| Anti-war
movement debates Iran, the Middle East and U.S. wars
By John Catalinotto
Published Jul 20, 2009 9:30 PM
The conflict
in Iran that opened up with the June presidential elections there
has had an impact on the progressive and anti-imperialist movement
worldwide, including in the United States. Misunderstanding the
events has created some confusion in anti-war ranks. This is especially
dangerous after Vice President Joe Biden on July 5 gave a virtual
green light to an Israeli attack on Iran. The anti-war movement
must stay alert to protest any move in that direction.
When very
large crowds of people took to the streets in Tehran on June 15
to protest the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it appeared
that this was an authentic popular movement, even if its strongest
base was in the more affluent parts of the city.
Young people
and women apparently were playing a large role in the protests.
Some of the demands were for women’s rights and other democratic
rights that were constrained by the religious political leadership
of Iran’s revolution. It was easy for Western secular progressives
to identify with the protests.
But some
big questions remained.
If the protests
were progressive, why did all the imperialist politicians in Europe
and the United States and their corporate media take the sides
of the opposition? This is especially strange since the key players
in the opposition, the candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi and former
President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, were themselves identified
with the regime in the past. At the time, U.S. sources even charged
Mousavi with responsibility for overseeing the 1983 blast in Lebanon
that killed over 200 U.S. Marines, since he was Iran’s premier
then.
Rafsanjani,
who is one of the richest people in Iran, is associated with increased
privatization of industry and banking and with opening friendlier
relations with U.S. imperialism. This would necessarily include
cutting back on support for the Hamas and Hezbollah liberation
movements and perhaps for Syria, and increasing cooperation with
the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. How would privatization and
cooperation with the U.S. increase democratic rights inside Iran?
A serious
consideration of these questions must include an examination of
U.S. imperialism’s goals regarding the entire Middle East
and Central Asia. The George W. Bush administration used the 9/11
attack as a pretext to justify U.S. military aggression in the
entire region—although the real goal was to conquer its
world-important energy resources. A look at the news in the second
week of July shows that this basic strategy remains in place.
U.S.
troops still in Iraq
Some deceptive
headlines gave the false impression that U.S. troops essentially
withdrew from Iraq on June 30. Yet 134,000 troops remain in the
country. They pulled out of 142 posts that were inside Iraqi cities,
turning these posts over to Iraqi troops, but remain in 320 other
posts around Iraq.
In some cases,
rather than moving, the U.S. and Iraqi forces simply redefined
the city boundaries, leaving the troops where they were. Such
was the case with the U.S. Army’s Forward Operating Base
Falcon, which used to be located inside Baghdad. Now, with a new
boundary drawn, the 3,000 U.S. troops there are “outside”
the city limits.
U.S. troops
and higher paid mercenaries are expanding and improving their
rural bases and even building new ones. Even if the Obama administration
sticks to the announced timetable, at least 50,000 U.S. troops
will remain in Iraq until at least the end of 2011. A war-spending
bill the Democrat-controlled Congress just passed pours another
$100 billion into the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Information
from the website of Iraq expert Dahr Jamail—dahrjamailiraq.com)
Washington
escalates war on Afghanistan and Pakistan
Meanwhile
in Afghanistan, U.S. troop levels have already grown to 57,000
and are set to rise to 68,000 during the year. According to McClatchy
News Service, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander
in Afghanistan, said July 13 “that when he gives his assessment
to the Obama administration next month of what is needed to defeat
the Taliban, he won’t be deterred by administration statements
that he cannot have more U.S. troops.”
Britain,
too, has escalated its presence in Afghanistan, with the result
that 15 British troops died in the two weeks ending July 13. The
Afghan occupation is nominally under NATO command. European leaders
have ignored popular anti-war sentiment to send troops to the
Afghan front, basing their appeal on President Obama’s reviving
U.S. popularity in Europe after Bush brought its ratings to an
all-time low.
Support for
the war is waning quickly as the casualties mount, in Britain
as well as in the rest of Europe and Canada.
Even the
New York Times has had to admit that the increased troop strength
and military activity in Afghanistan, with an increase in civilian
casualties, is helping recruiting by the Taliban and other resistance
forces. (July 3)
Along with
Afghanistan is increased U.S. intervention in Pakistan. Both drones
and planes are sent to bomb and rocket alleged “insurgent”
targets, while the Pentagon pushes the Pakistani regime to send
its army into border areas. Both activities have increased civilian
deaths and created millions of refugees inside Pakistan. They
have also increased recruiting by opposition forces, some allied
with the Afghan resistance.
U.S.
policies in Palestine
Washington’s
policy toward Palestine has been to continue support for the Israeli
state, despite Israel’s refusal to even stop new settlements
in the occupied West Bank and its brutal blockade of the Gaza
territory. It is based on U.S. strategic interests in the region,
which involve relying on the Israeli state as a weapon against
any liberation movement or sovereign government in the region.
The U.S.-based
media attacked the Iranian elections as fraudulent. But remember
that in Palestine, Washington and Israel refused to recognize
what they knew were honest elections that made Hamas the leading
party in 2006. Since then the U.S.-Israeli alliance has used force
and withheld aid to try to drive Hamas from office.
Washington
hasn’t altered its basic policy of occupation and control
since the replacement of the neo-con regime fronted by Bush. So
it’s consistent with their past misdeeds that the corporate
media and all imperialist politicians—at least in North
America and Europe—have targeted the Iranian government
over the elections and have praised the opposition demonstrations.
Whatever
the motive of the protesters themselves in Tehran, the imperialists’
motive is to eliminate Iranian sovereignty and reverse the 1979
revolution.
N.E.D.-funded
group calls anti-Iran protest
A group in
the U.S. calling itself United 4 Iran has called for protests
on July 25 targeting the Iranian government. It says this is in
sympathy with the youth and women involved in opposition demonstrations
there. The anti-imperialist Stop War on Iran group, in response,
issued a statement exposing the connections of United 4 Iran with
funding groups closely associated with U.S. foreign policy—like
the National Endowment for Democracy—and argues against
any support for these protests.
“U.S.
Vice President Joe Biden’s new public threat against Iran
underlines the dangers of a new war in the Middle East and the
desperate need for political clarity within the anti-war movement
concerning Iran,” the SWOI statement begins.
“With
his July 5 comments on ABC’s This Week, Biden opened the
door to a military attack when he said that the U.S. would not
stand in the way of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear
facilities, calling such an attack Israel’s ‘sovereign
right.’”
SWOI notes
that some anti-war organizations have endorsed the United 4 Iran
action, including United for Peace and Justice, and “urges
them and other honest anti-war forces to reconsider their endorsement
of the anti-Iran actions.”
SWOI urges
everyone instead to “come out AGAINST current U.S. wars
and the threats of a new war on the following week in a National
Day of Coordinated Actions on Saturday, Aug. 1.” To read
the full statement and/or to participate, see stopwaroniran.org.
|