Sharp debate breaks out at Iran forum

A lively and important political debate broke out over the question of Iran and U.S. imperialism at a forum here on Sept. 10, when the main speaker—who was expect ed to oppose U.S. war moves against Iran—instead opened up an attack on the Iranian government.

The sponsors of the meeting, the American-Iranian Friendship Committee and the Engage Program of United Mem orial Methodist Church, were expecting the featured speaker—Morteza Mohit—to expose the aggressive intentions of Wash ington towards Iran. In particular, it was hoped that he would deliver a strong defense of the Tehran government’s battle to keep Iran’s independence and assert its right to develop nuclear technology.

These expectations were based upon the fact that Mohit, a writer and research er, was imprisoned for several years under the Shah. He also claims to be a Marxist and has translated some works of Karl Marx into Farsi. And indeed, his lecture began with a sharp, general historical critique of imperialism.

But to the surprise of the audience and the sponsors, he ended his exposé of the U.S. government’s aggressive policies towards Iran with the year 1953—when a CIA coup overthrew the elected nationalist government of Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the repressive regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, and U.S. oil companies took over Iranian oil.

Mohit then launched into a one-sided and sharp criticism of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the anti-imperialist revolution that overthrew the shah. He dwelt on the well-known reactionary aspects of the Khomeini regime, such as the suppression of the left, but neglected to mention the unbridled hostility of Washington to the anti-imperialist intransigence of the Islamic Republic. He even claimed that the U.S. government wanted Khomeini to rule because it knew he would attack the left.

Mohit then spoke in critical tones about the government of the recently elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He dismissed the “axis of evil” designation of Iran by President Bush and the “nuclear conflict” as “not serious” and a cover for “Iran working with the U.S. government in Iraq.” He alluded to unspecified “behind the scenes maneuvers” and unsubstantiated, undocumented and unpublicized “protocols” regarding Iraq allegedly signed by Iran and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The title of the forum was “U.S. Foreign Policy: the Case of Iran,” but the event was becoming a forum to condemn the internal conduct and character of the Iranian government. There was no mention of Washington’s campaign to destroy the Kho meini government or of the looming foreign policy crisis flowing from Wash ington’s determination to deny Iran the right to develop nuclear technology.

Early in the discussion period, Ardeshir Ommani, head of the American-Iranian Friendship Committee, took the floor. He acknowledged that “Iran is not a bourgeois democratic government. But,” he said, “Iran must be judged in the context of world affairs. Iran is one of the most independent governments in the world. In terms of trade, in terms of capital investment and in military terms the Iranian government resists imperialism.”

Ommani charged that alluding to so-called “behind the scenes” agreements is insufficient information. And even if there were agreements, he continued, “Iran has every right to make agreements to protect itself when it is surrounded by 35 military bases.”

He asked Mohit: “Does Iran as a country, as a people, as an entity in existence for 2,000 years, have the right to develop nu clear energy for peaceful purposes—not merely the Islamic Republic, but Iran as a nation?” Mohit never answered the question.

On the question of the Khomeini regime, Ommani asked Mohit: “What about the people of Iran? Millions of people supported Khomeini. We as communists could support his struggle against imperialism but we could not support him. But [his victory] was the result of historical circumstances. We cannot blame Khomeini because the people did not support us.”

As the discussion proceeded, Mohit called the Iranian elections “totally corrupted” despite the overwhelming landslide victory of Ahmadinejad over former President Akbar Hasemi Rafsanjani—a wealthy conservative turned pro-IMF “free market” advocate of opening Iran up to privatization and transnational corporations.

When an ally of Mohit’s in the audience called the Iranian government “fascist,” Ommani took the floor again to point out the dangers of such slander. “Fascism,” Ommani asserted, “has a specific meaning which does not apply to the Iranian government. This was just invective, calling Ahmadinejad a bad guy.”

“How did the Iraq War get set up by U.S. imperialism?” Ommani asked. “First the U.S. demonized the regime, calling it dictatorial and comparing it to fascism. Next they declared the elections of Saddam invalid and not the expression of any popular support. And then they created a campaign against weapons of mass destruction and said that Iraq was a threat. These are precisely the charges that Washington is making now against the government of Iran.”

Ommani charged that “Marxist language is being used here as a cover to argue the very line that U.S. imperialism is promoting in order to prepare for a war against Iran.”

Mohit again ignored Ommani’s charges and referred to the time of “the great democratic election” when Mohammed Kha tami, the reformer, won. “At that time,” said Mohit, “the prestige and respect for Iran went way up in the world. So much, that President Clinton had to say nice things about Iran and Madeleine Albright apologized for the 1953 coup.”

Fred Goldstein, a leader of Workers World Party, asked from the audience: “Prestige with whom? With U.S.
imperialism?”

Goldstein pointed out, “Cuba is one of the most respected governments in the world for all its accomplishments and its ability to survive 90 miles from the door step of the U.S. But that respect is among the masses of people of the world. And it has not brought Washington one inch closer to Cuba. With the Khatami election, Washington thought they saw a weak spot and they tried to move in. The maneuver failed.”

‘Get imperialism off their backs!’

Mohit consistently referred in negative terms to Islamic forces such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which get aid from Iran. He criticized Iran for strengthening their “terrorist” side as opposed to their “social” activities.

Goldstein concluded, “The truth is that U.S. imperialism, working with the Saudi monarch and other reactionary forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, spent billions of dollars and turned the CIA loose in the region to exterminate the communists and the left. The destruction of the Afghanistan Revolution, which first gave women rights and tried to help the poor, is a prime example.

“Bourgeois nationalism, in countries like Egypt and Algeria, has completely failed to help the masses and has fallen under the domination of imperialism. But the struggle against imperialism continues and in this region of the world, Islamic forces have filled the vacuum in many instances. It is up to the people of the region to decide their own internal destiny, but they must be able to do it free from the intervention of imperialism. Our job is to get the U.S. government off their backs.”

Ellie Ommani, who was chairing the meeting, displayed a full-page newspaper ad in the New York MetroNews published by right-wing media mogul Rupert Mur doch. The ad for a demonstration against the Iranian United Nations delegation that is arriving in New York this week had a picture of a mushroom cloud and talked of Iran’s “nuclear terrorism.” The demonstration is sponsored by monarchists who want the shah back and by the People’s Mujahadeen, which has become a pawn of the CIA. Someone in the audience asked aloud: “I wonder who paid for such an expensive ad?”

The meeting ended on an up note with loud applause as Ellie Ommani called for “unity in our determination to fight to get the U.S. government off the back of the Iranian government and allow it to function in freedom and independence.”