Hamid Taqvaee
January 13, 2020
By firing a number of harmless missiles on the American bases, military tensions, commotion of war and warning about the danger of war subsided. Ironically, however, for various political forces, the war discourse and warning about the threat of war has still remained. Thus, it is essential to ponder a little over this.
There was a time when the danger of war between the US government and its allies with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and in general the forces of the political Islamic movement, was real. During the period of the Gulf War in 1991, and later the US government’s attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, which we have called the war of terrorists, military confrontation and war between the two forces of Islamic terrorism and the Western camp led by the American government had escalated. War is a continuation of politics, and at that time, from a political perspective, the two sides of this conflict needed a military confrontation and war.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US government’s goal was to become the undisputed power of the world after the Cold War. Iraq’s attack on Kuwait in 1999 and then the al-Qaida attack on the Twin Towers of New York in 2001, provided an opportunity to the American ruling class to pursue its political goal of becoming a world pole after the collapse of the Soviet Union by invasion of countries and threatening and flexing its military muscle. The goal was to become the sole undisputed power not only in the Middle East but also in the whole world. In this way, the Western bloc, which was losing its legitimacy because of the collapse of the Eastern bloc, under the leadership of the US would be revived and would be able to expand its influence in the whole world. This would include the political geography under the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Republics and part of the Middle East previously under the influence of the Soviet Union. However, this strategy failed. From around the second decade of the present century and onwards, the policy of militaristic hegemony was put aside. When Obama was elected in 2008, this was the beginning of the end of this era. A few months into his leadership, Obama went to Egypt. In his speech addressing the Islamic forces, he said: ‘we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist’. This was followed by the negotiation and the eventual signing of the nuclear deal with Iran. This new policy was a result of the U.S.’s failed attempts at domineering. The US government was not only unable to become an uncontested power, but even lost what influence it previously had, specifically in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, let alone in Iraq and Syria, which previously belonged to the Soviet bloc.
One key event in this change in the political scene was the return of Russia. During the American and Western bloc’s military offensives, which happened under Bush senior and junior, Russia was busy house-cleaning after the collapse of the Soviet Union and had been isolated from the world, particularly in the Middle East. However, with Putin thrown into the apex of power and the revival of ambitious Russian nationalism, conditions changed to the detriment of America and the Western camp. Russia returned to the scene, with Putin representing it in the region with an iron fist. A bloc was formed consisting of Russia, China and the Islamic Republic of Iran against the US.
From the Islamic forces’ vantage point, war and military confrontation were desirable. For forces such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Khomeini’s government in Iran, who had been driven to the front of the scene to confront the danger of the Soviet Union, the post-Soviet era was the time to rebel and defy the Western camp. After the Cold War, a political vacuum and a de facto ‘open political atmosphere’ arose for ethnic and religious forces in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics and in the Middle East. This open political atmosphere provided a new position for the Western-made Islamic forces. Specifically, the Islamic forces in the Middle East, with defiance against the US, tried to have a share in the political power in the Islam-stricken counties. As well, for the Islamic regime of Iran, as the backbone of political Islam, the confrontation with the ‘great Satan’ was an important vehicle to suppress the people’s protests in Iran.
With the end of the Bush-era, the era of Islamic terrorism, which had been represented by al-Qaida, the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran, also came to an end, and the pole of political Islam also gained a new position. Today we observe two Shiite and Sunni branches of political Islam which belong to the two rival blocs – Russia against the US. In the context of the rivalry of the blocs, the vacuum created by the failure of the American militarist strategy and the return of Russia onto the scene, the Islamic forces and states have found room to exert force and influence. Even Turkey, a member of NATO, has started to rebel, taking advantage of the confrontation between these two new blocs to follow its own ambitious goals. In Syria, Putin’s government has won. With the chaos that the US military offensive had created in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran has gained more influence than the US and its allies. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has become the main pillar of power. In Yemen as well, Houthi forces have been pushed forward under the support of the Islamic Republic.
In such a situation, the military confrontation at the beginning of the 21st century between Islamic terrorism and the militarist terrorism of the Western camp cannot explain the regional developments. The confrontation of the U.S. government with the Axis of Evil (in George Bush’s interpretation) has today changed to a relationship in which America is willing to shake hands with the Islamic forces. Even Trump has repeatedly announced that his goal is negotiation and reaching a new agreement with the Islamic Republic. The Shiite branch of political Islam is on one side of this confrontation and the Sunni branch is on the other. Kurdish nationalism, as well as the regional governments, have also been divided into blocs. In summary, the confrontation between the two new blocs in the region has resulted in extending the influence of Russia and its bloc in the region, and the weakening of the position of the US and the Western camp.
Those forces who highlight the danger of war and warn about it are not up to speed with the current situation. During George Bush junior’s attack on Iraq, the widespread movement against the war was legitimate but this rationale no longer carries the same legitimacy. Back then, this movement was progressive, but now it is fighting against ghosts. In fact, the Islamic Republic’s lobbyists are active behind the scenes, as they increase the warning against the war and magnify the danger of war. This works in favour of political Islam because there is no war. This is not a war, instead a confrontation between two reactionary blocs in the region.
This new situation shows itself in the public announcements of the two sides of this confrontation. The US has repeatedly announced that it is not looking for a war. Adding fuel to a new war in the region is not in its interests, nor is it in a position to start a new war. The Trump administration assumes that by continuing its policy of applying maximum pressure, it can tame the Islamic Republic and force it to comply with its policy; thus, eliminating the need to create another military confrontation. The Islamic Republic is also under immense pressure by the struggle of the people of Iran and the people in the region, such that it does not have the ability to engage in a military conflict. As we observed in the recent comedic missile launches, the Islamic Republic was very careful even in its “acts of revenge” not to provoke the opposite side. Therefore, creating the illusion of war served to only benefit the Islamic Republic.
The real war, i.e. what is happening today, is ordinary people’s war in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon against Islamic forces and Islamic governments, specifically against the Islamic Republic. The power of the people, the ‘sleeping giant’ in Mansoor Hekmat’s words, which was not active during September 11 and its aftermath, has now awakened and come to the field. Communist and anti-imperialist forces in Iran and in the world, instead of highlighting and alerting against a danger that does not exist, must enter the scene on the side of the people and against the Islamic forces.
Today, people in Iran and Iraq who have revolted, know their main enemy. People in Iran chant: ‘Our enemy is right here. They are lying that it is America’. People in Iraq demand the expulsion of the Islamic Republic, and want to shorten its bloody hands, from their country. People in Lebanon have also pinned Hezbollah. The protest movements of the people in the region declare where the real war front is. Warning about the unreal war between the US and the Islamic Republic, intentionally or unintentionally, weakens the position of the people of Iran in the real war. The Islamic Republic intentionally creates much noise about the danger of war, and the ‘anti-imperialist’ forces in Iran and in the world in practice serve the Islamic Republic’s purpose. These forces do not realize that even if a war starts, the Islamic Republic will become weaker. People will rightly realize that the Islamic Republic is behind the warmongering and will enter the scene against the government with more power and on a broader level.
Many revolutions, such as the Paris Commune and the October Revolution, have occurred during the war. In Iran, too, a war could result in the commencement of a fundamental revolution. We are not dealing with a war. However, right from now we should make people aware that the Islamic Republic is the main contributing factor to creating tension and keeping the danger of war over the head of society. Furthermore, if a war breaks out we should come out with all power against the Islamic regime of Iran. In contrast, the perspective that those forces who highlight confronting the danger of war place before society is that if a war breaks out people should support the Islamic Republic. That’s why when the military tension increases, some of these forces direct all their criticism and protest against the US. Warning about the danger of a war that will not happen is helping the Islamic Republic to fuel war propaganda to keep itself in power.
Against such efforts, which in practice serve the Islamic Republic, we have repeatedly warned that the aim in all circumstances must be to overthrow the Islamic Republic. We are completely against war and under no circumstances do we want a war to happen. Moreover, it is our analysis that such a war will not happen. However, in contrast to those who use the excuse of war to defend one’s own borders and one’s own government, we declare that the Islamic Republic is the main actor in fuelling the threat of war, and must be overthrown. This is another key difference between revolutionary communists and right and left nationalist forces, the right opposition, and all the ‘anti-imperialist’ left forces in Iran and around the world.
Hamid Taqvaee, Leader of Worker-communist Party of Iran
Email: taqvaee@gmail.com
Telegram, imo, and whatsapp: +46 735501434
Links in this post:
The World After September 11, Part One: The War of Terrorists
Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo
Let us prepare for an all-out war with the ruling assassins in Iran
The World After September 11, Part Two: Where is the ‘Civilised World?’
Be the first to comment