As an addititional measure in “Stop Ahmadinejad from entering United Nations” campaign, you’re encouraged to send a fax and/or an automated note to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

Fax: +1 212-963-7055

All you need to do is to put your name, email and click send w/ the automated objection note @

http://iransolidarity.org.uk/NoANUN

Thank you

Hugo Chavez the President of Venezuela is visiting Iran today. Chavez is walking on people’s blood in order to legitimize the globally acknowledged Hitler-like dictatorship of Islamic Republic of Iran. It appears that Chavez meeting with Ahmadinejad in Tehran is directly related to the upcoming UN conference.

Regardless what the justification is, Chavez’s presence in Tehran is an intentional attempt by the head of a foreign government, the first since the ‘election’ farce, to legitimize IRI. Chavez is intervening people’s struggle in their demand of political isolation of the Islamic Republic of Iran on their path to overthrow the IRI.

Please send off the following automated protest message to Hugo Chave. All you need to do is to put your name, email and click Send:

Objection note to Venezuela president Hugo Chavez: Hands off Iran

Also if you can make a phone call or send a fax:

Embassy of Venezuela in Tehran, Iran

FAX: +98-21-2202 0584

Phone:
+98-21-2205 1955
+98-21-8871 5185
+98-21-8871 2840

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to visit New York and attend a United Nation conference in mid-September 2009. During the past two months, the people of the world have had a glimpse into the atrocities of the Islamic Republic of Iran committed in its thirty years lifetime: murder, torture, rapes, and violations of basic human rights. We, the undersigned express our strongest objection to the UN for accepting Ahmadinejad’s presence - a professional killer. Allowing him to speak on behalf of Iran is the ultimate offence and disrespect to the people of Iran and the world.

Instead of allowing him to speak, we demand that Ahmadinejad be arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity, including most recently:

1] The killing of hundreds of protesters following the farce of an ‘election’.

2] The systematic rape of those arrested during the recent protests in Kahrizak prison.

3] The torture and humiliation of arrested protesters, fabricated confession-sessions under the guise of ‘trials’, and the broadcast of the tortured on state television

August 27, 2009

Sign up at:  Stop Ahmadinejad from entering UN

As observed by the mainstream media in West, there are two different types of attentions to the events in Iran, a) by the Western governments b) by the people in West. As much as the Western governments would like to put a pressure on the Islamic regime of Iran because of its conflict with the political Islam in ME and it tries to highlight desirable political figures, the people in West are feeling a sense of one-ness with the people of Iran. As mentioned by a Facebook friend on my profile: “Who would have thought that the nation of Ayatollahs and hostage-taking and Sharia etc. would become Ground Zero for 21st century Democracy.”
I have had numerous comments emailed to me or posted on my Wall by enthusiastic friends who not only declare the solidarity but they passionately give their analysis and suggestions as to where the prostests should go from here. Some of which are unbelivebly insightful and accurate to the point that I say “Wow. How did you know that? I can’t agree no more”.

Back in 2003, anti-war movement mobilized millions of people in West in support of humanity. That unsucceful movement is now rebuilding itself around the freedom seeking people of Iran, only this time more powerful and more entusiastic. The 2003 movement attracted a number of celebreties. Although, we might not see all of them again and we might see some new faces, but the movement is the same. This movement is what we call ‘the third camp’, a camp of humanity that does not put up for the dark-destinty of destruction, expolitation, militarism, terrorism, and religous states written by either US and its allies or by political Islam in Middle East.

Robert Redford, Noam Chomsky, Sean Penn are the most recent world known prominent figures who expressed their solidarity with the people’s struggle in Iran and with the demand to release political prisoners.

Some of the celebreties joined the struggle of Iran at a earlier day, some join it today and some tomorrow. All of whom clearly and explicitly mentioned their support for the people of Iran while joining the supportive movement at a specific action.

What they see is “Iranians who are fighting the regime deserve as much support as we can give whether they gather in front of UN or they mobilize for a mass interntaional demonstration on July 25″. This expression of solidarity and at least at this stage, has nothing to do with who arranged what event. It is to join the solidarity support wagon. Otherwise figures like Robert Redford is way more popular than an ex member of the Islamic Republic fo Iran, like Ganji. These two shall not be confused, e.g the support for the movement in Iran with the support of who arranged what event. Also, as much as Western governments are trying hard to highlight figures like Ganji as per their policies of pressure, manipulation and intervention, the people of West are seeking the opposite: No US intervention, freedom and justice for people of Iran.

Let’s read what Sean Penn has to say:
“That’s why citizen diplomacy is so important. Iranian demonstrators welcome the support of ordinary Americans. Joan Baez recorded a Farsi language version of “We Shall Overcome” that has shot around the world on YouTube.

Iranian activists are holding a hunger strike in front of the U.N. in New York from July 22 to July 24 demanding that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon send a special commission to Iran.

We urge you to participate in the July 25 demonstrations around the U.S. and in Europe. Stand in solidarity with Iranians and against U.S. intervention in Iran ”

Welcome aboard Noam Chomsky, Robert Redford, Sean Penn and all the other new supporters of the revolution in Iran!

Abbas Goya
July 21, 2009

PS - Added on July 23 - In support of political prisoners hunger strike (1980s prisoners)
Noam Chomsky:
I would like to express my strong support for your hunger strike and other actions protesting the criminal repression in Iran, and my hope that your principled and courageous efforts will help bring freedom and justice to Iran and an end to harsh authoritarian rule.

Howard Zinn:
I want you to know that I fully support your hunger strike as a protest against tyranny. My hope is that enough people join in this protest and that it leads to some degree of justice, and a step towardsd a democratic society.

Akbar Ganji, like his counterparts outside Iran, i.e. Mohsen Derakhsan, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, and Ebrahim Nabavi, was among the founders/co-founder and/or assistant of the most vicious organs of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). He joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shortly after its founding by Mohsen Derakshan and later on joined the Ministry of Intelligence (And Security of Land), also known as VEVAK, founded by Saeed Emami. Ganji was in direct contact with Emmai who ran this horrific ministry of systematic violence and torture against the opposition. During the 1980s, 100s of thousands were arrested, executed, tortured and buried in mass graves by the IRI, implemented in essence by these two horrendous institutions, IRGC and VEVAK (acronym of Minsity in Farsi).

Akbar Ganji is quiet about the first 20 years of the IRI except for his vague and Western-appealing references to “Stalinism”, although with a twist. In Ganji’s “Stalinism”, Khomeini is still the Imam (the praiseworthy leader) and that 80’s crackdown is completely just! Also, Ganji never addresses his own role in the so-called Stalinist apparatus of the IRI. We are only allowed to know about him after his claimed ‘dissent about something’ in 1995. In his recent writing in Newsweek International, November 19, 2007, he reiterates that elements in the government of Iran are interpreting ayatollah Khomeini’s theory of government (velayate faghih) in a fascist way to monopolize the power. He adds that a democratic interpretation of Islam should counter this fascist interpretation of Islam.

Despite the minor differences among the aforementioned 4 figures, their commonalities are very strong and homogenous:
1) Each and every one has a thick record of collaboration and/or assisting the vicious machinery of suppression.
2) Once there is an uprising in Iran against the IRI (the current one is not the only one but the biggest ever) they all drop the self claimed “author/journalist, film maker, satire writer” role and turn into “political activist of true Islam” role. For the record, once and each time they’ve been confronted with the atrocities they were involved in 80s, they all shield themselves with “I’m just a journalist/movie maker…” pose.
3) Since they can not deny their past deeds once they are confronted to the point of a need to respond, they boldly defend their past deeds and promise another round of atrocities if necessary!

The above characteristics serve them in achieving a common goal, that is, to manipulate and ‘tame’ the revolutionary uprising against the IRI. Although their approach is not identical, however, they share the same goal and the method to reach it. They are striving to be recognized political celebrities able to carry on their counterparts’ role within the regime, i.e. Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mir Hussein Mousavi, Karrubi, once the originals are no longer useful.

In their view, they need to find a common ground with the western governments, US in particular, in order to be recognized and to be highlighted by them and to play the role of the main figures of politicians in Iran. They hang on to the “democracy” buzz from this perspective. Their “democracy” has hardly anything to do with the concepts or practices of democracy, but is rather a codename to indicate that they are in agreement with the US policy in the Middle East and that they recognize its authority. In other words, they are posing for a Afghani and Iraqi model of ‘democracy’ for Iran, as per US policy in the Middle East.

Needless to say, the above is welcomed by the West that is not-so-influential-in-Iranian-dissidents-who-are-in-complete-agreement-with Western government policies. Therefore it is not a big surprise that these figures who “all of a sudden” emerged as “dissident journalist, film maker, etc” in the late 1990s received such immediate attention by the Western media and Western governments; they were immediately put on CNN, VOA and BBC as “expert dissident politicians”. Furthermore, Western governments are providing them with a “humanitarian” profile through the rewards they have some control over.

A hunger strike in front of UN from July 22 to 24, 2009 for freedom of political prisoners is the latest attempt by Ganji in his path towards highlighting and recognition by Western governments. Let me be very clear about this: I look positively at any attempt by anyone who brings the political prisoner issues to the surface. However, I refuse to be associated with an ex-jailer of political prisoners in a legitimate demand such as unconditional freedom of all political prisoners while Ganji hides his past deeds and while he has not distanced himself from his past by apologizing to the people of Iran for it. Let alone that Ganji drops the “unconditional” part of the demand for political prisoners and let alone that anyone who seeks some attention in a revolutionary situation must pretend to follow the revolutionary demands such as freedom of political prisoners.

The other exposing factor with Ganji is his attempt to ‘maneuver around’ the main current demand of the revolutionary movement, the overthrow of the IRI. Not a word on that!

Let’s remember, it is completely understandable that in a revolutionary situation everybody involved in politics pretends to be revolutionary, talks revolutionary and might appear as radical. After all, that is the only way to get on top of the events and try to ‘tame’ it if one wants to. Ganji’s eye on the UN door, Makhbalf’s EU parliament gate keeping, Ebrahim Nabavi’s London gate holdings, and Mohsen Derakhsan’s CNN and VOA chair are already known to the people. Also, the US attempt to repeat the history of 1979, in which it encouraged and paved the way for the defeat of the revolution from within by promoting Khomeini is already known to the people of Iran. The current threadbare project is well known to all of us and is not going to work. We are only too conscious of it.

The US government has next to no influence in the ongoing revolution in Iran. It might be too much to expect, but I wish that both Western governments and the above figures had learned the obvious lesson: No civil-society Khomeini nor Khomeini-makers are allowed in Iran, period!

Abbas Goya
July 18, 2009

Some references

Akbar Ganji:
Ganji “served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps during… and joined the Ministry of Intelligence of the Islamic Republic.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Ganji

Mohsen Sazegar
“During the 1979 revolution, he returned to Iran with Ayatollah Khomeini where he served as a founder of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the managing director of the National Radio of Iran (1979–1981).[1] During the 1980s, Sazegara served as political deputy in the prime minister’s office, deputy minister of heavy industries, chairman of the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization of Iran, and vice minister of planning and budget.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohsen_Sazegara

Mohsen Makhmalbaf
A letter to EU parliament by a goup of well known artists, art related organizations and ex political prisoners – In Farsi. The document contains factual references to Makhmalbaf’s past, his role in prisons, in interrogation of artists and political prisoners and it is in objection to Makhmalbaf claim to represent “Iranian people” in his visit to EU parliament.
http://eshterak-matalbejadid1.blogspot.com/2009/07/blog-post_18.html

Ebrahim Nabavi
A picture taken in 80s in Evin prison, from a brochure that used to be published in Evin, it is on the occasion of “sizdeh bedar”, a national outdoor celebration event in Iran. Nabavi is sitting next to the known butcher of political prisoners Lajevardi in Evin, in an effort to promote Lajevardi
http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Notes/2009/032009-ES-PU-Nowruz.htm

Some of my fellow WPI (Worker-communist Party) comrades are actually too young to remember the 79 Revolution.

To me, the 79 Revolution was the link to my involvement in politics. A 16 year old who was ‘told’ about politics via a hit by a cop stick while passing an intersection! Really. I was minding my business passing the light when I felt a sudden painful hit of cop stick on my arm followed by a shout “Say Long Live the King”, not knowing that the cops were there to confront any young person as a potentially anti-Shah ‘element’! Angry and young enough, I confronted the cop by “F yourself and the King” he now aimed my head. Just a luck that an older cop stopped him. That was my first connection to the revolution. I then sought what this is all about. I learned that Shah was a dictator, that Lenin was a great leader for social justice, … Cautiously but surely participated in demos, study circles and protests, as much as my worried parents would let me. Nonetheless, I was labeled as ever-opposition in my circle of conservative family because I always argued against Shah, in defense of the revolution and later on against the not-yet-born-IRI [*].

I remember what later on was known as “The Revolution”, the two days that shook Iran for years to come, the uprising of 10th and 11th of February. The spontaneous attacks to military and all the other power bases of the Shah regime. The attacks quickly were led by the militant leftists, socialists of the time. I remember them, covered their face w/ black ink not to be recognized, I remember the pro-Khomeini mullas on the streets yelling via loudspeakers at people NOT to attack the military bases because ‘Imam has not yet given Jihad’. No one cared. And I remember that Khomeini’s first Fitwa(the very evening of Feb 11) was to disarm people. The armed people was his ultimate nightmare.

I remember how safe it was while almost everyone were armed, no crime whatsoever in a city of 4 million. Everyone helped everyone. That unfortunately didn’t last long. As far as the IRI was concerned the Feb 10-11 should not happen in the first place. The agreement w/ the US was that the US General Heuiser in his negotiation w/ Shah’s Army (Shah’s General Nassiry in particular) would order the army not to resist Khomeini and commit itself to his regime. Feb 10 and 11 uprising ruined that elaborated plan. The immediate days after Feb 11, the IRI organized its initial armed-forces to disarm people, door-by-door they knocked and collected the arms. That was the first strong signal to distrust the IRI.

As much as a novice political activist could understand and manage, I was now opposed to Khomeini’s reign in February of 1979! That was not what my Dad wished for. He had just reluctantly posted Khomeini’s poster in our living room because he was worried to be targeted by pro-Khomeini’s forces.

I soon joined an organization (a front consisting of a number of organizations) to learn and practice the socialist politics. Everyone those days would claimed that they were socialists or in some degrees influenced by it. The process in which I learned socialism was in fact by direct participation in a revolution, learned it in the middle of battle ground. Theories were developing right there in the battle ground reflecting the development of revolution:

* Defence of workers councils that were now popping up everywhere and the IRI was doing anything to dissolve them;

* The Kurdistan issue that was now an imminent issue for the IRI (the IRI actually re-organized the dissolved Shah’s military initially by sending troops to Kurdistan already in March 79); * The freedom of speech which soon was harshly attacked by initially shutting down a popular leftist daily paper that I actually was a distributor for;

* The women’s equality movement that was in offensive; * The student councils were built consisting almost entirely by leftists;

* The universities the turne into the base for freedom of speech and organizing; …

And then…parallel w/ the progress of revolution, the IRI, organized its facists groups, named Hizbollah, inofficially attacking, killing activists while the regime was doing its best to re-construct/re-organize its armed forces. In May 1980, I was part of the resistance against the so-called ‘cutltural revolution’ that aimed to shut down the U of Tehran. Nearly 30 were killed, tens injured, more arrested before the regime could occupy the universtiy in order to shut it down. I remember watching Bani-Sadr, the so-called liberal president of the time, walking in U o Tehran to celebrate the victory over the leftists students.

In the final stages of the defeat of the 79 Revolution, the daily fascists killings, followed a mass killing in a mass-demonstration (nearly 500 thousands) that I was a participant in it. I witnessed the killing of some of my best friends by the now-restructured army of the IRI; the mass-arrest and massacre followed, the hiding.

One evening I sneaked into my old neighborhood where I was confronted by an old ‘friend’ who now was a Tudehee. Tueh was the pro-soviet party in Iran. Tudeh party supported the IRI to the point that it officially asked its member to act as the intelligent service of the IRI in the middle of the IRI’s brutal attacks against the opposition. Anyway, this old ‘friend’ was ‘merciful’ to me by just pushing me to the wall telling me “you show up again, you’re history’. Ironically he was killed awhile later when he was serving as the IRI military officer in the war.

In short, February 10-11 uprising was a direct act of people, led by leftists, an event that terrified the Islamic trend; it ruined the elaborated manipulation of the anit-Shah movement by US and the Islamic trend. The uprising created an instability of the IRI in favor of the people and the revolution, to further develop it, to radicalize it. While the 79 Revolution was defeated in the end but a clear socialist movement emerged out of it. Next round of events belongs to us, the socialists.

Anyhow, in 30th commemoration of “The Revolution”(February 10 and 11) I couldn’t help but wanting to share some sporadic memories of the events, all of which started by that damn cop stick on my arm!

February 2009

This writing is more of an introduction and might lack factual references.

I hope it could be of some use for those of you interested in this form of analysis.
**********************************************
The revolution that has started in Iran has very quickly gathered an enormous supportive movement around it. Just the reflection of this support in arts, music in particular is amazing, from a relatively unknown Johnny, the Canadian, to a superstar Bon Jovi and to the legendary Joan Baez. From working class organizations, to general population that show up in rallies in London, Paris, Washington, Stockholm, Ankara, … on their personal capacities. What exactly is the appealing factor to this great number of people around the globe some of whom might have heard about Iran the first time in their life? Is it their admiration of democracy or a general solidarity with people they feel they have alot in common? Talking about which, weren’t these people fed day in and day out that ‘people from down there have a different culture’? How come so much expression of ‘being one’, including in the signs held by Bon Jovie, “We are one”?

Perhaps a good start to answer these question is to have a clear understanding of what’s going on. Let’s start with The general title, nowadays admitted by massmedia as well: Revolution. By definition, a revolutionary situation is when the oppressed do not want the governing system NOR the oppressing regime can reign. Applying this definition to Iran, we can comfortably call the events a revolution.

When did it all start, and what led to it?

In a general sense, it all started in 1979. Serious! People in Iran never ever accepted this regime. (for a short, and succinct history of 79 revo checkhttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48349795884).

The revolution of 79 was defeated later on by a bloody crackdown in mid 81. However, resistance against the Isalmic Republic of Iran(IRI) was always present to the point that we could comfortably claim that the IRI were never successful in implementing a “dead silent island”, an absolute dictatorship in Iran as it was the case at the time of Shah, the last king of the last royal family. Don’t get me wrong, there was no freedom of expression, nor strike, nor organization rights under the reign of the IRI. The regime is in one word a literally barbaric regime. And that’s exactly the point. The IRI could never be accepted but it was constantly imposing itself by the mere means of direct forced intimidation, by gun, by stoning, by pouring acid on the arms and faces of pedestrians, and likewise.

However, it could not shut people mouths! People would feel comfortable to chat against the IRI in cabs, at family gatherings, at universities, at schools, etc. Neither could the IRI stop workers from organizing and to go on strike. I was asked many times in the midst of my advocate for a certain strike, “how can workers organize and strike while it is forbiden to do so in Iran?”. The very same question applies to women undermining the very symbol of gender apartheid: Hijab. “How come they challenge Hijab ALL the time?”. How could youth know more about Western music, life style than they care about what they’ve been brainwashed at schools for years? The answer lies in the very fundamental contradiction of Islamic Republic, its barbaric system. The IRI can not impose a reactionary form of living, on top of a vicious capitalist system, and expect people to accept it. Especially, the very people who have revolted for freedom 3 time in a matter of century, who had repeated uprisings, the very recent of which ended up to the take over of the political power by this barbaric regime.

In short, people in Iran have always opposed the IRI and they have had a number of uprisings since the IRI took over. At each of these uprisings, people damaged the system to a certain point, deepening the split within the IRI and enjoying a bit of progression, making the IRI weaker and weaker, and now to the point that it cannot regin.

The revloution in Iran has coincided w/ a worldwide capital crisis, coincided w/ defeat of right wing policies that was dominant in the past two decades. The very policies that was concluded from theories claiming that the ‘world is as is’, that claimed no more justice ideals could exist anymore, ‘no more socialist revolution’. Well, the defeat of these policies naturally has raised the interest for the opposite and Iran is exactly appealing therefore. Iran’s ongoing revolution is NOT a velvet revolution of 90s, nor it is manipulated by the US, as it was in 1979. It faces its own challenges.

Nevertheless, the current revolution is that light coming through the window for the hard working people of the world; those who were told ‘no more justice revolution’ via ‘end of history’ nonsense, the people who have been crushed, physically and or ideologically; people who were tried to be divided by obsolete theories of ‘cultural relativism’ are now seeking freedom and equality on post-Cold War era. For this people, Iran appears to be the right spot to focus on, to express the solidarity with, and to learn from.

June 30, 2009

I wrote the following while in a successful campaign against the Sharia Law in Canada, in 2004. It still might be helpful to understand one side of the two sided terrorism in Middle east.

*******************************************************************

Abbas Goya - March 15, 2004

There are a few dimensions to “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice”, the so called Shari’a court in Ontario, Canada. Each dimension carries its own weight and significance and therefore none of them is more important than the other. I focus on one aspect of this legislation, paying a particular attention to Political Islam as it has been least introduced1 in the Western media.

Political Islam and Shari’a Court in Canada: What is Political Islam (PI)? What and where is the connection?

Political Islam refers to a political movement which includes any organized Islamic group that attempts to have a share of political power, mainly in the Middle East and North Africa. Political Islam was born, nurtured, and promoted by the then West bloc; used as a tool against the East bloc during the Cold War, i.e. by “Green Belt”2 doctrine. The PI does not refer to a particular political Islamic group although it has always been organized. The PI does not refer to a particular state although it came to power in Iran and since then has had a great influence in a number of countries’ legal bodies and/or laws. What are PI’s characteristics? Mansoor Hekmat described them as:

“organized themselves under the banner of Islam … extremely Right-wing, anti-human and violent…opposition to the freedom of women, women’s civil liberties, freedom of expression in the cultural and personal domains and the enforcement of brutal laws and traditions against people, and even killing, beheading, and genocide of people from young children to the elderly” 1

PI’s particular role in the Cold War was to minimize and/or to stop the influence of the then growing Communist movements in the Middle East. The PI achieved some victories, the most significant of which was the take over of the political power in Iran, granted that it received a great support from the West bloc to accomplish this project. The West bloc and the Political Islam have always maintained a “love and hate” relationship. For instance, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) would go into an Islamic conflict with the West shortly after the take over of the power, calling the U.S.A as the Satan state. The U.S. on the other hand, the main pave-maker for the IRI, would support Iraq in its eight years war with Iran. The other notable instances of the West -“US-led”- “fatherhood” to the PI are the promotion of Afghan Mujahedeen, Osama Bin Laden included and also Hamas3. Hamas is now the main Islamic terrorist group acting in Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Although the West considered the PI as a useless tool shortly after the collapse of the East bloc, however, it did not ignore the role of the PI in the Middle East region either. Once the more viable alternatives, e.g. the pro-west puppets, were missing, the terror used by the PI to intimidate the residents of PI’s territories, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Algeria, etc was functional and served a common interest for both sides; that is, it provided silenced cheap labor.

Meanwhile the Middle East politics suffered a number of significant unsolved, unfinished political dilemmas. These issues were in such a scale of significance that held the whole region back from being integrated into the global political economy. (This is out of the scope of this writing. However, I need to say that the political instability was the main reason to prevent the region’s integration into global economy*). The most significant political issue has always been the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Once the issue of the Kurds’ “sovereignty” is added to the picture and coupled with the IRI - a state that has a chronic “illness” to adapt to the mainstream capitalism while its continuous promotion of the global terrorism is a known fact- it maybe easier to understand the politics of the Middle East; and conclude that it was logical to believe that the region would sooner or later reach a critical momentum.

Did we ever reach that momentum? When, if so? Although there is a great secular, progressive, and modern movement finding its way to get rid of the whole misery caused by the both parties involved in the region, but the horrific, inhuman, terrorist act of September 11, 2001 affected the political picture of the region and the world temporarily. (While I am writing these very words I heard the news of another PI’s terrorist act in Madrid, Spain, on March 11, 2004 where nearly 200 people were killed).

Before I dig into PI’s role in the aftermath of 9/11 let’s have a close look at the parties of the horrific game happening right in front of our eyes, sadly on a daily basis. Who were going to be the main players in that momentum and how would the parties involved go to pursue their cause? What was/is their cause anyway? As far as the PI is concerned, its main cause has always been the integration into global capitalism and also a greater share of the global political power. The PI, as a political trend, developed to mainstream political scene for the defeated, ever-opposition capitalism in the Middle East after the Cold War. (What does it mean? The so called pro national capitalism always dreamed of an “internal” capitalist market as opposed to the “imperialist” one, or “foreign” investments and markets. During the cold war era, the dominant political trend which used to express the same cause and to represent the same social group was nationalism. Although nationalism maintains its presence in the PI but due to the reactionary trends that has become the major political tend of the post-cold-war era, the nationalism implied in the PI is clan-ism or rather tribalism.)

To just realize what it means with the “integration and the share of political power” we need to make a quick flash back and remember that the main power players of the Cold War were the two superpowers, USA and Soviet Union. No single state or a significant movement played the “power sharing game” unless sided and/or protected by one of the two superpowers. In 1989, the soviet collapsed; one superpower was gone. The other, the U.S.A, also suffered its significance and as a consequence, the U.S fell into a vacuum of political identity and has since struggled to impose its “master of the world” position. But the main point here is that once one polar, Soviet Union, was gone the other, USA, lost its ‘superpower’ identity too.

Let’s continue the main issue. The PI that had some progress in political power living in a critical, unstable geopolitical region, raised the flag for claiming more power, economically and politically. Once the old order was collapsed, the PI was not happy anymore with the puppet states. The PI understood that the world after the collapse of Berlin wall was a world of no particular “order”. If no soviet then no need for the US either. So, why not claiming the “fair” share of the wealth and power. After all, the PI and/or the states where the PI was powerful, were doing the “dirty job” terrorizing the working residents of its “territory” to provide the cheap labor and hence the “easy” wealth. The first Gulf War which as a matter of fact was supposed to give the US its new identity, e.g. “master of the world” position, theorized in “New World Order”(NWO), added yet another puzzle to the region. That is, the U.S, although claiming the victory, did not stamped its “the only superpower” image. The Iraq issue remained unsolved up until March 2003.

Shortly after the end of the Gulf War I, the PI shows off its muscle with a noisy member called Al-Quaida by a number of terrorist acts. Even though Al-Quaida has not been any significant faction of the PI, it had an impact on the politics around the globe with its atrocities on September 11, 2001. The terrorist act of 9/11 paved the road for yet another round of bloody warfare for the two parties involved, the PI and the US, in order to maintain and yet expand the geography of their terrorist field; and also to display their “love and hate” relationship.

Under the pretext of 9/11, US received the best excuse to follow up on the “master of the world” policy, trying to have an extra ordinary military show off in Iraq while the PI got the boost it needed once it was clear that the US is not looking for the elimination of the PI. The West is just seeking a new power balance with the PI within the framework of the NWO.

The US “war” in Afghanistan sure weakened the PI for a very limited time. However, the later policies of the NWO indicated that the US is still “in love” with the PI. That is, the PI should continue its function in the Middle East, e.g. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere as a silencer of the people in the region; it should also comply with the peace agreements designed by the States for the Israel-Palestinian conflict and also the Kurdistan issue; finally the PI would be given some limited role in the western countries provided that it is going to be used to supply cheap labor within the western countries. (In a nut shell, the main targeted population for the PI in the West is the low income working class immigrants).

This latter role of the PI is supported by the means of multiculturalism theories and practices. The multiculturalism and its impact on the PI are far more subtle than the role that the PI is supposed to play in the Middle East. How is it done?

What and where is the connection?

1) “The strategists of New World Order were wise enough not to put all their eggs in one box. Political Islam is consciously divided into Islamic fundamentalists, Islamic terrorists, as opposed to moderate Islam. Smash Islamic terrorism and cozy up with moderate Islam. Islamic terrorism was used as a dangerous Satan to justify American militarism and moderate Islam was still kept as a potential force against the left movement in other parts of the world. No wonder how George Bush, Jack Straw, and Shruder began to compete with grand Ayatollahs of Islam in interpretation of Koran and Islamic teachings.

2) In the aftermath of September 11, racist groups got momentum against citizens categorized as Muslims. They failed because the people in the West rightly did not want to be labeled as the supporters of this organized racist reaction. Inversely and rightly, they defended the rights of every citizen, regardless of religion, race, color, gender and nationality.

While this attitude attracted the respect of ordinary people, the Islamic groups were ready to hypocritically take advantage of this progressive atmosphere. They used it to promote their politico-religious causes. They began to present themselves as “oppressed” representatives of oppressed minority. People in the west were for the rights of citizens to live in secure environment; Islamic groups used it to promote Islamic values to undermine the rights of the same citizens.” 4 How? The keyword is Multiculturalism. Why?

3) Because “Multi-culturalism always gives precedence to cultural and religious norms, however reactionary, over the human being and her rights. And it always sees communities as having one homogeneous belief and opinion – often times taking the most reactionary segment of that community – the imams and elders’ beliefs - as the belief and culture of the whole.

Multi-culturalism’s promotion of respect for beliefs and opinions is so strong that even when rights are violated, women mutilated and killed, girls victimised, respect for those beliefs and norms take precedence over individual and universal rights.

There is a real contradiction between cultural relativism and multi-culturalism on the one hand and individual rights on the other.” 5

Did I mention about the “love and hate” relationship between the PI and the West? Multiculturalism, although it has wider application than just serving the PI, is another example of how the establishment in the West provides the means and theory necessary to serve the PI.

The resolution

“The atrocities of political Islam are global. The stoning to death in Iran and Afghanistan, the struggle to force Hijab in public places in France, the attempt to set up Islamic courts in Canada are all various parts of the one and same phenomena: political Islam. Both the strong movement against Islamic Republic in Iran and the strong turnout in France in favor of banning Hijab in public places are indicative of the strength of secular movement against political Islam.

We must stand up, we must defend our secular values, and we must defeat” 4 the Political Islam. Also “The Canadian state is duty-bound to defend the rights of all human beings living in Canada equally often times despite differing opinions and beliefs.” 5

Who stands up against political Islam?

A. The PI is on the edge of collapse on “its stronghold, IRI, by a secular movement” B. The secular, left, and women movements in Iraq are organizing and so far has pushed the women’s rights, right up to the structure of the so called “coming regime” in Iraq. C. Despite the lack of consistent political platform and also the lack of a solid leadership, the recent, ongoing Anti-war movement which reached its peak on February 15, 2003 could mobilize somewhere between 30 to 50 million people in a mass demonstration around the world** D. Millions of people expressed their despise against the recent terrorist attacks in Spain, and millions of people in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East are actively changing the course of politics in the Middle East for a secular, modern and progressive one.

E. In Canada, there is a strong tradition of secularism which has expressed its despise towards the PI through active participation against the war in Iraq. Also the secularists have set up their campaign against the Shari’a court in form of different organizations, a notable one called: International Campaign Against Shari’a Court in Canada.

These are examples of the actual forces, actively fighting against the two polar of terrorism; e.g. the political Islam and the state terrorism of the U.S. This mass is the humanity’s hope.

Notes:

* The economical structure that PI is seeking to implement is shadowed by the political nature of this movement and therefore is a float rather than rigidly formulated - anything from the mythical national capitalism to a complete acceptance of the multinational capitalist rules-

The economical practices of the IRI probably give us the best picture as to where this barbaric movement is heading when it comes to economy. Although the IRI in constant economical crisis due to its political character, it has really tried hard to integrate itself into the global capitalist economy through its “pragmatic” economical efforts such as currency devaluations, some investments in some aspects of the infrastructure of the country, etc. It however always ends up going nowhere due to its fundamental Islamic character; that is, no matter how “reformist” they try to be the Islamic character of the regime displays itself in anti-human laws and policies, the distributed power among its countless institutions and mullas, the gender-apartheid and hence keeping the women as households, etc. This character, or rather identity of the IRI has always pushed it back to square on: economical, political, and cultural crisis; and therefore the constant poverty and misery for the majority of people.

** PI’s body, e.g. the common people having delusion about PI, was a faction of the anti war movement. However, the movement in whole explicitly displayed its humanitarian, left, modern, progressive character. It pushed PI’s body to a level where they followed the movement’s principal. The PI was weakened by the movement particularly during the movement’s peak. Furthermore, the anti-war movement did not give any room for inhuman, terrorist act. There was not a single terrorist act aiming the people while the movement was actively on the streets, up until the mid April 2003. None of the big, “long lasting” “war on terror”, that is, the U.S terrorism against PI’s terrorism had such an impact on the PI. (As a matter of fact, US “war on terrorism” has contributed to PI’s terrorism. Again, terrorism feeds terrorism.)

Internet Sources:

1 The thesis of Political Islam was first introduced by Mansoor Hekmat, 13 June 1999, “Iran will be the Scene

of a Mass Anti-Islamic Offensive”. ”we have seen another phenomenon in the last 20-25 years, which is the emergence and considerable development of political movements that have organised themselves under the banner of Islam. There are a series of extremely Right-wing, anti-human and violent movements in North Africa, the Middle East and today, in all countries in which the so-called official religion is Islam or which have significant Muslim minorities. Their conduct is primarily in the form of opposition to the freedom of women, women’s civil liberties, freedom of expression in the cultural and personal domains and the enforcement of brutal laws and traditions against people, and even killing, beheading, and genocide of people from young children to the elderly.”

2 Against Militarism and Islamic fundamentalism, by A. Azad (October 2001). “ During the Cold War the Western powers welcomed the formation of an Islamic front against Communism through the formation of a “Green Belt” of Islamic allies in the Middle East. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were major parts of this and they had a variety of intelligence coalitions with the U.S. In Pakistan the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) was instrumental in creating the Afghan mujahedeen. The ISI worked alongside the CIA, setting up training camps and supplying weapons to fight Russia after it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The ISI trained 83,000 mujahedeen from 1983 to 1997. It continued its operations even after Russia left.”

3 UPI Terrorism Correspondent June 18, 2002, By Richard Sale “According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were “weak and dormant” until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies …Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One U.S. intelligence source who asked not to be named said that not only was Hamas being funded as a “counterweight” to the PLO, Israeli aid had another purpose: “To help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists.” In addition, by infiltrating Hamas, Israeli informers could only listen to debates on policy and identify Hamas members who “were dangerous hard-liners,” the official said.”

4 Islamic Courts in Canada!, (A political Challenge on a Global Scale), March 10, 2004, by Mohsen Ebrahimi

5 On the establishment of an Islamic Court in Canada, by Maryam Namazi

1

The purpose of this note is rather a call of international solidarity w/ the socialist movement in Iran that is aiming for a socialist revolution via  overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran. The impact of a socialist revolution around the world is obvious: Socialism will once again become the mainstream of politics around the world, a great boost to the socialist movements pushes the socialism in front line of politics around the world, that is, a new era of socialist uprising worldwide. Now, one might ask why Iran in particular?

I understand that Iran has been highlighted over and over again by the US as its enemy. Combining this factor w/ the US involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole middle east, Iran’s case may appear as a controversial case.

Let’s have a look at the factors involved:

A) We, as socialists, have our own perspective on the political events within a society and around the world. When it comes to analysis and a decision on priorities in politics, Marxism revolves around the workers struggle. To us, a Marxist critic of the geopolitical events would explain for example the competition of the bourgeoisie governments. Hence, a socialist agenda is not defined along the lines of what US is seeking nor it is on the lines of what political Islam, i.e. the IRI claims.

B) Irrespective of the level of atrocities of a capitalist system, Marxists approach it to overthrow a capitalist government. Therefore, this discussion is hardly about convincing this basic fundamental of our politics, even though it just happens that IRI is one the most brutal and barbaric form of capitalist system. Its brutality, its religious nature, its barbarism however has been a factor in mobilizing people around socialist demands, socialist movement.This is rather WHY the IRI is the regime that we all socialist around the world have to focus on to overthrow.

C) Iran’s current socialist movement is the result of its development during and after the 79 revolution in Iran. The socialist trend at the time of revolution evolved to worker-communism. The evolve of worker-communism in Iran and its critic of the events around the world after Soviet collapse, relying on objective measures, has proved to be the representative Marxism of our era. However, regardelsss of it theoretical impact, this trend is highly involved in current politics of Iran, representing the left. This in itself is a major factor in determining the possibility of a socialist alternative to the IRI.

D) The current anti-IRI movement in Iran, with its grassroots among the workers, students, and women has played an active role in Iran’s politics. Furthermore, its opposition to the IRI has not been confused nor compromised by the world around it. It’s clear stand against US military attack on Iran for example, its stand against both US militarism and Islamic terrorism in the middle east, its stand on abolishment of nuclear weapons (even so-called friendly usage of nuclear resources) around the world, Iran included are just a few examples to get the picture about the current state of socialist movement in Iran. This factor, along w/ the fundamental principle of Marxism to revolt for a socialist system, pushes Iran to the top of ‘priority list’ of socialists around the world. Iran is the weakest link of today’s capitalism,

What makes Iran the weakest link of capitalism?

The elements I put on my list to determine the weakest link of today’s world capitalism are:

* The existence of capitalist system? Checked: all countries around the world.
* The existence of worker class and its struggle? Checked: all countries around the world.
* An uncompromisable, present, active, mainstream socialist movement having its political party, platform, short and long term goals defined in the finest details? Checked: Iran.

Somali could be one the poorest countries in the world, no question. It fails though when it comes to the last question. But if Finland had a positive response to that question, then I would call Finland as the weakest link.

Can we make a revolution?

a revolution is an objective phenomenon. We don’t decide about it. A general rule for the revolutionary era is “when the lower class don’t want it and the upper class can’t rule it”. It’s not about the ’steps’ that we need to take in order to ‘make a revolution’ but it’s rather about seeing that it’s coming.

Whether it’s going to be a socialist revolution or not, well, again it’s not all arbitrary. The very existence of the socialist movement is objective. Although debatable, but an organizational body, a political party to represent that movement, is also another objective factor that plays a conscious role in the process. This is more about actively supporting that already existing movement, a movement that will take that leap of the revolution, with or without us. Are we willing to advocate and support it?

Doesn’t a social revolution come w/ a bloodshed?
A socialist revolution in Iran is equal to peace. Bloodshed is already happening. As Lenin put it, the October revolution cost of human life was equal to the number of homicides in one day in New York city (and we’re talking about a century ago). A mobilized world-wide bourgeoisie shed the blood to that revolution AFTER the revolution. Now, here is another incentive why we need to take an active side w/ the socialist revolution in Iran (or elsewhere for that matter): TO STOP any attempt by capitalism, US, UK, Russia, China and alike, to MAKE a bloodshed in Iran before or after the revolution.

The Call

Socialists around the world therefore need to be united to overthrew the IRI via a socialist revolution, of course in a coordination and as part of the current strong socialist movement in Iran.