U.S. and Iran—the critical stage

Workers World is in its 50th year of publication. We reprint this article written by Sam Marcy, chairperson of Workers World Party, from the April 18, 1980, issue of the paper as part of our special archival series.

April 16–Now that the Carter administration has broken diplomatic relations with the Iranian government and has over a long period carried out a variety of economic, political and diplomatic measures calculated to wreck the Iranian economy, it has finally embarked on the road of bludgeoning its imperialist allies to do likewise.

The purpose is to create a worldwide imperialist front in order to intervene militarily in Iran, overturn the gains of the Iranian Revolution and restore a regime subservient to U.S. imperialism.

The policy of the Carter administration creates the greatest war danger ever in the entire Middle Eastern region. The constant buildup of U.S. Naval and Air Forces in this region has created a virtual firestorm of hatred against U.S. imperialism, but this has not shaken the Carter administration’s determination to continue its military confrontation politics in the Middle East. Ever since the pronouncement of the infamous Carter Doctrine, which declares that the Persian Gulf is of vital “national interest” to U.S. imperialism, the regional tensions in the area have become more and more intense.

Over and above all this, the aim of the U.S. is to find a covert avenue for involving and forcing the USSR into a struggle with it. Because of the possibility of an outbreak of a general conflict in the area instigated by the U.S., it is necessary to review the situation in the light of Marxist-Leninist strategy on the question of imperialist war.

Hostage issue – ploy by U.S.

The U.S. media continues to play up the hostage problem as the principal issue in the dispute between the U.S. and Iran. In reality this is a lie. The hostage issue is really a ploy by the U.S. authorities to divert attention from its basic materialist interests in Iran and in the entire Middle East area.

Precisely because the U.S. government has embarked on a policy of provoking Iran, we have to consider the possibility that if the U.S. commits one or more slightly disguised covert or open military thrusts against Iran the hostages may conceivably be harmed.

In that eventuality, the U.S. media will pull out all stops in a hysterical, chauvinist campaign to raise the war fever in the U.S. to a new pitch. It must therefore be kept very much in mind that the Iranian government has at all times and in every way possible offered to return the hostages immediately if only the U.S. government would meet the just and reasonable demands of the Iranian government.

These have been reduced to: 1) a pledge by the U.S. not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran and to respect its sovereignty; 2) a pledge not to obstruct the legal process of getting the return of the ex-shah and his Iranian assets which belong to the Iranian people; and 3) agreement to admit the complicity of the U.S. in the crimes of the ex-shah.

Agreeing to these elementary demands will not affect in the slightest degree the economic, political or social interests of the American working class or the mass of the people generally. On the contrary, it would only demonstrate an identity of interest between the Iranian and American working class. This is what has to be remembered. This is what has to be indelibly printed in the memory of all in case the Carter administration finally takes a plunge for which it has been so assiduously preparing.

‘America vs. Iran?’

The struggle between the U.S. and Iran is falsely posed as a struggle between “America” and Iran. This formulation of the issue, which may occasionally be justified for purely journalistic and literary convenience, is politically harmful and sociologically false. The war conducted against Iran is an imperialist war on the part of the U.S. as it is a war of national liberation so far as the Iranian people are concerned.

The war is of an imperialist character, not merely because of the expansionist proclivities of successive U.S. administrations. It is an imperialist war because it is conducted by the monopoly capitalist ruling class of the United States, which owns and controls more than 90 percent of all the wealth in this country and dominates all the vital economic, social and political arteries of life. The majority of the people are thus forced under existing circumstances to follow the line of the ruling class.

The working class and oppressed people in this country are a subject class without any real voice in the present system, which thrives on exploitation and class oppression. In order to fight the growing war danger it is necessary to fight the developing conflict by unmasking first and foremost its class character–that it is a war conducted solely in the interests of the capitalist class, of the ruling monopolies, especially the oil monopolies, and a handful of financial and industrial dynasties. These dynasties conduct themselves like an ancient oligarchy and work hand in glove with the military, whose aim is to promote interventionist adventures abroad.

Conducting the war under the symbol of America versus Iran not only conceals the narrow social grouping on whose behalf the war is really conducted. It also inculcates chauvinism and racism and weakens and debilitates any independent working-class expression against the war. All the more necessary is it to raise the working-class banner in the struggle against the war; raise the level of working-class consciousness in this country as a whole; and promote international class solidarity with the working class and the oppressed in Iran who are struggling against imperialism.

Bourgeois phase of revolution

It is also necessary to understand that the Iranian Revolution in its present phase is a bourgeois revolution. This means that the revolution in Iran has not yet gone beyond bourgeois political, social and economic relations. It means that the bourgeoisie is in power.

The fact that the working class and the oppressed, aided by students and the intelligentsia, were and are still in the driving forces of the revolution, does not in any way militate against the fact that the national bourgeoisie is today in power in Iran. It holds all the levers of political and economic power. It controls the means of communication, particularly the media, and in general has complete sway over contemporary life in Iran. It has also at least the legal authority over the armed forces and the police.

The limited political freedom obtained by progressive and working class organizations and the ever increasing authority of left and progressive forces in the country attests to the continued development of the Iranian Revolution.

The bourgeoisie is led by a bourgeois government whose most authoritative leadership rests in the hands of Khomeini and large segments of the clergy. The secular arm of the government, headed by Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ghotbzadeh, and former Prime Minister Bazargan, represents the bourgeoisie proper in more or less secular clothing, which they may on occasion wear as the situation may dictate to them.

The struggle between the Khomeini forces, on the one hand, and the Bani-Sadr coalition, on the other, is a highly contradictory and complex one.

Sociologically the clergy is representative of the economic interests of the petty bourgeoisie. They do not as an independent grouping have any roots in the process of capitalist production. More accurately stated, they have no independent role in the process of production. They have, howeve, been thrust into a position of a ruling party. Whether the bourgeoisie likes it at the moment, the clerical coalition is in fact acting on their behalf.

Clergy preempted left

Precisely because they have no independent role in contemporary class society in Iran, they have shifted or carved out for themselves a political position which is at odds with the historical role of the clergy on a world historical scale. They attempt to combine in one form clerical obscurantism with an ardent mixture of political reaction and the residue of the feudal past.

On the other hand, they have taken an adamant position, as expressed by Khomeini, in the struggle against U.S. imperialism. They have thereby preempted the left’s forward and progressive position in the current spectrum of the Iranian political physiognomy.

The bourgeoisie proper, on the other hand, has most thoroughly exposed itself, especially in the person of Bani-Sadr, as conciliatory and accommodationist towards imperialism. Both of these two apparently mutually hostile wings of the bourgeois government are united in their opposition to any independent working-class initiative and are most resolutely opposed to the prosecution of the class struggle by working-class organizations.

Both are bitterly opposed to communism in general and have deliberately gone out of their way to attack the Soviet Union in order to soften the blows from the U.S., but notably without success. The problem with respect to their anti-Soviet position lies in the fact that the danger to Iran, to the revolution and to the government systems comes wholly and exclusively from the imperialist appetite of the U.S. government.

The problems for the working-class organizations in Iran, and in particular its vanguard elements, lie in carefully assessing their relationship to the governing regime in the present phase of the Iranian Revolution.

Widen initiative of workers

On the one hand, it is absolutely necessary in order to promote the liberation struggle of Iran to put first priority on the struggle against U.S. imperialism. On the other hand, it is most necessary to resolutely conduct a struggle to widen the initiative and participation of the workers in a struggle for self-emancipation from the bourgeoisie.

The difficulties are compounded by the fact that Khomeini himself has carved out a historically Bonapartist role. He seeks to balance the social classes in Iran and act in fact as a mediator between the antagonistic social classes. In reality they are in a relationship of exploiter and exploited, notwithstanding the nationalized character of some of the key industries in the country.

In his dual role as a Bonapartist historical figure he has been intransigent against imperialism thus far, while at the same time maintaining a ruthless and hostile position in regard to working-class emancipation from capitalist exploitation and bourgeois rule in general.

The democratic gains which have been won in the course of the Iranian Revolution are attributed to his intransigent leadership, which in part is true. However his leadership would have been impossible without the volcanic revolutionary and moreover spontaneous intervention of the masses of workers, peasants, students and intelligentsia.

Knowing when and how to collaborate in a united front with the Khomeini leadership against imperialist aggression under these existing circumstances constitutes a formidable problem for revolutionary working-class Marxist leaders in Iran.

The working class, and particularly its vanguard organizations, cannot forsake its independent role and its own independent initiatives, except at the risk of becoming a mere appendage to the bourgeois government. This is especially important to bear in mind if the present crisis between the U.S. and Iran culminates in military intervention.

The Khomeini-Bani-Sadr leadership will most certainly seek the kind of national unity in the face of U.S. aggression which completely obliterates the independent political character of working-class organizations.

The war, however, merely accelerates all tendencies of a social and political character which are generated by the class struggle in Iran, but does not in the slightest obliterate them. Exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, or the extraction of surplus value from the hides of the workers, continues in wartime as in peace. From this it follows that in wartime especially revolutionary working-class independence, creative initiative and leadership is indispensable for victory over imperialism and the triumph of the socialist revolution. The Iranian Revolution is young and the opportunities for working-class leadership are boundless.

The Iraqi-Iranian conflict

One of the most important questions facing both the U.S. working class as well as the Iranian is the growing danger of military clashes between the Iraqi and Iranian governments. The consequences for an enlarged struggle between the two countries, between what in reality are two oppressed peoples, would be of a truly tragic character, and can only end up to the benefit of imperialism.

The Marxist criteria for taking a position in the conflict between two oppressed countries, or for that matter between two socialist countries, is quite clear. In the particular case of Iraq and Iran the dispute centers on ownership of some islands or territories around the Hormuz Strait.

Both Iraq and Iran are fortunate in that they both possess considerable amounts of oil. Neither one of the countries can possibly claim that the islands are of genuine and substantial or truly vital interest to sustain the life of the country. This is especially true if each retains its sovereignty and independence, and moreover goes through a process of socialist reconstruction of society.

Such claims as each may have on the islands should be resolved by bilateral discussions and if need be through mediation or arbitration. This should be done by persons from countries or governments which have no material interest in the outcome of the disputed issue submitted to them for consideration. Moreover, the country which invades and thereby takes an aggressive military step takes upon itself the onus of breaking what objectively are fraternal anti-imperialist bonds and working class solidarity. This may plunge both countries into a morass of national egoism and chauvinism.

Danger of U.S. intervention

The greatest danger, however, lies in either covert or open intervention of the U.S. on either side in order to vanquish both of them.

For a number of years the capitalist press has hinted that the Iraqi government has been veering slowly into a hostile position against the Soviet Union (even though the USSR continues to be its principal arms supplier), and is moving closer to U.S. imperialism. The Iraqi regime on the domestic front has carried out the most brutal repression and executions of alleged opponents of the regime, especially those it claims to be communist.

This does not at all mean that the Iraqi regime is secretly allied with U.S. imperialism, as the Iranian government has on occasion claimed. Should military hostilities, however, break out between the two countries, one of them could objectively be driven into the arms of U.S. imperialism merely as a result of the fratricidal struggle. Therein lies a great danger.

The working class of both Iraq and Iran have absolutely no interest whatever in making the dispute between the two governments the basis for a struggle. On the contrary, they have every reason to promote fraternal, working-class internationalism, which will strengthen the solidarity in the struggle against the fundamental adversary–imperialism.