In the run-up to the 2012 presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, talked up the possibility of attacking the Iranian regime because of its nuclear programme. For example, Romney said the US should “employ any and all measures to dissuade the Iranian regime from its nuclear course” and that “no option should be excluded”.
This type of rhetoric led to renewed discussions among workers’ organisations inside Iran and exiled leftwing activists on adopting the correct policy regarding an imperialist attack on the Iranian regime. In the following translation Maziar Razi explains the revolutionary Marxist position: the need to form a ‘third front’ in the event of an imperialist war. It was part of his contribution to an online public debate in February 2012.
Maziar Razi is the spokesperson of the Iranian Revolutionary Marxists’ Tendency (IRMT) and the editor of militaant.com. The IRMT is the only Iranian Trotskyist organisation and has its roots in the Hezb-e Kargaran-e Socialist (Socialist Workers’ Party) founded in 1978. It is currently helping the workers’ vanguard in Iran to form clandestine socialist cells as the building blocks of a revolutionary party.
Building a third front to counter an imperialist military attack
Before referring to the positions of Marxists, we must clarify and distinguish the fronts that will be involved in this war?
Clearly on one side there is the imperialist government of America, with its allies like Israel and European countries that have been permanent allies of America and have been involved in every war that has been fought recently, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries. And on the other side is Iran with its allies like Hamas and Hezbollah etc. (Of course, it is interesting that with Libya, the Islamic Republic showed its complete alignment and co-operation with Western imperialism and even transferred the wounded of “NATO’s revolution” in Libya to Tehran’s Milad and Chamran hospitals!)
Usually, when two countries go to war, the international press and media do not distinguish between the government at the head of each country and its people. As we see and read in the newspapers, for example, there is talk of a war between “Israel” and “Iran”. The talk is about Iran, and there is never any mention of the “Iranian government”. They assume (or instil the idea in the audience) that there is a government that, by holding “elections”, represents a large part of the people who are its followers and supporters. Therefore, this government enters the war relying on the votes of all the people and their majority. The same is true of America, and this is their perception.
So this distinction is never made, and it is this distinction that is important from the point of view of a Marxist analysis. When we want to analyse the concept of war, we separate the question of the government from the question of the people who exist in this country, and beyond that, we also consider the class division of these “people” themselves – especially the working class that exists in these societies and is exploited and oppressed, and other layers dissatisfied with the government and the establishment.
Of course, this lack of distinction and evaluation can be true in some cases. For example, the George Bush era was the period when the president could create a relatively large social base in society. Thus, when he launched the military attack on Afghanistan, he had something close to 70 to 80 per cent of the people’s votes. The same thing happened in Iran, when the war with Iraq began, in fact, the illusions about Khomeini were still high, and the war that was imposed on Iran through Saddam Hussein with American support had many volunteers – especially in the working class, there were many who were willing to go to war and fight against Saddam’s regime under the policies of Khomeini’s army.
From this point of view, under certain conditions, the government and the masses adopt a common policy and the masses support the government’s policy. But this period is very temporary and not permanent. In the current situation, this does not exist even in America. Today even President Obama does not have the majority of votes to declare a war and the front that will emerge in America will include many of those dissatisfied with the status quo (many of whom have come to the streets today as the Occupy Wall Street movement). There is an economic crisis, and it is no coincidence that in his pre-election speech just yesterday, Obama announced that we do not want war with Iran, but rather we seek negotiations.
In fact, electoral votes (as a showcase) are important for this system, and that is why efforts are made to build it up. If these mass tendencies in support of war are created and strengthened (i.e., subjective readiness and a favourable psychological atmosphere are created), then they will strongly beat the drums of war and most likely start this war. But this is not the case at the moment, and when Obama also talks about negotiations, it shows that the forces in favour of war have decreased drastically. Now there may still be 20-30 per cent of society, that is, the far-right religious movements, who are in favour of war. Like Mitt Romney, who is one of Obama’s competitors and has announced that he wants war with Iran, and his supporters are Mormons and rightwing religious movements. But in any case, in the current situation within the United States, if they want to organise this war, the reality is that this balance of power does not exist in their favour and they don’t enjoy mass support.
Similarly, inside Israel, if you have followed the news in Israel over the past day or two, you will see that just yesterday there was a general strike and the workers’ strikes in all service sectors, etc., completely disrupted the Israeli economy. All of this shows the deep economic crisis in this country, and this is one reason for the propaganda of war against Iran in Israel. Because the government wants to divert the public dissatisfaction inside Israel towards a war with Iran and Hezbollah, etc. The general strike that took place yesterday in Israel was the first general strike in five years. Just a few months ago, public protests against the government’s austerity policies and the economic crisis took place in many cities in Israel.
In any case, both Israel and the United States have votes thanks to the formal (bourgeois) democracy. If spotting the gap between the government and the people in American society needs scrutiny, at least in Iran it can be seen completely and clearly and does not need special examination. Inside Iran, a large part of society, perhaps 85 per cent or more, is deeply disgusted with the current government and regime. The fact is that even if a war breaks out, they will not voluntarily defend this government against the United States or Israel. Therefore, the problem inside Iran is that a very strong ‘third front’ will be formed. A front that is separate from the front of the imperialists and their allies and the Iranian government’s front. A ‘third front’ inside Iran will certainly be formed and has already been formed, only this front is decentralised, unorganised, and a little disillusioned. During the events following the 2009 elections, society as a whole was severely repressed, and the working class, despite holding many strikes (strikes that are still ongoing), was somewhat intimidated and its leaders were arrested. However, this ‘third front’ still exists inside Iran, and in the event of war, it is clear that this ‘third front’ will play a very decisive role.
As revolutionary Marxists, although we always defend democratic rights in society (such as freedom, secularism, freedom of expression, the right to strike, and defend all rights that have been attacked in current society), our problem is not simply the issue of realising democratic rights. We want to go beyond these, and based on our intellectual foundations, we have learned this experience: our issue is the capitalist system in Iran, which itself relies on the international capitalist system. From this point of view, in the event of a war our issue inside Iran will be to transform this ‘third front’ into a class war, a war that leads to the overthrow of the regime. With this perspective, it is very important that this ‘third front’ that has been created in society is strengthened and that it is realised in line with the struggle to overthrow this regime. This is a very important and key issue that has a place in our analyses.
Some people object that if a war occurs, there will be subsequent conscription at the community level, and it is clear that the youth and many forces that have no connection with the Pasdaran (IRGC), Basij (mobilisation force), and the like, will be mobilised to fight a foreign force, and from this point of view, the forces that are present at the community level will be forced to take up arms and join the army, for example, to defend Iran’s territorial integrity. Consequently, according to this group’s argument, if we turn our attention to this ‘third front’, we have effectively strengthened the regime in some way. In my opinion, this argument is completely incorrect. Look at the very specific examples we see today. In Syria, we see that so far, no international forces have intervened militarily (unlike the case of Libya), nor have NATO planes bombed anywhere yet. But we still see that a split has emerged in the army and a major part of the Sunni tendencies in the army have joined the independent army against Bashar Assad and the government. Therefore, a split in the army, especially during wartime, provides the preconditions and background for a revolution.
The same thing happened in Russia during the October Revolution, meaning that the armed forces were actually armed soldiers and officers who joined the revolution and the Red Army. The Bolsheviks could attract these people to the revolution through these soldiers and officers, who had played a role in the Tsarist army and the capitalist state’s army until a few months earlier.
The same will happen inside Iran, and it is not the case that when forces are mobilised and armed and placed in the army, they will certainly all be followers and supporters of the repressive regime in Iran and will fight imperialism to the end without the slightest confrontation with the regime. On the contrary, if a war occurs, this ‘third front’, while directing forces to fight imperialism, will at the same time rebel and defy and can simultaneously start the fight against the authoritarian regime in Iran and, after pushing back imperialism, will be able to overthrow this regime and establish a workers’ government and a Soviet government.
The importance of strengthening the ‘third front’ must be understood from this point of view. That is, the ‘third front’ during the war. The ‘third front’ with the prospect of revolution, with the prospect of transforming the imperialist war against the Islamic regime into a class war — and this is one aspect that distinguishes the position of revolutionary Marxists from the positions of other currents.
