With tension growing between the Washington and Tehran, the British left is starting to debate what stance socialists should take in the advent of US aggression against Iran.
There's an informative article on the subject by exile Iranian communist Yassamine Mather, taking a third campist line I would broadly support, in this week's Weekly Worker. It's not yet online, though. Meanwhile, if you want to get stuck into comment box wars on this one, go here or here.
In case any readers need do reminding, Iran is headed by a reactionary clerical dictatorship that rose to power with the help of the pro-Moscow Tudeh party, some currents that probably did merit the designation of 'Islamic leftists', and of course the country's relatively strong labour movement, only to turn round and slaughter its allies afterwards.
More recently, the country's president has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and has sponsored a holocaust denial conference attended by open fascists and Ku Klux Klan elements.
Anybody styling themselves a socialist must surely favour the downfall of this repugnant regime. But equally, nobody on the left should look to the US to do the heavy lifting. Ultimately the task can only be undertaken by the Iranians themselves.
I'm struck by a couple of conversations I've had on all this in recent weeks. The first was with a left-leaning international relations expert with military/spook contacts. His assessment - which seems reasonable enough to me - is that an attack is probably coming.
But it won't be an invasion. US imperialism is simply too tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq to pull it off, even if it wanted to try. Regime change, then, is not an option. His money is on a tactical strike on Iran's nuclear processing facilities instead, perhaps carried out by Israel as a proxy.
There's a real possibility that this will include the use of 'bunker buster' tactical nukes.Surely even the most die-hard pro-war leftist cannot favour such a prospect?
The second chat was with a young Iranian woman, the daughter of Tudeh activists who fled the country after 1979. She was brought up in Sweden and is currently studying in London.
She told me that her generation - and as far as she knows, this includes her student contemporaries in Iran - generally do not take a socialist perspective. Most favour the the restoration of the Shah as the figurehead of a constitutional monarchy, operating on the norms of liberal democracy.
That wouldn't be top of my own wish list. But it is firstly achieveable, and secondly would provide in which the left could operate openly. I'll add one thing, though. If anything is likely to galvanise support for the ayatollahs, it would be a nuclear strike on Iranian soil.
Posted at 16:48, 17 February 2007
Comments (47)
I think it's up to the Iranians to overthrow their regime, not us. I think our first concern should be to prevent the mass murder and immiseration of people abroad to further the interests of our rulers - and do what we can to get rid of said rulers here.
Not that I believe they are logistically capable of an invasion any time soon of course.
Has the US not already galvanised enough support for the Ayatollahs? I speak to some Iranian-British people at SOAS and they're all for the liberal democracy, if it can be brought about without a fight, but closer to ordinary Iranians (taxi drivers, restauranteurs) seem to be very strongly defensive of their country and its leaders. Every time the US repeats some platitude about Iran's nuclear capabilities, the hardliners get more hardline. They have to: it's the only way to survive.
The Iranians found out the hard way that democracy and America are not safe bedfellows: as soon as Iran had democracy, America and Britain instituted a dictatorship. Just like their semi-puppet governments in Iraq/Afghanistan... Iran will not have room for change while it is still under threat from America.
Far be it from me to defend Iran's president, who is quite obviously a vicious cunt anyway if his regime is anything to go by, but apparently he didn't exactly call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". There's been quite a lot written about this, and it was most recently picked up by John Pilger in New Statesman, as it sounds like the quote was just a fabricated propaganda-friendly soundbite for the neo-cons to use. This article by Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, gives more details:
I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html
I'm struck by a couple of conversations I've had on all this in recent weeks. The first was with a left-leaning international relations expert with military/spook contacts. His assessment - which seems reasonable enough to me - is that an attack is probably coming.
But it won't be an invasion. US imperialism is simply too tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq to pull it off, even if it wanted to try. Regime change, then, is not an option. His money is on a tactical strike on Iran's nuclear processing facilities instead, perhaps carried out by Israel as a proxy.
Funnily enough, I had a conversation with Kevin Brennan MP a couple of years back, and he gave pretty much the same assessment - that an actual invasion by the US was highly unlikely, but that there might be an air raid by the Israelis to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities.
This is incredible, and not in a good way.
Well, i was at a Scrap Trident conference this afternoon and there was a woman from Campaign Iran who made a similar assessment about air strikes being on the cards as there is a build up of troops in the Gulf region, Bush talking about "evidence" aka probably another dodgy dossier about Iran's so-called interference in Iraq and also Iran breaching the (voluntary) additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT). She also maintained that many of these plants that will be bombed are near cities and the devastation will be unimaginable both to human casualties and to the environment.
It's imperialist sabre rattling and socialists should be explicitly against it.
Yes. Down with sabre rattling.
I agree with your original post Dave - we should stand against a putative attack, whether it's the classic land-based model or via Israel as a proxy, or whatever. I just hope that this time certain elements in the anti-war movement will remember that you can walk and chew gum at the same time, ie you can oppose the war on Iran without refusing to at the same time criticise reactionary political forces in that country.
Although I am far from an apologist for Ahmadinejad, his alleged call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" was a mistranslation. He was calling for it to be "wiped off the map" as a political entity - not its physical destruction. The position he has been quoted elsewhere as supporting is a federal solution (similar to Gaddafi's so-called 'Isratine') - though maybe someone else more knowledgeable knows more about this.
As for your second chat - firstly, beware the advice of exiles; secondly, a few thousand middle-class students in Tehran are hardly representative of the workers and peasants of Iran.
In any case, the Shah was a murderous, reactionary pro-imperialist tyrant - indeed, his regime was installed by the CIA in the first place. There would be nothing progressive about the restoration of such a regime in any form. Indeed, any individuals or groups supporting such a reactionary position (i.e. the restoration of a despised tyranny) simply reveal themselves to be devoid of any base among the people of Iran.
In my view, the main priority - and indeed duty - of socialists in imperialist countries such as the US and Britain is to oppose an attack by their rulers against countries such as Iran, Iraq, etc. Our opposition isn't based on the fact that we don't think imperialism is "up to the job" of overthrowing the Iranian regime. We should recognise that imperialism is a far greater enemy than regional gangster regimes - not least because its oppression and violence is a) much worse and b) exists on a global scale. The global tyranny of Western imperialism and the Iranian regime cannot, and should not, be equated.
The position of too many leftists when it comes to Iran strikes me as horribly reminiscent of the position of some socialists seventy years ago (including the ILP) during Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia - that is, neutrality on the grounds that it was a 'war between two dictators'. After all, Abyssinia was run by a semi-feudal autocracy which practised chattel slavery - and Mussolini was even promising to liberate the country from such slavery. The principled position of revolutionary socialists at the time was defence of Abyssinia against Italy. In hindsight, would anyone quibble with such a position?
I am also concerned by the fact that so many on the left focus on the undeniably reactionary nature of the Iranian regime simply because they are following the agenda set by imperialism. Why loudly denounce the crimes of the enemies of imperialism while remaining virtually silent about the crimes of far more reactionary pro-American dictatorships such as that of Saudi Arabia? There isn't even a labour movement there to express solidarity with!
Owen: I think you have made some excellent points. And it absolutely correct for socialists to oppose an attack on Iran.
Yes, Owen always makes excellent points. Him da man.
As opposed to the position of leftists on... err... Iran in 1979, where uncritical cheerleading for the Khomenists' "anti-imperialism" led to sections of the left being made impotent witnesses installation of a theocratic regime and the destruction of those progressive forces that had backed the revolution.
DB wrote:
as it sounds like the quote was just a fabricated propaganda-friendly soundbite for the neo-cons to use.
Owen wrote:
Although I am far from an apologist for Ahmadinejad, his alleged call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" was a mistranslation
a mistranslation, you say? then presumably the presidential translators don't understand their own language?
the Iranian President's comments are on his own web site, in English, translated by his staff, who we can safely assume wouldn't want to misrepresent his views (probably on pain of death)
so there is no need for idle speculation or the invocation of "neo-con" conspiracy stuff, if you want to see what he said (and he said it on a number of occasions, not just once) then I suggest that you visit his web site http://www.president.ir/eng/
you have the Internet, why not use it?
Voltaires_Priest: Yes, indeed, some lefties did back the theocracy in 1979 and that was very very wrong. But equally, was the Shah any better? No!
The Shah of Iran was a member of the "Safari Club" which had connections with the CIA esp. over Afghanistan. The goal of the "Safari Club" was to fund and sponsor "anti-communist" missions. The Shah also had links and investments with apartheid South Africa i.e. Transvaal Development Co. They were also "concerned" about Soviet and Cuban military support in Angola, for example.
And were concerned as well about the national liberation struggles going on in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Much of this was hand in glove with American imperialism....
Hands up who said "the Shah was better"? Wossat, no one? Ok then, let's move on.
The truth is that the problem with the left in 1979 was not that it had illusions in the Shah. It was that it muted criticism of Khomeini in the name of "anti imperialism". The price paid in human blood by Iranian leftists for Khomeini's ascent to power is now there for us all to see.
It would be a travesty if the middle class, London-centric "revolutionary" left derelicted its political duties in the same way yet again.
Voltaires_Priest: "It would be a travesty if the middle class, London-centric "revolutionary" left derelicted its political duties in the same way yet again".
And your point being.....??????
Hang on Dave, you read the print edition of Weekly Worker? I didn't think anyone did.
Louise:
My point being that it would be a travesty if the middle class, London-centric "revolutionary" left derelicted its political duties in the same way yet again. ;)
middle class, London-centric
[yawns]
Have an issue with true statements do we, Justin?
Funny, all of the collaborating with the far right I've seen has come not from the 'stoppers' but from the pro-war ex-left that VP is so matey with. At the comments boxes at Harry's Place left-wing critics of the war have their comments censored - supporters of genocide in the Middle East and the mass deportation of Muslims from the UK are indulged. Harry's Place author Brownie specifically praises Musharaff - a cryptofascist if ever there was one - as an ally of the fight for democracy and defends Blairs aid programme to his army. Harry used to post links to articles on the war by Victor Hanson Davis, the ultra-right wing American, and ask his critics to read them, so that they could understand why the war was a good idea. Will cheered on the execution of Saddam recently. Christopher Hitchens' recent review praising the disgusting fascist Mark Steyn was linked to uncritically on a number of pro-war ex-left blogs. Norm Geras, the godfather of the whole shitty crew before he had a crisis of faith published an attack on the anti-war movement in Telos a journal which began as radical left-wing in the 70s and turned to the extreme right, anti-immigration 'Euroidentity' movement in the 90s. Telos had very close links with the French and Italian far right, and even held its conferences funded by the fascist Northern League and Berlusconi himself in the 90s. Did Norm worry about this? These bastards are up to their necks in shit.
Have an issue with true statements do we, Justin?
[yawns again]
[checks watch]
[goes home to talk to cat]
Voltaire, your history on who did what when in 1970s Iran is a bit skewed. Firstly, when we say "some elements in the left" supported Khomeini, we need to remember that this included Tudeh, the Iranian labour unions and nearly all pro-democracy Iranian parties.
Second, the reason why a large majority of Iranians were in favour of Khomeini is that they did not think he would form a government. Nobody supported a "Khomeinist regime", critically or otherwise, because nobody believed that there would *be* a Khomeini regime.
Everybody thought that Khomeini would act as a figurehead for a genuine popular revolution and then settle down to a role as revered religious figurehead, not involving himself in secular politics. Everybody thought this because a) it is actually what Khomeini said he was going to do and b) it is consistent with the Shia version of Islam, whereas what Khomeini did, basically, isn't. (for comparison, see how assiduously Ayatollah Sistani keeps himself out of Iraq politics).
So I really don't think that "elements on the Left" can be blamed all that much for this one. Not even Michel Foucault, who as we all know never did anything except endorsing Khomeini. It would have been like witholding your support from Solidarnosc because the involvement of the Catholic Church (and indeed, what happened in Iran was about as surprising at the time as it would have been for the Pope to suddenly show up in Warsaw and declare it a Catholic State to be ruled by him).
To be frank, Voltaire, your version of Iran looks very like the Official Decent Left History Of Iraq, with the "q"s replaced by "n"s. And it frankly seems a bit rich that you're having a go at hypothetical unnamed "leftists" (who apparently commit the sins of being "middle class" and "London centric" too - why not add "Hampstead" and "cosmopolitan" already?), when it is in fact you, visibly, who is hijacking a discussion about Iranian leftists to start criticising your domestic political enemies.
As we are playng the game of quoting Iranians.
I happen to have a number of friends who are asylum seekers from Iran, many fo whom have seen the inside of the regimes prisons.
All of them I know oppose utterly a US attack on Iran, and some have siad that if it happened they would go back to Iran to fight against the US - bear in mind these are people who have been persecuted by the regime, I think their judgement is better than the "third camp"
Andy, you have just described the exact position of the Third Camp Manifesto.
What do mean by "third camp"? (obviously a rhetorical question) These people seem to have pitched their tents squarely in the Bush camp.
So, whilst those asylum seekers get the Orient Express, Dave and his AWL mates may as well be on the Euston train
2007 = 1914 and we know what socialists *should have done then* , maybe this is a chance to make up for that
I am extremely sorry that the president of my country is a raving looney war criminal. I don't really see the difference between the leaders of the US and Iran, save that the Republican Christian extremists simply have not yet carried out their plans for theocracy. McCain is evidently promising them some progress on that front.
From a broader perspective, it seems sad to be discussing what socialists should do about this or that geopolitical issue when there are so few socialists. Maybe time and energy should be put simply to the aim of drawing more people into socialist movements. One thing that is desperately needed are serious media outlets that would offer news and entertainment by and for working people. Another thing is to keep a focus on providing working people with things relevant to their workplace situation. If most working people ignore socialist movements, maybe it's because socialist movements are not paying attention to working people.
Justin;
Don't forget to get yourself a nice ciabatta and a cup of horrendously expensive but ethically sourced coffee to enjoy whilst talking to the cat. Oh and a copy of Socialist Worker to read (yes I know you're not a member...), or maybe set up the wi-fi to read Lenin's Tomb. Top afternoon in the class struggle. :p
Dsquared;
So your argument is that everybody fucked up but it's not their fault, because it's easy to see with 20/20 hindsight. I agree actually, so I don't know what you're getting all worked up about. However all I'm saying is that (whilst... read my lips... opposing the putative attack on Iran) with that hindsight it might perhaps be a good idea to also be a bit critical of theocratic politics inside Iran as well. You know, laying off any "We are all Khameini" chants that some people might have in mind.
And I'm "hijacking" nothing by stating a demographic fact about the hard left in the UK. It's a disussion about a prospective attack on Iran, amongst leftists. Ergo, leftist attitudes will tend to be part of the discussion.
DWG;
And who would these mysterious "mates" of mine on the "pro-war ex-left" be? Answer by email (on my site) rather than going off-topic, if you prefer.
Don't forget to get yourself a nice ciabatta and a cup of horrendously expensive but ethically sourced coffee
If you can tell me where to get either within fifty kilometres of where I live - or indeed when I last consumed either - I'll send you the price of both.
a demographic fact about the hard left in the UK
Would that be an internet fact?
Oh, any information on when I last read SW or when I've ever used wifi would also come in handy.
I'll maybe ask the cat.
No, that would be an obvious fact. One only has to look at where the memberships of most hard-left groups are concentrated (both geographically and politically) in order to see it.
Ask your cat, he sounds like a sensible chap. And give him some ciabatta if you find his answer useful. I've heard SW makes for good litter tray filler. ;)
At the comments boxes at Harry's Place left-wing critics of the war have their comments censored
Yes, it's true. I'll admit it. If you search the comments boxes at Harry's Place, you won't find a single comment from a leftwing critic of the war.
(Heavy sigh.)
modernityblog: where does the President of Iran's site show him saying he wants Isreal "wiped off the map"? The only reference Google gives is to an interview with TIME Magazine, where Ahmadinejad says he thinks Israelis and Palestinians should hold a referendum on how the area should be governed (and then goes on to talk some shit about the holocaust, because he is an anti-semitic bastard, but not, as far as anyone knows, one with any plans to destroy the state of Israel).
632C5R09OW8
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
www.edwardsaid.org
All check this piece out.
US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07
t=a"> US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07
Not only that but poddle Blair Has decided to take part the military action on iran before
he leaves office.
US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=9548&cat=a
And this piece,
Anti nato
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ah6sxjndq9qq_2103vpgfn
Ask your cat, he sounds like a sensible chap.
Almost everything you've said here has been wrong - and this is too.
It's even worse than that chap Mark P the other day.
Which parts were "wrong"?
The part where I said I oppose an attack on Iran?
The part where I said it's possible to oppose that war and criticise the Tehran regime at the same time?
Or the part where I said the hard left in the UK is London-centric and middle class dominated?
All of which, unpalatable though they may be to you, are true.
Now go find that coffee and ciabatta that isn't "within 50 kilometres" of your house, which is presumably in the Orkneys.
Disappointing, but not altogether surprising, to see voltaires_priest reproducing the pro-war left's anti-semitic "ciabatta" nonsense.
voyou wrote:
modernityblog: where does the President of Iran's site show him saying he wants Isreal "wiped off the map"?
there were 2 maybe 3 occasions were he said roughly the same thing, I found it ages ago, google does not search deep enough to bring them out, you'll have to search his site directly, they are there.
if in doubt, go back to the source, if you dare that is :)
after all you have the internet why not use it?
Now go find that coffee and ciabatta that isn't "within 50 kilometres" of your house, which is presumably in the Orkneys.
No, it isn't in the Orkneys. Try a bit further afield.
Streatham.
Youyou;
What in the hell is "the pro-war left's anti-semitic 'ciabatta' nonsense"?
Streatham.
Try harder.
See, I knew there was a sense of humour in there somewhere! ;-)
"What in the hell is "the pro-war left's anti-semitic 'ciabatta' nonsense"?"
Only an anti-semite would ask such a question.
Apparently I've been missing the hidden ciabatta anti-semitism of the pro-war left for some time, I stand corrected...