[lbo-talk] Iran and Latin America (was an Iranian socialist writes)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 9/30/07, James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I think we are saying, as Lenin did, the main enemy is at home. It does not
> mean that criticism of those states that your own is in conflict with is
> forbidden. It just means that demands ought to be framed with a regard to
> whom they are addressed. There is no point lecturing British and Americans
> about the shortcomings of the Islamic Republic of Iran - they have no great
> illusions in the Islamic republic of Iran. People in Britain and America
> ought to support the RIGHT of the Iranian state to arm itself in its own
> defence, and to develop such energy sources as it sees fit. The
> determination of what POLICY is best for Iran is for the Iranian people,
> through whatever political process they make available for themselves. As
> far as analysis goes, I have no hesitation in saying that Mr Ahmadinejad's
> government is hostile to the interests of the Iranian people (not because it
> is too aggressive in its opposition to western domination, but because it is
> not aggressive enough). But since I am not writing in Farsi, I don't intend
> to make it a central component of my agitation.

The question is whether Western leftists think in terms of national
sovereignty or human rights.  If they think mainly in terms of the
latter, they won't oppose economic sanctions and "democracy
assistance"; if they think mainly in terms of the former, they will.

As for Mr. Ahmadinejad's government, if it is not aggressive enough in
its opposition to Western domination, that is in large part because he
has control over only parts of it.  Iran has a unique structure of
political rule: bureaucratic-collectivist government, in which the
Leader balances interests and ambitions of various political factions,
which represent different constituencies and are often in open
conflict with one another.  It's unlike both liberal democracy and
state socialism.  Quite interesting, actually.  I can't think of any
other government so factionalized.

What's the main difference among the factions in foreign policy?

Ahmadinejad would rather side with Latin socialists of Cuba,
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and so on than with the
Western power elites; Rafsanjani, Khatami,* Qalibaf, etc. would rather
side with the Western power elites than with Latin socialists if only
the empire let them.  It is difficult to figure out where Ali Khamenei
stands.

* Reformists, whom many Western liberals and leftists love, think
little of Latin socialists: "'Do you really assume people like Chavez
(and) Ortega . . . can be Iran's strategic allies?' the reformist
daily Etemad-e-Melli said in an editorial Tuesday addressing
Ahmadinejad" (Ali Akbar Dareini, "Iran's Discontent With Ahmadinejad
Grows," Associated Press, 17 January 2007,
<http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/17/international/i114353S68.DTL>).

Chaves said to Ahmadinejad: «Es usted uno de los grandes luchadores
antimperialistas de esta hora, de este cambio de época que amanece en
el horizonte del planeta» (27 September 2007,
<http://www.abn.info.ve/go_news5.php?articulo=104950>).  I.e., "You
are one of the greatest anti-imperialist fighters today, this time of
change of epoch that is dawning on the horizon of the planet.

We do live in an interesting time, when Bretton Woods II may be slowly
but surely unraveling, indeed a change of epoch, though not of mode of
production.

The question is whether the Iranian people think like Chavez or the
combined factions of reformists, Rafsanjaniasts, and technocratic
neo-conservatives.  If most of them think like the former, Iran will
be a key nation for Non-Alignment of the 21st Century; if they think
like the latter, Iran will be just another Third-World nation.
-- 
Yoshie