In Defence of Marxism

Introduction by Fred Weston

The ongoing conflict between western imperialism and Iran over its renewed nuclear programme is having a much wider effect on the world economy. Commodity prices have shot up. The price of oil has reached $67 per barrel, the highest for some time. This comes at a time when oil supplies are being threatened in Nigeria where Delta militants recently blew up an export terminal. It is not just oil that is being affected, but also other commodities, such as gold and other precious metals.

Iran is the world’s fourth-biggest producer of oil. The imperialists are in a dilemma as any moves to impose sanctions that would affect the supply of oil out of Iran could further increase the price, which in turn could have adverse effects on the already uneasy rate of growth of the economy worldwide. Already, the state of the US economy and the dollar is causing concern.

Compounding the dilemma of imperialism is the fact that any sanctions they might impose would not necessarily guarantee an end to Iran’s nuclear programme. But even before they get to the stage of sanctions they have to get agreement among themselves. There are conflicts between the USA and the EU on this question, as on many others. There is the added problem of the position of China and Russia. These two powers have the right to veto any proposal that comes before the UN Security Council. China in particular has no interest in curtailing supplies of oil from Iran. It is seeking to increase its supplies as its economy continues to grow at around 9% per annum.

So far pressure on Iran has remained at diplomatic level. But in the last few days the EU has reached the conclusion that they are close to the limit of what can be achieved by diplomacy alone. The next step would mean referring the case to the UN Security Council. Even if this were to happen it would mean Iran being issued with a warning, followed by a request to interrupt its nuclear programme. Only after a refusal to comply would Iran face any serious threat of sanctions. Thus this issue will be played out over a period of time. But, as we said above, as most of Iran’s exports are oil and gas, any trade sanctions would seriously affect those imposing the sanctions!

The US, in spite of this, is pushing for more severe measures to be taken, but China and other countries would be more difficult to bring on board. As recently as November 2004 China signed a $70bn deal with Iran to buy its oil and gas. Japan also is a major importer of Iranian oil and faces a similar situation to China.

Russia too has major interests in Iran. It is presently building a nuclear plant there. It has also tried to defuse the situation by offering to enrich uranium for Iran in Russia, thus making it difficult for Iran to use it for military purposes. To buy time the regime in Iran has said that it would be open to the Russian offer. Meanwhile it continues with its research.

The problem with sanctions is that there is huge demand for oil on the world market and the Iranian regime knows this. It is also true that under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Iran is legally allowed to carry out research and development of nuclear fuel for the production of energy, as long as it does it under inspection. That is where the problem lies. Where do you draw the line between nuclear power for “peaceful” purposes and for the production of weapons? The same technology used to enrich uranium for power stations can also be used to produce nuclear warheads.

It may be some years before Iran actually develops the ability to put nuclear warheads on its missiles. Once that happens then the whole situation changes. The US – without a UN mandate – together with Britain went ahead and invaded Iraq, claiming it had weapons of mass destruction, when it was clear it did not have them. The main reason they went into Iraq was the huge oil supplies in the country. There were also strategic reasons, as we have explained in other articles. Iran also is a big exporter of oil, so the temptation is clearly there.

But the leaders of the Iranian regime must also have drawn some important lessons from all this. They see how the US walked into Iraq, which was in reality defenceless, but they also note that another so-called “rogue regime”, North Korea, doesn’t get the same treatment. The reason is that North Korea has a powerful army and nuclear missiles. Thus, in spite of it being on the “axis of evil” it is left alone.

On this issue there are clearly differences between the European powers and the USA. Up till recently the Europeans had been trying the diplomatic road. This, combined with pressure from Russia and China, put the USA in a difficult position. However, Bush has repeatedly stated that he would never allow Iran to develop nuclear bombs. The ruling class in Israel is also worried and several of its representatives have indicated that if they saw a serious threat they would launch a strike to destroy any Iranian nuclear installations.

Here we also see the hypocrisy of imperialism. It is common knowledge that Israel has developed nuclear capabilities, but no one is threatening any “regime change” or invasion. India and Pakistan both have nuclear missile capabilities, but apart from diplomatic pressure, again no indication of moves to overthrow the governments there.

This indicates a real conflict of interest with the Iranian regime. As we said, there is a difference between Europe and the USA on this question. The European powers have reached a whole series of trade agreements with Iran, while the USA has tried to isolate the regime. However, even the Europeans are being pushed to take a position. So far they have tried to keep the pressure at diplomatic level, but recent indications show that they are moving towards the idea of referring Iran to the UN Security Council. They are asking the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that meets on February 2^nd and 3^rd, to consider possible referral to the UN.

The Europeans are caught in a dilemma on this question. Any serious attempt to remove the Iranian regime could destabilise the whole of the Middle East. They can see the mess that has been created in Iraq and understand that there is no easy military option. But they are under pressure from the only superpower in the world, the USA.

How seriously the Iranian regime takes the threat to its interests is shown by the fact that in recent days they have been moving their assets out of western banks. They fear these could be frozen if an international consensus among the major powers is reached.

The Iranian regime however does not only have enemies outside the country. Its real enemies – and in the long run most dangerous – are within its own borders, the workers and poor of Iran. Over recent years we have seen important mobilisations of the workers and youth. This process will inevitably lead at some stage to a mass movement that will bring the regime toppling down. This, in part, explains the behaviour of the regime. Its social base is being gradually whittled down. It cannot solve the urgent problems faced by the workers, such as unemployment and low wages. Thus it tries to distract the attention of the masses onto the international arena. This explains its “anti-imperialist” rhetoric, its attacks on Israel and so on. It is attempting to lean on the masses. But how long can this game last?

We are publishing here an article on the present situation in Iran, written by the Iranian Marxists, as a contribution to the analysis of what is happening in the country.

After two and a half years of negotiations with the European Union, on 10 January the Iranian regime broke off the seals on equipment in three of its nuclear facilities. A week earlier it had already announced that it was going to resume the uranium enrichment programme suspended as part of a temporary deal reached with the EU in November 2004. This move seemed to have brought the nuclear and trade discussions with the EU to an end and prompted many countries to call for the Iranian regime to be referred to the UN Security Council.

What is amazing is how long the regime has been allowed to play “cat and mouse” with the imperialist countries. Back in late September 2005 the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution recognising the Iranian regime as non-compliant under its treaty obligations. The logical step after that would have been to ask the full meeting on 24 November to refer the case to the Security Council. Yet this meeting again held back in order to explore the proposal for enriching uranium on Russian soil.

Although on the surface some of these developments are similar to those before the invasion of Iraq, and have consequently led many to speak of a build up towards war, or even an imminent attack, this is in fact yet another stage in the brinkmanship between the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and the imperialist powers   particularly the United States. It is interesting to note that although the Iranian regime has taken the path of openly defying “the international community”, all powers concerned, particularly Russia and China, have insisted on exploring all diplomatic options first. Even the US government has not mentioned anything about “regime change” or “the axis of evil”.

Steadily improving relations with the Europeans …

A number of EU countries like Italy and Austria have had good relations with the Iranian regime for many years. The capitalists and merchants of Europe (and Japan) benefited from the historic diplomatic and trade rift between America and the regime following the US embassy hostage siege. To further improve the relations for all EU members the Council of the European Union agreed on 17 June 2002 to open negotiations with Iran which would cover political aspects as well as trade and co-operation agreements. This agreement should, once concluded, put Iran's trade and co-operation relations with the European Union on a contractual basis. The negotiations were launched in Brussels in December 2002.

During these negotiations trade has developed rapidly. The EU is now Iran's main trading partner both in terms of imports and exports. EU exports to Iran in 2004 have almost doubled compared to 1999 (while imports from Iran decreased by 20.5%). Iran's total trade with the world in 2004 amounted to €57,215 million - with the EU as its main trading partner accounting for 35.1% of total market share. In 2004 Iran's main suppliers were the EU (44% of total imports), China (7.8%), the UAE (6.4%) and South Korea (6.3%); and the main export markets were the EU (26.2%), Japan (21%), China (10.4%) and South Africa (6.6%). In 2004, EU imports from Iran totalled more than €8.18 billion, whereas the value of EU exports to Iran in the same year amounted to more than €11.86bn - a trade balance surplus of €3,684 million.

In 2002 Iran invested €125 million in the EU while the EU invested €146 million in Iran. The Europeans had done very well out of the US boycott of Iran.

… then the IRI is caught red-handed

One of the most important reasons why the talks have become so protracted was that in August 2002, the People's Mojahedin, an Islamic opposition group, revealed to the Americans that the regime had built two secret nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak. Since then the IRI has been forced to agree to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and Britain, France and Germany, representing the European Union, have been negotiating about the nuclear issue and improving trade and security agreements.

Subsequent inspections revealed that for 18 years the regime had been lying and cheating the imperialist powers about its nuclear programme. After eight resolutions, nine Board reports and various other reports, the IAEA is still waiting for the IRI to "implement transparency measures", "to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related activity", "to reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water", "to ratify and implement in full the Additional Protocol" and "to continue to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol, which Iran signed on 18 December 2003"!

Close, but not close enough

Once it became clear to the Iranian regime that the US was intent on overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan it gave the Americans many forms of assistance towards the November 2001 invasion (including increasing their help to the Northern Alliance). Yet the US not only did not give the IRI any concessions but also included the regime in Bush's “axis of evil” during the State of the Union address on 29 January 2002.

Since then the regime has been trying to make a deal with the Americans without conceding too much and not making its intentions too obvious to its crumbling social base of 10-15 percent of the population (and also Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah and other groups in the region).

Once it had helped the imperialists to topple Saddam's Baathist regime, the Iranians contacted the Americans again. In April 2003, in its first issue after the occupation of Iraq, Rahbord, a periodical published by the Strategic Studies Centre, a body which is tied to the Iranian regime’s Expediency Council, published a 24-page interview with Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chairman of this Council. In this interview Rafsanjani deals with the role of the Expediency Council in resolving difficulties between Iran and America. He referred to Khomeini’s view which specified that one can even stop prayers and fasting if it is for the expediency of the system!

Then in May 2003 the Iranian regime offered to have negotiations with the US on its nuclear facilities and terrorism. But the neo-conservative 'hawks' in the Bush government vetoed this (Financial Times, 17 March 2004). This shows that US imperialism was looking for even more concessions and co-operation from the IRI.

Following the 2004 US presidential election, however, George Bush and Condoleezza Rice made conciliatory moves. They said that they supported the EU initiative and also relaxed some of the sanctions - like on spare parts for civilian aircraft - that had been in place for over two decades.

Iran of course needs better relations with the US to stop the economy from collapsing. The National Iranian Oil Company estimates that over the next ten years $70 billion is needed to modernise the dilapidated infrastructure and the regime is looking towards foreign oil companies and international capital markets to provide approximately three-quarters of those massive investments.

So what happened to 'regime change'?

Suddenly, when it would have been most appropriate, the US government is no longer talking about 'regime change' or 'the axis of evil' (the last time Bush mentioned the axis was during a Foxnews interview in December 2005, following Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks). The reasons for this are fourfold:

1- The US bourgeoisie's crisis has deepened greatly since the 'axis of evil' speech. Domestically, on top of individual firms failing and laying off tens of thousands of workers, the slow response of the authorities to disasters like hurricane Katrina and Rita have highlighted the uncaring attitude of the government to the plight of the poor - especially of black people. In addition to not having spent money on repairing the levies and other flood defences, primarily due to tax cuts for the rich, they have diverted funds into arms expenditure (and again into the pockets of the rich) to pursue worthy causes like bombing women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The scandals surrounding Tom DeLay, the House of Representatives majority leader, and Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, have also weakened this government.

There have not been any foreign policy successes either. There is of course the one massive military, financial and political disaster: Iraq. It is a disaster that will continue and deepen (except that a section of the US bourgeoisie is making huge profits out of it). In addition, developments in Latin America, particularly the survival and strengthening of Chavez and the Bolivarian movement in Venezuela, the left-leaning governments in Argentina and Brazil, and more recent developments in Bolivia, Chile and so on, have changed the balance of forces in the region and brought welcome relief to Cuba. Not much is going right for the US in its 'backyard'.

2- All the alternatives bourgeois governments that US imperialism had in mind for Iran cannot realistically be put in place. The monarchists and the Shah's son talk endlessly about 'democracy': but the people have lived through that experience and bear the scars. The People's Mojahedin, who pinned all their hopes on Saddam's support, have now become just a bargaining chip in the protracted negotiations between the US and the Iranian regime. As The Economist commented on 12 January: "To attack Iran … would make sense only if it were thought likely that a friendlier Iranian regime would then emerge. But Iran has no obvious, friendly government-in-waiting."

3- US imperialism has also given up hope on any alternatives emerging from within the regime itself. Now that the main aims of the 'reformers' have been achieved - breaking the diplomatic and trade isolation and providing a controlled outlet for some of the masses' grievances - all factions are fully united in trying to get more concessions out of imperialism and, as ever, clamping down on any dissent that might destabilise the regime. For example, the most any of 'reformers' have done in the latest crisis has been to preach 'wisdom' in the dealings with the EU-US-UN.

4- The regime's co-operation in Iraq has been invaluable to the Americans. Following the assistance given in overthrowing the Taleban and occupying Afghanistan the Iranian regime has given far more extensive help in the overthrow of the Baathists and setting up of a puppet 'government' in Iraq. On top of its often-quoted influence on the Shia in the south of the country, the regime has made crucial financial and trade commitments to the puppet 'government' in Iraq. (Of course, despite all this there are periodic declarations by the US complaining about the Iranian regime interfering and meddling in Iraq.)

Where do relations with US imperialism stand?

The Islamic Republic of Iran, i.e., the Islamic-military form of bourgeois dictatorship that came to power after the royal-military one was destroyed by the workers and masses, was the only type of government that could rescue the rule of capital in Iran and to allow its continuation. Its leaders, right from the beginning, had their behind the scenes relations with US imperialism - especially with the Republican Party and the most right-wing sections of the American bourgeoisie. This happened despite all the public slogans and statements from both sides (e.g., the Iran-Contra Affair dating back to the mid-1980s). Both sides would like to return to a period similar to the 'golden days' of the Shah but need to negotiate the specific compromises and concessions.

Behind the scenes the World Bank, after a seven year hiatus, began advancing loans to Iran in 2000. By July 2005 this had grown to 48 operations totalling $3,413 million (World Bank site). These programmes include helping the regime in "fulfilling its international obligations", "fighting terrorism" and repatriating Afghan refugees. Although there have been no new loans since Ahmadinejad was inaugurated the trend over the past few years has been towards an improvement in relations. (Other UN agencies, particularly the International Labour Organisation, have also provided much assistance to the regime.)

The help the Iranian regime has been providing to prop up US occupied Iraq has been astonishing. In June 2004 Iraq's nominal sovereignty passed to an 'interim government' stuffed with the agents and servants of US imperialism. The capitalists of Iran pledged $10 million of unconditional aid and a further $300 million loan. Kamal Kharrazi, the then Foreign Minister of the 'revolutionary' and 'anti-imperialist' IRI, had been more generous to the phoney 'government' of Iraq than the government of José María Aznar (even though Spain was part of the occupying coalition)!

Then on 21-23 November 2004, a "thieves' kitchen" summit of 23 states, including the G8, the EU, China and many Arab countries, was held in Sharm el-Sheikh. Here Colin Powell and Kharrazi are said to have had a 'conversation' but not a 'discussion'. The Iranian side were also supposedly going there to protest strongly against the American's conduct in Iraq! Following this, a security meeting of Iraq's neighbours took place in Tehran in late November. Yet, less than two weeks after that the US warned Iran about interference in Iraq. Then in February 2005 Bush called Iran the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Having made these and other habitual statements about each other, in July 2005 the IRI signed a deal with the 'government' of Iraq to import 150,000 barrels of light crude from Basra and in exchange provide it with refined oil products like petrol, fuel oil and white oil. Two pipelines are going to be built for this purpose. This is obviously aimed at overcoming shortages due to the ongoing insurgency and will not only prop up the puppet 'government' but assist US imperialism with its occupation of Iraq.

Is there a military option?

The Economist has been one of many sources arguing against a military solution: "… Iran could strike back - by closing the oil chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz or hitting American or Israeli interests via proxies in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon and the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israel is well within range of Iranian missiles. Diplomacy has not stopped Iran so far. But military action is by no means an attractive alternative." (12 January 2006)

The Iranian regime's facilities are thought to include more than 100 suspected sites with some sites, including Natanz, up to 75 feet underground. The IRI has also been busy buying new weaponry that should make it difficult for the US or Israel to invade it or to inflict serious damage on its nuclear facilities. The recent $1.5bn arms deal with Russia includes upgrading the Su-24 attack aircraft and MiG-29 multirole fighters, patrol boats, surface to air missile systems and upgrading T-72 main battle tanks.

In addition to its Russian-N.Korean based Shahab 3 missile, it has also recently bought 18 Russian-made R-27 medium to intermediate range ballistic missiles from North Korea (Jane's Defence Weekly, 4 January 2006). With a range of 2,500-4,000 kilometres they can deliver a nuclear warhead to Berlin, Vienna, Rome and many parts of France. Already in 2001 the regime bought 12 Raguda Kh-55 land-attack cruise missiles from Ukraine. These have a range of 3,000km and can also carry nuclear warheads.

Can Israel attack Iran's facilities?

Following Ahmadinejad's second anti-Semitic rant, when he questioned whether the Holocaust had taken place and that Israel should be moved to Europe or Alaska, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, went on record to say that he doubted if diplomacy could halt Iran's nuclear plans. On 4 December 2005, Halutz told foreign journalists in Tel Aviv: "The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure ... encourages them to continue their nuclear project." Halutz also said: "I believe that the political means that are used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed". When asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear project, Halutz quipped, "2,000 kilometres." This is the distance between Tehran and Tel Aviv.

General Halutz’s political masters are in no hurry to attack Iran. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Israel was not spearheading efforts to block Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He went on to say: "It's clear we can't have a situation where Iran will become a nuclear power," and that "Israel is not leading the process, but it is definitely a partner to countries concerned by this dangerous development."

Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz believes that the United Nations should step in. "We should let the diplomats handle this," Mofaz told Israel TV. "This is a hot potato which should be placed on the table of the Security Council." (Although Benjamin Netanyahu called on the Sharon government to take action and referred to Israel's 1981 air strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor).

It is possible that during the Israeli general election more aggressive statements against the IRI might become necessary. However, all publicly available military assessments do not rate the chances of the Israelis too highly. According to a report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army's War College, Israel's military options against Iran's nuclear programme are very limited (Jane's Defence Weekly, 14 December 2005). The report, entitled Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, casts doubts on Israel being able to stop or to delay substantially the IRI's nuclear programme.

Any Israeli government assessing the pros and cons of an attack should also consider attacks on its civilians by Hamas, Hezbollah and similar groups. Indeed, following one of Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rants the head of Hamas visited Iran and said that they would strike Israel in the event of an attack on Iran.

Who can stop the Iranian regime?

The strike by around 3000 bus drivers in Tehran on 25 December shows a force that has not become weaker over the past four or five years. While the Bush government and the whole state apparatus of the US bourgeoisie has weakened; while the Iranian bourgeois opposition has weakened; and while the 'reformers' have made their peace with the 'authoritarians', there is a force that is prepared to take on the Iranian bourgeoisie and its well-armed state.

The working class of Iran have consistently shown that they are the class that has the potential to take on the bourgeoisie and defeat it. They have shown that they are the class that can also lead all the other exploited and oppressed masses. Only the Iranian working class can stop the bourgeoisie developing a nuclear bomb. The workers not only have the power but they have seen the record of this regime when it comes to industrial, road and air accidents, and know that nuclear power, let alone nuclear weapons, can only mean many deaths and injuries for them and their children.

18 January 2006