Power struggle intensifies in Iran

[18tir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3387345.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3387345.stm)

80 MPs and over 2,000 candidates out of 8,000 have so far been barred from the parliamentary election next month. The mullahs are so intolerant, that they cannot even tolerate liberals and moderates among their own ranks. This ridiculous act by the hardliners will only speed up the move towards revolution. The Iranian people cannot hope to reform the system through reforms. A popular uprising against the ruling elite is the only way to bring about secularism, democracy and equality.

[LuZhiming]

And it comes as no coincidence that the U.S. has been showing hostility towards Iran all of the sudden. I hope my nightmare scenario of another U.S. intervention crushing Iranian democracy (Look at the avatar) will not happen.

[18tir]

No doubt, the United States is attempting to manipulate events in Iran to its advantage. The neo-conservatives are well aware that there is an active pro-democracy and secular movement in Iran. Should the people of Iran overthrow the Islamic government, they will never allow any foreign power to control their country. They have a long memory. Nobody has forgotten what happened in 1953. Iran would most likely be a secular democracy today were it not for the Americans. This fight for democracy is an Iranian struggle. The US military has no right to get involved. The Iranian people will overthrow the Islamic dictatorship on their own.


btw, nice avatar.

[LSD]

The US is in a tough situation in Iran.

They don't like the religious government

But they really don't like democracy


So, if anti-government support gets to strong, the US will have to intervene to liberate it, and maybe to find weapons of mass destruction.

But the real problem is that if this happens too soon, the US will still be in Iraq, and at this point despite its military prowress, the US does not have the manpower or the patience to occupy both Iraq and Iran and maintain a presence in Afghanistan.

So for right now, America's primary interest in Iran is maintaining the status quo.....for now at least....

[Guest1]

Which is exactly why Bush went on television during the summer and issued his support for the democratic student revolt in Iran. Such a statement of support could have easily become a death sentence for the movement and its leaders.

Fortunately, the left-wing student leaders were quicker and smarter than that. Within hours, their slogans in the daily street battles with Iranian police were changed from "down with the Islamic Republic" to "down with the Islamic Republic and American Imperialism".

The Iranian people have not forgotten their past.

[18tir]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 15 2004, 03:47 AM
So for right now, America's primary interest in Iran is maintaining the status quo.....for now at least....
I agree. Any situation when the people of Iran are taking control of their country is bad for the United States. The US government has always relied on unpopular dictatorships to protect its interests. If Iran were to become a democracy, it would jeopardize US hegemony in the Middle East. I think the Bush administration is either attempting to reach some sort of an agreement with the mullahs or it is planning a coup d'etat.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 15 2004, 03:53 AM
The Iranian people have not forgotten their past.
Damn right, their memories about Mossadegh are much like Guatemalan's (Though to an even greater extent in my view) of Jacobo Arbenz's. Has anyone else noticed how this could devastatingly link with Iraq? Imagine if they actually had an election in Iraq. Who would win? Probably a Shia Ayatollah, since they are the most organized and supported. And that could lead to an alliance with Iran who is right next door. And that could set the whole region off. Iran gives me too many nightmare scenarios, it is a delicate place right now.....

Also, I want to state that I disagree with the belief that the U.S. is necessarily against Islamic fundamentalists. I don't believe religion has much to do with U.S. foreign policies.

[LSD]

Also, I want to state that I disagree with the belief that the U.S. is necessarily against Islamic fundamentalists. I don't believe religion has much to do with U.S. foreign policies.


Theoretically the US should be against theocracy, that would be consistent with their propaganda

But you notice that they invaded secular Iraq and support theocratic Saudi Arabia so...

The fact is the US will support anyone who will enforce their policies (dictatorships tend to make this easier)

[18tir]

The US is not necessarily opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Remember that it was the United States who supplied the fundamentalist mujahadeen with money and arms. America helped Islamist organizations in the region and used it to weaken the secular nationalists and communists. Many believe that the US helped bring Khomeini to power.

The US is out to protect its own interests. It is not interested in secularism or democracy.

[Guest1]

Khomeini is the reformist int here right now? Or is that the Ayatollah that lead the revolution against the shah? cause I know they didn't support him until after the revolt had already happened. Well, they tried to support him, and it blew up in their faces.

Generally, their reasons for not supporting Islamic fundamentalism are not out of a moral aversion to fundamentalism, rather the contradiction between Islamic fundamentalism and the Christian kind. Seeing as this isn't a very compelling strategic reason, they put it aside whenever an Islamic regime can show itself to be effective and efficient at repression for the sake of American domination.

[Indysocialist]

I can guarantee if even a slightly leftist government were to take power and Bush were to be reelected then that government would be crushed underfoot and something resembling the Shah would return to Iran. Who am I kidding, it would probably happen under Dean or Kerry or any other of those jackasses to.

And by the way, I thought the Ayatollah Khamenei was dead. I don't know much on Iran, but isn't he the original leader?

[Kez]

the mullahs are fucked, if they reform theyre fucked, if they crack down then theyre fucked. All that is needed now is a marxist leadership to lead the workers to smash the disgusting state

[18tir]

I just want to clarify some things because there appears to be some confusion here. Ayatollah Khomeini was the person responsible for creating the Islamic Republic in 1979. He ruled until 1989 when he died. After his death. Ayatollah Khamenei took over and he has been ruling since. He is considered to be the supreme leader. Mohammad Khatami has been the president since 1997. He is like a figurehead and doesn't really have any power.

The so-called reformist faction controls the parliament and the presidency. However, this doesn't mean anything since the legislature and executive do not have any power. Supreme leader Khamenei controls the military, media, secret police and judiciary. He is unelected and can also dismiss the president whenever he likes. He and his gang of mullahs are extremely corrupt. They have stolen billions of dollars from the Iranian people. They are running the country very badly as they act as if it is their personal domain. During the Shah's time, the nobility was at the top of the social ladder. In 1979, the mullahs became the ruling class. They do not know much about governing a country since they are merely clergymen and as a result, the economy is in a very bad shape. GDP per capita is 30-50% of what it was before 1979. The average Iranian today makes $1,900 a year. This is bad even by third world standards. The majority of the people are poor and despise the mullahs. I predict that there will soon be an explosion.

When this happens, the people of Iran can abolish the Islamic regime and create, The Socialist Republic of Iran. Of course, this will only happen if the people vote for socialism.

[Kez]

l8tir,
Khomeini took over in 1981, the revolution of 1979 was carried out by workers, and was hijacked by the filthy mullahs.

One reason was the blind stalinist Tudeh Party, who supported Khomeini as a means to fight imperialism, effectively putting him on the workers shoulder, then once he was in power, he killed every communist.
Lions led by donkeys

l8tir, how the fuck are people going to vote for socialism when socialists are killed???
The only solution, is through the limited trade unions to have marxists as leaders, and to call a general strike, at the same time arming the workers, revolution is only way.

[18tir]

Kez

You are right in a way. Khomeini consolidated his power and completed the counter-revolution in 1981. But he began the religious coup d'etat early in 1979 when he established the Islamic Republic. It took a while for him to destroy the democratic, nationalist and leftist opposition. Even after 1981, he didn't stop. In one particularly brutal incident in 1988, he had 10,000 leftist prisoners hanged in two weeks.

When there is a revolution, there should be some sort of a provisional government set up. That government can hold free elections and the Iranian people can vote for whatever system they want and who they want to represent them. I'm guessing it will be some sort of a mix between capitalism and socialism. If leftists want a socialist republic, they will have to work hard to convince the Iranian people to vote for it. Were I living in Iran, I would attempt to organize a socialist party.

[Kez]

and be shot?

[Edelweiss]

One of the most progressive forces in the whole middle esat is the "Worker-communist Party of Iran (http://www.wpiran.org/)", I hope they'll play some siginficant role in the probabply upcoming revolutionary struggles:


Elimination of national oppression
The worker-communist party stands for the complete end to national oppression and to all forms of national discrimination in the laws of the country and government policies. The party regards nationalism, national identity and national pride as very backward and harmful notions that negate the universal human identity of people and stifle the cause of equality and freedom. The party is strictly opposed to any categorisaion of the population according to nationality and any definition of national identity for people. It stands for setting up a system in which all residents, irrespective of nationality, have equal rights as members of the society, and where no discrimination, negative or positive, is exercised on the basis of nationality.

As a general principle, the worker-communist party stands for people of different national origins to live as free citizens with equal rights within larger national entities. This strengthens workers' ranks in the class struggle. Nevertheless, in cases where a history of national oppression and strife has made coexistence within existing states difficult, the party recognises the right of oppressed nationalities, if they so choose in a direct and free referendum, to secede and form independent states.
http://www.wpiran.org/wpiprog/program.html

Such progressive, emancipated anti-national positions are hard to find in the middle east, and probaply in the whole 3rd world within communist/socialist movements, they get my full support and solidarity.

[yes i am arab]

thres no doubt that the US has something up its sleeve, it always does. Iran will trun into another afghanistan or probably Iraq, the US is and always has been a government that wants nothing more than to epand its pocket book and its amount of global control. the heads of political state will probably say that the links that iran has to huzbullah in Palestine is threatening or allaies in Israel, yeah the people who beg for our help but never give any back, unless it includes the massacre of arabs. but theyre probably going to say that Iran....after the revolution is a severely volitile country and we need to stabilize them, therefore that means taking out what the people want in iran and put US corporations in Iran.

Remember kids: It's not what the people want, its what Bu$h wants ;)

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by yes i am [email protected] 18 2004, 11:41 PM
Remember kids: It's not what the people want, its what Bu$h wants ;)
You're almost correct, but it isn't Bush himself behind it. Bush doesn't have a clue what he is doing, he may think he is helping the world. It's his advisors that are the masterminds.

[Kez]

From what i know about WPIRAN they have a reformed stalinist outlook. Try http://www.kargar.org/ or their youth section http://www.javaan.net/ the latter 2 are based in Tehran, wheras WPIRAN is London based, but the latter 2, to me, seemed a lot more theoretically sound.

do we have any iranian on board?

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:00 PM
From what i know about WPIRAN they have a reformed stalinist outlook. Try http://www.kargar.org/ or their youth section http://www.javaan.net/ the latter 2 are based in Tehran, wheras WPIRAN is London based, but the latter 2, to me, seemed a lot more theoretically sound.

do we have any iranian on board?
I never have heard of any Stalinist party which is denying nationalism so conistently. They sem to be rather Left-Communist to me. Even if they have been Stalinist decades ago, this is totally irrelevant to me now, if they have developed so positively and progressive.
Let me guess...kargar is a Trotkyist party, right? You need a Trotzyist label on an organiation so can support it..really, your sectarianism disgusts me.

[Kez]

no, rather the fact i help WPIRAN a few years ago, and didnt believe they were anywhere near capable of solving situation in Iran, theyre an emigre grouping in London. As for secterianism, im sorry malte i dont agree with the first grouping i come across, and the javaan group state "We invite all youth, students and workers to helps us in publishing and distributingour paper, so that by uniting together we can embark on buliding a socialist andanti-capitalist pole and attraction in society" oh im such a secterian...fuck off

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:23 PM
no, rather the fact i help WPIRAN a few years ago, and didnt believe they were anywhere near capable of solving situation in Iran, theyre an emigre grouping in London. As for secterianism, im sorry malte i dont agree with the first grouping i come across, and the javaan group state "We invite all youth, students and workers to helps us in publishing and distributingour paper, so that by uniting together we can embark on buliding a socialist andanti-capitalist pole and attraction in society" oh im such a secterian...fuck off
what does that proof? I was critisizing your secterian behaviour to not support the WP Iran because of some alleged, non-existing "Reform-Stalinism". The WP Iran is an party of Iranian exiles from all across Europe, not only in london BTW.

[Kez]

yes, and we should support them for being socialists, but surely your not arguing that because they are socialist (at lest in name) then we should automatically latch onto them and fight for them?

i will try and give you examples of why it is not the best grouping to fight for.

[Kez]

id even support stalinists, but i would continue to oppose them from the Left, is that not the correct line to take? That the major enemy is capitalism, and therefore we should have a united front (not popular front) against it? however then if we believe some aspects are incorrect, we should fight to change it.

I only attack in here, because we are in "left circles" and therefore, capitalists wont be reading this

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:25 PM
yes, and we should support them for being socialists, but surely your not arguing that because they are socialist (at lest in name) then we should automatically latch onto them and fight for them?

i will try and give you examples of why it is not the best grouping to fight for.
haven't you read my post, I'm supporting just because I have read their progressive party programme, not because of their socialist label.

[Kez]

yes, and like ive said, i worked for them, and had great differences with them, and on this board, i proposed a better group, which has no linking to the international i am with. am i still "secterian"?

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:27 PM
id even support stalinists, but i would continue to oppose them from the Left, is that not the correct line to take? That the major enemy is capitalism, and therefore we should have a united front (not popular front) against it? however then if we believe some aspects are incorrect, we should fight to change it.

I only attack in here, because we are in "left circles" and therefore, capitalists wont be reading this
nevertheless the WP Iran is FAR away from beeing Stalinist, they are the complete opposite of a stalinist party!

[Edelweiss]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 05:30 PM
yes, and like ive said, i worked for them, and had great differences with them, and on this board, i proposed a better group, which has no linking to the international i am with. am i still "secterian"?
maybe I was jumping on conlusions, it just looked as if you are not supporting the WP Iran because of real political reasons, but because they are not part of your great 4th Internationale. ;)

[Kez]

nope comrade,

im not part of 4th international (whichever one you mean lol)

and this group, they are really brave, espeically the youth section, working in the iranian conditions.

Anyway, i hope aint too pissed at me now more

fraternally yours