Hamid Taqvaee
September 2003

Based on a speech given at the 18th Plenum of the Central Committee of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

We can assess what we have witnessed on the international scene during this period* in two ways. Firstly, as the result and consequence of the New World Order and policies associated with this outlook, which we had anticipated and described. The outcome of this Order has mostly now been realised and become part of the historical facts. Everyone can observe and experience the real meaning of the New World Order. This is true even in the west and the United States where public opinion, in particular after September 11 and at the point of the military attack on Iraq, was supportive of Bush's policies. Today, that illusion has evaporated and his popularity has diminished below that of the time of Bush's election to the presidency. And this is taking place on their own grounds where the leaders and architects of the New World Order have managed the engineering of public opinion with full vigour and mobilised post-September 11 society behind the US' war mongering policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. This policy has been exposed in the United States itself, let alone in the rest of the world where people in hundreds of cities poured out and marked a massive and unparalleled historical protest on February 15. When one looks at this reality, one will see that the criticism of the New World Order and its associated policies have moved beyond theory and analysis as elaborated by Mansoor Hekmat in his writings such as The Gory Dawn of the New World Order or the World After September 11 series of articles **. Those views had a sense of prediction; even the Left and intellectuals read it with an air of astonishment. At the point of the attack on Iraq, the Worker- communist Party of Iran's position was still against the current; even the Left in Europe did not accept our position. Today, that period is behind us and the truth of our views and analysis has been established in a social dimension. Today, the bloody and disastrous consequences of the New World Order have been realised and is a given fact in the reality and life of the world's population. In my view, there is no longer any common and shared point of view between world public opinion and state propaganda and its mass media around the New World Order and its associated policies. In fact, they are in confrontation with each other. If the people in the west and in other parts of the world do not come out in protest onto the streets today, as they did on February 15, it does not in any way mean that they have any illusions. It must be noted that the dynamics of protest and mass movement in Europe and other countries in the world are very different from what we witness in Iran for example. Occasionally one hears questions, such as: what happened to the February 15 movement, Or why is there not a protest in September 11? In my opinion, these are not determining factors. What is clear is that the illusions and general political atmosphere that that USA and western mass media propaganda had created - propaganda which began with the disintegration of the USSR and at the point of the first Gulf war and continued through the attack on Afghanistan and finally reached its height at the 2nd Gulf war - have lost their clout and become bankrupt. I am not saying that they cannot re-launch such propaganda ever again. They have the mass media at their disposal and it is possible to again bring into play their public opinion engineering machinery by attacking a third country. But amongst intellectuals, Left and progressive groups and tendencies and even within liberal groups in the west and the rest of the world there is no room left for such propaganda and policies in support of the New World Order. These policies have lost their gleam with people; people are experiencing its inhumane results. This is where our Party can and must be present, intervene actively and demonstrate to all that it held the banner of truth and has been the voice of the civilised world against the New World Order right from the beginning.

Furthermore, the global situation is closely interwoven with the situation in Iran. Iran has a unique geopolitical position between Iraq and Afghanistan - two areas that have been captured following the New World Order. The Islamic regime in Iran has been declared an 'axis of evil' and in general has a pivotal role with regards to the region, such as on the question of Palestine, the balance of forces, the political future of Iraq and the presence and influence of political Islam and Islamic terrorism in the region and the world. Iran is the key to all of these problems in the region. Iran plays a pivotal role in the political future of the region and offers the opportunity to two distinct solutions: either 'an imperialist' or 'a Left and humane' solution. As Mansoor Hekmat said in 'Can communism be victorious in Iran?', our victory in Iran would eradicate political Islam from the region and the world and make possible the humane solution to the Middle East question. Our victory would have a direct and immediate impact. Not only because of and through several links via the formation of the International and the support of the international proletariat for the Socialist Republic of Iran and so on, which in itself could ensue the victory of the Left in any country; of course these would be the positive aspects of our victory. But, my point here is about the immediate and direct impact on the situation. The victory of communism in Iran would alter everything right from the start; the week after the overthrow of the Islamic regime in Iran, strategies would change, political Islam would be eradicated, the world's Left would obtain a distinctly different and prominent position. Clearly, the Middle East is the centre of the resolution of basic world and Iran is at the heart of the Middle East problem. I will come back to this issue in more detail later.

As far as the world's political situation and the associated policies of the New World Order are concerned, the Middle East has a key role to play. The political fate of Palestine and Iraq has become significant; the political situation in Iran would influence and play a direct role in the situation of both of these countries. In this sense, Iran has been placed on the political map of the world and due to imperialist rivalry, which we see a lot more of after the Iraq war, Iran is on the news constantly; the criminal atrocities of the Islamic regime are being exposed more, the murder investigation of Photo-Journalist Ziba Kazemi is still open, the relation between Britain and the Islamic regime of Iran is critical, so is the issue of the nuclear weapons, etc. What these relationships and manoeuvres within governments mean for the impending revolution and us is another issue which I hope to deal with in the second part of my speech. To summarise this part: Firstly the New World Order has produced its results and today any Left, liberal and progressive group or individual who has the slightest regard for human life has a clear position vis-à-vis the New World Order. Secondly Iran and the political situation in Iran has become the centre and axis of political developments in the Middle East and therefore is the knot that must be undone for any resolution of international affairs – both from the point of view of the international reactionary Right on the one hand and the Left and the camp of the civilised world on the other.

Political situation in Iran

Before I move to analysing the political situation in Iran in detail, I must point out several important factors in Iranian politics and their interrelations to each other: the Islamic regime of Iran itself; the west and in particular the USA and their relations with the Islamic regime; the people and their struggle in what is known as the movement for the regime's overthrow; the right wing opposition and finally the Left and the Worker-communist Party of Iran. I believe these five factors are the pieces on the chessboard of Iranian politics. These factors are of two groups. The regime, the USA and the right wing opposition are in one corner and the people, the movement for the regime's overthrow and our Party at its centre are in the other. The first group strives to bring about change from above and against people and their movement. The second group relies on the power of the people and the force of the revolutionary movement to intervene in the political situation in Iran. Confronting us and in the opposing camp of the revolution stand the Islamic Republic, the USA and the west and generally the right wing opposition. This alignment and division is a fundamental one. These two opposing camps constantly manoeuvre, check and examine each other's strengths and weaknesses and establish new balances of forces now and then. Our Party is the representative and the voice of the people's movement and is one of the main players on this stage. If you remove us from this picture, the people will be deprived of their representative and politics will be completely left to the forces belonging to the other camp. It is because of the Worker-communist Party that one can speak of the presence of the people in Iranian politics. We are the representative and the voice of the masses of the workers, women and the youth in Iranian politics. We are the voice and the leader of the people, and up to now, our Party has left its significant and considerable mark on the protest struggle of the people, workers, youth and women. Without our Party, the balance of forces and relations within the other camp would undoubtedly be very different from what we have today.

Now let's examine the factors that I mentioned above to see how far they have changed during this time and what sort of alignment we face in today's Iran.

Let's first look at the situation in the opposing camp. As I mentioned earlier, the attack on Iraq and turning the region into the scene of contention and the resolution of imperialist strategic questions has directly brought in and involved the Islamic Republic of Iran. This has provided the Islamic regime with a means to pursue its policies towards the west and impose itself in order to aid its own survival. Baghdad has become the scene for the active intervention of Islamic groups; the Islamic regime of Iran is one of the main players there. Today, relations between the Islamic regime and the west and the USA are not confined to Iran, rather and more than anything else, it is determined in Iraq and the role of the Iranian regime in Iraq. Western officials openly admit this fact. From the occasional references of Bush and Blair to this issue, it is clear that one of their important objectives is to remove the Islamic regime of Iran's influence from Iraq. We have always maintained that US military intervention in Iraq would encourage and strengthen political Islam in the region. This is what has happened; consequently, the Islamic Republic is using all its efforts to take advantage of this opportunity for its own survival. The political objective of the Islamic regime's intervention in Iraq is to survive and remain in power. On the other hand, the pressure that is brought to bear on the Islamic Republic is to remove its influence from Iraq. In other words Iraq has become a stage for determining the relationship between the USA and Iran.

Added to this, before the June-July** turbulence in Iran, we were witnessing a more aggressive US policy towards Iran including the policy of 'regime change' and if you remember there was talk about attacking Iran, the 'Axis of Evil' and that 'Iran is next after Iraq', etc. The right wing opposition was jubilant and advocating a US military attack on Iran. The factor that changed all this and muddled up their calculations was the people's protests of last June-July, which provided a clear response to many problems and had a direct impact on US policy towards Iran.

Another factor in this opposing camp is the right wing opposition. The attack on Iraq pushed the right wing opposition to the fore. Different groups in this wing found themselves in a new situation. Saddam Hussein, the 'old enemy of Persia' had been defeated; the USA was thinking of 'nation building' and the Right saw itself as a suitable candidate to replace the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Right, as we have always maintained, has always wanted to bring about change over and above the people's heads and with the USA's assistance. The US policy of attacking Iraq made this method of replacing the regime in Iran more probable in their minds and gave them new vigour. The Right thought that the situation was turning in their favour so they welcomed the US attack on Iraq through their Radio and TV stations. This perception, however, did not last long and was shattered very quickly. It soon became clear to everyone that the USA's aim is not to overthrow and remove the dictators and the axis of evil. Therefore, the Right's hues and cries quickly died down. They became silent and went quiet. Their slogans and policies, such as calls for a referendum were shown to be baseless and became discredited. One determining factor that forced this camp to contain itself was the rise of the movement for the regime's overthrow. Just when the Right wing opposition was in jubilation and debating 'regime change' in corridors and behind closed doors, the people poured onto the streets. The Right's calculations suddenly did not add up. They were dreaming of sneaking into power and were busy congratulating each other whilst arguing over funds from the US. Suddenly, with the coming of the people onto the streets, heads turned and their cardboard castle crumbled to the ground. 'Regime change' was forgotten overnight. This move by the people exposed the Right opposition and showed its complete irrelevance to developments in Iran. On the other hand, it influenced the relationship between the west and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It showed that the main player is not George Bush, Reza Pahlavi, Europe nor the regime's factions. People came onto the streets and demanded the downfall of the regime with no ifs and buts. The movement for the regime's overthrow declared and presented itself openly outside of the 2nd Khordad (Reformist) and government factional rivalries. This was a turning point for the mass movement against the Islamic Republic. It is important to note that although the movement for the regime's overthrow and the protest movement advance in a cyclical manner, they are not a repetition of the past. Each time, the movement becomes more and more radicalised and qualitatively and quantitatively intensifies. This is not a simple recurrence. No revolution ever moved alone a straight path. In the summer of 1977 no one thought that the Shah's regime would fall. Now when one looks at history retrospectively, one can see a revolution that began, reached its apex, escalated and eventually overthrew the Shah's regime. At the time, those involved could not see such a development. It all seemed like a series of protests, which could be stopped at any moment. It is the same now. One should not mistake these two. We cannot predict the future, but one thing is clear; the movement for the regime's overthrow is developing, expanding and growing ever more radically and we can see this glaringly on occasions.

During June-July 2003, this movement sharply posed the demand for the overthrow of the regime, which was a significant and qualitative development. Compared to the student's protests against the death sentence of Aghajari four months earlier, this movement had already transformed. The transformation was not just in terms of the length and dimension of protests, but it had also transformed qualitatively in terms of clear and radical demands. Today, the movement for the regime's overthrow has gone beyond the point of no return. It cannot be pushed back, suppressed or crushed and be brought to a bloody end or forced to compromise. This movement cannot be forced back to the level of protests during the period of Aghajari's death sentence. They cannot confine it to a protest against the closure of a 2nd Khordad (Reformist) faction newspaper or use it as a pawn in the government factional infighting. This movement cannot be rolled back. The people and the regime are confronting each other. The question has been posed and must be resolved one way or another. This is not a situation that can continue. Either the revolution will triumph or the counter-revolution will take out its sword, and via bloody suppression will raise its victorious banner on the graveyard that it has created, which we do not see it as able to do. The revolution will have to develop, move and expand and bring this to a final end. The political situation in Iran has reached such a point of final resolution of this fundamental question.

Allow me now, to view this from the point of view of the Party and its role in the situation. The June-July protests brought out a fact and posed it to our Party - the fact that revolution and the downfall of the Islamic regime through a revolution were a very probable scenario. This is of crucial importance for our Party. Before these developments, we correctly recognised the various possibilities of the downfall and disintegration of the regime and revolution was only one of these possibilities. Then, when we published the resolution on the ensuring the fundamental rights of the people in deciding the future system of government and the declaration of the rights [see WPI Briefing no. 90 - Editor] we were facing the Right during a period of the potential disintegration of the regime. Then we aimed to expose the call for a referendum, which was the Right's main plan to gain power above the people's heads and in an absence of a revolution; in fact a plan to avoid a revolution. (That is why it was quickly discarded with a wind of the revolution). We have now left this period behind us. The revolution and facing the Right's confrontation with the revolution is on our agenda. We have to get involved and carry out thousands of other tasks, which were not our priority before. In the pervious period we had several probable scenarios and alternatives. Mansoor Hekmat himself, at the time, saw the possibility of the fall of the Islamic Republic without a revolution and stated that it is possible that the revolution could actually begin after the fall of the Islamic Republic. Today we see that the possibility of the revolution and the overthrow of the regime by the people are ever more present. Infighting between the rulers, pressure of the Right, and pressure from the USA all in all would no longer contribute to the resolution of the problem. All of this must be translated into the power of the people to lead to the overthrow of the regime. In his speech, Can communism be victorious in Iran?, Mansoor Hekmat predicted that the longer the crisis of the Islamic regime takes, the possibility of the Left coming to power and the downfall of the Islamic regime through a revolution becomes stronger; today this prediction is shown to be correct. At the analytical level, with the prospect of the revolution becoming a reality, one can note specifically that: the situation of the Right wing opposition will completely change. Let me give an example. One may assume that during the June-July protests outside Iran, if our Party were not present, then the Right would have taken control of the leadership of the protests. But this is actually incorrect analysis of the role of our Party and the Right. The Right's scenario of coming to power, as we have mentioned in the debate about the 'declaration of the rights of the people to decide on the system of government', is from above, from behind closed-doors or through a coup d'état and not through a revolution. Revolution would paralyse the Right. The Right is an alternative for political power but it is not an alternative for the leadership of the revolution. If a revolution takes place in Iran, our Party will either lead it or it will turn out to be a series of protests and revolts, which will eventually be defeated. During the June-July protests, if our party had not intervened as it did, the Right would have disappointed the people and would have sent them back to their homes. The people who came out in June 2003 in protest did not come out for the demands and banners of the nationalists. The people were protesting and demanding the downfall of the Islamic Republic. Demands for referendum, sovereignty of Iran, and New World Order democracy were not written on the banners of the protesters. In our absence, the people could have perhaps tolerated the tri-coloured flag of the monarchists and their referendum, but would have gone back home disappointed since they do not reflect the desires, problems and the voice of the people. In Los Angeles, London and Gothenburg, we became the voice of the people. And only we could do such a thing. The Right wing opposition cannot and does not want to lead the people's revolution. The Right only needed the people as a ride to get into power. For us, the issue is the other way round. We, in reality and objectively, can only get into power with the power of the people and via revolution. The infighting and developments within the rulers is only of interest to us to the extent that it allows the people's protests to expand and develop. The Left and the Right are not rivals of each other. They work on two different playing fields. Any objective situation that benefits us would automatically be a loss to the Right wing opposition.

With this I want to conclude that in a revolutionary period we do not have a rival. For political power and the replacement of the Islamic Republic there are many alternatives. But for the leadership of the revolution this is not the case. The Right does not want a revolution at all and if it takes place, it would do its best to cut it short, neutralise or divert it.

These were the points that I thought were necessary to mention in regards to the Right wing opposition.

Another important event that took place in the world and needed our intervention was the attack on Iraq. In the attack on Iraq, our Party put forward correct demands; its analysis was correct and its predictions have come to be proven right. We said that the 'Dark Scenario' was in the making for Iraq and that is exactly what happened. We know that the question is still open and that the role and presence of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq (WCPI), the methods of its intervention and activities in Iraq is crucial. This is a completely new chapter for the Worker-communist movement. Multiply the necessity of the intervention in on July 9th by a thousand and you reach the tasks we face in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Nasiriyeh. We must respond to this. As far as Worker-communism is concerned in the region, I believe that the role, decisions and activities and interventions of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq is a determining factor even for us in Iran. In the past it was the other way round. The weight of the Worker-communist Party of Iran was a direct influence in Iraq, but now our comrades in Iraq are at the centre of nationwide developments, which is watched by the world. If Worker-communism flourishes in Iraq and goes forward and becomes powerful, then our task in Iran becomes a hundred times easier and puts us ahead. Apart from the fact that the issue is of great important in itself, from this angle too, we must intervene in the situation in Iraq and have a clear policy and outlook regarding Iraq.

_______________________________

* Between two Plenums

** June-July 2003 mass demonstrations and protests in Iran that shook the Islamic regime. See WPI Briefing No. 112 and 113 June 2003

Translated By: Fariborz Pooya