Latest ...

 

 

 

 

 

The Second Conference of HOPI and the Situation of the Anti-war Movement
Torab Saleth

On the occasion of the 2nd Conference of HOPI, maybe the first thing we must do is to take stock of what we ourselves have said and done since the 1st one. It is particularly important to go over this now as the recent election of a new president in the USA promising a change of policy in the Middle East has altered public expectations. To be more specific, at this conference we need to go over our own analysis of the threat of war and decide what if any modifications are necessary in relation to our last conference.  It is probably fortunate that we are having this conference soon after these elections so that we have a rare chance to organise this timely discussion at a conference where the broad range of views of HOPI members and their differing experiences of last year are so well represented. 
I believe on the question of “what should be the attitude of the anti-war movement in relation to the US military threats against Iran”, whatever you may think about the stand HOPI took, you must admit it was always a very straight forward and frank position and clearly distinct in its insistence on the need for a principled political stand.  And before I explain what it was, I have to say that our own experience of last year proves this insistence on principles was not in the least a hindrance but a major help. I do not want to dwell too much about this point, but when because of our insistence HOPI was falsely accused of wanting a “narrow” campaign, it is cheerful to report that, on the contrary, the vast majority of HOPI activists have seen and felt it themselves how important it is for the anti-war movement to be clear and frank about its principles.  My own experience shows - and I have seen it and heard it so many times that it is probably the same for every one - that most of the anti-war activists out there already believe and accept this principled approach and one of the main reasons why a lot more of them do not organise active anti-war coalitions locally is precisely because of the confusion about these principles. 
Let us go over our basic argument. This is the same issue that differentiates us from certain other positions within the anti-war movement. Say, for example, some (i.e., by no means all) supporters of SWP/CPB (or, to a lesser degree of influence, AWL). This is precisely the same issue that forced some of these groups in the last Conference of the StWC to enter a holly alliance and resort to the discredited method of block votes to refuse us affiliation and to try and silence us. Let me remind the organisers of that Conference, whilst HOPI and Communist Students were being censored, the friends of the organisers from the Iranian government financed Press TV were filming the proceedings and at least one chunk of the block votes to behead us belonged to a group called CASMII which has been setup by pro Islamic Republic lobbies abroad and its representative here in the UK also moonlights as a darling of the Iranian regime and has represented them at many international gatherings or conferences.
So what was this sin of ours that brought about such a tragi-comic alliance? Of course a lot of falsehood has been spread by our opponents, but contrary to what they have tried to make you believe, our differences were neither over who wanted to build a broader campaign nor about who underestimated the threat of US imperialism. Look who is talking! Most decent anti-war activists are ashamed of being seen together with some of the friends of our accusers, but they still accuse us of not being broad enough! They have vanished from the anti-war scene altogether and still accuse us of underestimating the threat of imperialism!  Allow me to repeat again. We welcome as broad an anti-war movement as possible and with the sole and central aim of opposing imperialist sanctions and military aggression against Iran. So this is not what our difference is about; the issue is a lot more basic. In fact it is precisely its basic nature which has so much angered the leadership of the StWC. It is always the most basic question which catches out those with no principles.
What we said and should continue saying is very simple: to build an effective and broad campaign opposing US war against Iran means we can neither align ourselves with those who in the name of support for the Iranian people are actually supporting and aiding the plans of US Imperialism to control and dominate the Greater Middle East, nor with those who in the name of anti-imperialism and anti-US militarism, are actually supporting and apologising for the Iranian mullahs’ theocratic hold on power in Iran. To this day, not one of these opponents has given a straight answer to why they oppose this statement.
But despite the fact that the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition in Britain finds this basic principle too complicated to comprehend, inside Iran itself it is now a common slogan, accepted and repeated in countless demonstrations and statements, that No! We do not want a US war; and No! We do not want a US regime change; and No! Not only do we not accept or support the current Iranian regime either but are in fact already actively involved in overthrowing it. Why is it so difficult for the StWC leadership to understand that the majority of Iranian people have already rejected both sides?  It was reported just a week ago, a high school student in Tehran, when asked “so who do you want to win in this conflict”, answered: “Neither! One will lead to military occupation and many deaths and the other will prolong the rule of thugs who are already occupying our schools and killing us”.
If any one those workers, students or women who have to constantly defend themselves against  the atrocities of the Iranian regime were as lucky as the British SWP/CPB leadership with access to Press TV, even if only as a caller, I am sure the first question they will ask these champions of anti-imperialism would be: “you say you are against this war because of the death and destruction it will bring upon the Iranian people, then how come you do not defend the very same people against the death and destruction currently being meted out by the Iranian regime itself?”
Let’s face it; despite all the subterfuge and all the slanderous comments they have used over the last year, every one knows they cannot answer this simple question because even to pose the question itself is too embarrassing for them. How can you discuss if a certain alliance is good or bad for any cause if you have already forged it yourself and are already too ashamed to even admit it?  This is precisely where our difference with these currents lies.  All the subterfuge is designed to cover up the simple truth that within the anti-war movement they represent those who believe that against US Imperialism it is not only perfectly legitimate but even beneficial to form alliances with the active supporters of the Iranian regime.  In other words, they are telling us it is OK for them to form a united front with a semi-fascistic regime which was helped to power by the same USA to crush the Iranian revolution, the same regime which has been continuously massacring all progressive elements in Iranian society for 30 years, and the same regime which is right now collaborating with the same US imperialism in the occupation of two of its neighbours, but it is not OK for us to question or criticise this! 
If you follow the arguments or all the excuses offered at the last StWC Conference to justify their policy of exclusion you will see what they were in fact doing amounted to nothing but a crude attempt at gagging all of those who oppose the Iranian regime.  Not only do they expect us to accept this latest rehash of the crudest forms of class collaborationist popular fronts of the 30s, but also keep quiet about it because even its discussion will “confuse” the anti-war campaign!
No! We will continue saying, and this time with the voice of experience, the only thing this debate has confused is your cosy alliance with the supporters of theocratic fascism; the likes of CASMII or the Press TV! By refusing HOPI’s affiliation, because we also say no to the Iranian regime, the organisers of the last StWC were in fact instructing millions of Iranians who have been struggling against this brutal dictatorship for 30 years, not to mention the millions who precisely because of this opposition have been forced into exile, to keep quiet and stop criticising the Iranian regime because it may embarrass SWP/CPB comrades in front of their pro-Islamic regime friends.
Is it any wonder, when you hear people report an almost total disappearance of any form of anti-war activities by these very same people who voted us out under the pretext that we are a mere disruption in their activities?  Did we not say then, if you want to kill the anti-war movement just follow the SWP/CPB line? They haven’t even yet announced when they are planning to hold their next conference. Probably fearing what to say when they face gain our application for affiliation! On the other hand, just take a look at the broad list of organisational or individual affiliations to HOPI; or just go over the list of meetings and events we have organised up and down the country over the last year.  Did any one find one piece of evidence that apologising for the Iranian regime helps the anti-war movement? No! In fact, the vast majority of the very real anti-war activists that we have seen in Britain not only do not find what we say confusing but find it very odd that those who claim the leadership of the anti-war Coalition, have not even reached a basic level of political maturity to realise it is at best counter-productive to enter into a united front with the mullahs to fight imperialism or with imperialism to fight the mullahs. Is there any one who can seriously argue that being tainted with support for the Iranian regime will help the anti-war movement? 
In terms of this first type of opportunistic united fronts we have already seen where the danger lies. Reports from almost every corner of the globe has left no doubt for most of us that indeed the biggest danger confronting the international anti-war movement, not only in Britain but almost everywhere where it exists, is for it to be hijacked by the pro Iranian government political lobbies or the so-called Iranian NGOs abroad. Many of these, which were set up during the Khatami Presidency and later disowned by the more hard-line faction, have been revived in recent years, precisely as part of the Iranian regime’s diplomatic efforts abroad. They are now directed and controlled by the Office of the President. And don’t for one minute think that it is only the USA which has enormous funds to dress up its military aggressions as “velvet revolutions”. We have seen how lavishly the Iranian government has spent money over the last few years to buy international support for its image of the underdog. Press TV is but a drop in the ocean.
In the anti-war movement abroad, they have therefore set in motion an army of “peace keepers” and “peace negotiators”; if you listen carefully the gist of what they say is always the same: Yes we agree there are problems with the Iranian regime, but who in the Middle East doesn’t have a problem? And yes this regime says it is Islamic Fundamentalist, but it has shown it is one with which the West can make a deal. But, the West must also accept Iranian interests. Therefore the best solution is to sit and negotiate.
You suddenly find, amongst Iranian exiles, a strange mix of people from different backgrounds and political currents but all playing the same tune of peace with the Iranian regime. Of course, none of these groups appear with a label on their forehead saying who they really are. Some individuals amongst them may even be leftist or very critical of the Iranian regime. But the litmus test is precisely to ask them “what is your position on the need to defend Iranian workers, students or women against the same regime?”  You will soon know who they really are when you observe the physical and mental contortions they have to go through to cover up their apologies.
Not all of them are as “clever” as George Galloway. On Press TV, in reply to a caller from Whitechapel, rhetorically asking him, “are you aware you are appearing on a TV station which forces its female presenters to wear a hijab”, he simply said “as far as I am aware this is not the case”! Now you can imagine how confused an anti-war movement can become, if those claiming its leadership couldn’t themselves pass this simple test, and worst still because they themselves know they will not pass the test, they expel and slander those who may dare put them to the test. 
The second danger is of course to fall on the reverse side and be fooled by the sudden enthusiasm of a whole batch of international charitable institutions and foundations in imperialist countries for the cause of democracy and human rights in Iran. When President Bush himself announces his undying support for Iranian bus workers, you can bet a lot more work must have gone on behind the scenes before he said that. For a start, it probably took 20 aids more than one week to teach him to say it. But seriously, why is it, that after almost 30 years of total silence about the plight of the Iranian workers in the hands of a brutal regime, all of a sudden you see regular statements from international bodies and institutions championing trade union rights and democracy in Iran?  When you look closely you will see of the recently converted to the cause of humanity almost all are linked to various pro imperialist institutions whose role has always been to fight the propaganda war and to build the network for the velvet revolution. Some already stained with the blood of previous velvet revolutions elsewhere.
We are not talking here about a simple signature to a petition. These charitable angels of US imperialism don’t just give verbal support, but also material support with funds, venues, marketing and media back up! We have now so many “free” TV and radio channels that most have run out of things to repeat. Add to all these the sudden scramble for a US backed change of regime in Iran within the Middle East itself by say Israel and Saudi Arabia, both with their own ties and contacts with all sorts of currents in Iran, from the extreme right of the monarchists to the so-called liberal-religious opposition and last but not least even sections of the Iranian left - and both with their own independent sources of funds.
In Britain this is probably not the biggest danger, at least not within the anti war movement -  although it must be said that even in Britain today we now have the comical situation of a left group with its declared anti-war sentiments but in reality an apologist for Zionist colonialism. Well, in an anti war movement with a faction supporting theocratic fascism is it a wonder you will also have a pro-war wing?  Even if this phenomenon may be a joke here, amongst us Iranians in exile, this is indeed a much bigger danger than the first. You can see what a recipe for confusion the above situation can be for the Iranian opposition.  These days, before you can understand who says what, you have to know who has received which funds and from what country. Even some bourgeois and openly pro-US Iranian politicians are now saying it was a mistake to accept these funds because no one trusts any one.
Some of course fall for this charade out of desperation. Their guilt is probably no more than clutching at any straws. But others do it knowingly. If simply because they have never done anything else.  Seeking approval from such world shattering champions of imperialist democracy is precisely what they have been doing for decades anyway.  To them, the threat of war against Iran is like manna from heaven. Now, they don’t even have to pick up the phone, everybody they seek seems to be willing to come to them.  The same ICFTU which didn’t give the Iranian workers the light of the day for 30 years, now calls for international days of action. Add to this another fact and you have a recipe for disaster. The organisational disintegrations that usually follow political exile have produced a myriad of loose circles and associations, each with its own set of private heroes and demons, who have now become the natural victims of such imperialist solidarity.  Especially when coupled with financial inducements, free trips, or even your very own radio station or TV slots. 
We now have numerous projects funded from suspect imperialist sources but managed and staffed by Iranian exiles around a whole range of issues in almost every Western country. For example, some leftist individuals, are now “earning a living” (their phrase not mine) working for a project innocently training Iranian women journalists or providing radio services for the Iranian youths, thanks to funds provided by the Dutch Government. This openly racist right wing government suddenly discovered a few years ago that it has a sweet tooth for the cause of democracy in Iran and donated 15m Euros of humanitarian aid to 11 such Iranian projects - if you recall, this is the same government that was jokingly referred to by the Dutch left as “fascists in Armani suites”. A year later it was exposed in the press in Holland itself that these funds had in fact nothing to do with the Dutch government and originated in the USA but the “donors” (CIA, I presume!) wanted them distributed via Holland.
Ok you may say, just another story of fools being fooled, but unfortunately these foolish acts never remain confined to the few simpletons in the donor country but endanger the lives of the activists inside Iran. For example, a number of unsuspecting young women were arrested and tortured by the security forces simply because of links with such a project. It now turns out  the organisers never told them of the sources of their finances and hoodwinked them into believing they are simply signing up to some free seminars and training courses plus the chance for a free travel abroad.
Or let us look at another example - relevant here in Britain, as their main characters are active here, and funny enough, the darlings of both the pro-mullah and the pro-Israel wing of the anti-war movement.  This is a group which claims it represents the “International Alliance” of Iranians abroad in defence of the workers movement. You can guess from the wild claims already implied by their name that it must be a total phoney, and it is. The number of committees they claim they represent is even more than the number of individuals associated with this group. But the danger is not here, we have many similar ones with even more bombastic claims. The danger arises when some institution like the ICFTU or the CIA led and financed Solidarity Centre come to such delusory individuals and not only agree with whatever they say and sign whatever they circulate but also gives them recognition and support. As the saying goes in farsi, with melons under their arms, they then turn to workers inside saying: “Look how important we are! Look how we are mobilising international support for you! Let us put your hand in their hands. They will look after you!”
This is when it becomes dangerous. You can see how people, even those with good intentions, will soon become the fixers and the pushers of the future velvet revolution. Unsuspecting worker activists inside, keen to publicise their struggles internationally can easily fall for such traps. When a group of ineffective individuals with no significant importance or influence are suddenly so pumped up as to believe they are some kind of Ambassadors for the movement inside, sitting around a table behind closed doors and wheeling and dealing with the “big boys” is then easily justified.  It was therefore not a surprise when it was revealed that this self appointed group of foolish ambassadors were actually giving lists of worker activists in Iran to their international backers, fixing meetings between them and thus giving the Iranian security forces ample excuse to arrest and isolate activists. The damage this type of links has caused is now a subject of major concern for the workers movement inside.  
I can name you hundreds, from campaigns for human rights to trade union rights, from support for the religious minorities in Iran to the heroic struggles for freeing South Azerbaijan, from projects for the Empowerment of Women in Islamic countries to saving ancient Persian monuments, all receiving funds from all sorts of dodgy institutions and all claiming to be doing all sorts of good and noble work in solidarity with the cause of democracy in Iran - a kind of support which the activists inside now refer to as the “kiss of death”. Here again, not every body advertises all their shady deals and links. There is also room for genuine mistakes. But for us the test for finding out who is genuine has always been very simple. Just ask them “thank you very much for your support but what is your position on the threat of war?” You will soon know who these people really are and why they have suddenly become interested in Iran. Inside the Iranian opposition we have even tested this further. We now know who they are as soon as they question the validity of this question itself!
The dangers of both mistakes are of course not the same.  As the saying goes, imperialism is the main enemy! Agreed! HOPI has never had a problem with that sentiment. At the end of the day a defeat for imperialist militarism will benefit all of humanity, but why should any one think this is somehow a justification for giving up our fight against a criminal regime?  Our call to the StWC leadership is to say once again you will gain nothing by allying yourself with such a regime, so let us all try and unite the anti-war movement and organise an effective campaign against this “main enemy” but please do not forget your principles and do not think for one minute that by bringing along blatant apologists and defenders of the crimes of the Iranian regime to this movement you will build anything or silence us. At the very least, the leadership of the SWP/CPB should know that as the economic situation deteriorates in Iran, we will witness a lot more clashes between the repressive apparatus of the Iranian regime and the masses of Iranian workers, students and women. This will require a firm and principled stand in the anti-war movement in support of the Iranian people.  Where will the apologists of the Iranian regime hide then?
It is thus with the above principles firmly in mind that we now enter a new period for HOPI. On the one hand, given the sad situation in which the leadership of StWC has plunged the whole anti-war movement, we must double our efforts in building this movement from the bottom up. If you wanted to say, just in one sentence, what every member of HOPI should be doing next year, it is obviously to re-build local units of the anti-war movement. If the StWC leadership is not doing this or is running them down, then we must start building a lot more active and self-standing local, city-based, units. We have already tried our hands at a few and tested the waters in a lot more, but we need many more in numbers and a lot broader than just HOPI cells. I think on this we all agree and I hope the next steering committee will take this up as its main concern. 
On the other hand, the two major changes that have taken place since last years’ Conference - the global recession, and the election of a new president in the USA - make the new period very different. How will these affect the threat of war? It can, for example, be argued that since the new President was elected on the back of a popular reaction against the war in Iraq, obviously the next US administration will find it a lot more difficult to launch another war. This is a fact, but bear in mind this situation existed even before the elections. Even if Bush himself was allowed to carry on, he would have found it more difficult to once again fabricate reasons and browbeat the allies to open up yet another war front in the Middle East, especially in the middle of a financial crisis.  Therefore, the difficulty facing the US ruling class to launch another war is nothing new.  But let us agree that it is even more so now than before the election. Does this mean the threat of war is over?
What we could say in reply is that of course time will tell. It is yet too early to firmly make any predictions. For a start we will soon also have the Iranian presidential elections. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. But before searching for quick answers, let us first go back to our previous answers when faced with similar questions. 
Firstly, the current situation is not defined by just a threat of war against Iran. HOPI’s main slogan is not, No to Threat of War! It is, No to Imperialist War! The war is already there in the so-called Greater Middle East, steadily dragging in an ever increasing number of countries. Let us not forget, another important event of last year was the extension of this war to Pakistan. The likelihood of its immediate extension to Iran is, therefore, not the sole question which determines the seriousness of the threat. But even specifically in relation to Iran, it is well passed just being a threat. Militarily, Iran is already encircled and plans for what to do at the borders with the Turkish population in the North, the Arabs in the South, and the Baluchis in the East have already passed their testing-in-the-field stage. On the Afghanistan and Iraqi borders the imperialists already have their own armies and bases with a command that has gained a lot more experience in controlling or dealing with local war lords.
Of course, preparing for the first stages of a military campaign is not necessarily an actual campaign, but in terms of a threat, given that it continues to be used when obviously so much more preparations have already got underway, then it is well passed just being a simple threat. Furthermore, when the Israeli government which has imperialist backing for bombing its neighbours and killing civilians or imprisoning whole populations, boasts daily with impudence that no matter who says what it will soon bomb Iran, it is obvious that at least one trigger to quickly turn this threat into a full-scale war is already in place. Whatever difficulties the US government may have to start this war can then be quickly excused when it can claim it is defending of Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister In-waiting (waiting until the current one goes to jail) has actually said so (and appointed Secretary of State in the next US administration has also openly admitted that this is indeed a likely scenario).
Furthermore, it is a war which has already started with the series of so-called UN sanctions against Iran, constantly bolstered up by additional ones separately imposed by the USA and EU – albeit a “soft” war before the hard one with the not-so-smart uranium laced bombs gets under way. If anything, it could be said HOPI hasn’t done enough on the question of sanctions. The devastating affect of these inside Iran cannot be underestimated. Already, inflation is running at around 40% with an unemployment soon reaching 30%.  The recent fall in oil prices has also pushed the government to the brink of fiscal bankruptcy. It now has to run to the IMF for loans to bail itself out (an IMF which cannot even bail itself out). It has been reported, the flight of capital from Iran during the last year was unprecedented for 30 years, including the 1979 revolution. But whilst the Iranian capitalists are waiting safely in Dubai and London for the outcome, their political regime inside Iran is simply adding and adding to its instruments of internal repression.
The people of Iran, the only real guarantors against imperialist domination and theocratic rule are thus being sacrificed first. After the experience of Iraq, you would have thought imperialism has realised that sanctions will not weaken a vicious dictatorship but actually drain and destroy the people’s will to resist it. But should we really believe imperialists when they say sanctions are imposed for such a purpose?  Does experience not show that it is in fact a cynical attempt against the population, driving them out of all political arenas, making them so used to misery that days and months of aerial bombardments later will not seem like too much more to bear, and most importantly push them so far back that they are in no position to resist a regime change imposed by the occupying forces?  
The Iranian government has obviously used this situation to its own advantage.  Whilst on the international stage it boasts there is no threat of war and that neither USA nor Israel will dare attack Iran, inside Iran itself, leading activists are arrested, tortured and imprisoned under the pretext of “endangering national security” in the face of a foreign threat. Whilst, for example, baazari merchants associated with the government have imported and are hoarding enough sugar for 6 years consumption, they blame the wholesale closure of most of the Iranian sugar industry on the UN sanctions and jail workers leaders for siding with Iran’s enemies. Whilst a few years ago we witnessed a turning point in workers struggles for independent class organisations, the vast majority of strikes during last year were about non-paid wages.  So, the war is already going on inside Iran too, and is being felt by the vast majority of Iranian people.
The second point we have always emphasised is that we should not pre-condition our campaign on the basis of how immediate is the threat of a military attack. We did not even do this last year when we the campaign was launched. If anything, we have always warned against the possibility of a deal. Any one who has studied the Iranian regime knows if it was possible for it to get some form of guarantees from the USA as to its own future political existence, it would capitulate and sign a deal tomorrow. There is already a great deal of pressure inside the ruling class to strike a deal. The next presidential elections in Iran will probably better reveal how the balance of forces within these ruling circles has changed. But it is already being openly asked, even inside the Ahmadinejad’s own governmental corridors, that is it not an opportune moment now to make a good-will gesture and offer the new US President a deal? Even some of the hardliners inside the Iranian regime had already stated, before Obama’s election, that if in exchange for voluntary suspension of the uranium enrichment programme the USA was prepared to sit around a table and discuss and negotiate a comprehensive deal and international recognition for the Iranian regime, then it will be worth considering.
The ruling cliques inside the Islamic Republic are still in disagreement about how to react, but one should never rule out this possibility. This probably explains why at first Ahmadinejad writes a letter congratulating Obama and then two days later he is forced to backtrack and denounce him. Or did you notice the curious “official” protests of the Iranian government against the leaks of the latest AEA report to Western media? This concerned the amount of low-grade enriched uranium Iran has already accumulated which led to renewed speculation about the number of bombs Iran can produce if it enriches this further. Obviously if you were planning to postpone enrichment as a good will gesture you do not want it spoiled by the revelation that you have already enough material for a bomb.
Therefore, we have always said, don’t be surprised if the mullahs make a deal. In fact we  we have warned, be careful such deals do not lead to either international legitimistion of this murderous regime or forgetfulness about the long term military intentions of the USA for the whole region. Let us forget Iran and the mullahs for one minute and just look at the military map of the region. Shah has come and gone, Saddam has come and gone. But one thing has not changed. And that is the constant increase in the number of US military bases in and around the Middle East. There is an almost complete circle of US military bases enclosing an area from the North of the Caspian Sea to the South of the Dead Sea. The very term Greater Middle East, now fashionable in US governmental circles, became widely used precisely in order to explain where this military encirclement is taking place. This is not just an accident of history. This did not happen because of September 9/11 or Saddam’s supposed links with Al Qaeda. If there ever was any intelligent design here is a good example.  The USA has obviously a long term strategy for the control of that area. Let us remind ourselves, this is the region which contains the two largest global sources of known oil reserves situated around the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf.
This plan is nothing secret either. Since 20 years or so ago many strategic studies in the USA have warned of the dangers facing USA by 2020s when it is expected for the global oil production to have reached its peak whilst consumption will continue to rise.  One Russian military strategist has even said it seems USA picks up a fight simply to fill in the gaps in this military encirclement! There is more than an element of truth in this. Just remember the way it cooked up reasons to justify the occupation of Iraq. Or just look at what it is trying to do right now in Georgia.  Does any one really think US imperialism will tolerate a military force right in the centre of this circle over which it has no control? The simple fact that there are now nearly 30 US military bases around Iran will eventually have to lead either to the capitulation of the Iranian army or to a military conflict. The threat of war has therefore not been removed and is not dependent on the change of a president. In a way Obama himself has not really offered any change in this policy either. All he has actually said adds up to nothing more than a simple shifting of a few thousand US soldiers from one military base to another. 
To sum up, although we cannot predict what the new US administration will or will not do in the immediate future, we can say with reasonable certainty that the current tensions and the threat of war against Iran will not die down in the near future. If anything the current batch of sanctions will probably be further bolstered up by new US and EU measures. Of course, at the moment, every one’s attention is focused on the economic crisis, and this has also further changed public perceptions about the immediacy of the war, but in the long run the crisis itself will probably make the threat of war a lot more real and immediate. And not only this war but probably many other wars like it. Let us not forget the last major economic crisis of world capitalism led to a world war and 60 millions dead. It took 6 years or so for this to happen but that war was exactly what eventually brought them out of the crisis. Of course, none of us are saying we will have another world war in 5 years time, but if during a period of global economic growth and relative peace, US imperialism was busy building military bases around the Middle East, do you think in a period of decline, when its interests are more likely to be challenged, it will not become an even more blatant force of aggression against the people of the region?  If the history of capitalism is anything to go by, you will have to say yes it will. In the course of the coming new period we must therefore expect to see a more belligerent and aggressive imperialism, not less.
Even inside Iran itself, the current economic crisis seems to have strengthened the hand of the reformist wing of the theocracy; whose differing factions are now trying to unite behind a common candidate for the next presidential elections. But let us not forget there is also the possibility that the same economic crisis alongside an increasing strength of the reformist faction may also worry the faction already in power to such an extent that it itself may provoke an external conflict. After all, it has done this before. It actually removed the reformists from power 4 years ago by openly challenging and daring the USA to a duel! 
As I said before, probably in a couple of months, when the election campaign inside Iran really gets underway, the likelihood of either options within the ruling circles will become a lot more clear, but again judging from past experience, it appears to us that even if the new Obama administration was about to soften its approach on Iran, which it is not, the current Iranian regime may in fact harden up and even become more provocative not less.

We therefore do not see any need at this stage to downgrade or upgrade the possibility of a war in Iran next yea, but to insist once again that the threat is real, it is already there and is being used against the Iranian people on a daily basis. We must not only continue to campaign and mobilise against this threat and demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all imperialist forces from the region but further increase our efforts in protesting against the imperialist  sanctions which are hurting those who are the only real force for change.