The US-Iran Conflict

The Apparent Nuclear Tangle & The Real Drama Behind

Shovan Dutta

The Iran Nuclear Tangle has heated up over the last ten months or so. After Iraq and North Korea it has been the term of ‘rouge' state Iran to come up on the dock of the super-cop of the world, the US . Why the USA , the country with highest amount of weapons of mass destruction (WMD-s) including Nuclear Bombs, and the only country that actually used nuclear weapons , is so much disturbed with Iran 's supposed nuclear programme? The present article is an attempt to portray the real reasons behind the continuous targeting of Iran by the US and the actual issues involved in the complex tussle between the US led imperialists and Iran behind the so-called nuclear weapons manufacture program of Iran .

The Nuclear Tangle

The issue of so-called nuclear weapons manufacture program of Iran once again came to the forefront last September with Iran 's open declaration of its decision to end its voluntary suspension of uranium-enrichment at one of its nuclear facility at Esfahan . Instantaneously, the US govt started crying hoarse about the imminent nuclear weapons threat of Iran and the need of immediate intervention by applying international sanctions against Iran , or even, staring unilateral military strikes.

For two decades, Iran was accused of clandestinely proceeding with its nuclear enrichment and deployment facilities. In December 2002, satellite imagery was provided to substantiate the claims of the secret program. But, even the providers of those satellite images admitted that Iran did not violate non-proliferation rules and agreements.

It is a fact that Iran is yet to provide sufficient info on the history of its centrifuge program. But there are as many as 15 other countries, mostly in the good books of the US and other imperialists, like South Korea , Taiwan , etc, where the IAEA also found discrepancies in the Utilisation of nuclear material. Neither the US nor the European Union pushed the International bodies for referral of their violations to the UN or pursued assiduously for punitive measures. South Korea , in fact, even confessed of enriching uranium to the extent necessary for making nuclear weapons. In case of Iran thee has been no evidence of such enrichment, moreover Iran regularly allowed inspection by IAEA after disclosure about its nuclear facilities, negotiated and tried to sort out differences with international bodies.

Even, Iran 's decision to end its voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment programme has a history which exposed US conspiracy. In November, 2004, Iran reached a separate agreement with EU countries, Britain , France , Germany at Paris . On the basis of commitment made in that agreement, Iran voluntarily suspended its nuclear enrichment programme at Esfahan , which was not at all legally binding. However, under covert pressure from US, the EU countries went back on their promises. In fact, US threatened EU if they proceed to help, including investing in Iran . The CEO of British Petroleum had to say, “Right now it is impractical for BP (to invest in Iran ) because 40% of BP (business) is in the US and we are the largest producer of Oil and Gas in the US ”. Naturally, Iran took the Paris agreement as closed chapter ended its voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment programme.

The question is: What's so special at stake for the US and its allies regarding Iran ? Why are so much being poured on Iran allegedly for nuclear weapons' threat from Iran, when from openly and brazenly nuclear armed States like the UK, the USA, Russia… to India and Pakistan who demonstratively detonated A-bombs serially, and then, to Israel, South Korea and others who have either surreptitiously acquired or clandestinely transferred to the same technology? At this moment the USA itself is in full pursuit of its grand nuclear and laser arms program ‘Star Wars'. Russia is updating its nuclear arsenal, with induction of newer and more lethal nuclear missile. On one side, the USA is hastily making arrangements, including change in laws, to provide nuclear and other technology and materials to out-and-out violator of Non-Proliferation-Treaty — India, and on the other hand, it is targeting Iran for a so-called un-proven nuclear weapons' program.

Probably, there is much more there than the apparent, on-surface ‘nuclear' issue that meets the eyes!

Sometimes in 2003, as revealed recently by Flynt Leverelts, a former National Security Council staff under President Bush, an attempt at rapprochement between the ruling classes of the two nations was made. The document revealed by Leverelts contains the Iranian aims, the US issues of interests and suggestions of a methodology for talks between the two states as proposed by Iran . The important thing to note is the nature of issues involved with both the sides that have been mentioned. It reveals the complexity of tussle that has extended to ‘concerns' and ‘interests' in the region as a whole of both the sides.

The Iranian aims mentioned are : change in US behaviour towards Iran; end of all sanctions and restrictions on frozen assets; support for democratic and representative govt in Iraq; respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq and for the religious links to Najaf and Karbala; full access to peaceful nuclear technology – biotechnology – chemical technology; recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region concomitant to defence capacity; and, action against anti-Iranian terrorist groups.

The US interests were: full transparency including cooperation with the IAEA to ensure that there is no Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons or other WMD-s (weapons-of-mass-destruction); decisive actions against all terrorist groups on Iranian territory, especially, the Al-Quid; coordination of positions on Iraq to achieve ‘stabilisation and establishment of democratic institutions and non-religious govt'; suspension of all material support to Palestinian groups (Hamas, etc) and pressure on them to stop violent acts against civilians within the borders of Israel; action on Hezbollah to become a mere political organisation in Lebanon; and, acceptance of Arab League's two-state solution to Palestine.

Iran also sought to initiate the whole process by agreeing to (a) cooperate with the US on Iraq , Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and a two-state solution of Palestine ; (b) offered transparency and full acceptance of IAEA protocols. In return they wanted: (a) normalisation of relations, (b) action against the armed resistance group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MKO) operating from Iraq against the clerical regime established in Iran with some sort of covert US assent, (c) de-freezing of frozen assets, (d) access to technologies and (e) a role in regional security.

So it is amply clear that the nuclear issue that is on the surface of the conflict at present is only but one of the numerous issues that have brought the two states into confrontation. What are really at stake are the USA 's overall plans for control and hegemony in the Middle East on the one hand, and Iran 's ruling Shiite clerical regime's interest in this region on the other. The issues bear testimony of the series of disturbances and conflicts that have cropped up and kept repeatedly flaring up because of imperialist policies over the years. Iran , once a strong ally of the US , has now become a stumbling block in that whole plan of the US .

The Middle East Plans of USA and Iran 's Place in It

The present confrontation is the result of repeated meddling by the imperialists led by the US post-World-War-II for their political and regional hegemony over the region.

Following the historic Yalta Summit, President Roosevelt quietly headed south-eastward for a secret meeting abroad the naval ship USS Quincy lying anchored near the Suez Canal . His caller was King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia . Theorising about that meeting a few years later George Keenan, one of the greatest US diplomat said that unless the US went about securing the Gulf's oil reserve as ‘ours' rather than ‘theirs' – the Arabs', its dominance as a world power would not be sustainable. That dramatic episode in 1945 underscored the centrality of Oil in the geopolitics of the 20th century.

Then came another landmark operation of the British and the US imperialists for hegemony in this region: It was the establishment of Israel in 1948 by US – British patronage to implant an unfailing outpost in of theirs for continuous intimidation and aggression in the region.

In the following decades of 1950s and 1960s, the rise of Arab nationalist movements against the US-Israel and other imperialist domination came as a big opposition to their Middle East plans. The so-called Non Aligned Movement (NAM) led by Nasser of Egypt, PLO and Fatah party of Palestinians and others came to the forefront. They were backed by the Soviet Union , which was eager to spread its influence in this region. During this spurt in nationalist movements, in 1953, the establishment of an anti-US popular govt, the Massadeque govt of Iran , took place. It was also the Cold War era of the two superpowers. The US went about openly aiding autocratic ruling cliques and orchestrating coups to crush the aspirations for liberation of the oppressed masses of this region. The shameless toppling of the Massadeque govt of Iran was one such example

The decade of 1970s gave the US imperialist plans in the region a still bigger jolt from two sides, or rather three, considering the oil-crisis. In Vietnam the US military machine experienced the most humiliating defeat In the Middle East, in Iran, without having an inkling of what's coming on within only several months, the USA lost its staunch ally, the Shah regime in the Iranian ‘Revolution' of 1979. And thirdly, the Arab oil output boycott following the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the rise of OPEC oil-cartel, displayed the vulnerability of USA 's growing dependence on Persian Gulf oil. Further, there was economic stagnation at home. The USA was forced to completely de-link US$ (dollar) from Gold. It was one of the fiercest crises in front of the US hegemony.

In the second half of the 1970s the Soviet imperialist actions in Afghanistan provided US another new opportunity in the Gulf. The signal event of revival of US plans was the Carter Doctrine – President Carter's State of the Union speech in 1980, which declared that ‘An attempt by any outside force to gain control over the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the USA, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.' Subsequently, in 1983, the Regan govt established the US Central Command (CENTCOM), one of the five regional commands governing US combat forces around the globe. Its authority covers 25 countries in South-Central Asia and in the Horn of Africa. Its primary aim is to keep the oil flowing. It was engaged in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, the 1991 Gulf War, the 2001 Afghan War and the latest Iraq war of 2003.

Ultimately the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union paved the way for unilateral hegemony of the US in the 1990s. Naturally, the Middle East and also the breakaway countries of erstwhile Soviet Union surrounding this oil & gas rich reserves became the most important targets. It is because of oil-&-gas, and also no less is its crucial geographical position.

Iran occupies a very special place among those target countries. Firstly, it is due to Iran 's oil, the fourth largest producer of oil, but even more so because of Iran 's future energy potential. According to latest estimates of the Oil & Gas Journal, Iran houses the second largest pool of untapped petroleum in the world, just after Saudi Arabia . Although the Saudi possesses larger reserves, it is presently producing oil at near-maximum sustainable rate. It will be able to raise its output in this manner over next 20 years, while the global demand, pushed by higher consumption by the US, China and India, is expected to rise by a further 50%. Iran , with its present production not in full steam, has a considerable growth potential to meet much of such increased demands in future, which a few countries possess. Added to this, Iran possesses Natural Gas in great abundance. It has, according to the same estimates by that mentioned source, roughly 16% of the total world reserve of Gas, and it is second only to Russia . Thus Iran will play a crucial role in the world's future energy equation. This possibility is further strengthened by the fact that the global demand for Gas is growing faster than any other source of energy, including Oil. While the world currently consumes more oil than gas, the supply of petroleum is expected to contract in the not-too-distant future, perhaps as soon as 2010. The production of natural gas will go on increasing until several decades. Moreover, natural gas is a better option than oil in many applications, and, is said to be less polluting than oil.

Apart from energy resources, Iran 's strategic geographical location on the north of the Gulf is also of great importance. It is in a position to threaten oil fields in Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , Iraq and the UAE, which together possess more than half of the world's known oil reserves. Further, it is situated just across the Strait of Hormuz , the narrow waterway through which, daily, 40% of the world's oil exports pass!

Another fact that should be clearly understood is that the importance of dominance of the US $ (dollars) globally depends to a large extent on the continuance of oil trade in dollars. The US economy's worldwide dominance depends largely on this US monopoly on oil trade. In one way, this is achieved through oil trade in billions and billions of dollars. Another way is the huge deposits of dollars earned through the sales by Middle East states, the oil barons and Sheikhs, in American Banks. Thus the US $, backed by petrodollars through means of exchange in oil trade and means of money hoard in deposits have been able to maintain itself as an internationally acceptable currency. It enables the US to maintain its worldwide monopoly and domination economically and hence politically, in spite of USA 's increasing mountain of debts. Iran has started threatening that by planning to open a separate oil-bourse or fund based on Euros. Saddam tried it, now it is Iran's threat also (even during the Venezuelan chairmanship of OPEC, i.e., not long ago, there were perhaps some talks or thoughts within OEC regarding that, and Venezuela has shifted a good part of its $ reserves in US Fed Reserve to European banks converting them in Euro in this year, as reported by some section of the media).

Even the Iranian nuclear program, has been, in a way, linked to these economic interests of the imperialist US. The US initiated Iranian nuclear program had, by 1978, during the Shah's regime, the fourth largest nuclear program, and largest among the developing countries. The Shah, despite being an US ally, saw nuclear electricity as means to counter pressures from Washington and London to continue petrodollar recycling in NW banks. Contracts were accordingly made not with US trans-nationals, but with German and French ones, which the US govt tried to block by any means to keep their hegemony intact.

Thus in this background of the immense US led imperialists' interests in the Middle East, and the particular causes amongst it associated with the nuclear issue cannot be seen in isolation as the root cause of confrontation. With Saudi Arabia in US pocket, Egypt neutralised and Iraq under seize, Iran is presently the remaining potential country that is capable of disrupting the plan of US-Israel axis in this region. So the US , with its influence and pressure on various international bodies and its allies, tried doggedly moving ahead to nail down Iran . Whether this hot pursuit will boil down to another military venture spreading the conflagration further in the Middle East , that only time can tell. But as we have seen that by those very imperialist actions newer and newer conflicts arise, and the already existing conflicts, to say the least, are not giving those imperialists any peace of mind. And this latter side needs attention too in understanding the possible outcomes.

How The US Actions ‘Benefited' Its Enemy!

In spite of the great opportunity in this present uni-polar world for the US to exercise its powers, newer and newer contradictions have started emerging.

The occupation of Iraq has kept the US stuck amidst continuous insurgency and resistance movements. More recently, there are signs of flaring up of the Taliban resistance with increased vigour in Afghanistan . So much so, the President Karzai of Afghanistan has openly expressed his frustrations about the US strategies. The continually rising casualties of the US Forces and local population, the ever-increasing cost of ‘war-on-terror' are difficult hurdles for the US to be overcome. Added to these are the home-front problems of the US . The inept handling of natural disasters, rising dissention for more job-cuts and withdrawal of social benefits, etc have questioned the rationale behind the huge financial burdens of external missions. ‘Mission-Accomplished' is now visibly a hollow propaganda. And amidst the rising US problems, Iran , interestingly, became a beneficiary of the results of US actions in the Middle East in recent times.

With the Afghanistan invasion by the US and removal of the Taliban govt, many Iran backed or pro-Iran warlords and ethnic groups have become part of the present Afghan govt, thus increasing Iran's influence in Afghanistan. In Iraq the story is more spectacular. Since the federal elections in Iraq in January 2005, with the win of Shiite coalition of Iraq , Iran has extended its influence in Iraqi affairs too in a big way. (Almost two-third of the Iraqis are Shiite.) Ibrahim's DAWA party and the Supreme Council Of Revolution In Iraq (SCIRI) coalition partners of the Iraqi govt are creations of Iran . In 1982, Ayatollah Khomeini created this SCIRI, whose leaders are now prominent Iraqi ministers. Juan Cole, an US expert on Iraq had to say, “Khomeini dreamed of putting them in power in Baghdad . Bush and Rumsfeld have fulfilled that dream”.

Since coming to power of the Shiite coalition, accords were struck between Iraq and Iran covering military aid and cooperation, major infrastructure projects, including construction of an oil pipeline that will send Iraqi oil to Iran for refining, an airport in the holy city of the Shias – Najaf, for Iranian pilgrims, and other aid programs including schools, medical facilities and mosques. On July 2005, Al-Jaafari , Iraq 's the then Prime Minister visited Tehran and was warmly welcomed by the Iranian president, and also the present Ayatollah (Khameini) himself. To top it all, the US patronised Iraqi P.M. participated in a pilgrimage to the tomb of late Ayatollah Khomeini, the arch champion of the anti-US Iranian ‘Revolution'. The Iranian Intelligence is reported to have so deeply penetrated the Iraqi security forces and military that the US army has restricted its intelligence-sharing practice with Iraqi officials. Consequently, the US is in dilemma regarding the Shiite regime of Iraq .

Then there is also an emerging contradiction of the US with Russia and China about Iran . Especially after the Iraqi operation, possibility of another (Iranian) operation by US is hurting Russian and Chinese interests. Chinese companies made a huge contract for importing Iraqi oil that could not take off due to the US invasion. Presently China is one of the biggest importers of Iranian oil. Russia is also involved in Iranian oil and nuclear program for a long time, and also is very concerned over the continuous advancement of the US to take control over Iran and Caspian oil basin through a number of political machinations. The two countries Russia and China along with the Caspian Countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan , Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have formed a new political-military alliance – the Sanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Serious efforts are there to include Iran amongst other countries. China and Russia want to undo the US orchestrated ‘coloured revolutions' through which pro-US governments are being installed in the oil rich countries bordering Russia . At the June 2005 meeting of SCO, after ‘guest' Iran was invited to become a ‘full member', the alliance called for withdrawal of US troops from its member countries, and particularly form their large bases in Uzbekistan, which served as a key staging area for US troops during their attack on Afghanistan. A month later, the Uzbek govt itself demanded the same. Iran and China in a joint statement opposed ‘interference in the internal affairs of other countries by any country under the pretext of human rights'. Unprecedented joint military exercises have also been started by the Russian and Chinese military. Turbulences created by US actions and US unilateral actions near their borders have come in conflict with the interests of Russia and China .

Consequently, the US is being compelled to reach to some ‘consensuses with the powerful states via IAEA, the UN Security Council, etc. Even during this phase of US targeting of Iran , the US has agreed for the first time to sit and negotiate with Iran along with other countries. But imperialists are imperialists – and so they cannot forgo their race for cornering every important resources of the world, be it by any means whatsoever. Hence, side-by-side, efforts are on to buy back allegiances of Russia and China through sops and incentives. For instance, recently Bush administration brokered a new deal with Putin allowing Russia to reclaim contract rights to explore and extract oil from the huge Quram-2 oil field of Iraq . A Russian company entered into an understanding with Iraqi oil minister for a $6 billion contract to develop that oil field. In the midst of such complex conflicts and contradictions that are showing signs of ballooning up, the US is presently trying to manoeuvre against Iran as deftly as possible. But in the struggle for hegemony and monopoly control, the inherent character of trans-national corporations is a fact that neither the US nor any imperialist power can shed off. And it is bound to give rise to newer contradictions, conflicts and oppositions at home from the masses of people, especially the working class, with the competing imperialist forces and the oppressed toiling masses of the countries of the world. The signs of these are being revealed.

The Iranian Side of the Conflict

Strongly worded opposition to the accusations and threats of the US led imperialists is coming from Iran 's ruling regime. Different sections of other countries, who are against the continuing military aggression and destruction carried out by the US imperialism in the Middle East are relying on the role of President Ahmedinejad and his govt as the rise of another important anti-imperialist force. They have been finding solace in the guerrilla resistance movement against occupation in Iraq , and now they have put trust on President Ahmedinejad and his troupes' hue and cry against US threats.

Naturally the question arises, what is the real nature of this Iranian ruling class' anti-US tirade? Looking carefully into the Iranian demands in their proposals of rapprochement put forward to the US in 2003, one can assess the problems that the Iranian ruling class want to solve, and from there, the class nature and character of the Iranian ruling elite. It was not merely the question of having nuclear power. The demands of removal of sanctions and release of frozen assets, urge for new technologies, aid in various fields, and membership of WTO – all these reflect that the Iranian ruling class is not averse to imperialist led globalisation, rather they want to get out of the present ‘crisis', stagnation of the economy by integrating themselves in the capitalist-imperialist world order. The other set of demands reflect the regional ambition of the ruling Shiite elite to become an important player in the Middle East , after being buoyed to prominence as a result of US invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq .

From whom do they want to secure these in spite of all their anti-US tirades? – from the US imperialists. That is why we have seen earlier that over a number of years the supposedly ‘anti-US' ‘anti-imperialist' Islamic regime made numerous attempts of rapprochement with the US. Recently is has become amply clear. In a seminar held in Tehran on 18th May 2006 on the question of negotiations with USA , the former Foreign Minister and presently Foreign Policy Advisor to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameini, said, “We have at no time until now had such powerful means of haggling nor the influence we have in Iraq and Palestine . Now that we have the power to haggle, why don't we?” So, the ‘arch anti-imperialist' ‘anti-US' regime is using this opportunity just to bargain with their ‘arch enemy' the US !

In this era of imperialism and social revolutions, there are numerous such instances of bitter enmity turning to bargaining and ultimate rapprochement between ruling classes of the imperialist states and those of the subjugated or ‘oppressed' countries. A stark example was the switching of sides by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and those whom he represents. Jordan 's rulers and even Saddam during their honeymoon period with the US during the Iran-Iraq war, all showed this kind of opportunism. Arafat's PLO and Fatah showed how they succumb to pressure during the Oslo Accord phase and turn to pro-US position. So having contradictions with the imperialists, and alongside that, shedding off the ‘nationalist' credentials, rapprochement and switching of sides, and ultimately, appeasing the imperialists for some concessions, etc – are common characteristics of these ruling classes representing the bourgeoisie of the backward countries. When the revolutionary struggles of the working class and all oppressed people against imperialism were powerful, some section of these bourgeoisie also showed signs of anti-imperialism and some of them joined anti-imperialist struggles. But, when a very low ebb of the revolutionary struggle of the working class and the oppressed people has set in, the compromising aspect of these bourgeoisie has become more apparent. Recently through the proposed documents and tryout of rapprochement of 2003, Iran's rulers also showed that they were ready to forgo their demands regarding Palestine and ‘sacrifice' its role in the Lebanese struggle against US-Israel axis. In contrast, the US imperialist is now more aggressive. If conditions set by the US is not met totally by these ruling classes, or, if the ruling classes cannot oblige the imperialist power due to mass pressure at home, war becomes almost inevitable. Whether the present US-Iran conflict will end up in a compromise or whether it will lead to another war – is a question that depends on so many factors, and hence, is hard to predict. The current situation is showing that the Iranian rulers are eager to ‘haggle'.

This role of betrayal of national interests lies in the very nature of their class character. The Iranian Islamic regime is a clerical, authoritarian and extremely repressive regime. It rode to power on the wave of anti-US anti-Shah rebellion in 1979. It has been an Islamic fascist response to the earlier monarchist dictatorship of pro-US shah regime. It has a state structure with the Ayatollah as the supreme leader, the vali-e-faqeeh, and Council of Guardians comprising of Shiite religious leaders who hold the main political power. The President, the Majlis (parliament) and its electoral process are under the control and mercy of those authorities on the top. The masses of people are bound up by the large-scale repressive state machinery, the religious apparatus, the army and the police forces in the one hand, and the Islamic ideology based on stories and myths of ‘ideal' medieval Islamic rulers on the other.

Their fascist character is revealed further by the immense national and cultural oppression of the minorities. (According to nationality/ethnicity, the composition of Iranian population is: Persian 51%, and non-Persian 49%; among whom there are Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, others 1%. In language-specific break-up the composition becomes: Persian, i.e., Farsi and Persian dialects 58%, Turkic and Turkic dialects 26%, Kurdish 9%, Luri 2%, Balochi 1%, Arabic 1%, Turkish 1%, other 2%.) The forcible imposition of the Farsi language, the chauvinism surrounding the superiority of Iran 's ancient civilisation and denigrates of other Arab countries are its symptoms. The myth built on ancient Iranians being of Aryan origin is another facet of this. Added to these, there is their Shiite ambition of extending influence over other Arab countries and the Islamic world at large. The Pan-Iranism, which existed since the times of the Shah rule with its influence on different sections of the masses, has been fluctuating between the ruling class's aspiration of becoming the leader of the Middle East and conflicts with Sunni Islamic countries. At home, it has meant torment for the numerous minorities.

But the miseries of the people have also increasingly come from another source – the attack of globalisation. The debts to international bodies and Western governments have mounted alarmingly. A huge chunk of the oil revenue goes to repay debts, resulting in reduction of imports necessary for industry and the economy. Then there are the problems arising from sanctions imposed by the USA . Large number of factories has remained closed (till 1998 they were about 30%). Spiralling inflation has brought about heavy price-rise. Unemployment is widespread. Further, to compete with the global economy, very short-term contracts with practically no labour-rights are being imposed on a large scale. Recurring instances of long periods of non-payment of wages to workers are more and more being heard. The workers have no rights of assembly, of forming unions or other organisation. Only govt controlled platforms within the precincts of Islamic govt structure is open and allowed for them. The wrath of the workers surfaced demonstrably in this year's May Day demonstrations in Tehran and other places.

All those repressions have led to repeated revolts for democracy and fights against the exploitations of capital from among the workers, students and other oppressed masses. Revolts appeared in as series in 1993 – leading to closures of universities, workers' strike actions, etc. It has led to serial murders of workers and students by govt forces in front of the parliament in 2001. However, despite state repressions, struggles have gone on erupting at regular intervals, and it is once again showing signs of re-emergence at present.

In the midst of such increase in disillusionment and class conflicts of the people, the Islamic regime is fast becoming unpopular. Its support base is shrinking. As a result, the clerical regime is making way for consolidation of more and more radical rightist cliques at the top of the govt structure. The recent election of President Ahmedinejad, an ex-commander of the Iranian army, is not exceptional, but it occurred through a number of manipulations from the top. Many described this as a ‘silent coup'. And with his coming to power a number of top govt officials have been removed and replaced by loyal persons from the military establishment. All of them, including the President, were groomed during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 amidst arousal of intense national chauvinism. It was a time when every opposition voice or workers' and students' revolts were crushed brutally on the plea of them being betrayers of ‘national interest'. It was the time when all the democratic gains, however less they may be, of the Islamic ‘Revolution' were withdrawn, and the ‘left' and ‘communist' forces were subjected to tremendous repression.

Presently those chauvinistic forces at the helm have once again started stirring up that Iranian chauvinism by talks and actions supposedly for another national war against US aggression. They are also trying to rouse the sentiment of Pan-Islamic brotherhood in the Arab world talking about ‘wiping out Israel form the map'. By this they are also trying to rally the Iranian people behind their fascist regime and suppress the voices and class conflicts aggravating within the country. The ruling class actually wants to be ‘equal' or ‘nearly equal' partners of imperialist powers, recognition of them as the power of Middle East, and further exploitation of the people and natural resources of this region by integrating the Iranian economy in the Global capitalist-imperialist world order; also they are compelled by their position to take course of such charades of anti-US imperialism to consolidate their home base and their position in the Middle East.

The Real Conflict

The real conflict lies somewhere else beneath the fake nationalist-religious pretensions of the ruling regime of Iran . It is between the imperialists and the capitalist, clerical regime of Iran on one side, and the masses of oppressed, exploited people on the other. The real aspiration of the Iranian people for liberation from imperialist domination and establishment of democracy has remained on the agenda of the people albeit the Iranian ‘Revolution' of 1979.

The problem of achieving liberation through a democratic revolution in Iran has a long history. Post 2nd World war and in the 1950s, the struggles for these gathered momentum amidst the outbreak of national struggles in different colonies and dependent countries. In Iran the revolutionary forces continually faced repression during the Shah regime. The failure of the communist and other nationalist forces provided the breeding ground of Islamic forces and helped them to spread. While in the early 1970s the revolutionary forces broke down due to savage state repression, Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic forces built up secret networks, which even the CIA failed to assess till several months before the tumultuous days of 1979. While the communist forces had become small fragments after release from prisons, the Ayatollah's forces were at the head of the mass-struggle against US backed Shah. The anti-Shah anti-US mass movement and the Islamic ideology and organisation of Khomeini merged.

Even at this juncture the communists had another opportunity. Those sections of the society, who could foresee the terrible pit the Islamic leaders were digging, swarmed to the side of those so-called communists. With the 1979 revolution, the small left organisations swelled with hundreds of thousands of new supporters. Their headquarters were overflowing with workers, students, peasants, state employees, etc who have taken control of factories, offices, universities… and were desperately seeking directions to go ahead. In Kurdistan and Turkaman Sahara the revolutionaries have set up regional administration and taken over land from absentee landowners and industrial farms. In the universities the revolutionaries were the major force. In major cities, hundreds of thousands of votes were cast for revolutionary candidates in the election to the first Majlis. In factories, the revolutionary workers dominated may Shuras – the factory committees. Together with the organisation of Peoples Mujahideen, these were a mighty force in the Iranian political scene. All those who wanted to keep and extend the democratic gains of the revolution, looked forward to the communist organisations for protection from the dark clouds of Islamic Republican Party.

But the class-collaborationist policies of the by then degenerated world-socialist-movement had afflicted the oldest of the communist organisations, the Tudah party. It became a tool of Soviet Union 's hegemonic interests. The Soviet leadership was ecstatic at the downfall of the US backed Shah, and the Tudah party saw in the Islamic force's anti-imperialist charades – real anti-imperialist force, which cannot be reactionary as it is anti-US ! This party and mass organisations controlled by it used their influence on the masses to bring the people to whole hog support to the Khomeini's force. The subsequent chauvinistic wave during the Iran-Iraq war gave the Islamic force ample opportunity to swing the people in its favour. The famous teaching of Lenin: “If we do not want to betray socialism we must support every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class” was dumped by those so-called communists.

In the middle of 1981 the revolutionary forces along with Peoples Mujahideen, were eliminated. Tens of thousands were executed; hundreds of thousands were behind the bars. Brutal oppression on the working class, destruction of self-governing Shuras, and systematic withdrawal of all democratic gains began. The upsurge of mass revolutionary movement got lost in the frenzy of anti-US anti-Shah Islamic struggle of the Imams. Peoples' aspirations remained unachieved.

Still all cannot get lost in the march of history. The objective development of history brings forth the real forces of progress in the society time and again. If the revolutionary forces of Iran, its working class and other toiling oppressed masses have suffered defeat due to lack of real revolutionary leadership, and of course the defeat of the first offensive of the international communist movement was an important reason too, by the oppression and reactionary nationalism of the bourgeoisie new grounds are being prepared for the emergence of newer revolutionary elements.

The oil sector workers have a rich tradition of struggles. It was their crippling strike that broke the stalemate of mass demonstrations to lead to the 1979 movement. About 10 millions of such workers and other broad layers of oppressed masses have the active experience of the Iranian ‘revolution'. And presently, they are once again showing signs of taking the path of struggle. In the last three months of 2005, there were 2000 workers' protests and struggles. On this January 1200 workers of the Vahed Bus Co. took part in a long struggle to establish an independent organisation independent of the state imposed labour organisation. Earlier, textile workers in a city of western Iran in Kurdistan struck work for seventeen days receiving support from other workers of other industries. Another group of textile workers at a factory near the Caspian Sea struck work against privatisation and farming-out. About 90% of workers are facing unhindered changes to contract system of temporary and short-term contracts for only a year or two. Closures of important production centres and waves of thrown out ‘surplus' workers are stirring up the society. Long periods of unpaid wages, sometimes nearly a year, are prodding the workers into struggles. In this year's May Day demonstrations the workers participation was noteworthy.

Here lies the real conflict that the rulers are trying to submerge and throttle beneath their war mongering, chauvinism and fake anti-imperialism. It is here that the revolutionary communists must attend to – to make the next Iranian revolution a proletariat led one emancipating the masses from their shackles to real democracy and then marching on towards socialism. Many voices of revolutionary organisations critical of past mistakes and betrayals are being heard from Iran and outside world. The hope lies here.

References

1. Iran : The Making Of US Policy 1977-1980 – www.iran-bulletin.org
2. Lessons Of The Iranian revolution – Mehdi Kia, Aug. 1999, -do-
3. Iran 's Growing Sway In Iraq Defies Neocon's Logic – Juin Lobe
4. Is Time Running Out For Iran ? – Abid Mustafa – countercurrent.org
5. The strident Voices Of Pan Iranism – Vrenes Pousa
6. Oil, Geopolitics And The Coming War With Iran – Michael T Klare – TomDispatch.com
7. Political Perspectives On Iran – Ardeshir Mohammed & Mehdi Kia – Znet
8. Why Russia Betrayed Iran – Mike Whitney – Uruknet
9. Iran : What's At Stake (Part-II) – Aijaz Ahmed
10. Iran – from the CIA's World Fact Book – www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
11. Monthly Review – November 2004 – Aijaz Ahmed's article
12. Monthly Review – January 2006 – The New Geopolitics Of Empire – John Bellamy Foster
13. The Hindu – 21, 22, 23 September 2005 , 3-Part article The Persian Puzzle – Siddharth Varadarajan
14. The Hindu – 5 June 2006 – Grand Bargains & Distress Sales – Hamid Ansari
15. The Hindu – 20 April 2005 – The Great Game For Caspian Oil – M K Bhadrakumar
16. Lenin, Collected Works, Volume 22, Page 333.

go to top

Home Page >> International Question >> The US-Iran Conflict...