[Marxism] A third call for reaffirming "regime change" -- aggression -- as axis of Iran policy

[Fred Feldman]

In recent days the Washington Post has carried a leading editorial, Juan
Cole's Informed Comment carries a guest editorial, and the History News
Network has carried this call "for American boldness in Iran" by a prominent
right-wing ideologist Daniel Pipes.

All these indicate that the repression and, partly for that reason,
resulting decline of popularly-based protests in Iran has given the
imperialist powers a new opening to push for economic, political, and
military aggression against Iran. The view is being pushed forward again
that US imperialism and its imperialist allies -- Australia and Britain and
France etc included -- are the power that can liberate Iran.

In fact, the imperialists real problem with Iran is that they so far lack
the power to roll back the gains, however modest they may seem to some, that
the Iranian people have won in struggle against imperialist slavery.

I think this situation needs to be kept firmly in mind as discussions arise,
as they will inevitably rise in part because the movement in Iran is
declining in Iran and will probably not rise again in exactly the same form.
I think this also reflects the weakness of the struggles of working people
and the oppressed in the imperialist countries, who could, if they were
inspired and organized to do so, provide real meaningful solidarity and not
exploitation and treachery to popular struggles in other countries.
Another reason why the unconditional slogan of "Imperialist hands off Iran,"
which sometimes took a back seat while the social and political conflicts in
Iran were the center of attention, must now be firmly placed at the center
of our thinking and activity once again.

Struggles will revive again in Iran. This is inevitable. They will be
stronger and more effective and conscious to the degree that the fight to
block imperialist intervention of all kinds against Iran (including
intervention supposedly "in solidarity" with the Iranian people) has been
effectively opposed.
Fred Feldman

A CALL FOR AMERICAN BOLDNESS IN IRAN
By Daniel Pipes

History News Network
June 25, 2009
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/94734.html


In a striking coincidence, two very different expressions of Iranian
dissent took place exactly simultaneously on two continents on Saturday,
June 20. Between them, the Islamic Republic of Iran faces an unprecedented
challenge.

One protest took place on the streets of Iran, where thousands of Iranians
fed up with living under a religious tyranny defied Supreme Leader Ali
Khamene'i's diktat that they accept the results of the June 12
presidential election, whereby President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad supposedly
defeated his main challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi by a lopsided margin.

The protestors and Mousavi have both shown bravery but the former seem
more radical than the latter. Mousavi's website announces that he does not
seek confrontation with the "brothers" in Iran's security forces nor does
he wish to challenge the "sacred system" instituted by Ayatollah Khomeini.
Rather, the website declares, "We are confronting deviations and lies. We
seek to bring reform that returns us to the pure principals of the Islamic
Republic."

This timidity stands in contrast to the bold stance of the street
protestors who shout "Death to the dictator" and even "Death to
Khamene'i," an echo of the regime's perpetual slogans "Death to America"
and "Death to Israel," implying a wish not just to correct Khomeini's
"sacred system" but an aspiration to terminate the regime dominated by
mullahs (Iran's clerics).

The other protest took place in a vast exhibition hall just north of
Paris, where the largest and best organized Iranian opposition group, the
Mujahedeen-e Khalq or the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MeK or PMOI) joined
with smaller groups to hold their annual meeting. Tens of thousands
attended it, including me.

The assembly's most emotional moment came when the anxious crowd learned
that their peaceful counterparts marching in Iran had been killed or
wounded. At that moment, freedom of assembly in France contrasted most
starkly with its denial in Iran. Later that day came confirmation of the
regime's obsessive fears of the MeK, when deputy police chief, Ahmad Reza
Radan, blamed MeK "thugs" for his own government's violence against the
peaceful demonstrators.

The MEK mounted an impressive display in France, as it did at the last
meeting I attended, in 2007, with dignitaries, made-for-television
pageantry, and a powerful speech by its leader, Maryam Rajavi. Like the
street protestors, she also called for the demise of the Khomeinist
regime. In a 4,000-word speech, she steered blessedly clear of attacks on
the United States or Israel and excluded the conspiracy-theory mongering
so common to Iranian political life. Instead, she:

* Ridiculed the regime for portraying the demonstrators as Western
agents.
* Bitterly complained that corpses of demonstrators were "wrapped in
American flags" and then trampled upon.
* Condemned the regime's "crimes" in Iraq and its "export of
terrorism" to Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Afghanistan.
* Predicted that "the beginning of the end" of the Islamic Republic of
Iran is underway.
* Critiqued the Obama administration for giving yet another chance to
the regime, noting that the Bush administration had met its
representatives 28 times to no avail.

Rajavi has rightly called for a stronger U.S. policy toward Tehran,
explaining in a recent interview that "The West can stop the nuclear
program if it stands up to the mullahs."

Sadly, standing up to the mullahs has never been American policy. Jimmy
Carter meekly accepted their rule. Ronald Reagan sent them arms. To win
their favor, Bill Clinton put the MEK on the terrorism list. George W.
Bush did not foil their nuclear weapons project. And Barack Obama hopes to
gain concessions from Tehran on the nuclear weapons issue by distancing
himself from the dissidents.

Instead, flux in Iran should invite boldness and innovation. It is time,
finally, for a robust U.S. policy that encourages those yelling "Death to
Khamene'i" and that takes advantage of the hyperbolic fear the MeK arouses
in Iran's ruling circles (first step: end the MeK's preposterous listing
as a terrorist organization).

As Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Republican of Michigan) notes, regime change in
Iran becomes the more urgent if the mullahs will soon deploy nuclear
weapons. The vital and potentially victorious movement building both on
the streets of Iran and in the halls of Europe better represents not only
Western values but also Western interests.