Tweet
Even if we assume that the will and intention to resist imperialism exists, a regime such as Iran's Islamic Republic can only confront a major super power, if it possesses sufficient defences. It would utter folly to rely on the military power of a third world country to stand up to the US war machine. One cannot imagine that military manoeuvres, showing off a few old and new military equipment, even the threat of using weapons of mass destruction can create any hesitations in the intentions of the custodians of the new world order (27). Such quixotic gesturing are merely open invitations to Washington to use its most destructive weapons with a vicious, barbaric attack without scruple. Such an invitation will pose no inconvenience to the US war machine. It will not affect their 'neo' consciousness.
The weapon of suicide bombings or the use of the Iraqi Shias as a winning card, can itself become a source of encouragement to launch pre-emptive attacks (2
. Irrespective of the usefulness of such tactics and irrespective of the capability of the Iranian regime to use them, one cannot ignore the fact that the threat of terrorist attacks or a religious war will only serve as justification for the theory of 'unlimited war on terror' and a cover for the 'clash of civilizations'. Many amongst influential neo conservatives believe that victory against 'jihadist terrorism' can be achieved by destroying their refuges and states supporting them. Many such ideologues are of the opinions that the road to victory in Baghdad passes through Tehran and drying up resistance in Iraq requires an attack against Iran and overthrow of the Islamic regime (29). "Real Men" (a name given by neo conservatives to themselves) have argued such ideas for many years. They believe in closing the 'Iran file'.
The sole weapon of any government in confronting imperialist powers is solid and powerful popular resistance and mass mobilisation. Without such a support it is absurd to talk of resistance by a third world country. The Islamic regime in Iran has no such weapon nor does it possess the ability to gain one. The fundamental problem of the Islamic regime is not just that it has lost its social backing. More importantly it faces a paradox were it to rely on mobilising its citizens in the event of an imperialist attack. This regime is unable to call on Iranians to defend their sovereignty against imperialist aggression, while for decades under the name of the God and Islam violently depriving them from their right to self-governing. Those in power in Iran will not be able to call on Iranians to defend the 'republic' when in the words of its real leaders (individuals such as ayatollah Messbah Yazdi) there is no such thing as a 'republics' in Islam.
These rulers don't even have enough confidence in themselves to at least make some temporary conciliatory moves towards their own people in order to reduce the divide between them and the majority of people of country. Indeed, their dictatorial, reactionary nature is so overwhelming that as the crisis deepens they are imposing harsher conditions and alienating large sections of the population. If the Iranian state's initial customary resort to deceit, playing on religious sentiments and demagoguery fails, it has no hesitation to resort to rabid violence and repression.
The 'ayatollahs' and their military commanders have reached such a situation that they are ready to bribe any 'Satan' and accept any indignity to remain in power. Yet in confronting their own people, they cannot afford to show even the kind of flexibility shown by Saddam Hussein on his last days of rule. If in those days the Baathist dictatorship opened prison gates and turned over arms stocks into peoples homes, the Islamic regime considers the current situation as an opportunity to fill its prisons and embark on a new wave of arrest of workers, women, youths, intellectuals, activists of national and religious minorities in an effort to deprive the masses of the only weapon left to them: protest and collective action.
Nor can one rely on the intervention of other players on the world stage. There is no doubt that Washington's victory in the Middle East, and especially in Iran, will be a major regional transformation against the interests of some world powers. However one cannot deduce from this that these powers will stand up to the United States. Nor does this mean that they will be able to stop America pursuing its interests. The position of Europe is more or less clear. There is really no reason why they should pursue the policy they had pursued regarding Iraq. They will follow the US either haltingly or running fast behind it.
Russia and China too, despite their current opposition, are capable of using Iran as a lever to gain certain advantages and gain their share of the war booty. Given the existing relations within the global political power structure, at a time when those in power in the White House have rebelled against common norms of international relations, one cannot imagine that Russia or China's choices will go much beyond non-acceptance and challenging of the US hegemony. Within such limitations, opposition, however serious, does not appear to present an obstacle to Washington's authoritarian tendencies.
Emphasising internal differences within ruling circles in the United States is also undoubtedly exaggerated. These differences are real. However they are only directed at reducing the error coefficient , avoiding unforeseen consequences. There is little doubt that amongst the US elite there are no principal objections to military intervention in Iran (30). It should be added that none of the political factions has ruled out military attacks. Differences are essentially limited to the scale and spread of the military operations, the kind of weapons to be used as well as debates on the management of the operation. The questions are more focussed on technical issues: is the use of nuclear weapons acceptable? (31) Have all necessary precaution been taken regarding Iran's reaction? Is Donald Rumsfeld capable of managing and leading another military conflict? (32) Within such a framework, although differences can affect the plan for the military operation, its timing or intelligence and diplomatic preparations, it is impossible believe that they will lead to a change in policy and a review of strategic directions.
Under present circumstances, therefore, there is little point looking for a force capable of reigning in US aggression within the upper echelons of official power. Such a force to oppose the US must be found elsewhere: somewhere within the depth of those movements standing up to it. No force in the world, except the region's destitute and poor -- those already "living in hell" - can save the region form the barbarism that awaits it. It is impossible to end the horror show, whose principle players are forces of death, unless wide-ranging, independent and progressive movements completely overturn the situation; and brings the huge power of the people of labour and toil to become engaged in self liberation, self rule and control of their own destiny.
Today Iran is the front line. Neither the victory nor the defeat of the peoples of this country in direct confrontation with one of the most powerful enslaving empires of human history is pre-ordained. The destiny of this battle will depend on answers to two essential questions. Will the majority of the Iranian people, those who have nothing but their labour power to live for, be able to overcome the subjective and political obstacles challenging their united , decisive and independent movement? Will they be able rise as a powerful and broad movement against ruling reactionaries and the colonial enslavement, and offer a brighter future for Iran? And can these people rely on the active support and solidarity of the millions in the region, and the support of egalitarian and progressive anti war forces throughout the world in the life and death battle against imperialist aggression and reactionary repression?
In answering these questions it must be emphasised that in the current situation in Iran the only force capable of halting imperialism's advance must primarily present a radically different political and structural perspective for the majority of the population of this country. First and foremost it must convince the millions of Iranian who over the last 28 years have witnessed nothing but injustice and repression by a religious state to conquer apathy and get involved within the ranks of the anti war movement. An inability to unite the struggle against imperialism with the struggle for political freedom and self rule will condemn this movement to becoming an appendage of the regime, isolated and paralysed (33).
It should be noted that without attaining an independent identity, opening an alternative political /structural horizon is impossible. This in itself is dependent on overcoming existing theoretical challenges and defeatist tendencies operating on two opposing fronts and threaten the political space with a clear split. Despite contrary political positions these tendencies share common ideas. In their perspective, the Iranian people presently have neither the capability nor the potential to self-defence and self-emancipation. Neither can they have any role outside the political games being played by the major powers. Thus any possibility of fighting the US while opposing the Islamic regime is rejected, negating either is proof of the other. In choosing between bad and worse, the only political choice presented to the people is to choose between fundamentalist Islamists and imperialism or between sovereignty and freedom.
The weapon of suicide bombings or the use of the Iraqi Shias as a winning card, can itself become a source of encouragement to launch pre-emptive attacks (2
. Irrespective of the usefulness of such tactics and irrespective of the capability of the Iranian regime to use them, one cannot ignore the fact that the threat of terrorist attacks or a religious war will only serve as justification for the theory of 'unlimited war on terror' and a cover for the 'clash of civilizations'. Many amongst influential neo conservatives believe that victory against 'jihadist terrorism' can be achieved by destroying their refuges and states supporting them. Many such ideologues are of the opinions that the road to victory in Baghdad passes through Tehran and drying up resistance in Iraq requires an attack against Iran and overthrow of the Islamic regime (29). "Real Men" (a name given by neo conservatives to themselves) have argued such ideas for many years. They believe in closing the 'Iran file'.The sole weapon of any government in confronting imperialist powers is solid and powerful popular resistance and mass mobilisation. Without such a support it is absurd to talk of resistance by a third world country. The Islamic regime in Iran has no such weapon nor does it possess the ability to gain one. The fundamental problem of the Islamic regime is not just that it has lost its social backing. More importantly it faces a paradox were it to rely on mobilising its citizens in the event of an imperialist attack. This regime is unable to call on Iranians to defend their sovereignty against imperialist aggression, while for decades under the name of the God and Islam violently depriving them from their right to self-governing. Those in power in Iran will not be able to call on Iranians to defend the 'republic' when in the words of its real leaders (individuals such as ayatollah Messbah Yazdi) there is no such thing as a 'republics' in Islam.
These rulers don't even have enough confidence in themselves to at least make some temporary conciliatory moves towards their own people in order to reduce the divide between them and the majority of people of country. Indeed, their dictatorial, reactionary nature is so overwhelming that as the crisis deepens they are imposing harsher conditions and alienating large sections of the population. If the Iranian state's initial customary resort to deceit, playing on religious sentiments and demagoguery fails, it has no hesitation to resort to rabid violence and repression.
The 'ayatollahs' and their military commanders have reached such a situation that they are ready to bribe any 'Satan' and accept any indignity to remain in power. Yet in confronting their own people, they cannot afford to show even the kind of flexibility shown by Saddam Hussein on his last days of rule. If in those days the Baathist dictatorship opened prison gates and turned over arms stocks into peoples homes, the Islamic regime considers the current situation as an opportunity to fill its prisons and embark on a new wave of arrest of workers, women, youths, intellectuals, activists of national and religious minorities in an effort to deprive the masses of the only weapon left to them: protest and collective action.
Nor can one rely on the intervention of other players on the world stage. There is no doubt that Washington's victory in the Middle East, and especially in Iran, will be a major regional transformation against the interests of some world powers. However one cannot deduce from this that these powers will stand up to the United States. Nor does this mean that they will be able to stop America pursuing its interests. The position of Europe is more or less clear. There is really no reason why they should pursue the policy they had pursued regarding Iraq. They will follow the US either haltingly or running fast behind it.
Russia and China too, despite their current opposition, are capable of using Iran as a lever to gain certain advantages and gain their share of the war booty. Given the existing relations within the global political power structure, at a time when those in power in the White House have rebelled against common norms of international relations, one cannot imagine that Russia or China's choices will go much beyond non-acceptance and challenging of the US hegemony. Within such limitations, opposition, however serious, does not appear to present an obstacle to Washington's authoritarian tendencies.
Emphasising internal differences within ruling circles in the United States is also undoubtedly exaggerated. These differences are real. However they are only directed at reducing the error coefficient , avoiding unforeseen consequences. There is little doubt that amongst the US elite there are no principal objections to military intervention in Iran (30). It should be added that none of the political factions has ruled out military attacks. Differences are essentially limited to the scale and spread of the military operations, the kind of weapons to be used as well as debates on the management of the operation. The questions are more focussed on technical issues: is the use of nuclear weapons acceptable? (31) Have all necessary precaution been taken regarding Iran's reaction? Is Donald Rumsfeld capable of managing and leading another military conflict? (32) Within such a framework, although differences can affect the plan for the military operation, its timing or intelligence and diplomatic preparations, it is impossible believe that they will lead to a change in policy and a review of strategic directions.
Under present circumstances, therefore, there is little point looking for a force capable of reigning in US aggression within the upper echelons of official power. Such a force to oppose the US must be found elsewhere: somewhere within the depth of those movements standing up to it. No force in the world, except the region's destitute and poor -- those already "living in hell" - can save the region form the barbarism that awaits it. It is impossible to end the horror show, whose principle players are forces of death, unless wide-ranging, independent and progressive movements completely overturn the situation; and brings the huge power of the people of labour and toil to become engaged in self liberation, self rule and control of their own destiny.
Today Iran is the front line. Neither the victory nor the defeat of the peoples of this country in direct confrontation with one of the most powerful enslaving empires of human history is pre-ordained. The destiny of this battle will depend on answers to two essential questions. Will the majority of the Iranian people, those who have nothing but their labour power to live for, be able to overcome the subjective and political obstacles challenging their united , decisive and independent movement? Will they be able rise as a powerful and broad movement against ruling reactionaries and the colonial enslavement, and offer a brighter future for Iran? And can these people rely on the active support and solidarity of the millions in the region, and the support of egalitarian and progressive anti war forces throughout the world in the life and death battle against imperialist aggression and reactionary repression?
In answering these questions it must be emphasised that in the current situation in Iran the only force capable of halting imperialism's advance must primarily present a radically different political and structural perspective for the majority of the population of this country. First and foremost it must convince the millions of Iranian who over the last 28 years have witnessed nothing but injustice and repression by a religious state to conquer apathy and get involved within the ranks of the anti war movement. An inability to unite the struggle against imperialism with the struggle for political freedom and self rule will condemn this movement to becoming an appendage of the regime, isolated and paralysed (33).
It should be noted that without attaining an independent identity, opening an alternative political /structural horizon is impossible. This in itself is dependent on overcoming existing theoretical challenges and defeatist tendencies operating on two opposing fronts and threaten the political space with a clear split. Despite contrary political positions these tendencies share common ideas. In their perspective, the Iranian people presently have neither the capability nor the potential to self-defence and self-emancipation. Neither can they have any role outside the political games being played by the major powers. Thus any possibility of fighting the US while opposing the Islamic regime is rejected, negating either is proof of the other. In choosing between bad and worse, the only political choice presented to the people is to choose between fundamentalist Islamists and imperialism or between sovereignty and freedom.
Comment