|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 25 2007
Iran seized 15 British occupiers interloping in Iranian waters on March 23rd. The sailors claimed to be doing unopposed inspections of boats in Iraqi waters, when the Iranians captured them.(1) Both Iran and the British government are being diplomatic as of the 25th about the exact coordinates of the British pirates when the Iranians captured them.
Meanwhile the UN Security Council voted unanimously on the 24th for sanctions on Iran for continuing its nuclear energy program. Iran retaliated the next day by cutting back cooperation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).(2) MIM supports Iran against the UN Security Council, despite the unanimous vote, because the united $tates continues to threaten countries globally with the use of nuclear weapons, including Iran. There is nothing that can be done about that under the capitalist system which drives the united $tates onto war.
Tensions with Iran are a boon for oil speculators. There is widespread belief that with its military might Iran can shutdown a water passageway responsible for the transport of 25% of the world's oil, called the Straits of Hormuz.
It is an open question whether or not the Amerikan oppressors without ties to oil speculators can figure out that their price of oil depends on the Iran situation. On the one hand, the Amerikans are so oppressive and warmongering, but on the other hand, their economy depends on oil so much and the U.$. economy is on the verge of recession.
Aside from interloping in Iranian waters, the British imperialists were more or less asking for the conflict for two reasons. One is that Iraq's people deserve Iran's solidarity, and taking the British occupiers prisoners serves that end. Two is that the Amerikans had seized Iranian officials likewise in Iraq, as if Iraq were U.$. territory. Even the Iraqi puppets objected. There is already a speculation about exchange of prisoners; although Iranians denied interest.
Ali Askari, former head of an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard, disappeared in Turkey six weeks ago; several months earlier, six Iranian officials were captured by U.S. forces an Iranian liaison office in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish self-ruled region of Iraq. One was later released.Iran said it was a government liaison office. The U.S. military said those detained were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq.(1)
MIM takes this opportunity to raise a theoretical issue vexing Maoists since 1976 regarding the "Three Worlds Theory." Again, MIM believes there is too much ideological handwringing about bourgeois-led governments like Iran's when there is a question of united front at hand, especially when socialist governments are not about to dominate the world at any second.
Practically-speaking, Iran's activity is not just a benefit to itself, and instead capturing the British sailors also benefits the Iraqi people struggling hard against the imperialists. Objectively, the Iraqi people have received more help from Iran than from international communist organizations in the short-run. Those knocking the "Three Worlds Theory" or strategy for ideological hype reasons do not understand the stage of struggle we are in and would effectively equate Iran and British imperialism in the sailors conflict, because both governments are bourgeois. In contrast, MIM sees Arab and Persian peoples as oppressed and exploited by imperialism.
Notes:
1. "Blair warns Iran on 15 Seized Sailors," http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/25/ap/world/main2607265.shtml
2. "Iran Suspends Nuke Cooperation," http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1602786,00.html
This "divide and conquer" policy is of course nothing new. The Amerikans--and before them the British--have practiced it in the Middle East for decades. During the Iran-Iraq war the United $tates flip-flopped between support for either side--occasionally supporting both at the same time--when one or the other threatened to gain the upper hand and potentially threaten U.$. oil interests (2). U.$. and European weapons manufacturers also made a ton of cash selling weapons to both countries and their nervous neighbors. Both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are by-products of Amerikan meddling. The CIA funded and trained Hussein to overthrow Iraqi nationalists (3) and Bin Laden to fight against the USSR in Afghanistan.
The imperialists often claim they are intervening in support of "democracy," the rights of a national minority, wimmin's rights, etc. But because of their nature the imperialists cannot resolve conflicts among oppressed people; they can only exacerbate them. The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates that. This is why Lenin, Stalin and Mao argued that conflicts among the people could be only be addressed after liberation from imperialism, under a socialist government. This is why Lenin, Stalin and Mao recognized the rights of nations to self-determination but argued that sometimes these rights could best be realized in a multinational state. This is why Amerikans who truly support the liberation of oppressed peoples should direct their fire towards their own government, and not directly or indirectly call for U.$. "humanitarian" intervention. "The people united will never be defeated," is not just a catchy chant.
Although we now learn that U.$. troops have been arresting Iranians in Iraq since last August, the Bush administration first leaked this fact in early January, in the run-up to the State of the Union Speech. During that speech, Bush claimed that "Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops," a refrain echoed in State department and military press conferences over the next few weeks. The U.$. Navy also sent an extra carrier group to patrol the seas off Iran in January. So it appears that one wing of the Amerikan bourgeoisie is accelerating its military and public-opinion preparations for war. On the other hand, the Hersh article represents push-back by the wing of the Amerikan bourgeoisie that does not want war with Iran and is tired of the war in Iraq. (Afghanistan is just fine, though, according to these "doves.")
This push-back comes in part from U.$. generals and spymasters who worry that the U.$. military is already stretched near the breaking point. They also worry about "blow-back:" "bad guys" the U.$. supports now against Iran and Hezbollah might someday turn against the United $tates--a la Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin laden. And in part the push-back comes from members of Congress who question the Bush administration's claims about Iranian involvement in Iraq--and don't like the fact that Cheney has subverted congressional oversight by keeping covert operations out of the hands of the CIA and military.
This debate is clearly about how best to preserve imperialism--or the careers of individual bourgeois politicians. The generals and spymasters are right to worry about "blow-back," but they are wrong to think that oppressed peoples will warm to Amerika as long as the United $tates does not provoke them by using "excessive" military force. The daily conditions of life under imperialism create resistance to imperialism--and for that matter, the imperialists have shown themselves incapable of foregoing force to suppress the just demands of the oppressed when their interests are threatened. As for the politicians complaining they can't trust the Bush administration, MIM suspects they are just laying the groundwork for "plausible deniability." They whine now that Bush "lied" to them to get their endorsement of the Iraq invasion, when the facts debunking Bush's justifications for the war were already public knowledge. When Hillary Clinton calls for "proof" that Iran is sending arms to Iraq, she is naming her price, telling Bush exactly what he needs to do to help her save face and earn her support for war in Iraq. Later, when 100,000s die as in Iraq she can always wash her hands by saying Bush deceived her.
MIM has no illusions that "enlightened" generals or bourgeois politicians can end the twin terrors of U.$. imperialism and militarism. Rather, we put our faith in the resistance of the oppressed masses themselves and their allies inside U.$. borders. Although MIM's resources are microscopic compared with the Democratic Party's, MIM has done more to oppose the U.$. invasion of Iraq than the Dems, who four years later can't even pass a mealy-mouthed, non-binding resolution saying the war might not have been such a great idea after all. And the heroic Iraqis taking up arms against Amerikan aggression are doing the most to hasten the war's end and weaken U.$. imperialism.
Notes:
1. The New Yorker, 5 Mar 2007.
2. Barry Lando, "Web of Deceit," New York: Other Press, 2007, pp. 48-82.
3. Lando, pp. 25-47.