Volume 1, No. 3, May 2000

The February parliamentary elections in Iran have caused great relief to the US and other imperialist powers. After 21 years of strict Islamic practices the Islamic revolution has proved itself unable to solve the basic problems of Iranian society. With hopes belied the Iranian masses, which once looked up to the clergy as saviours from the evils and terror of the Shah’s regime, have again started looking for an alternative. Khomeini’s religio-political concepts built up a regime which proved no less repressive than that of the Shah’s and the people experienced rampant corruption, despotism, high cost of living, forced feudal customs, unemployment and merciless exploitation at the hands of those who promised a heaven in the name of religion. The people’s 21 years sojourn into ‘heaven’ has proved that hell did not end with the demise of the Shah, it continued inspite Khomeini’s "glorious revolution." Their urge for change continues, and amidst this unrest the February elections have been held once again promising them "freedom" and a "decent" way of life arousing great hopes among them, but nevertheless, again concealing a great fraud.

Inspite of tragedies and farces history continues to repeat itself. Society has an unending appetite for change. People rise up time and again in an urge to change their living conditions while the exploiting classes use all means at their disposal to mislead the people to their own advantage.

The Shah had been kicked out by the people because he was responsible for the mass scale plunder of Iranian oil wealth by the British, American and French imperialists who had benefited to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Iran had become one of the most ruthless regimes in the service of imperialism, spending billions of dollars on only one of its armed wings — the intelligence agency, SAVAK, which was responsible for liquidating thousands of Shah’s opponents over the years. Iran under the Shah had become an open enemy of Arab nationalism and a friend of Zionist Israel and apartheid South Africa; and above all because the Shah was the pusher of degenerated western values and culture on the vast Iranian masses who were reeling under poverty and unemployment inspite of enormous national income from the oil industry. The Shah and about forty elite families in Iran controlled all the sources of power, with the Shah assuming the powers of a despot inspite of the existence of a parliament. The people rose up against his regime and he had to flee to save himself from the wrath of the people.

The Shia clergy, which represented the trading class had traditionally been against Shah’s despotism and centralisation of powers in a single person. It assumed leadership of the mass upsurge, promised people an end to the monarchy and demanded to hand over power to their representative under a theological state. As the US had been the closest ally and staunch backer of the Shah, the clergy too had its own hatred towards the US. The interests coincided and the political Islamic revolution overthrew the Shah.

Now, after twenty-one years, the people have discovered that the promised heaven was a tragic illusion and the clergy has betrayed them. The discontent among the people has forced a cleavage in the clerics who know that with the passage of time it will become impossible to control the people’s rebellions. An indication of this has already been given by the huge student revolts of July 1999. It has resulted in two different approaches, between the two factions of the ruling theologians. One, headed by President Khatami, wants certain hard social restrictions to go, and to effect political changes in the set-up to bring the supreme religious authority under the jurisdiction of law by making parliament the supreme authority in law making and by freeing the judiciary from the control of the mullahs. Khatami does not challenge the concept of "divine origin of the political power" but wants to give it a bourgeois parliamentary colour by saying that this power "should be exercised on behalf of the people by their elected representative." He is being termed by the world imperialist media as a "reformer". The other faction wants to continue the system with the same old principles enunciated by Imam Khomeini.

Both the factions, however, are one when it comes to control of the revolting people, with only a tactical difference. The so-called reformists want to allow protests as far as they do not turn violent or go against the very foundations of the present exploitative system, while the other advocates open suppression from the very outset. The students’ rebellion in Tehran and other cities in July 1999 brought out that both the factions are equally reactionary and for resorting to oppressive measures. Khatami, who had first supported the peaceful student protests in order to use it as a lever in his struggle against his opponents, turned against them when the student rebellion spread and turned violent. This happened after the murderous assault by the police on them. The student rebellion had spread to a number of cities and a growing number of ordinary people came out in open support to them. Many were arrested, injured and four of the students were sentenced to death by the Islamic revolutionary court. Khatami, at this stage, condemned the rebellious students and ordered the police to stop the students rebellion with a heavy hand.

Although, both the camps of clerics are one when it comes to continuing the exploitative system, yet they are engaged in a growing battle on how to run the economic and social affairs of the country. Having failed in leading the Iranian masses to build a self-reliant economy which can withstand the imperialist onslaught and their sanctions, they have no option left but to yield to imperialist pressure. In fact, they did not have a clear understanding on how to organise the Iranian economy after the demise of the Shah. Anti-Americanism did not lead to anti-imperialism as they were bereft of a revolutionary ideology. Nationalisation of major sectors of the economy after the 1979 revolution was not meant to make a clear break from imperialist exploitation and imperialism, rather it was meant to dismantle the economic base of elite families while retaining its exploitative character. Moreover, the most important sector of the economy i.e., oil, was natioanlised in April 1980 only after diplomatic relations with the US had broken off due to the embassy occupation crisis in Tehran.

Khomeini himself was not averse to having close economic ties with the US, and both the states had cooperation in the sensitive field of exchanging secret information concerning Libya, Iraq, PLO, the Soviet Union and the Tudeh Party (revisionist CP) of Iran. Khomeini did not intend to confiscate imperialist capital and demolish imperialist interests inspite of the anti-US rhetoric and strong anti-imperialist sentiments of the working class and the youth and students. The situation for both the US and Iranian administration went out of control when revolutionary guards refused to lift the seize of the US embassy leading to a total break of political and economic ties. Huge amounts of Iranian assets were frozen in the US banks, sanctions were enforced, and Iraq was instigated to attack Iran leading to an 8 year long war. The Iranian economy went into shambles and the rulers were hard pressed, with petro-dollar income reduced drastically.

As leaders of the Islamic revolution had no alternative model for Iran’s economic development cracks appeared in the leadership after the death of Imam Khomeini in 1989. A debate around the question of the opening up to the West started growing in a concealed manner on a number of issues, enhancing this rift. The anti-US clerics, who are termed in the world bourgeois press as conservatives, are not anti-imperialist at heart. They want to open up to the non-US imperialist states of the European Union, Russia and even Australia. Both the factions want to integrate the Iranian economy in the world imperialists system. There was no policy difference between the two factions on signing the CTBT and WTO. The so-called reformists want closer links with US imperialism.

The rift between the two has yet to enter into a decisive phase. The coming into power of Mohammed Khatami in the 1997 presidential elections was a big victory for the "reformist" clerics. Soon after coming to power Khatami initiated cultural exchanges with the US. Sports contact was encouraged and tourism was given a start. Khatami also sounded the US that it could do business with Iran by opening an oil pipeline which may connect Central Asia with the Persian Gulf. Khatami moved cautiously and step by step.

The Feb. 2000 elections were considered a great battle between the two factions and it was keenly watched throughout the imperialist capitals. The students rebellion in July 1999 (and the arrest and trial of Abdollah Nouri) was sought to be converted into a trialof strength between the two factions. Though in both the cases Khatami had to suffer set-backs, as far as the events were concerned, he was highly successful politically in highlighting the need for opening up in the name of freedom, "democratisation" of the Islamic system and "independence" of the judiciary.

The landslide victory of the Khatami faction is an indication of the extent of people’s resentment of the clergy. But it also is a method to diffuse people’s discontent into safe electoral channels. Now Islamic Iran may be ready to do business with the "Satan". Khatami’s social reforms, conceals his real intentions of opening out the Iranian economy to the imperialist sharks.

The West is happy that the Iranian veil is being lifted up. It could mean billions of dollars and new friends in a land, which was once closed by "obscurantist" forces. "Good old days" may be here again, of course, now without the monarch! After the election results the US has lifted the trade embargo over Iran. Hundreds of billions of dollars, which are frozen, in US banks will be negotiated in future if Khatami succeeds in finally defeating the "conservative" forces.

The West is jubilant that the Iranian clergy has come of age, that bourgeoisie democracy has thrown it back into the imperialist lap. The West is jubilant that the clerics have fallen apart and have conceded defeat and a strong bastion of the Islamic Revolution is nearing its collapse. It sees a Gorbachev in the person of Khatami who is intelligently and cautiously pulling down another anti-west fortress.

But !

For the Iranian working class and vast sections of the peasant masses and working people the question of a real anti-imperialist anti-feudal revolution remains to be solved. All these sections of people taken together constitute the Iranian nation and this is the overwhelming majority of the Iranian population. It stands to gain nothing from the so-called reforms and the reformists, while the rulers and the classes they represent will be able to earn billions as commissions. The older generation which was young at the time of the 1979 Islamic revolution feels betrayed, as their hopes for a better future have been belied. The present young generation has a lot of lessons to draw from its predecessor, which made numerous sacrifices and waged a relentless struggle against a repressive regime. The ruler’s answer to the problems of Iranian society is no answer at all. One set of exploiters was replaced by another set of exploiters in 1979 in the name of freedom and liberation from repression. The same vicious circle is being repeated again with new slogans. History is being repeated again as yet an other farce. The people of Iran must utilise the increased freedom achieved through the struggles, in order to deepen the movement, and build a powerful anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle — targeting the compradors as well.

<Top>