The August 1 solidarity cricket match for Iranian workers was an extreme success and raised just over 1000 pounds for our comrades in Iran. Here are some videos taken by John McDonnell MP who captained the LRC on the day.
John McDonnell commentating on the Hopi vs LRC cricket match:
The HOPI Cricket Team:
Continue reading “Videos from the HOPI-LRC fundraising cricket match”
Just as Iranian ex-leftwingers in the west call for reconciliation between the two wings of the Islamic regime, the ruling faction clamps down on its rivals. Yassamine Mather reports
The Stalinist show trial of Saturday August 1 – when a number of prominent ‘reformists’ appeared on Iranian state TV to ‘thank their interrogators’ before repenting – was not the first such event in the Islamic republic’s history. Leaders of the ‘official communist’ Tudeh Party were similarly paraded on Iranian TV to denounce their own actions in the 1980s, while in the 1990s we had the trials of ‘rogue’ elements of the ministry of intelligence.
However, this time the Islamic leaders forgot that a precondition for the success of such show trials in terms of imposing fear and submission on the masses is total control of the press and media. What made this particular effort ineffective – indeed a mockery – was that it came at a time when the supporters of supreme leader Ali Khamenei have not yet succeeded in silencing the other factions of the regime, never mind stopping the street protests. So, instead of marking the end of the current crisis, the show trials have given the protestors fresh ammunition.
The paper of the Participation Front (the largest alliance of ‘reformist’ MPs) stated: “The case of the prosecution is such a joke that it is enough to make cooked chicken laugh.” The Participation Front was one of nine major Islamic organisations which ridiculed the prosecution claim that the ‘regime knew of the plot for a velvet revolution’ weeks before the election. Some Tehran reformist papers are asking: in that case why did the Guardian Council allow the ‘reformist’ candidates to stand in the presidential elections? Perhaps the Guardian Council itself should be put on trial!
Former president Mohammad Khatami, candidates Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi and other ‘reformist’ politicians have denounced the trial as “illegal”, yet they do not seem to realise the irony in this criticism. First of all, no-one but the ‘reformists’ within the regime has any illusions about Iran’s legal system (both civil and sharia law). Second, the time to oppose show trials was two decades ago, not when you yourself are a victim of the system and there is no-one left to defend you. It was not just in the 1980s that messrs Khatami, Moussavi, Karroubi, etc kept quiet about similar trials. As late as the 1990s, during Khatami’s own presidency, they did not exactly rebel against the show trials of the intelligence agents who ‘confessed’ to having acted alone in murdering opponents of the regime. Some of the most senior figures implicated in that scandal, a scandal that was hushed up by the Khatami government (‘for the sake of the survival of the Islamic order’) – not least current prosecutor general Saeed Mortazavi – are now in charge of the ‘velvet revolution’ dossier.
For the Iranian left the trial and ‘confessions’ have also been a reminder of the plight of thousands of comrades who probably faced similar physical and psychological torture in the regime’s dungeons in the 1980s, although only a handful of them ever made it onto TV screens – many died anonymously in the regime’s torture chambers. Of course, we do not know if the Iranian government has improved its torture techniques since those times, but some senior ‘reformist’ politicians appear to have broken down much more easily than those thousands of young leftwing prisoners.
Those ‘reformist’ leaders who are still at liberty are not doing any better. Despite facing the threat of arrest and trial themselves, they maintain their allegiance to ‘Iran’s Islamic order’, reaffirming their “commitment to the Islamic regime” (Khatami) and denouncing the slogan promoted by demonstrators, “Freedom, independence, Iranian republic”, as Moussavi did on August 2.
A couple of weeks ago there were signs that negotiations between Khamenei and another former president, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, had made some progress and once more there was the possibility that, as the two factions of the regime buried some of their differences, the mass movement could become a victim of reconciliation amongst senior clerics.
The show trials not only put an end to such illusions, but promised an unprecedented intensification of the internal conflict. But this came too late for the authors of the statement, ‘Truth and reconciliation for Iran’, signed by a number of academics and activists who are notorious apologists of the Iranian regime and published on a number of websites, including that of Monthly Review.1 The statement has one aim: to save the Islamic regime by advocating peaceful coexistence between the two warring factions or, in the words of the statement, “the vital unity of our people against foreign pressures”.
In explaining the background of the conflict with imperialism, the authors state: “… despite Iran’s cooperation in the overthrow of the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan, the administration of George W Bush labelled the Islamic Republic a member of the ‘axis of evil’.”2 I am not quite sure why Iran’s support for US imperialism in the terrible Afghanistan war should be put forward as an example of the regime’s reasonable and moderate behaviour by anyone who claims to be anti-war.
The statement goes on to praise the wonderful election process, failing to mention that only four candidates loyal to the regime’s factions were allowed to stand or that voting for a president of a regime headed by an unelected ‘supreme religious leader’ is a bit of a joke … But this marvellous ‘democratic election’ is used to legitimise Iran’s nuclear programme.
The statement contains some seriously false claims: “… we have advocated the human rights of individuals and democratic rights for various groups and constituencies in Iran.” I am not sure which universe they think the rest of us reside in, but until the escalation of the conflict between the two factions of the regime many of the authors of the statement were insisting that everything in Iran’s Islamic Republic was great.
According to the defenders of ‘Islamic feminism’ amongst them, Iranian women enjoy complete political and social freedom – which no doubt would have come as a shock to tens of thousands of young women who joined the protests precisely because of their opposition to draconian misogynist regulations imposed by the religious state.
Many of the signatories are associated with Campaign Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, which have made a virtue of not advocating “democratic rights” for Iranians, since that would confuse those simple-minded ‘ordinary people’ at a time when Iran is under threat. They insisted that the existence of a women-only fire brigade was proof of gender equality in Iran and the fact that the ‘crime’ of homosexuality is punishable by death is no reason to declare the regime homophobic – after all, liberal Iran has a very high rate of sex-change operations.3 The signatories are mistaken if they think they can rewrite history and portray themselves as defenders of “human rights” in Iran – we will neither forgive nor forget their disgraceful pro-regime apologetics.
Our ex-leftists clearly fail to understand the significance of the street protests: “The votes of a great portion of the Iranian society for both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi show that the best solution is negotiations for reconciliation and creation of a government of national unity from the ranks of principlists and the green movement and reformists.” While even bourgeois liberals and Moussavi supporters admit that the protests have now reached the stage where the green movement has no alternative but to tail the masses and their anti-regime slogans, the signatories’ advice to the ‘reformists’ is to ‘negotiate’ with those who have killed dozens of demonstrators, tortured hundreds and imprisoned thousands, including some of Moussavi’s allies.
When the ‘Truth and reconciliation’ statement tries to look at the causes of the current unrest, it gets things wrong: “However, in the view of a considerable number of Iranians who are discontented and frustrated with the restrictions on civil and political freedoms, there were various irregularities in the elections, including the suspension of reformist newspapers and mobile telephone SMS service on election day. This caused mass public demonstrations in support of nullifying the election.”
In fact both wings of the Islamic republic have made a lot of people “discontented and frustrated” and restricted “civil and political freedoms” since the day the regime came to power. There have been disputed results in at least three previous presidential elections, but what differentiates the current crisis from previous ones is ‘the economy, stupid’. Not only is the global economic crisis being felt far worse in the countries of the periphery, but the effects in Iran are compounded by a government that based its 2008-09 budget on selling oil at $140 a barrel; a government that aimed to privatise 80% of Iran’s industries by 2010, thus creating mass unemployment, a government that printed money while pursuing neoliberal economic policies; a government whose policies resulted in a 25% inflation rate, while the growing gap between rich and poor made a mockery of its populist claims to be helping the common people.
Last week I wrote about the political stance of Stalinists who, by supporting Moussavi, are advocating, as they have done throughout the last decades, a stageist approach to revolution.4 The signatories of the ‘Truth and reconciliation’ statement have taken things a step further: they do not aim for the next ‘stage’ any more, advocating instead the continuation of the religious state with peace and harmony amongst its many factions. The protests might have pushed Khatami, Moussavi and Karroubi to adopt slightly more radical positions, but they certainly have failed to influence our conciliators.
The demonstrators in Tehran shout “Death to the dictator”, but the Casmii and Campaign Iran educators condemn “extremist elements who used the opportunity to create chaos and engaged in the destruction of public property”. Anyone who knows anything about events since the election is aware that it is the state and its oppressive forces that have used violence against ordinary people. How dare these renegades condemn the victims of that violence for resisting this brutal regime?
What is truly disgusting about the statement are the pleas addressed not only to leaders of the Islamic reformist movement in Iran (to make peace with the conservatives), but also their requests to Barack Obama and other western leaders to be more accommodating to the Iranian regime. As if imperialist threats and sanctions have anything to do with the good will, or lack of it, of this or that administration. The language and tactics might change, but just as a bankrupt, corrupt and undemocratic Islamic Republic needs external threats and political crisis to survive, so US and western imperialism needs not only to offload the worst effects of the economic crisis onto the countries of the periphery, but also to threaten and occasionally instigate war. Our movement must aim to stop this lunacy, but in order to do so we need to address the democratic forces in Iran and the west rather than pleading with imperialism and Iran’s reactionary rulers.
The open support of the supreme religious leader for the conservatives has radicalised the Iranian masses. Separation of state and religion has now become a nationwide demand and we must support the demonstrators’ calls for the dismantling of the offices and expropriation of funds associated with the supreme leader and of all other religious foundations. The abolition of sharia law, of the religious police and of Islamic courts is part and parcel of such a call. Even as the show trials were being broadcast, Iranian workers were continuing their struggles against privatisation (Ahmadinejad’s first economic priority in his second term is the privatisation of oil refineries) and the non-payment of wages.
These days capitalists who say they are unable to pay their workers blame not only the world economic situation but also current events in Iran itself. Yet many of them do make profits and quickly channel them abroad. Iranian workers have been demanding representation at factory level to monitor production and sales, and calling for the total transparency of company accounts. We must support these immediate demands as part of our own anti-imperialist strategy.
At a time of crisis it is inevitable that the bourgeoisie, both in the developed world and in the countries of the periphery, will act irrationally. However, it is sad to see sections of the ‘left’ adopting a different form of irrationality. If we are to expose the warmongering endemic to contemporary capitalism, we must base our approach on the independent politics of the international working class.
That is why the idiotic, class-collaborationist ‘theories’ of Casmii, Campaign Iran and the current dominant line in Monthly Review are such a disaster for the anti-war movement.
Notes
1. Over the last few weeks Monthly Review has published a number of statements defending Ahmadinejad, which has led to resignations by some members of the board and has been condemned by socialists in the US and elsewhere.
2. ‘Truth and reconciliation’, www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/iran010809.html
3. See ‘Lies cannot stop imperialists’, www.hopoi.org/lies.html
4. ‘Out of step with the masses’, July 30.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ1FSuSgRwM&hl=en&fs=1&]
Just as Iranian ex-leftwingers in the west call for reconciliation between the two wings of the Islamic regime, the ruling faction clamps down on its rivals. Yassamine Mather reportsThe Stalinist show trial of Saturday August 1 – when a number of prominent ‘reformists’ appeared on Iranian state TV to ‘thank their interrogators’ before repenting – was not the first such event in the Islamic republic’s history. Leaders of the ‘official communist’ Tudeh Party were similarly paraded on Iranian TV to denounce their own actions in the 1980s, while in the 1990s we had the trials of ‘rogue’ elements of the ministry of intelligence.
However, this time the Islamic leaders forgot that a precondition for the success of such show trials in terms of imposing fear and submission on the masses is total control of the press and media. What made this particular effort ineffective – indeed a mockery – was that it came at a time when the supporters of supreme leader Ali Khamenei have not yet succeeded in silencing the other factions of the regime, never mind stopping the street protests. So, instead of marking the end of the current crisis, the show trials have given the protestors fresh ammunition.
The paper of the Participation Front (the largest alliance of ‘reformist’ MPs) stated: “The case of the prosecution is such a joke that it is enough to make cooked chicken laugh.” The Participation Front was one of nine major Islamic organisations which ridiculed the prosecution claim that the ‘regime knew of the plot for a velvet revolution’ weeks before the election. Some Tehran reformist papers are asking: in that case why did the Guardian Council allow the ‘reformist’ candidates to stand in the presidential elections? Perhaps the Guardian Council itself should be put on trial!
Former president Mohammad Khatami, candidates Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Mehdi Karroubi and other ‘reformist’ politicians have denounced the trial as “illegal”, yet they do not seem to realise the irony in this criticism. First of all, no-one but the ‘reformists’ within the regime has any illusions about Iran’s legal system (both civil and sharia law). Second, the time to oppose show trials was two decades ago, not when you yourself are a victim of the system and there is no-one left to defend you. It was not just in the 1980s that messrs Khatami, Moussavi, Karroubi, etc kept quiet about similar trials. As late as the 1990s, during Khatami’s own presidency, they did not exactly rebel against the show trials of the intelligence agents who ‘confessed’ to having acted alone in murdering opponents of the regime. Some of the most senior figures implicated in that scandal, a scandal that was hushed up by the Khatami government (‘for the sake of the survival of the Islamic order’) – not least current prosecutor general Saeed Mortazavi – are now in charge of the ‘velvet revolution’ dossier.
For the Iranian left the trial and ‘confessions’ have also been a reminder of the plight of thousands of comrades who probably faced similar physical and psychological torture in the regime’s dungeons in the 1980s, although only a handful of them ever made it onto TV screens – many died anonymously in the regime’s torture chambers. Of course, we do not know if the Iranian government has improved its torture techniques since those times, but some senior ‘reformist’ politicians appear to have broken down much more easily than those thousands of young leftwing prisoners.
Those ‘reformist’ leaders who are still at liberty are not doing any better. Despite facing the threat of arrest and trial themselves, they maintain their allegiance to ‘Iran’s Islamic order’, reaffirming their “commitment to the Islamic regime” (Khatami) and denouncing the slogan promoted by demonstrators, “Freedom, independence, Iranian republic”, as Moussavi did on August 2.
A couple of weeks ago there were signs that negotiations between Khamenei and another former president, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, had made some progress and once more there was the possibility that, as the two factions of the regime buried some of their differences, the mass movement could become a victim of reconciliation amongst senior clerics.
The show trials not only put an end to such illusions, but promised an unprecedented intensification of the internal conflict. But this came too late for the authors of the statement, ‘Truth and reconciliation for Iran’, signed by a number of academics and activists who are notorious apologists of the Iranian regime and published on a number of websites, including that of Monthly Review.1 The statement has one aim: to save the Islamic regime by advocating peaceful coexistence between the two warring factions or, in the words of the statement, “the vital unity of our people against foreign pressures”.
In explaining the background of the conflict with imperialism, the authors state: “… despite Iran’s cooperation in the overthrow of the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan, the administration of George W Bush labelled the Islamic Republic a member of the ‘axis of evil’.”2 I am not quite sure why Iran’s support for US imperialism in the terrible Afghanistan war should be put forward as an example of the regime’s reasonable and moderate behaviour by anyone who claims to be anti-war.
The statement goes on to praise the wonderful election process, failing to mention that only four candidates loyal to the regime’s factions were allowed to stand or that voting for a president of a regime headed by an unelected ‘supreme religious leader’ is a bit of a joke … But this marvellous ‘democratic election’ is used to legitimise Iran’s nuclear programme.
The statement contains some seriously false claims: “… we have advocated the human rights of individuals and democratic rights for various groups and constituencies in Iran.” I am not sure which universe they think the rest of us reside in, but until the escalation of the conflict between the two factions of the regime many of the authors of the statement were insisting that everything in Iran’s Islamic Republic was great.
According to the defenders of ‘Islamic feminism’ amongst them, Iranian women enjoy complete political and social freedom – which no doubt would have come as a shock to tens of thousands of young women who joined the protests precisely because of their opposition to draconian misogynist regulations imposed by the religious state.
Many of the signatories are associated with Campaign Iran and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, which have made a virtue of not advocating “democratic rights” for Iranians, since that would confuse those simple-minded ‘ordinary people’ at a time when Iran is under threat. They insisted that the existence of a women-only fire brigade was proof of gender equality in Iran and the fact that the ‘crime’ of homosexuality is punishable by death is no reason to declare the regime homophobic – after all, liberal Iran has a very high rate of sex-change operations.3 The signatories are mistaken if they think they can rewrite history and portray themselves as defenders of “human rights” in Iran – we will neither forgive nor forget their disgraceful pro-regime apologetics.
Our ex-leftists clearly fail to understand the significance of the street protests: “The votes of a great portion of the Iranian society for both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi show that the best solution is negotiations for reconciliation and creation of a government of national unity from the ranks of principlists and the green movement and reformists.” While even bourgeois liberals and Moussavi supporters admit that the protests have now reached the stage where the green movement has no alternative but to tail the masses and their anti-regime slogans, the signatories’ advice to the ‘reformists’ is to ‘negotiate’ with those who have killed dozens of demonstrators, tortured hundreds and imprisoned thousands, including some of Moussavi’s allies.
When the ‘Truth and reconciliation’ statement tries to look at the causes of the current unrest, it gets things wrong: “However, in the view of a considerable number of Iranians who are discontented and frustrated with the restrictions on civil and political freedoms, there were various irregularities in the elections, including the suspension of reformist newspapers and mobile telephone SMS service on election day. This caused mass public demonstrations in support of nullifying the election.”
In fact both wings of the Islamic republic have made a lot of people “discontented and frustrated” and restricted “civil and political freedoms” since the day the regime came to power. There have been disputed results in at least three previous presidential elections, but what differentiates the current crisis from previous ones is ‘the economy, stupid’. Not only is the global economic crisis being felt far worse in the countries of the periphery, but the effects in Iran are compounded by a government that based its 2008-09 budget on selling oil at $140 a barrel; a government that aimed to privatise 80% of Iran’s industries by 2010, thus creating mass unemployment, a government that printed money while pursuing neoliberal economic policies; a government whose policies resulted in a 25% inflation rate, while the growing gap between rich and poor made a mockery of its populist claims to be helping the common people.
Last week I wrote about the political stance of Stalinists who, by supporting Moussavi, are advocating, as they have done throughout the last decades, a stageist approach to revolution.4 The signatories of the ‘Truth and reconciliation’ statement have taken things a step further: they do not aim for the next ‘stage’ any more, advocating instead the continuation of the religious state with peace and harmony amongst its many factions. The protests might have pushed Khatami, Moussavi and Karroubi to adopt slightly more radical positions, but they certainly have failed to influence our conciliators.
The demonstrators in Tehran shout “Death to the dictator”, but the Casmii and Campaign Iran educators condemn “extremist elements who used the opportunity to create chaos and engaged in the destruction of public property”. Anyone who knows anything about events since the election is aware that it is the state and its oppressive forces that have used violence against ordinary people. How dare these renegades condemn the victims of that violence for resisting this brutal regime?
What is truly disgusting about the statement are the pleas addressed not only to leaders of the Islamic reformist movement in Iran (to make peace with the conservatives), but also their requests to Barack Obama and other western leaders to be more accommodating to the Iranian regime. As if imperialist threats and sanctions have anything to do with the good will, or lack of it, of this or that administration. The language and tactics might change, but just as a bankrupt, corrupt and undemocratic Islamic Republic needs external threats and political crisis to survive, so US and western imperialism needs not only to offload the worst effects of the economic crisis onto the countries of the periphery, but also to threaten and occasionally instigate war. Our movement must aim to stop this lunacy, but in order to do so we need to address the democratic forces in Iran and the west rather than pleading with imperialism and Iran’s reactionary rulers.
The open support of the supreme religious leader for the conservatives has radicalised the Iranian masses. Separation of state and religion has now become a nationwide demand and we must support the demonstrators’ calls for the dismantling of the offices and expropriation of funds associated with the supreme leader and of all other religious foundations. The abolition of sharia law, of the religious police and of Islamic courts is part and parcel of such a call. Even as the show trials were being broadcast, Iranian workers were continuing their struggles against privatisation (Ahmadinejad’s first economic priority in his second term is the privatisation of oil refineries) and the non-payment of wages.
These days capitalists who say they are unable to pay their workers blame not only the world economic situation but also current events in Iran itself. Yet many of them do make profits and quickly channel them abroad. Iranian workers have been demanding representation at factory level to monitor production and sales, and calling for the total transparency of company accounts. We must support these immediate demands as part of our own anti-imperialist strategy.
At a time of crisis it is inevitable that the bourgeoisie, both in the developed world and in the countries of the periphery, will act irrationally. However, it is sad to see sections of the ‘left’ adopting a different form of irrationality. If we are to expose the warmongering endemic to contemporary capitalism, we must base our approach on the independent politics of the international working class.
That is why the idiotic, class-collaborationist ‘theories’ of Casmii, Campaign Iran and the current dominant line in Monthly Review are such a disaster for the anti-war movement.
With the crisis-ridden Islamic regime wracked by divisions, what is the state of Iran’s opposition? Yassamine Mather surveys the sorry sceneStatements from some of the most senior clerics of Iran’s Islamic state has left little doubt that the Shia republic is in deep crisis.
First came the rather sad sermon of ayatollah Ali Akbar Rafsanjani at Friday prayers on July 17. His voice broke as he told the gathering he had devoted 60 years of his life to the establishment of the Islamic Republic and now he feared for the very survival of the regime. On the disputed elections, he said: “People became very hopeful. Everything was set for a glorious day. This glory was due to the people … I so very much wish that that path had been continued. But unfortunately, that was not the case.”
The hint in his call for unity was that he and he alone could save the present order from total collapse. We could almost feel sorry for the man – if we could forget the billions he and his immediate family have pocketed from dodgy deals, sanction-breaking contracts and sheer extortion.
A couple of days later the supreme leader himself, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seemed to echo Rafsanjani’s warning and he was followed by former reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, whose call for a referendum (it was not clear which question this would address) caused further confusion.
Then came the predictable conflict between president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ‘principlists’. His nomination of Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, a relative by marriage, as first (and the only significant) vice-president prompted a chorus of denunciations by ultra-conservative clerics and politicians. In 2008 Mashaei had angered the supreme leader when he said Iranians were “friends of all people in the world – including Israelis”. He was also filmed watching a belly dancer during an official visit to Turkey.
It is now clear that, after receiving Khamenei’s short letter instructing him to sack Mashaei, who is the father-in-law of Ahmadinejad’s daughter, the president battled for a whole week to keep him as vice-president. Some time during that week he lost the support of key ministers in his cabinet and on Sunday July 26 he was forced to sack a close ally, minister of intelligence ayatollah Ejhei, while the minister for Islamic guidance, Saffar Farandi, resigned his post. When Ahmadinejad refused to accept the resignation, Farandi announced he would not attend further cabinet meetings.
In fact Ahmadinejad has lost so many ministers that, in the words of the conservative deputy leader of the Islamic majles, Mohammad Bahonar, “According to article 136 of the constitution, as half of Iran’s ministerial posts are vacant, the government is, strictly speaking, illegal.” The conservative newspaper Tehran Emrouz described it as a “chaotic” day for the government, while MP Ali Motahari called on Ahmadinejad to “control his nerves” and accused him of intentionally provoking tension.
By Tuesday July 28 it became clear that Ahmadinejad had lost the support of conservative MPs in the majles. Over 200 ‘principlists’ wrote a strong letter condemning the president and warning him that a fate similar to Abolhassan Banisadr (the disgraced first president of the Islamic Republic who was forced into exile) awaited him if he continued to disobey the supreme leader.
Meanwhile, following a report by a parliamentary commission, Khamenei ordered the closure of Kahrizak detention centre, where dozens of detainees died following torture. One hundred and forty political prisoners were also released from Evin. It should be remembered that death under torture is not a new phenomenon in Iran. What is different this time is that sons and daughters of the regime’s own officials are now amongst the victims.
Of course, this crisis amongst the Islamic Republic’s rulers – and, this week, the crisis within the faction in power – is only a reflection of the continuing rebellion and protests on the streets and in the workplaces in most Iranian towns and cities. Every day, as the relatives of young Iranians are informed of the death in custody of their loved ones, people gather on the streets of Tehran in spontaneous demonstrations. Dozens of bodies have already been returned to grieving parents, hundreds of people are in custody, yet the protests continue with no end in sight. Those arrested include 36 officers who had allegedly planned to attend the July 17 ‘protest’ Friday prayer in their uniforms.
What is significant in the last few weeks is the growing gap between the slogans, demands and aspirations of the protesters, whose anger has dramatically radicalised the movement on the streets and neighbourhoods of major cities, and the limited horizons of reformist leaders and their supporters, some of whom are amongst the most discredited sections of the Iranian opposition – in particular the former Stalinist, turned Islamist, social democrats. While reformist presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Moussavi keeps talking of “legal means” in a desperate attempt to save the Islamic regime, the demonstrators’ slogans – ‘Death to the Islamic Republic’, ‘Wait until we are armed’ – clearly show the differences between the two.
The left’s influence is still limited. However, clear examples of its efforts can be seen in the last two weeks in protests at Tehran oil refinery, continuing actions against job losses, notably in the textile industry, leaflets by workers calling for a general strike, and the successful gathering at the tomb of socialist poet Ahmad Shamloo on Friday July 24. At this political meeting, students distributed dates, as is the custom at Shia funerals, joking that this was to mark the impending death of the Islamic regime.
In addition, supporters of a number of exiled communist organisations (including Rahe Kargar and Fedayeen Minority) issued a joint statement in Tehran announcing the formation of United Supporters of Left and Communist Groups.
Yet, at a time when ordinary Iranians, losing faith in government reformists, might be open to the ideas of the exiled opposition, one cannot avoid despairing at the sad state of the latter – as shown by the superficial slogans, leaflets and statements put out for the united actions of July 25. They proposed a multi-class, liberal, ‘green’ coalition that will unite all Iranians under the banner of “democratic Islam”.
Iranians are still paying the price of the anti-dictatorship front of 1979; yet few of those who advocate ‘unity’ of the opposition seem to realise the irony of their call. Of course, inside Iran it has been both useful and at times desirable that opponents of the regime join forces with supporters of Moussavi and take advantage of the conflict within the ranks of the leadership in order to reduce the risk of repression at the hands of the security forces. Shouting “Allahu Akbar” (‘God is great’) is a manifestation of such tactics. However, there is no justification in uniting around that slogan in front of the Iranian embassy in London or Brussels. On the contrary, repeating this slogan in Europe is a retrograde step.
So who is involved in this Islamic-green rainbow coalition in exile? Let me describe some of its components, their recent history and some of the more laughable political positions they have taken.
Islamist reformists: Some of the founding ideologues of the Islamic Republic of Iran are currently in exile, having fallen foul of the current leadership, and, together with royalists, they represent the most backward sections of the opposition. Yet they have been given unprecedented coverage by the international media, including, worst of all, sections of the Farsi-speaking media.
First we have Akbar Ganji, promoter of a New York hunger strike and a man portrayed in the US media as a “human rights activist” who talks of Islam and democracy. An ironic description for someone who founded, and was a commander of, the dreaded Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) and who played an active role in some of the worst mass executions of leftist and socialists under the Islamic regime.
Our former Pasdar is now a fully fledged supporter of western capitalism. This is what he said at a meeting in Berkeley in 2006: “A market economy allows you to create institutions separate from the government. A totalitarian regime, or a fascist regime, requires that all economic aspects of life must be controlled by the government. The communist economies have all been defeated. Once the free-market economy enters a society, the occurrence of fascism and totalitarianism become impossible.”
And in his acceptance speech for an award in Canada: “I consider western democracies to be the best option among the actually existing forms of government and ways of organising power.” Yet the Voice of America’s favourite Iranian ‘human rights activist’ has no regrets about his own past and defends everything that happened during and in the first few years after the February 1979 uprising!
The next ‘Islamist democrat’ propelled to fame on Farsi-speaking airwaves, broadcast both by the BBC Persian service and Voice of America, is the ‘philosopher’, Abdolkarim Souroush, who is a visiting scholar at Georgetown University in Washington DC. When the Islamic regime ordered the closure of all academic institutions in the early 1980s in what was called the ‘Islamic cultural revolution’, a new body was set up – the Cultural Revolution Institute – comprising seven members, appointed directly by the supreme leader. They included Soroush. Although he has now fallen out with his former allies, his anti-communist views are as strong as ever: “I was mainly interested in breaking Marxist philosophy,” he once said.
More recently he claimed that “the spectre of Popper is all over Iran”. Maybe someone should tell our Islamist friend that these days the spectre of Popper is actually riding high over Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib …
To this list we could add Ataollah Mohajerani, culture minister during Khatami’s time; former Islamic regime minister and now prominent journalist Mohsen Sazegara; and many others.
Former Stalinists: Probably the worst defenders of the green bandwagon and constant advocates of a “democratic Islamic state” are Iran’s ex-Stalinists turned social democrats.
The Fedayeen Majority and Rahe Tudeh (one of the splits from the ‘official’ communist Tudeh Party) are in the forefront of green gatherings outside Iran. They try to impose reformist slogans and ban all radical demands from their rainbow coalition. At a time when ‘Down with the Islamic Republic’ has become a regular slogan in Tehran and other Iranian cities, outside Iranian embassies in London, Paris and Amsterdam they decry this as “too radical” and “not in the interests of the movement”.
Of course, we all remember the days when the Fedayeen Majority and Tudeh, following Moscow’s disastrous analysis of the Khomeini regime, were cheerleaders for the black repression of the early 1980s; we remember how they called on Iranians to vote for current supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei when he became president in 1981. Throughout the last decade they defended successive incompetent Islamic reformists in power. Now they are a key force behind Moussavi and his rather discredited allies outside Iran.
Satellite TV and BBC Persian service: Around 40 TV channels broadcast into Iran. Some are from exiled groups, ranging from royalists to those claiming to represent communist organisations. Sadly, most of the programmes are so appalling (or so boring) that very few people pay any attention to them. Yet Iran’s official radio and TV news service is so unreliable that no-one takes it seriously.
In this situation, the slightly more informative BBC World Service, broadcast by satellite and on the internet, has suddenly become a main source of news and analysis for many Iranians, resulting in the supreme leader’s accusations of British involvement in the protests. In fact many Iranians consider the BBC to be too even-handed, giving too much time to supporters of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
The reporters and editors pride themselves in presenting an “unbiased, non-ideological” programme; yet the reality is that their so-called balanced programming inevitably appeals to the centre ground of politics – and that in itself is ‘ideological’. The perceived centre ground requires giving virtually unlimited time to ‘Islamic democrats’ Soroush, Mohajerani and Kadivar. Yet, for example, Soroush can spout about the spectre of Popper over Tehran, while at the same time defending the darkest days of repression under Khomeini, but is never challenged by an experienced interviewer.
While this is the state of the bourgeois Iranian exiles, sections of the ‘radical’ left in exile are not much better. On the one hand, we have those who are preaching a return to armed struggle in order to “empower the working class”. On the other hand, desperate to see the end of the regime, some believe ‘the end justifies the means’ – even if the means are provided by rightwing organ-isations, Zionist peace groups or pro-imperialist trade unions.
Yet the leaflets put out by the left inside Iran are very promising. Unlike our exiled social democrat ex-Stalinists in the Fedayeen Majority and Rahe Tudeh, they call for a fully democratic and uncompromising secularism. Not only the complete separation of state and religion – a demand that can only be achieved with the overthrow of the entire Islamic republic regime – but the expropriation of all vaghf (Shia charitable wealth), all property owned by religious foundations, the abolition of the bassij and Pasdaran, the right of every citizen to bear arms, and freedom for all political prisoners.
As for the Iranian working class, its militants are putting forward demands for an end to current neoliberal economic policies, an end to ‘white’ (short-term) contracts, the right to set up independent workers’ organisations and the right to strike. Rather than supporting holocaust deniers such as Ahmadinejad or tailing reformist Islamists, the radical left in Europe and the US must do all in its power to promote these demands – not only for the sake of the Iranian working class, but because what happens in Iran will be crucial for the future of the whole region.
Hopi activists have just received the sad news that Iranian activist Alireza Davoudi died yesterday from a heart attack resulting from the extreme torture he was subjected to in the Islamic Republic’s jails. This is a sad loss to our movement and our hearts go out to his family, comrades and friends.
Interview mit Yassamine Mather, Sprecherin der Organisation “Hands Off the People of Iran” (HOPI) zur Frage des “antiimperialistischen” Charakters des iranischen Regimes – Interview with Hopi spokesperson Yassamine Mather on the question of the ‘anti-imperialist’ character of the Iranian regime.
A.Holberg Würden Sie bitte die Geschichte und das Programm von “Hands Off the People of Iran”(HOPI) zusammenfassen.
Y.M. HOPI wurde im Januar 2008 gegründet. Unsere Gründserklärung ist zu finden unter http://www.hopoi.org/main.html und enthält die folgenden Hauptforderungen der Kampagne:
Nein zum imperialistischen Krieg! Für den sofortigen und bedingungslosen Abzug der US/UK-Truppen aus dem Irak und der gesamten Golf-Region!
Nein zu jeder imperialistischen Intervention. Ein sofortiges und bedingungsloses Ende den Sanktionen gegen den Iran
Nein zum theokratischen Regime
Opposition gegen den israelischen Expansionismus und und die israelische Aggression
Unterstützung für alle Arbeiterklasse- und progressive Kämpfe im Iran gegen Armut und Repression!
Unterstützung für Sozialismus und Demokratie im Iran und deshalb Solidarität mit allen demokratischen, Arbeiterklasse-, sozialistischen und sekularen Bewegungen im Iran.
Opposition gegen israelische, britische und amerikanische Atomwaffen. Für einen atomwaffenfreien Nahen- und Mittleren Osten als Schritt in Richtung auf einen weltweiten Atomwaffenverzicht!
Mit HOPI affiliierte Organisationen sind bisher folgende:
Communist Party of Great Britain
Communist League (USA)
Communist Workers League (USA)
Communist Students
Democratic Socialist Alliance
Green Party
Iran Bulletin – Middle East Forum
Iranian Workers Bulletin
Irish Socialist Network
Jewish Socialist Group
Labour Representation Commitee
Marxistische Initiative (Germany)
Movement for Socialism
Permanent Revolution
Organization of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (Rahe Kargar)
Republican Communist Network
The Rotten Elements
Socialist Alliance
Socialist Democracy (Ireland)
Scottish Socialist Party
The Starry Plough Initiative (Ireland)
Workers Left Unity – Iran
Young Greens
Youth/Peasants Federation (Nepal)
The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)
ASLEF, the UK union for train drivers and operators
Die Gesamtliste der Mitglieder und Unterstützer findet sich unter: http://www.hopoi.org/supporters.html
Wir fordern alle Organisationen, die diese Programmpunkte teilen, auf, Mitglieder oder Unterstützer von HOPI zu werden.
A.H.: Manche betrachten das iranische Regime und auch islamistische Kräfte wie die palästinensische Hamas oder die libanesische Hezbollah als antiimperialistisch und meinen, dass die Ablehnung dieser Kräfte durch die traditionelle Linke wegen ihrer religiös-kulturellen Differenzen zum Marxismus oder allgemeiner den Ideen der europäischen Aufklärung sektiererisch sei, denn – man mag es mögen oder nicht – das seien heute die realen Kräfte, die dem Imperialismus Schläge versetzen (s. z.B. Hezbollah, die Israels Ziele im Libanon militärisch zum Scheitern gebracht hat und das Gleiche für Hamas im Gaza-Streifen). Sie betrachten aber das islamistische Regime und die Ahmadinejad-Fraktion insbesondere nicht als antiimperialistisch. Weshalb?
Y.M.:
Hezbollah ist antizionistisch und damit taktisch auch antiimperialistisch. Wir sind aber der Meinung, dass es einen wirklichen strategischen Anttimperialismus heute nur auf antikapitalistischer Grundlage geben kann.
Über Ahmadinejads Außenpolitik in der Region haben wir ausführlich geschrieben. Wir denken, dass seine Unterstützung für Palästina opportunistisch ist, mehr Parolen als Taten und oft entgegen den Interessen der Palästinenser. In der Tat ist der Iran in seiner Phase der schiitischen Republik das einzige Land in der islamischen Welt, das Waffen von Israel gekauft hat. Sogar als Ayatollah Khomeini versprach, Israel auszulöschen – natürlich zusammen mit dem “Großen Satan”, den USA – sanktionierte Khomeini selbst Geheimverhandlungen mit der Reagan-Regierung: der Iran bezahlte seine israelischen Waffen, indem er Gelder auf ein schweizer Konto für die von den USA unterstützten Contras in Nicaragua einzahlte – all das durch die guten Dienste von Oliver North bei dem, was als “Irangate” bekannt werden sollte.
Bei einer anderen Gelegenheit stürzte in den 80er Jahren ein Flugzeug über der Türkei ab, und das hatte israelische Waffen für Teheran geladen. Das belebte Spekulationen, dass derartige Lieferungen noch lange nach dem Irangate-Skandal andauerten.
Das iranische Regime behauptete, mit Saddam Hussein einen imperialistischen Stellvertreter zu bekämpfen, erhielt aber vom gleichen Imperialismus Waffen. Dieser wollte damit wohl auch einen Ausgleich zur Front arabischer Staaten schaffen, die sich hinter dem Irak versammelte.
Es bleibt aber die Frage, weshalb Ahmadinejad diese Rhetorik in der jetzigen Zeit so offen wiederholt. Der Iranfachmann der BBC behauptet, dass dieses dem iranischen Präsident eigene Ziel eine Folge mangelnder Erfahrung sei – der Tatsache, dass er nicht realisiere, dass seine Kommentare ausführlich von den internationalen Medien verbreitet werden, und dass er diese Art von populistischen Slogans, die zu machen er gewohnt war als er noch der wenig bekannte Bürgermeister von Teheran war, heute nicht wiederholen dürfe.
Es besteht kein Zweifel daran, dass viele innerhalb des Regimes schnell dabei waren, sich von den Implikationen seiner Worte zu distancieren. Ein Beobachter in Teheran schrieb, dass Ahmadinejads Kommntare wie eine Einladung an Bush und die USA klängen, den Iran anzugreifen. Andere haben sarkastisch geschrieben, dass Ahmadinejad vielleicht ein geheimer Royalist sei, der es darauf anlege, den USA einen Vorwand für eine Invasion zu liefern.
Selbst vor Ahmadinejads angeblichen Fauxpas war Teheran voll von Gerüchten darüber, dass sein Büro täglich Anrufe vom Obersten Führer, Ayatollah Khamenei, erhalte, der ihn wegen dieses oder jenes Fehlers zurechtweise. Im September wurde Ahmadinejad in einem Interview mit einer arabischen Zeitung dahingehend zitiert, dass der Iran als Antwort auf die westliche Politik vielleicht ein Ölembargo verfügen könnte. Am nächten Tag veröffentlichte sein Büro ein offizielles Dementi und beschuldigte arme Journalisten, die das berichtet hatten, und behauptete sogar, der iranische Präsident habe es gar nicht gemerkt, dass er interviewt werde.
Dieses Dementi war ganz klar von Khamenei angestoßen worden, der daraufhin auch die Autorität des Vollzugsrates erweiterte, einer ernannten Körperschaft, dessen langjähriger Vorsitzender der ehenmalige Präsident Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen von 2005 ein Konkurrent Ahmadinejads war. Dieser Rat bekam auch das Recht, das Parlament zu überwachen, was verschiedene Abgeordnete dazu brachte, den Vorwurf zu erheben, dass er darauf aus sei, die Macht zu monopolisieren.
Eine Erklärung für Ahmadinejads Kommentare ist die, dass das Ansehen des iranischen Regimes nach seinem Sieg, der darin besteht, dass im Irak ein schitischer Staat entstanden ist (die Hauptkomponente der Besatzungsregierung bilden pro-iranische Schiiten) durch seine Unterstützung für die von den USA und dem Vereinigten Königreich (UK) im Irak installierte Regierung in Mitleidenschaft gezogen war. Als einziges Land, das aus der imperialistische Militäraktion in der Region Nutzen gezogen hat, fühlt sich der Iran isoliert. Deshalb reflektieren, so ein palästinensischer Regierungsvertreter, die Kommentare von Irans Präsidenten eine Schwäche des Landes in der Region und den Versuch, einige Glaubwürdigkeit als ein antizionistisches, anti-US-Regime zurückzugewinnen.
Vor allem seit Irans Hauptverbündete, der “Oberste Rat für die Islamische Revolution im Irak” und die Daawa-Partei, in Baghdad an die Macht gekommen sind, ist der überwiegende Teil der arabischen Presse gegenüber Irans Einfluss in der Region kritisch. Das könnte Ahmadinejads Ausbruch erklären – ein Versuch, sich von den Anschuldigungen der Komplizenschaft mit der US-Politik frei zu machen.
Eine andere Erklärung könnte in der wachsenden Rolle gefunden werden, die Israel und Agenten seines Geheimdienstes Mossad in irakisch Kurdistan spielen. Der kurdische Präsident des Iraks, Jalal Talabani, einst ein Verbündeter Irans, ist sehr viel näher an die USA und Israel gerückt als das Teheran lieb ist. Die Präsenz einer großen Zahl von Mossad- und anderen israelischen Sicherheitskräften in irakisch Kurdistan, von denen viele rechtsgerichteten iranisch kurdischen Oppositionsgruppen helfen, hat die Regierung in Teheran nervös gemacht. Der Iran betrachtet irakisch Kurdistan als ein Gebiet, das von Israel und den USA als Basis genutz wird, ihre Opposition gegen Teheran auf die gleiche Weise zu stärken, wie irakisch Kurdistan genutzt wurde, um das Baath-Regime zu destabilisieren. Der Widerspruch zwischen der militärischen Kollaboration zwischen dem Iran und den USA/Israel einerseits und den US/israelischen Aktivitäten in Kurdistan andererseits ist aber nur ein scheinbarer. Die unbestreitbare Tatsache, dass Ahmadinejad nicht der Liebling des Imperialismus ist, macht ihn noch nicht zu einer derartigen Gefahr, dass eine Kollaboration bei Gelegenheit ausgeschlossen wäre.
A.H.: Aus marxistischer Sicht ist der Imperialismus nicht einfach eine bösartige Politik, sondern ein bestimmtes Stadium des Kapitalismus. Können Sie uns sagen, was das Wesen der Wirtschaftspolitik des Regimes ist und was die Unterschiede zwische der Ahmadinejad- und der Mussavi-Fraktion sind. Ein iranischer Genosse erklärte jüngst, dass Mussavi ein Unterstützer des Neo-Keynesianismus sei…
Y.M.: Moussavi ist kein Anhänger des Neo-Keynesianismus mehr. Er denkt, dass sei für die 80er Jahre richtig gewesen, aber jetzt ist er genau wie Ahmadinejad für neo-liberale Privatisierung. Was Ahmadinejad anbelangt, so habe ich schon vor Jahren darauf hingewiesen, dass er ungeachtet seiner Anti-US-Parolen als Präsident den Vorsitz über die prokapitalistischste Regierung geführt hat, die der Iran seit 1988 gesehen hat. Ein in Israel geborener linker Antizionist sagte mir einmal, dass die israelische Arbeitspartei mit anti-palästinensischen politischen Maßnahmen durchkommen könne, die keine rechte Likud-Regierung sich trauen würde vorzuschlagen. Das Gleiche gilt für Irans antiamerikanischen Präsidenten. Die neoliberale Maßnahmen, die während seiner Präsidentschaft eingeführt wurden, sind sehr viel weitreichender und brutaler als alles, was Khatami oder Rafsanjani hätten planen können.
Seit 1988, als der Iran IWF-Kredite annahm, schickt der IWF in jedem Frühjahr eine Kommission nach Teheran, um zu überprüfen, ob das Land den Anforderungen des globalen Kapitalismus genüge tut. Jedes Jahr im Hochsommer schlagen die Zentralbank und die Regierung weitere Privatisierungen im Industrie-, Bank- und Dienstleistungssektor vor und stürzen damit Zehntausende von Arbeitern, die dadurch ihre Jobs verlieren und zu Gelegenheitsarbeitern werden, noch mehr ins Elend. Das im Juli diesen Jahres verabschiedete Ausmaß der Privatisierungen ist jedoch derart groß, dass Irans Oberster Führer, Ayatollah Khamenei, den Artikel 4 der Verfassung der Islamischen Republik “neu interpretieren” musste. Die Regierung plant, 80% ihrer Anteile an einer ganzen Reihe von staatlichen Firmen im Bank-, Medien-, Transport- und Mineralsektor zu verkaufen, und stellt damit eines ihrer eigenen wirtschaftspolitischen “Prinzipien”, wie es von der Verfassung festgeschrieben ist, auf dem Kopf.
Diejenigen, die sich der wirtschaftlichen Pläne der iranischen Regierung nicht ganz sicher sind, brauchen in der Tat nur die Antwort der Regierung an die UN von Ende August 2006 zur Frage der “nuklearen Anreicherung” studieren. Die meisten der rund 100 Punkte, die im Dokument angesprochen werden, lesen sich eher wie ein Bettelbrief, in dem um die Aufhebung der US-Sanktionen gebeten wird, damit in den USA beheimatete Multis die Art von Investitionen im Iran tätigen können, in deren Genuss bereits europäische, japanische und chinesische Firmen kommen. Ahmadinejads Wirtschafts- und Finanzminister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, hat bei einem Meeting der Islamischen Entwicklungsbank 2008 damit geprahlt, dass sich die ausländischen Direktinvestitionen im Iran seit dem Vorjahr um 138% erhöht hätten. Der Schlüssel dafür war, dass der Iran 2004 die Verpflichtungen von Artikel VIII des IWF’s akzeptiert hatte, darunter den Verzicht auf Restriktionen für Währungstransaktionen.
Bei all ihrer Anti-US-Rhetorik hat die iranische Regierung sich bei dieser Antwort nach Kräften bemüht, zu erklären weshalb die USA keinen “Regimewechsel” brauchen, um ihre Kapitalinteressen im Iran abzusichern.
Natürlich. Der iranische Präsident hat immer laut seine Hingabe gegenüber der “Rückkehr des Mahdi” bekundet, des Zwölfer Schia-Imams, der im 9. Jahrhundert als Kind “entrückt” wurde. Seiner Rückkehr werden Krieg, Chaos und Blutbad vorausgehen. Manche haben argumentiert, dass die Obsession der iranischen Präsidenten mit der “Rückkehr” dieses Imams ihn zu einer destruktiven Politik hinführe – gleich ob in Hinblick auf Krieg, soziale Ungerechtigkeit oder kapitalistische Barbarei. Andere glauben, dass ein ideologischer Staat, dessen Wirtschaftspolitik auf den Interessen von “Basar”-Wirtschaft beruht, keinen Grund habe, sich den Verwüstungen durch das neoliberale Kapital entgegenzustellen.
Was auch immer die religiösen oder praktischen Erklärungen für die Wirtschaftspolitik der iranischen Regierung sein mögen – das Leben wird für die Mehrheit des iranischen Volkes in dem Tempo, wie das Regime neue Gesetze auf den Weg bringt, um die Eigentümer privaten Kapitals zu verteidigen, täglich schlechter. Im August 2006 hat die Regierung Ahmadinejads eine weitere Änderung der drakonischen Arbeitsgesetzgebung Irans bekanntgegeben. Den neuen Vorschlägen zufolge, gegen die sich Arbeiter landesweit durch Streiks und Proteste gewandt haben, legitimiert die “islamische” Gesetzgebung der Regierung Entlassungen und Niedriglöhne für Hunderttausende von Kontraktarbeitern und gibt skrupellosen Kapitalisten freie Hand, festangestellte Arbeiter zu entlassen und am selben Tag durch Kontraktarbeiter zu ersetzen!
Wegen dieser Angelegenheit hat es bereits zwei größere Streiks und Dutzende von weniger bekannt gewordenen Arbeiterprotesten gegeben:
-Rund 3.000 Arbeiter waren an Streiks und Protestkundgebungen in der Iran Khodro Dieselfabrik beteiligt. Sie wurden darüber in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass die Manager ihre Löhne um 30-60.000 Toman pro Monat [das Monatsgehalt eines Facharbeiters liegt bei 200.000 Toman, eine kleine Wohnung in Teheran kostet ca. 400.000 Toman] herabgesetzt haben. Der ISNA-Nachrichtenagentur zufolge hat am ersten Tag der Proteste ein Arbeiter erfolglos versucht, sich durch Erhängen das Leben zu nehmen. Einer der Arbeiter berichtete der Agentur, dass das Management den Arbeitern jetzt damit drohe, sie zu entlassen, wenn sie keine Erklärung unterzeichnen.
-Arbeiter der ParRiss-Fabrik traten am 19.August 2007 aus Protest gegen die vom Management aufgezwungenen Konditionen der Vertragsverlängerung in Streik. Es gab drei Laufzeiten: ein Jahr, drei Monate und ein Monat. Die Entscheidung des Unternehmers bezüglich der Laufzeit des Vertrags hängt von der Unterwürfigkeit jades einzelnen Arbeiters ab. Diejenigen, die sich dem Angriff auf side Arbeitsbedingungen nicht entgegenstellen, werden entsprechend belohnt. Man sagte der Arbeitern, sie würden nur einen Job haben, wenn sie ein Abkommen mit dem Unternehmer unterzeichnen, in dem sie garantieren, dass sie sich gegen eine Strafe von 2 Millionen Toman ($ 2.000) nie wieder gegen Arbeitsbedingungen zur Wehr setzen. Nach acht Tagen des Protests griffen am 26. August Militär- und Sicherheitskräfte mit Tränengas und Knüppeln bewaffnet die protestierenden Arbeiter und ihre Familien an. Im Juli 2009 fand ihr vorläufig letzter Streik statt.
Seitdem und gerade auch in jüngster Zeit hat es Streiks in einer vielzahl von Sektoren, u.a. auch wieder bei den Khodro-Automobilwerken, gegeben.
Dr. Raeess Dana, Ökonomie-Dozent an der Universität von Teheran, fasst das vorgelegte neue Gesetz wie folgt zusammen: “Der ‘Ratifizierungs’-Entwurf für die Arbeitsgesetzgebung widerspricht allen Behauptungen der neunten Regierung [d.h. der von Ahmadinejad] bezüglich der sozialen Gerechtigkeit. Wenn dieser Entwurf durchkommt, wird das Leben der Arbeiter völlig zerstört sein. Seit die neunte Regierung an die Macht gekommen ist, gibt es keinen Hinweis auf irgendeinen Versuch, Gerechtigkeit für die Arbeiterklasse zu suchen. In den letzten 27 Jahren sind die Arbeiter selten mit solchen Härten und Erpressungen konfrontiert gewesen. Tyrannische Marktbeziehungen und die destruktive Politik der Kapitalisten haben die iranischen Arbeiter zu wertlosen Waren herabgestuft, und heute sehen wir, dass sie keinen Schutz genießen. Die Arbeiterklasse wird durch den Druck und die Schwierigkeiten, mit der sie konfrontiert ist, zerstört… Ich sage das so, damit Herr Ahmadinejad, der dauernd mit seiner niedren Herkunft prahlt, merkt, wie seine Regierung und sein Arbeitsministermit den Arbeitern umgehen.”
Wo wir uns nun der Antikriegsdemonstration vom 23. September nähern, ist es Zeit, Jeden daran zu erinnern, dass das im Iran an der Macht befindliche islamische Regime Teil des Weltkapitalismus und somit ein Feind der Arbeiterklasse ist und einen unterdrückerischen Staat führt. Es hat Tausende von Sozialisten und Kommunisten ermordet, Arbeiter ins Gefängnis geworfen und Frauen unterdrückt und gleichzeitig den Instruktionen von IWF und Weltbank Folge geleistet. Die Schere zwischen Arm und Reich hat einen kritischen Punkt erreicht; der Widerspruch zwischen den Herrschenden und dem Volk wächst und militaristische Mahdi-Anbeter in der Regierung verfolgen eine unglaublich gefährliche Politik.
Natürlich glaubt niemand den imperialistische Ansprüchen, das iranische Volk zu verteidigen, die Demokratie in der Region zu verbreiten oder die iranischen Frauen zu unterstützen. Solche Lügen und die Versuche, US-Kriegsbemühungen zu rechtfertigen, haben nur eine Konsequenz, nämlich die, den Zugriff des Regimes auf die Herrschaft im Iran zu festigen. Sowohl die neokonservativen Herrschenden in den Vereinigten Staaten und die religiösen Konservativen im Iran wetteiferten darin, eine kriegsähnliche Atmosphäre zu schaffen, in der jeder mit dem anderen darin konkurriert, auf Rassismus und Nationalismus zurückzugreifen und gleichzeit religiöse Kriege zu führen und ihre respektiven Götter zu nutzen, um einfache Menschen zu betrügen und Militarismus zu rechtfertigen.
Es gibt jedoch noch eine andere Seite der Medaille: die Rationalität des Kapitals – die Notwendigkeit, den Markt und natürliche Ressourcen zu kontrollieren , sowie die Notwendigkeit politischer und ökonomischer Herrschaft – haben Bedingungen für globalen Konflikt und militärische Intervention geschaffen. Bei all ihren Diensten für das neoliberale Kapital ist es den gegenwärtigen Herrschenden im Iran doch nicht gelungen, die Bush-Regierung oder auch die Obamas, dessen Iran-Politik sich von der seines Vorgängers im Stil aber nicht im Inhalt unterscheidet, davon zu überzeugen, dass sie den Interessen des Kapitalismus besser dienen kann als irgendeine andere Alternative.
Es bleibt noch abzuwarten, ob die Verpflichtung der USA und Britanniens auf Regimewechsel im Iran zu einem weiteren blutigen Krieg führen wird. Mehrere EU-Staaten (um gar nicht von jedem Menschen mit einerm Mindestmaß an Intelligenz zu reden) haben beiden Regierungen immer wieder gesagt, dass das gegenwärtige Regime im Iran die beste Hoffnung für die Zukunft des Kapitalismus in diesem Land repräsentiere. Es bleibt abzuwarten, ob sie dieser Empfehlung Folge leisten werden.
Deshalb muss sich die Antikriegsbewegung mit ihren wahren Verbündeten – der iranischen Arbeiterklasse – in einer echten Bewegung gegen Krieg, neoliberales Kapital und die Verbreitung von Atomwaffen zusammentun. In einem solchen Kampf können die kapitalistischen Fundamentalisten in Teheran nicht als Verbündete betrachtet werden.”
A.H.: Wenn das Regime nicht antiimperialistisch ist – weder in seiner Außen- noch in seiner Innenpolitik auch in Hinblick auf seine Wirtschaftspolitik – warum wird es dann von den USA und anderen imperialistischen Mächten so wenig geliebt? Welche iranische Kräfte sähe der Imperialismus lieber an der Macht als Ahmadinejad? Wie sind die eventuell zwischen den verschiedenen imperialistischen Mächten bestehenden Differenzen in dieser Frage zu erklären?
Y.M.: Das iranische Regime ist nicht das ideale Regime für die US/EU-Imperialisten; es ist nationalistisch und außer Kontrolle. Es braucht Krisen, um zu überleben, und das reduziert die Stabilität in der Region. Die Imperialisten haben jedoch Nutzen aus Irans aktiver Unterstützung für die Invasionen in Afghanistan und im Irak gezogen. Bush und die Neocons wollten am gesamten Regime der IRI Rache für die Geiselnahme der US-Botschaftsangehörigen in Teheran im Jahr 1980 nehmen, aber Obama und die EU können mit reformistischen Islamisten leben und haben wie seinerzeit Khatami jetzt Moussavi als Präsidenten vorgezogen (ohne allerdings die Proteste organisiert zu haben). Es gibt Unterschiede zwischen der EU und den USA in dieser Hinsicht. Die USA würden eine Rückkehr zu einer mehr mainstreamigen bürgerlich-liberalen Regierung, vielleicht eine Koalition aus konstitutionellen Royalisten und Republikanern, die EU setzt eher auf Leute wie Moussavi.
French translation of Yassamine Mather’s article ‘The Beginning of the End’ on the Carre Rouge website.
