatic mission to Iran is therefore inseparable from the continued soft war - evident in the two-week ‘freeze for freeze’ ‘offer’ (read ultimatum) delivered by the US on July 19. In reality this forces Iran to play ball or face further sanctions from the so-called ‘international community’. On the one hand, however, it has been presented as a concession to the US ‘doves’, but, on the other hand, given that Iran is unlikely to agree to this farcical proposition, it allows US and Israeli hawks to highlight the regime’s unreasonableness and unreliability.

For communists, war and peace cannot be seen as completely distinct or unconnected phenomena - they are opposites in a unity. Clausewitz’s maxim that “war is the continuation of policy by other, violent means” is apt. It is quite clear that the ‘offer’ forms an integral part of plans to topple the current Iranian regime and replace it with a much more pliant, US-friendly one. If Iran does not agree to suspend uranium enrichment, then further sanctions targeting its banking system, combined with a possible embargo of petrol and diesel, are on the imperialist agenda. This will further worsen conditions for the Iranian people, not least workers, who have been hit by the systematic non-payment of wages and severe fuel shortages.

The ‘diplomatic mission’ is merely a gesture on the part of the US and its allies. But ‘anti-imperialist’ Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has welcomed it as a “move which would expand human relations”. However, the establishment of a diplomatic presence in Iran would allow the US to more easily exert its influence - nurture potential allies, fund certain initiatives, provide resources, etc. In other words, the application of more pressure on Iran from within - alongside the economic squeeze from without.

It is incumbent upon the anti-war movement both in the imperialist heartlands and in Iran to expose these developments for what they are - there can be no imperialist peace without imperialist war and we should not engender any illusions in imperialist missions, negotiations and deals, any more than in sanctions, wars and occupations. They are not in the interests of the Iranian, American, British or global working class.

NPC and Casmii
As we reported last week, the launch of the National Peace Council (NPC) by figures in and around the discredited and politically marginal ‘reformist’ faction in Iran could precisely be one of the ways that the CIA will look to manipulate and manoeuvre in order to gain further allies for regime change.

Following the sham of the majlis elections in March - where not even the ‘reformists’ seemed to believe that it was possible for people to vote through change - there will be those looking for other ways of getting their hands on the levers of power. Anybody who thinks that figures like Rafsanjani and Khatami would not be willing to reach an accommodation on US terms need only look at how these super-rich clerics actually opened the way for the imposition of the IMF’s structural readjustment programme with their economic ‘reforms’.

That some in and around the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (Casmii) are presenting these developments as something that could offer a welcome, peaceful solution for the Iranian people should start alarm bells ringing for all anti-war activists - not least since this follows Casmii’s blatant switch from acting as apologists for Ahmadinejad to giving support to the regime’s ‘reformist’ wing.

So too should the statements that Casmii is issuing. Its latest one, entitled ‘Message of peace and friendship to the people of United States of America: request for the Congress and president of USA”, wants to take Bush at his word when he talks of his “deep respect and affection for the Iranian people”. This “group of independent Iranians” calls on the US administration to stop its secret funding of Iranian ‘pro-democracy’ groups - a move which would “pave the way to strengthen our bonds for people-to-people cooperation between America and Iran, without interference of governments of both sides”.3

The statement continues by calling for a “non-partisan panel of scholars to study ways and means of easing sanctions, so that independent and genuine Iranian civil society and scholars can cooperate with their US counterparts” (there are quite a few “scholars” who support the NPC) through “non-confrontational dialogue and committed advocacy”. These pathetic sentiments echo people like Iranian Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi and their ‘solution’ for the Iranian people - subservience to the US-dominated system of “international law”.

The National Iranian American Council - one of Casmii’s allies in the US - is much more explicitly pro-imperialist. Like Ahmadinejad, it “welcomes US plans to establish an interests section in Iran”, as this “will help to facilitate much needed people-to-people exchanges and reverse the decline in American soft power in Iran”.

Dr Trita Parsi, NIAC president, is quite clear about what he means by American “soft power” in Iran: he argues that this “long overdue” step demonstrates “that the US does not have any enmity with the people of Iran” and that, “despite poor relations between the US and Iran, most Iranians tend to hold favourable views of America, American values and the American people. Iranians were the only people in the region to hold spontaneous candle-lit vigils in support of America after the attacks on 9/11.”4

It is utter nonsense to imply that the so-called peace vigils were a “spontaneous” movement that quickly gathered momentum from the Iranian people themselves. Just as with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - where the Iranian government issued sweets and organised celebrations at the prospect of seeing its bitter enemies defeated - these initiatives came from above. Whereas it is true that most Iranians do not have any particular enmity against the American people (and indeed enjoy American popular culture such as films and music smuggled into Iran), what is evident is that many still see the US state as a meddling force, which alongside Britain has a rotten history of intervention in the Middle East - from the CIA-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 to the current disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is precisely US interference, whether through overt military action or ‘soft power’, that many Iranians are opposed to - interference which has been used by the current Tehran regime to rally support for itself, as a means of countering its ever increasing unpopularity.

Casmii split?
The Socialist Workers Party enjoys a working relationship with Casmii, but has not yet formally reacted to these latest developments and its potential switch to liberal pro-imperialism. It continues to operate within Campaign Iran, which was formed in November 2006 as a merger of the SWP-led Action Iran, Iran Solidarity and Casmii.

Yet it seems that this alliance, although it has not been openly stated or admitted, has hit the rocks. According to the posting on Facebook by SWP cadre Hanif Leylabi, in response to last week’s Weekly Worker articles, “Casmii decided that due to political differences we would organise as separate organisations. Hence the reason why we have different websites and why Abbas is billed as a Casmii speaker, whereas Elaheh Somayeh Alys, myself, etc are billed as Campaign Iran speakers”.

Well, this is news to many. Google Campaign Iran and the first link you get is to the Casmii site. A new, separate blog was set up for Campaign Iran in March 2008, but a parting of the ways has certainly not been announced anywhere. Campaign Iran has not even hinted of it in any of its email bulletins.

Another SWPer told me: “I think we split around February 2007. That could be completely wrong, but roughly I think it’s right. I think we sent out an email to our lists at the time to explain it all but it wasn’t a massive thing considering the merger didn’t exactly last very long!”

It does seem rather odd - the two campaigns have, at least from what they say publicly, more or less the same politics on Iran. Even now, the Campaign Iran blog has regular postings from the Casmii site. Moreover, the ‘different website’ of which comrade Leylabi speaks was launched in March 2008, which does seem to imply that Casmii and Campaign Iran fell out much more recently.

I asked the SWP comrade why there was a split, and he said: “I truly can’t remember that well. I recall Casmii having a slightly sectarian attitude towards Stop the War Coalition and thinking that Iran is the centre of the universe. Basically they had no understanding of the wider anti-war movement, which was a problem.”

Campaign Iran now faces a clear choice, made much easier now that it no longer formally operates within Casmii: will it come out openly against the Tehran regime as well as against imperialism? Will it also condemn the reformist ‘neoliberals’ as offering no alternative to the Iranian working class?

According to comrade Leylabi, “… the SWP doesn’t oppose independent working class organisation in Iran. It supports it. But we believe that the best way we can help is by stopping a war, because we are fighting our ruling class: we are not fighting the clerics.”

Yet the working class in Iran is “fighting the clerics” - while simultaneously opposing imperialism’s schemes. One does actually wonder just how the SWP has supported “independent working class organisation in Iran”. Socialist Worker, in spite of its resources and relatively large pool of journalists, has written next to nothing on developments within the Iranian working class, such as the Tapeh sugar workers’ strike or the imprisonment of (openly Marxist!) anti-war students.

The anti-war movement we must fight for
In the absence of class politics and strategy, populism and pacifism will have a clear run and lead the movement down all sorts of blind allies - vacillating between the ‘anti-imperialism’ of Ahmadinejad, hopes in the pro-capitalist, pro-IMF ‘reformists’ and the possibility of ‘peace’ within the framework of international law and the United Nations.

It is only the politics of international class independence that can provide any real hope. The imperialist system of states is soaked through with blood and its existence is predicated on control, violence and the plundering of the world’s resources - under whatever pretext. Comrade Leylabi could not be more wrong when he attempts to set up a false dichotomy between “stopping a war” and promoting international class politics because we in Britain are not fighting the mullahs ourselves. Our struggles are international or they are nothing.


What latest developments underline is that it is the secular opposition of women, workers and students who are the genuine anti-imperialists - not the neoliberal mullahs, Ahmadinejad or Khatami. Will the SWP finally admit it was wrong to uncritically tail initiatives like Casmii and the illusions they sow? Or will it maintain diplomatic silence in the name of a false and compromised show of ‘unity’?

With the situation more finely balanced than ever before, the need for class politics is becoming increasingly urgent.

Notes
1. See www.hopoi.org/irannews-oil.html
2. www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php
3. www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5643
4. www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1175&Itemid=59

Cameron Richards - Legend

I thought it would be worth putting something up about Cameron Richards. His death at such a young age is a tragedy and he will be sorely missed.

To see dedications to this great man then click here:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/729/abornteacher.html

Some last thoughts:

I often wonder where I would be and what I would be doing today if I had not studied politics with Mr.Richards - Mr.'Comrade' Richards as he later became. As another of his former pupils put it:

"Without Cameron's influence I'm sure my current outlook would be drastically different and certainly more mundane". I can only echo these sentiments - Cameron was nothing short of an inspiration - both personally and politically.

As a teacher he took each and every one of his pupils seriously. He wanted to challenge us, bring the best out of us and force us to think for ourselves. In a world of education where kids are increasingly becoming statistics and slaves to exams and grade targets Cameron's approach to education was refreshing and unique. Cameron is, figuratively and literally, irreplaceable - his teachers will now be taught via a weekly internet lesson.

Against the backdrop of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, many of us had questions about politics that went above and beyond the remit of rote-learning the legislative process in parliament or the intricacies of the civil service.

Cameron not only ensured that our questions on these wars were discussed in class - he organised debates in assembly and even snuck some of us off to a demo on one of his awesome school trips to London!

Cameron put passion into politics - I will never forget the heated and empassioned debates, the political frenzy, which resulted from some of his lessons - in the library, the Common Room and of course in Cameron's favourite pub off the Strand - the Nell Gwynn) - yet another feature of his school trips!

I have never been able to thank Cameron for what he has done for me and so many others - introduce me to the politics of Marxism. Studying Marxism in political ideologies, I remember once telling him that I was fascinated by the ideas, but that they seemed rather linear and flat in terms of a stringent base-superstructure analysis. He was obviously impressed that I was so keen, telling me that what we were learning in school was, in his words, "Mickey Mouse Marxism" and that there was huge discussion within Marxism on the very concerns I had. From then on I was just inspired - I remember spending hours in the school library reading and reading - absorbing every page that I could get hold of, and cursing the librarian for the very limited amount of stuff on Marx, Hegel or Lenin that was available. It is this that I owe Cameron the most for - offering inspiration and hope where it is all to easy to despair.

It is his legacy, and I cannot even begin to describe how proud I am to stand in this tradition he has passed on - shoulder-to-shoulder with other young school students he has won to our side and who have subsequently become excellent comrades and friends - Huw, Emily, John Jo, Dani and so many more.

That he has died at such a young age is a huge blow to us all and the communist project he embodied. It is incumbent upon us to keep the banner of Marxism held high and ensure that Cameron's flame keeps burning brightly. Our tasks are great and the road is long, but we won't let you down, Cameron.

Tehran changes reflected in anti-war movement

The latest political developments within Campaign Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (see http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/730/dancing.html) appear to be a step forward, in that these groups are now at least prepared to criticise the theocratic regime headed by Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

It is evidently no longer beyond the pale for them to argue against the grotesque notion that the oppression of women and homosexuals is mitigated by the Iranian government’s progressive attitudes towards gender reassignment surgery and the promotion of world-class female racing drivers.

Yet, in the context of increased political pressure on Tehran to play ball with the ‘international community’ and the bellicose noises coming from Israel, the anti-war movement could flip from whitewashing the Ahmadinejad government into tailing ‘reformist’ forces seeking a peace deal with US imperialism.

Every day there is talk of an attack against Iran. Israeli F-16s and F-15s go on dry runs, and leading Israelis like cabinet minister Saul Mofaz say that a war is “unavoidable” unless Iran ends its nuclear programme. Iran has taken the opportunity to display its military and technological muscle by testing its Shahab 3 rockets. In this precarious situation, even the smallest of political incidents - whether in the Middle East or in the heartlands of imperialism - could trigger, or be exploited to provoke, a disastrous military adventure in the run-up to the US elections in November.

But there are problems for the US. Firstly, any attack on Iran would have negative consequences for its interests in other nearby countries - in Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially also in Lebanon. Iran would respond to an Israeli air strike by hitting back, not only with Shahab 3s. It would give the green light to its regional allies. Doubtless, this would be all that the US would need to unleash a massive air and missile bombardment ‘in order to save Israel’. But Iran would then do its best to turn the entire Middle East into an anti-American jihad. Note that the US military has made it clear its forces on the ground are suffering from overstretch.

Understandably, the US is looking to achieve its aims by other means, using the threat of an aerial bombardment as a back-up. It is investing huge sums of money in order to seduce or soften up political forces inside Iran.

National Peace Council
On July 3, a group of discredited politicians close to the Khatami ‘reformist’ faction of the regime, former ministers of the post-1979 first ‘nationalist-religious’ government (led by the Nehzat Azadi group) and Iranian ‘human rights’ activists got together with Iranian Nobel peace laureate Shirin Ebadi to launch what is called the National Peace Council, with the aim of providing a “peaceful solution to the current stand-off between Iran and the United States”.1 This supposed unification of the Iranian “peace movement” stemmed from a call by Ebadi back in November 2007 - setting up a “temporary peace committee” to coordinate things.

This initiative, for all the talk of a peace movement, seems to have the support of individuals with little or no mass base in Iran. Eg, one of the leading founding members is Ibrahim Yazdi of the Nehzat Azadi group. Nehzat Azadi’s roots can be traced back to anti-shah activity, but they soon got caught up in support for Khomeini - some of its supporters were to become his ministers. Yazdi himself was Khomeini’s first foreign minister.

Also supporting this initiative are two important, albeit discredited, organisations on the left: the Fedayeen Majority and Tudeh Party. Both have uncritically tailed any elements they considered would help bring about the next incremental stage on their illusory ‘road to socialism’. This suicidal policy led them to align with ayatollah Khomeini’s ‘anti-imperialism’ (they paid the price when his regime slaughtered thousands of their cadres) and has now transformed them into staunch defenders of the pro-capitalist neoliberals around Mohammed Khatami and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Both these clerics have been well rewarded for past services to imperialism - Rafsanjani is the richest man in Iran, and one of the richest in the world.

To the disgust of the Iranian secular opposition, both Tudeh and the Fedayeen are labouring under the illusion that the islamic republic can be reformed into some sort of democracy. As one Iranian student comrade put it to me, the Fedayeen Majority has a dogmatic conception of a “revolution in three parts”. The first two parts - ie, before the socialist stage - involve the construction of a ‘bourgeois democracy’. Khomeini was meant to introduce one of these two stages - but no-one seems to have told the supreme leader.

As for the ‘reformists’, they are increasingly marginalised and do not look like getting into power. The approach of Iran’s more principled secular opposition to the two wings of the regime has been ‘a plague on both your houses’ - student activists called for a boycott of the March elections and Tehran workers proudly displayed their ink-free hands to the media to show that they had not voted.

Economics
The overwhelming majority of Iranians, of course, are vociferously anti-war. The horrific experiences of the Iraq-Iran conflict have not been forgotten, and the current disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the refugee crisis these have created, help to reaffirm anti-war sentiments.

But they are also wary of secret deals between their rulers and the imperialist powers. And anyway their main day-to-day concerns are about the worsening economic situation, privatisation, work casualisation, the systematic non-payment of wages and soaring inflation. These are all direct consequences of the policies of the ‘millionaire mullahs’ and their imposition of the International Monetary Fund agenda since ayatollah Rafsanjani’s presidency.

The NPC not only fails to address this key class issue, but positively aligns itself with the very people who have so consistently pushed through the IMF structural readjustment packages - the so-called ‘reformist’ wing of the theocratic regime. Purporting to provide a mouthpiece for the ‘Iranian people’, this campaign represents an attempt to provide a safe channel for anti-war feelings - it opposes both the “internal and external” warmongers (ie, both Bush and Ahmadinejad) - in the direction of the discredited and currently marginalised ‘reformist’ faction of the Tehran regime.

Though upholding three key, if superficially posed, demands against a military attack and sanctions, NPC fails to go beyond platitudes about the need for “long-lasting peace in Iran”. Shirin Ebadi herself says: “What we want is that the two sides should respect international law … the United States cannot have the right to deal with Iran outside the framework of international law, and Iran cannot build a wall around itself and say, ‘I have nothing to do with international law’ and pay no attention to security council resolutions.”2

John K Cooley, writing on the Casmii site, puts forward a similar solution for ‘peace’ - an imperialism with a diplomatic face, as opposed to the savage beast of sanctions, air strikes and occupations: “Reopening a US diplomatic mission in Tehran, dropping sanctions except those involving military technology [my emphasis] and improving the old offers of western and Russian, IAEA-supervised, peaceful nuclear technology”.3

What both of these statements betray is wishful thinking about the current stand-off between the US and Iran. The legalistic, liberal, pacifist ‘solutions’ they propose, along with the underlying faith in UN rules, is, in fact, nothing more than an imperialist peace - ie, the establishment of a pliant regime in Tehran that drops its overt anti-Americanism and would allow US corporations to take back Iranian oil and other such assets.

What is particularly worrying for genuine anti-war activists both here and in Iran is that the NPC’s proposed ‘solution’ chimes perfectly well with advanced US plans for a ‘velvet revolution’. Try Googling ‘National Peace Council Iran’, for example, and one of the first references you are offered is to a “community” blog posting on Barack Obama’s official website.4

Drawing the class line
The anti-war movement should be conscious of what the NPC could mean for how the US looks to resolve the ‘Iran question’. This development underlines once again that, in the absence of a clear class analysis and strategy, the movement will be blown this way and that. Neither apologetics for the brutal Ahmadinejad regime nor falling in behind clerical plutocrats like Khatami or Rafsanjani will advance the cause of our class one centimetre - that much should be obvious.

Although Socialist Worker does not like to talk about the growing support for secularism and Marxism on Iranian campuses, the SWP leadership could learn a thing or two from these brave comrades, not least their class analysis of the complex tasks that face them.

The blog Ave Daneshgah states that student struggles “can only succeed if they are united with the working class” - the “only force capable of bringing about radical and fundamental change”.5 This approach, which should not be controversial for those who purport to be on the Marxist left, informs and guides the political outlook of the radical students. This allows them, of course, to clearly distinguish between their bitter enemies and potential allies.

The blog points the finger at the supporters of the “mullah with a smile” and warns again that Khatami is looking to make political gains from the struggles against war and oppression: “For us a dictator is dictator, whether he does his dirty deeds with a smile and chocolate-coloured aba [the cleric’s shawl - a reference to Khatami] or with a scroll and a cream-coloured aba [Ahmadinejad]”.

The SWP leadership faces a rotten choice. Will it tail Campaign Iran and Casmii? Or, in the name of the anti-imperialist united front and consistency, will the SWP stay true to the butcher Ahmadinejad? Clearly it cannot do both. It apears that the bloc, the agreement, the deal that once joined Campaign Iran/Casmii with Ahmadinejad has collapsed, gone, busted apart, leaving the SWP exposed.

So far, which way the SWP will go remains uncertain. Either of the two above options carries it own particular political costs and risks. And after the Respect fiasco, the SWP is badly holed.

There is, however, a third option. The comrades can join us in Hopi in the fight for working class politics. Adopting consistent anti-imperialism would mean roundly denouncing not only Ahmadinejad, but also those in Campaign Iran and Casmii who have switched to playing a bit role in a planned US-sponsored coup in Tehran.

This third option would of necessity mean openly and honestly accounting for and correcting past mistakes. It would therefore involve removing popular frontists like John Rees and Lindsey German from the SWP’s political and central committee. Without that the SWP simply cannot be trusted by the anti-war movement - either here in Britain or in Iran or, for that matter, anywhere at all.

Notes
1. irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2008/07/national-peace-council-in-iran.html
2. www.rferl.org/content/article/1079179.html
3. www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5342
4. my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/No%20More%20Fear/gGxsMF
5. Quoted in Communist Student No5: communiststudents.org.uk/files/cs_issue5.pdf

Spanky Spanky

Q:What do Tommy Sheridan and Max Moseley have in common?

A:They both get off on national socialism.