The Struggle for the Middle East

Drive Out U.S./NATO Imperialists!

The following is a lightly edited transcript of a 24 January speech by Tom Riley of the Bolshevik Tendency to a meeting of the Brock Socialists in St. Catharines, Ontario.

This is an edited and corrected version of the talk in which Socialist Action’s position on Syria was misrepresented (see correction here)

---

A couple of weeks ago, on 8 January, Ron Paul, the former congressman, from the libertarian end of the Republican Party, who is about as close as you can get to a “rational” American bourgeois these days, observed that the reason successive U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have been rabidly hostile to the ruling regime in Tehran for over 40 years is because:

“We want to own Iran like we owned it when we had the Shah in power, and nobody’s going to be happy until that happens.”

Regaining control of Iran would certainly represent a major step toward reestablishing U.S. supremacy in the Middle East with its vast natural wealth which is critical to global dominance. The current U.S. policy of exerting “maximum pressure” on Iran, through economic strangulation by sanctions and military intimidation has yet to produce the desired results. Even though Iran is a relatively poor, semi-colonial country, its rulers have thus far successfully defied the world’s foremost imperialist power.

The U.S. and its NATO allies have also failed, rather spectacularly, in their attempts to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, Iraq has moved increasingly into Iran’s orbit. The jihadi insurrection in Syria, which the U.S. armed and helped organize, has been more or less crushed by the Baathist regime with substantial help on the ground from Iran and its Lebanese Hezbollah allies, and the vigorous application of Russian air power. In recent years Iranian and Russian influence has grown in the region at the expense of the Americans and their allies.

In 2018 the U.S. government released a new, updated “National Defense Strategy” which announced that preparations for conflicts with other “great powers” had superseded the “global war on terrorism” as the top military priority. At a press conference introducing the new strategy, then-Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis explained: “We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.” The “great powers” he is referring to are, of course, capitalist Russia and the Chinese deformed workers’ state, which, not coincidentally, happen to be Iran’s two most important allies. All three countries have separate, and often conflicting, interests but the aggressive hostility of the U.S. has pushed them into an increasingly tight defensive alliance.

The New Great Game in Eurasia

China and Russia both understand that if the U.S. achieves “regime change” in Tehran and is able to install a pliable puppet government, their geostrategic position would be greatly weakened. For the same reason, they have opposed U.S.-supported attempts to undermine Iran’s regional allies—Syria’s Baathist regime, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iraq’s Shia-dominated government. Pepe Escobar recently cited these three as examples of “the myriad declinations of the New Great Game in Eurasia, which pits the U.S. against Russia, China and Iran, the three major nodes of Eurasia integration.”

The evolving alliance of convenience between these three advocates of a “multi-polar” world order in place of the U.S.-dominated one set up after WWII, took a step forward when they carried out their first joint naval maneuvers in December 2019. Iran’s vice-admiral Gholamreza Tahani declared that, “The most important achievement of these drills . . . is this message that the Islamic republic of Iran cannot be isolated,” adding, “These exercises show that relations between Iran, Russia and China have reached a new high level while this trend will continue in the coming years….”

The centerpiece of the emerging threat to U.S. domination is China’s enormously ambitious “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI, aka the “New Silk Road”) involving a massive series of infrastructure projects to promote Eurasian economic integration. In July 2019, as part of this, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed an agreement for the development of an integrated rail network to link the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Iranian deputy transport minister, Shahram Adamnejad, said that “the goal of the negotiations is to activate the Iranian-Iraqi-Syria load and transport corridor as a part of a wider plan for reviving the Silk Road as the three countries have an old experience in the international trade.”

The prospect of the integration of what Western think tanks dub the “Shia Crescent” stretching from Iran through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon, is a nightmare for U.S. military planners and their Israeli allies. The U.S., which has worked for years to economically isolate Syria and destabilize its ruling Baathist regime, vehemently opposed the September 2019 decision by Iraq’s Shia-dominated parliament to reopen its main border crossing with Syria at al-Qaim which had, until recently, been controlled by ISIS. The crossing was opened under the protection of Kata’ib Hizbullah, one of the pro-Iranian “Popular Mobilization Units” (PMUs) that had earlier driven ISIS out. Iraq’s prime minister protested the Israeli drone attacks on these PMU units (which are formally part of the Iraqi military) that commenced shortly after the border opened, but not surprisingly he was ignored. On 28 December 2019, 25 members of these same PMU units were killed and more than 50 wounded by a U.S. airstrike, ostensibly to avenge the death of a single U.S. “contractor” killed in a rocket attack 200 kilometers away a few days earlier. The Iraqi government, notified of the U.S. attack shortly before it was launched, again expressed opposition and was again ignored. This was the Iraqi government, objecting to an attack on Iraqi military units on Iraqi soil by its American “guest,” but the strike went ahead anyway.

A key reason for the continuing U.S. military presence in northern Syria east of the Euphrates River, besides “keeping the oil,” as President Trump put it, is to seal the border with Iraq and restrict commerce between Iraq and Syria, which the U.S. wants to isolate. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, by contrast, is all about opening up transit corridors and encouraging trade. Escobar observes:

“Iran is a key node of Belt & Road; China will be heavily involved in the rebuilding of Syria; and Beijing-Baghdad signed multiple deals and set up an Iraqi-Chinese Reconstruction Fund (income from 300,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for Chinese credit for Chinese companies rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure).”

The prestigious U.S. Council on Foreign Relations frets that “the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development, military expansion, and Beijing-controlled institutions.” One of these institutions is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, launched by China in 2015 to compete with the U.S.-controlled International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Another is Russia’s “Eurasian Economic Union” (including Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) which, though not “Beijing-controlled,” is emerging as a significant regional component of the Eurasian integration project. Finally, there is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a bloc headed by China and Russia, which promotes military, economic and intelligence cooperation among its members. Besides China and Russia, the SCO currently includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan, with four observers (including Afghanistan and Iran) which are expected to become full members in the future.

China’s economic strength is complemented by Russia’s military capacity, which has rebounded under Vladimir Putin and is now considered to have regained effective parity with the U.S., which it did not have under Boris Yeltsin. The Russian military has developed some important new weapons—particularly hypersonic ballistic missiles that fly at more than five times the speed of sound, and are maneuverable in flight, which the Pentagon has admitted it currently has no defense against. The Chinese military has its own ambitious weapons program but relies on Russia for some advanced equipment—including anti-missile defense systems, an area in which Russia’s S-400 (and the forthcoming S-500) systems are generally considered to be state of the art. After Russia installed several of these systems in Syria (mostly to safeguard its own bases) Israeli overflights virtually ceased.

The U.S. “maximum pressure” sanctions have created real difficulties for Iran’s theocratic regime; the economy is contracting, and that has produced a lot of social unrest. But Iran would be in a lot more trouble had China not extended a lifeline, as a 19 September 2019 article in Forbes, a leading American business journal, observed:

“Amidst historic U.S.–Iran tensions, Beijing is doubling-down on its strategic partnership with Tehran, ignoring U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic from global markets. Following an August visit by Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Beijing, the two countries agreed to update a 25-year program signed in 2016, to include an unprecedented $400 billion of investment in the Iranian economy—sanctions be damned.

“The capital injection, which would focus on Iran’s oil and gas sector, would also be distributed across the country’s transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. In return, Chinese firms will maintain the right of the first refusal to participate in any and all petrochemical projects in Iran, including the provision of technology, systems, process ingredients and personnel required to complete such projects.”

The Chinese Stalinists are not internationalists or altruists—they drive a hard bargain, but Tehran has very few options. All transactions will be conducted in Chinese currency, thereby sidestepping American sanctions, and Iran will be assured a reliable long-term market for its exports. The Chinese companies involved are likely to be sanctioned by the U.S. for dealing with Iran, but, as Forbes comments:

“Profitability certainly hasn’t been China’s main motivation in many previous investment schemes, nor is it Iran’s. This case is no different. It is a geopolitical anti-American axis. China’s game here is clear: first, increase tensions between the U.S. and Iran by weakening the impact of American sanctions….”

Did you get that? Weakening the sanctions will tend to increase tensions between the U.S. and Iran. What they mean is that when a country is being economically strangled, tension decreases as the victim gets weaker and is progressively less able to resist; conversely, interfering with sanctions strengthens the victim and thereby increases tensions. This is how America’s imperial “big thinkers” look at things. Forbes continues:

“Amidst historic U.S.–Iran tensions, Beijing is doubling-down on its strategic partnership with Tehran, ignoring U.S. efforts to isolate the Islamic Republic from global markets. Following an August visit by Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Beijing, the two countries agreed to update a 25-year program signed in 2016, to include an unprecedented $400 billion of investment in the Iranian economy—sanctions be damned.

“The capital injection, which would focus on Iran’s oil and gas sector, would also be distributed across the country’s transportation and manufacturing infrastructure. In return, Chinese firms will maintain the right of the first refusal to participate in any and all petrochemical projects in Iran, including the provision of technology, systems, process ingredients and personnel required to complete such projects.”

‘Military Deterrence’ or Reckless Provocation?

Tensions between Iran and the U.S. peaked after the 3 January drone strike at Baghdad airport that killed Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani along with nine others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a PMU commander who played a major role in the campaign against ISIS and worked closely with Soleimani. Trump immediately went on TV to explain to the American people that this dangerous provocation, which brought the world to the brink of war, was a “defensive” measure intended “to stop a war” and ensure their safety. Trump’s unconvincing mash-up of obvious lies, misrepresentations and half-truths was not well received. Foreign Affairs, the leading American foreign policy journal, complained that the “crowing…patriotic tweets” sent out by Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were “reminiscent of the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banners rolled out in the first weeks of the Iraq war.” Trump’s hopes for the sort of bounce in the polls, like Obama got from killing Osama Bin Laden, were disappointed. An ABC News/Ipsos poll taken a week after the assassination reported that 52 percent of Americans felt less safe as a result, while only 25 percent felt safer.

Trump’s “preemptive strike” was also unpopular with both NATO allies and Middle East vassals. Besides the Israelis, the only enthusiastic endorsement came from ISIS, which characterized Soleimani’s execution as “an act of God.” In a 13 January speech at Stanford University, Pompeo claimed that the assassination was intended to restore credible “military deterrence”:

“For decades, US administrations of both political parties never did enough against Iran to get the deterrence that is necessary to keep us all safe. The JCPOA itself—the nuclear deal—made things worse. It enabled that regime to create wealth, it opened up revenue streams for the Ayatollahs to build up the Shiite militia networks….

“So what did we do? We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence.”

The absurdity of labelling Soleimani’s killing an act of “deterrence,” rather than intimidation, was widely commented on. Pompeo went on to explain how the U.S. intended “to deprive the [Iranian] regime of resources, resources it needs to perpetrate its malign activity around the world” and bragged: “the economic pressure that we have put in place [has] cut off roughly 80 per cent of the Iranian oil revenues [Iran’s chief source of export earnings]. We are determined to get at that last 20 per cent, too.”

Pompeo ominously referred to “other places, too, where American deterrence was weak,” citing Russia’s annexation of Crimea and China’s “island building” in the South China Sea as well as its acquisition of “massive quantities of American innovation.” Iran’s “great power” allies are well aware that if the Islamic Republic is taken down they are likely to be next. This is why, despite historic differences and sharply divergent interests in many areas, which should not be underestimated, Beijing and Moscow are actively coordinating with Tehran to undercut Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

IBT: Ducking and Covering on ‘Russian Imperialism’

Some left groups, including our former comrades in the International Bolshevik Tendency (IBT), mistakenly consider Russia to be just another “imperialist” predator. The IBT opposes Russia’s military intervention in Syria, where in recent weeks there have been several standoffs between Russian and U.S. forces in the country’s northeast which the U.S. still occupies. According to a 21 January report by Voice of America:

“With Syrian troops now in control of most territory once held by rebels, experts charge that Russia’s recent moves in northeast Syria are an attempt at reasserting the Syrian government’s authority in that region.”

What a dastardly plan; how dare the Russians try to help the Syrian government reassert control over Syrian territory! Presumably the IBT comrades consider this to be just an inter-imperialist confrontation in which they have no side. We take a different view—if Russia, at the behest of the Syrian government, is attempting to put pressure on U.S. occupation forces to return the country’s oil wells to the control of the Syrian government, we consider that to be a supportable act, not an example of imperialist predation.

We presume that the IBT opposes Russian involvement in Iran, Venezuela and other targets of potential U.S. “regime change,” but they (and others who share their position on Russia) have sometimes been a bit shy about spelling out their position, as we have noted in a couple of postings on our website. We appreciate that it must be awkward to try to explain your position when you know it is going to sound like you have borrowed a few lines and talking points from the State Department. But we suggest that, instead of trying to avoid the issue, the comrades consider reexamining their assumptions about “Russian imperialism.” If tomorrow Iraq was to ask Russia to set up air defense installations, and provide the personnel to operate them, we would consider it to be a sensible precaution against possible U.S./NATO aggression. Would our friends in the IBT agree, or would they oppose such a move on “anti-imperialist” grounds?

Marxists define imperialists as predatory, advanced capitalist powers that extract value from more backward, dependent countries. If this is what Russian capitalists were actually doing on a significant scale in the Middle East or Latin America—that is, if Russia were actually an imperialist power that was behaving in a fashion qualitatively similar to the U.S.—we would agree that Russia was imperialist and oppose its intervention in Syria and Venezuela. But in fact Russia is not imperialist, as we have documented in one of the pamphlets for sale on our literature table over there.

Iran’s Ballistic Missiles: A Game Changer?

The Iranians responded to Soleimani’s killing by launching ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. These strikes, by missiles capable of carrying warheads weighing up to 750 kilograms, were extremely accurate, hitting their targets without killing anyone (just to be sure, Tehran had sent advance warnings via both the Swiss and the Iraqi governments). But even with plenty of advance notice of where and approximately when they were going to hit, the U.S. defense systems failed to intercept a single missile, a fact not lost on Iran’s regional enemies who have invested tens of billions of dollars in U.S. weaponry which proved similarly ineffective in September 2019 when Yemeni Houtis using Iranian drones temporarily took a big chunk of Saudi oil capacity offline, causing a short lived panic on the international oil market.ⁱ

Experienced analysts reviewing the evidence opined that Iranian missiles are “very advanced” and comparable to those of the Russians and Americans. Their successful evasion of U.S. defense systems means that American ships and military bases throughout the Middle East (as well as Israeli military sites and population centers) are potentially vulnerable. The Israeli nuclear site at Dimona is also potentially vulnerable. This is a substantial “deterrent,” but it not a guarantee against a possible U.S. attack.

One unintended, but predictable, consequence of the murder of Soleimani was a surge of patriotic support for Iran’s theocratic rulers. There was a massive outpouring of anger and grief—some five million Iranians came out to mourn Soleimani’s death. Iran’s allies across the region celebrated the successful missile strike, while hostile Arab regimes have been recalculating. Qatar, home to the biggest U.S. base in the Middle East, had already been developing relatively friendly relations with Iran. Saudi Arabia, one of Iran’s leading antagonists, has been signaling an openness for dialogue. In fact, when Soleimani was killed at Baghdad airport, he had come to deliver a message to the Saudis via Iraq’s acting prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who was serving as an intermediary between the two. The Saudi monarchy immediately dissociated itself from any advance knowledge of, or involvement in, the assassination as soon as they learned of it.

Imperialist Gangsterism & the ‘Art of the Deal’

For several years Iraq’s Shia-dominated government has attempted to balance between Iran and the U.S., but the repeated brazen attacks on Iraqi soil in defiance of the explicit objections of the prime minister, generated so much anger that on 5 January the Iraqi parliament passed a motion calling on U.S. forces to leave. In an address to parliament prior to the vote, prime minister Abdul-Mahdi told an astounding tale of imperial arrogance and the bullying he was subjected to after returning from Beijing in September 2019 where he had signed an agreement in which the Chinese undertook to carry out a massive reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure in exchange for 20 percent of its oil revenues for two decades. Here is what the Iraqi prime minister told parliament:

“The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil [exports]. So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement.”

China’s offer to do the work in exchange for 20 percent of oil revenues was obviously far more advantageous than the U.S. demand for 50 percent, but according to Abdul-Mahdi, Trump was in no mood to negotiate:

“After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened massive demonstrations to topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement.” 

This is the “art of the deal” as practiced by the U.S. imperialist chieftain. Trump’s threats were lifted right out of the CIA’s standard “regime change” playbook for removing uncooperative rulers. Abdul-Mahdi’s account, which has of course been completely ignored by the mainstream corporate press, sounds entirely plausible; certainly “keeping the oil” is one of Trump’s favorite themes.

So far, no deep-state “whistleblower” has stepped forward to leak Trump’s phone call to Abdul-Mahdi, although the media did publicize the State Department’s flat rejection of the Iraqi request to withdraw troops. The U.S. statement commenced with the ludicrous assertion that “America is a force for good in the Middle East.” It continued:

“any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership—not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO’s role in Iraq, in line with the President’s desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts.”

America’s NATO allies have understandably evinced little enthusiasm for signing up to share the burdens created by U.S. belligerence and stupidity. And without Iraqi cooperation it seems unlikely that the 5,000 American troops currently in the country will be able to remain for very long. In recent weeks, since Soleimani’s killing, there have already been a series of random, low-grade rocket and mortar attacks on military bases and even Baghdad’s Green Zone where the U.S. embassy is located. It seems probable that there are going to be a lot more. Last weekend CNN was openly contemplating the implications of an American withdrawal:

“Being forced out would be a humiliating end to the US’ long mission in Iraq, which has sucked up hundreds of billions of US taxpayers’ money and left thousands of US soldiers dead.”

Trump’s Nuclear Option

Trump has threatened to respond to attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq with large-scale bombing of Iranian military and civilian sites. This would mean a military confrontation that could very easily spin out of control, particularly if, as seems possible, the U.S. were to employ the “tactical, low-yield” nuclear weapons it has developed for taking out underground installations and command centers of the sort used by the Iranian military. Just yesterday [23 January] the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the hands on its infamous “Doomsday Clock” were now closer to midnight (nuclear Armageddon) than at any point since 1953. In a July 2019 article it observed:

“Defeating Iran through conventional military means would likely require a half million US forces and US preparedness for many casualties. The US nuclear posture review is worded in such a way that the use of tactical nuclear weapons in conventional theaters is envisaged, foreshadowing the concern that in a showdown with a menacing foe like Iran, the nuclear option is on the table. The United States could once again justify using nuclear force for the sake of a decisive victory and casualty-prevention, the logic used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

China and Russia are anxious to avoid a hot conflict with the U.S., but they may draw a line in the sand over an American nuclear strike on their Iranian ally. Even if Iran’s “great power” allies stood aside, its own ballistic missiles could inflict a great deal of damage on American military bases and regional allies, shutting down shipping and destroying a lot of oil production in the Persian Gulf for a long time. JPMorgan estimates that a six month blockage of the Strait of Hormuz would double the price of oil and precipitate “a severe global recession.”

In the worst case, the Iranian military’s “Samson option” might be to use radioactive “diffusion” warheads, aka “dirty bombs,” on Israel and other U.S. allies. The fallout from one or more of the American “low yield” bunker-buster A-bombs in Iran would likely be felt throughout the region. And the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would lower the threshold for future conflicts, end any prospect of controlling nuclear proliferation and inevitably set off a scramble by many countries to acquire their own nuclear “deterrent.” It is all a pretty grim prospect.

Defend Iran! Drive Out the Imperialists! Workers to Power!

Marxists are for the immediate, unconditional removal of all U.S. and NATO troops from the Middle East and Afghanistan—and we side with any elements, no matter how reactionary, which militarily engage imperialist forces, without, of course, endorsing their political or social ideas. When Islamic Jihad truck bombs destroyed the barracks of the U.S. Marines and French Foreign Legionnaires in Beirut in 1983, we characterized these actions as legitimate blows against imperialist occupation. We take exactly the same attitude toward the U.S., Canadian or any other NATO forces in the Middle East today.

Iran occupies a pivotal position in the Middle East. The overthrow of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist Mossadeq regime in 1953, which had nationalized oil production a couple of years earlier, was the CIA’s first successful “regime change.” For a quarter of a century the Shah’s regime was a pillar of American domination of the region. That changed in 1979 when a reactionary mass movement, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty, severed Iran’s ties to the U.S. and established an Islamist theocracy.

Khomeini’s victory was a major blow to U.S. control of the region, but it was also a huge political defeat for Iran’s powerful left which, at that time, was a formidable force with tens of thousands of serious militants and a large following within important sectors of the working class. Leftist activists among Iranian oil workers triggered a strike wave in late 1978 that precipitated the collapse of the Shah’s regime. We discuss this at some length in our pamphlet “Marxism & Islamic Reaction,” but the essential point is that Iran’s significant leftist organizations made a disastrous historic error when they opted for “unity” with the mullahs against the Shah and thereby aborted a major revolutionary opportunity.

This tragic mistake was enthusiastically applauded by virtually the entire international left at the time, which was transfixed by the apparent breadth and depth of the “mass movement” against the Shah and excited by the prospect of seeing this reactionary tyrant brought down. Only the then-revolutionary Spartacist tendency, whose legacy we uphold today, warned that subordination to Islamic reaction would result in a bloodbath, a prediction that was borne out when Khomeini immediately turned on his erstwhile leftist allies after taking power.

Life under a theocracy is not an attractive proposition for a lot of people, and the mullahs have only been able to maintain their grip through brutal repression. Tens of thousands of leftists, trade-unionists, homosexuals, feminists as well as members of religious and national minorities, have been tortured, flogged, jailed and murdered by the Islamic Republic. Any sort of left-wing political organizing is ferociously persecuted.

The Iranian working class, centered in the oil industry, has both enormous objective social power and historic interests which are fundamentally at odds with the oppressive theocracy. But the left and workers’ movement has yet to recover from the shattering defeat of 1979. The class struggle has, of course, continued but chiefly through isolated strikes and other small-scale acts of working-class resistance over local problems like layoffs and unpaid wages. In recent years a series of mass protests, chiefly involving dissident young people, have rocked the regime. Just last November there were demonstrations of 100,000s of people across Iran which were put down savagely; hundreds of people were killed, thousands injured and as many as 10,000 arrested. The regime is so fearful of the depth of popular opposition, and so intent on controlling information, that the families of the victims, most of whom were from working-class neighborhoods, were warned not to talk about their losses, or hold any public memorials for those who were killed.

The first task of Iranian revolutionaries must be to seek political clarity through a serious investigation of the roots of their present predicament, and the wholesale repudiation of any notion that “unity” with the enemies of working people, whether capitalists or Islamic reactionaries, can ever provide a path to socialist victory.

What is necessary is the construction of a Leninist combat party with cadres rooted in strategic sectors of the workers’ movement—including transport, oil, and electricity generation—with a perspective of spearheading the struggle to overthrow the mullahs’ oppressive rule. Such a party would put forward a program to address the basic needs of urban working people, rural proletarians, peasants and the poor for food, shelter and decently-paid employment. It would also advance demands for the separation of mosque and state, for a radical land reform, full democratic rights for workers to organize, and an end to state oppression of women, homosexuals, minority nationalities and religions and all other victims of Islamic reaction.

A successful socialist revolution will expropriate the property of the big capitalists and landowners and establish an egalitarian, planned economy based on workers’ councils. This, the program of Permanent Revolution, originally developed by Leon Trotsky and implemented by the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917, remains the only way to break the chains of imperialist domination once and for all, and open the road to the social and economic liberation of the countries of the Middle East.

---