Middle
East: Cradle Or
Graveyard Of The Empire?
By Ardeshir Mehrdad
15 July, 2006
Countercurrents.org
No,
the abysmal failures in Iraq have not dissuaded Washington from embarking
on yet another adventure. George W. Bush and his warmongering allies
are preparing themselves for another major incident in the Middle East.
This time Iran is the main challenge in the establishment of the new
world order and a direct target.
The 'Nuclear Crisis' is artificial.
The 'war against terror' is total deceit. The fig leaf of 'freedom and
democracy' has not fooled anyone. The globe devouring monster is adamant
that it can use 'the end of history' to plough the earth. It is determined
to make the new century, a new American Century and it has set up its
first camp right next to Middle Eastern oil fields. Overwhelmed by illusions
of victory, this superpower has no qualms to burn down whatever is left
of the countries of this region (1). What can be done to confront this
monster? Can one restrain it from engulfing on yet another disastrous
adventure in the Middle East? Can one save the world from the dreadful
consequences of such an event? Is it futile to seek another horizon?
Are such attempts total illusions? This article is an attempt at finding
some answers to these questions and it starts with examining the political
and theoretical backgrounds.
The current world situation
is the result of a historical conjuncture. The culmination of the structural
crisis of capitalism (2) accompanied by an increasing ineffectiveness
of the existing world command system (what is left over after the cold
war) and an acceleration of the crisis of hegemony between central capitalist
states are the key characteristics of the global development in its
current stage. All these processes take place in a context of an authoritarian
capitalist globalization, an internationally restructured labor force
and a highly strung post '11 the September 2001'.This background has
allowed the most rabid and dangerous political tendencies of the world
capitalism to appear on the scene and get involved in the nitty gritty
details of one of the most dangerous eras in human history (3).
The current occupants of the White House are placed at the head of such
currents. On the very day they came to power, these forces announced
that one cannot save the world capitalist order form deathly crises
unless one used dramatic surgery. They rewrote the strategic national
security of the United States on the basis of redrawing the international
political map and the establishment of a new world order. They did not
hide the fact that they were seeking a hierarchical system of operation
in International relations and legal systems, capable of institutionalizing
the United State's military and economic superiority into a new Empire.
(4)
The new world order is imposing
conditions where the slavery of the global labor force is guaranteed
and a model of development capable of globalizing the most barbaric
forms of expropriation is established. The new world order aims to sanctify
privatization of all public services and establish a model of accumulation
by the dispossessed (5) or in the words of George Caffenzis allows 'daylight
robbery to replace hidden theft'(4).
In addition, this policy
must guarantee to deliver the domination of US multinationals on world
markets and to maintain their control over the main production and exchange
circuits as well as on the key reproduction fields. Wherever possible
it unilaterally breaches international treaties and agreements, redefines
the role of international institutions, abolishes national borders and
the right of other nation-states sovereignty. (7)
For many years the prescribed
solutions of neo conservatives for a regeneration of the world political
order had evolved from being a mere notion or a declaration. Their executive
plans of a 'new American century' (8) was prepared long before neo conservative
Republicans took power in the year 2000. In these plans the final aim
was what had already been declared by the Nixon administration: complete
control of the Middle East and winning the big prize. In a world where
guaranteed access to cheap oil is one of the essential preconditions
of production and reproduction, any power that controls the Middle East,
possesses one of the most essentials levers to control the world. Victory
in the cold war placed the United in such a position being able to lay
claim to the entire Middle East as war trophy. 11th of September 2001
created a golden opportunity to raise the flag of a 'war on terrorism'
and the deployment of the war machine in Afghanistan and Iraq , leading
to the occupation of both countries.
Iran is the next strategic step. The incorporation of this country in
the jurisdiction controlled by US's world empire and its reorganization
in accordance with Middle East in a new world order (9) is the immediate
goal of the current stage. Currently war is the main architect and violence
the ultimate weapon (10). Despite all this, the experience of Iraq and
Afghanistan will not necessarily be repeated. Not only because these
experiences have not achieved the desirable results or that they have
incurred colossal costs, but because Iran is a different type of target
with its own specific geographic, political and social characteristics.
Indications are that the United States has chosen a more complicated
route than in the previous two adventures for achieving its aims in
Iran. Many scenarios are being followed simultaneously, and the US is
operating with considerable flexibility in its choice of tactics. Here
it might be useful to point out some of the peculiarities in the tactics
used in dealing with Iran.
First: Use of the military
option in Iran will not necessarily mean military occupation (or at
least full military occupation). In addition to targeting economic military
targets with the aim of weakening the regime's defensive capabilities,
military strikes can work as part of a plan supported by certain neo
conservative figures close to Cheney and Rumsfeld (lead by Michael Leaden
and allies in American Enterprise): carving up Iran into smaller territories,
then gradually devouring it piece by piece or taking over some parts
of it. No doubt sooner or later the attraction of such plans will tempt
other politicians in Washington. Undoubtedly such the occupation of
the regions bordering Iran's Western border will not only give Washington
control of the oil and gas resources of OPEC's second largest oil producer,
but it will also be a significant step towards the overthrow of the
Islamic Republic Regime. The successful execution of this plan can cause
the regime to face serious difficulties regarding essential resources.
On the other hand, it would deprive the Iranian regime of one of its
most potent weapons, the use of Shia Fundamentalist groups inside Iraqi
territories (11). Current reports suggest show that this plan has gone
far beyond a mental exercise and practical steps towards its execution
are under way (12).
Second: Following basic principle
such as reducing speed, cost and level of operational complexity do
not mean that the White House elite will commit the same mistakes they
made in Iraq when contemplating an attack on Iran, embarking on a war
where "military victory was its start rather than its end"
(13). This time regime change is not the only aim. Destruction of independent
social resistance as well as total submission of Iran to the new capitalist
project following the overthrow of the regime is an important part of
this plan. The choice of means and methods is such that the overthrow
of the Islamic regime will lead to the coming to power of a subservient,
'desirable' government. Such considerations have leaded the Bush administration
to be more cautious and seek diplomatic tricks and the activities of
security services and propaganda machinery.
Today the emphasis on diplomatic
solutions is than ever at the forefront. Despite all this, it should
be noted that the Bush administration has less use than ever before
for diplomacy except where it provides justification for military action
and reduces its adverse consequences (14). When it comes to dealing
with 'rogue states' diplomacy is merely a lever to force them to the
edge of the abyss and bring them down. Diplomacy here does not mean
bartering or giving reciprocal guarantees. It is a method for burning
the opponent's winning cards, breaking its political and ideological
legitimacy (providing it has one) and finally throwing into the paws
of the war machine (15).
One can understand US-Iran
relations with such a definition of the current place and role of diplomacy.
On the one hand the United States has placed Iran at the heart of the
'axis of evil' and openly declared war against it. On the other hand,
when the US deemed it useful for its long term ends, the administration
has made contact with rulers of the Islamic Republic regime, notably
before military attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq, engaging them
in such plans. The aim behind such contacts was principally to seek
the support of Iran's Islamic regime to defeat resistance in these countries
and to help the establishment of an order favorable to the United States.
Whenever the Islamic regime has responded positively to such approaches
(usually in secret and through intermediaries) and done whatever was
asked of it -- interceding or spying - the ultimate response has been
more or less the same: the Iranian regime is aggressive and unmemorable
and remains a threat to international security. As long as such a regime
exists, it is a danger and a threat, even if they do everything they
are told, there will be no "amnesty" (16).
Moreover when it comes to
direct military intervention, it is necessary to seek the diplomatic
support of other powerful states and to create an international consensus
on this issue. The more widespread the support for US adventurism policies
in the Region, the less the political and economic costs of such a venture.
This time learning the lesson from Iraq, the US administration is avoiding
unilateral military engagement and tries to find new allies. Washington
hopes that by amending the 'hub and spoke' relations (17) within the
wheel of its international relations, it can find new allies for 'pre-emptive'
strikes.
US support for dialogue and
negotiations between European Union states and Iran is in line with
such a policy. Washington has approved of negotiations covering a limited
agenda of 'Iran's nuclear dossier' and with no other function than conveying
the political stance of one side to the other. In the absence of any
genuine US security guarantees to the Iranian regime, it was obvious
from the beginning that these talks will lead nowhere. As a result,
by siding with such discussions the US administration was able to rally
its European allies while paving the way for the one way path leading
to reporting Iran to the National Security Council, and pressuring the
Islamic regime.
The removal of 'reformists'
from the Iranian government circles and their replacement by pseudo-fascist,
militarist groups, has no doubt improved the prospects of success for
the Bush administration. With Ahmadinejad's government in power, Washington
has found an active ally in Tehran. An ally not only capable of precipitating
the defeat of such negotiations but prone to create a psychological
war-like atmosphere, events that might lead to economic sanctions, limited
military strikes and finally total war.
A two-pronged propaganda
was has been unleashed by the White House strategists. Within the US
and its allies the obvious task is to create the psychological and political
conditions necessary for launching this third direct military intervention
in the Middle East. The backbone of the propaganda is, as always, based
on fear, the threat of terrorism and Iran's nuclear program. Such statements
as "Iran is the biggest threat to world security since the Second
World War' (18) and such claims as "Iran's nuclear program poses
a threat equal to the dangers posed by the Bolshevik revolution and
the coming to power of Hitler' (19) are becoming commonplace and intended
at intensifying the pressure.
The reversal of the relation
between 'regime change' and the 'nuclear crisis' is one of the achievements
of the propaganda war unleashed by the US and its allies. The obedient
mass media must act smartly to manufacture a 'nuclear crisis' from the
regime's nuclear program (20). They must also disguise the fact that
precipitation towards access to nuclear technology is a reaction of
fear and weakness by a regime threatened by an important world power
(21).
Inside Iran the propaganda
war follow two separate trajectories: The way is being paved for a 'color
revolution' while instigating separatist ethnic movements. The Bush
administration tries to use the dissatisfaction and hatred felt by the
majority of the population towards Islamic regime, the sense of oppression
and injustice imposed by this regime for over 3 decades to pave the
way for another 'color revolution'. It is using old colonial methods
such as inciting regional, ethnic and religious hatred, to create an
atmosphere of despair and lack of political confidence - the old Yugoslav
scenario of encouraging the partition of Iran (22).
A Pentagon-orchestrated revolution
is finding a more suitable arena to work in a country where a large
gap is developing between the Islamic regime and the majority of the
population, whose needs and demands are being ignored, and the regime's
resort to militarist repressive solutions to survive. Under such circumstances
one can even envisage a scenario where the psychological/political warfare
inside Iran will favor military intervention allowing the US administration
to appear as a liberator capable of deceiving sections of the population.
This plan will carpet bomb the Iranian regime while calling on the majority
of the population to join the imperialist project and rise against this
regime (23).
There is no doubt that in
advancing its propaganda inside Iran, espionage and intelligence networks
have an active role. For many months now intelligence agencies have
been active, in alliance with the corporate mass media, on two separate
fronts: amongst the political opposition inside and outside Iran as
well as amongst Iran's national minorities. American intelligence services
have increased their activities in this arena; they have not only encouraged
the activities of groups under their influence (from the Mojahedin to
separatist regional, national groups) but also dispatched specialist
forces to specific regions in the country, setting up military bases
(24). It is not surprising that in addition to setting up audio- visual
media networks we see waves of sabotage, kidnapping, bombings in Khuzestan
and Baluchistan (25).
Now assuming that the Bush
administration has embarked on the third stage of its plan to colonies
the Middle East, it should be said that it is deploying more complicated
and diverse methods than in the past. Assuming that a future darker
than Afghanistan and Iraq awaits the Iranian people we should return
to the principle question of this article: Can one stop Bush's attempts
to impose sovereignty in the Middle East and stop another disastrous
war?
The peoples of Iran and the
Middle East have been placed in a perilous situation. Yet they don't
face a blind destiny. One can say this with confidence. Stopping Bush's
war machine, defeating his domineering intentions are difficult but
not impossible.
If nothing is done, the Middle
East is a scene of eternal tragedy, enslavement and captivity. The principle
players are fundamentalists of all shapes and sizes Islamists, Jewish
or Christian fundamentalists, nationalist and racist groups, a dozen
corrupt dictatorial governments and finally the agents and operators
of major oil cartels and arms manufacturers. In such a scenario, the
player capable of overthrowing injustice, darkness and dictatorship
appears absent. One cannot see a force capable of expressing the wishes
and the interests of the masses and this is a serious problem facing
the Middle East. The more one avoids confronting this reality, in the
name of 'wisdom' or 'realism' the worse the situation will get and the
more inevitable the prospect of a major disaster. As long as this shortcoming
exists one cannot imagine a Middle East capable of standing up to the
US aggression, capable of protecting itself from war, destruction and
annihilation.
One cannot depend on regional
states performing miracles. We can obviously set aside the members of
the Empire's club, those who in reality act merely as second hand contractors.
However, one should not be optimistic about those states that do not
fit in this circle. Not only are these states no different from the
others in the region when it comes to repression and dictatorship (often
they are amongst the worst), but when confronted by imperialist offensives,
they have neither the willingness nor the resolution to stand up to
it. Nor do they have the necessary popular base and capability needed
for such a confrontation. Amongst the regimes of the region, it would
be difficult to find a single example that would not sell its independence
and all its citizens' belongings and livelihoods, at the offer of an
imperialist 'breathing space. Even when such regimes face the abyss
and they are forced to defend themselves, they don't give up the hope
for deals and negotiations and they do not miss any opportunity for
seeking 'diplomatic initiatives' (26). Rather than their anti-imperialist
rhetoric, the problem of these regimes is their incompetence and inability
at playing a sufficiently useful role as servants of the 'New order'.
Iran's Islamic regime is a perfect example of such regimes.
Even if we assume that the
will and intention to resist imperialism exists, a regime such as Iran's
Islamic Republic can only confront a major super power, if it possesses
sufficient defenses. It would utter folly to rely on the military power
of a third world country to stand up to the US war machine. One cannot
imagine that military maneuvers, showing off a few old and new military
equipment, even the threat of using weapons of mass destruction can
create any hesitations in the intentions of the custodians of the new
world order (27). Such quixotic gesturing are merely open invitations
to Washington to use its most destructive weapons with a vicious, barbaric
attack without scruple. Such an invitation will pose no inconvenience
to the US war machine. It will not affect their 'neo' consciousness.
The weapon of suicide bombings
or the use of the Iraqi Shiites as a winning card, can itself become
a source of encouragement to launch pre-emptive attacks (28). Irrespective
of the usefulness of such tactics and irrespective of the capability
of the Iranian regime to use them, one cannot ignore the fact that the
threat of terrorist attacks or a religious war will only serve as justification
for the theory of 'unlimited war on terror' and a cover for the 'clash
of civilizations'. Many amongst influential neo conservatives believe
that victory against 'jihadist terrorism' can be achieved by destroying
their refuges and states supporting them. Many such ideologues are of
the opinions that the road to victory in Baghdad passes through Tehran
and drying up resistance in Iraq requires an attack against Iran and
overthrow of the Islamic regime (29). "Real Men" (a name given
by neo conservatives to themselves) have argued such ideas for many
years. They believe in closing the 'Iran file'.
The sole weapon of any government
in confronting imperialist powers is solid and powerful popular resistance
and mass mobilization. Without such a support it is absurd to talk of
resistance by a third world country. The Islamic regime in Iran has
no such weapon nor does it possess the ability to gain one. The fundamental
problem of the Islamic regime is not just that it has lost its social
backing. More importantly it faces a paradox were it to rely on mobilizing
its citizens in the event of an imperialist attack. This regime is unable
to call on Iranians to defend their sovereignty against imperialist
aggression, while for decades under the name of the God and Islam violently
depriving them from their right to self-governing. Those in power in
Iran will not be able to call on Iranians to defend the 'republic' when
in the words of its real leaders (individuals such as ayatollah Messbah
Yazdi) there is no such thing as a 'republics' in Islam.
These rulers don't even have
enough confidence in themselves to at least make some temporary conciliatory
moves towards their own people in order to reduce the divide between
them and the majority of people of country. Indeed, their dictatorial,
reactionary nature is so overwhelming that as the crisis deepens they
are imposing harsher conditions and alienating large sections of the
population. If the Iranian state's initial customary resort to deceit,
playing on religious sentiments and demagoguery fails, it has no hesitation
to resort to rabid violence and repression.
The 'ayatollahs' and their
military commanders have reached such a situation that they are ready
to bribe any 'Satan' and accept any indignity to remain in power. Yet
in confronting their own people, they cannot afford to show even the
kind of flexibility shown by Saddam Hussein on his last days of rule.
If in those days the Baathist dictatorship opened prison gates and turned
over arms stocks into peoples homes, the Islamic regime considers the
current situation as an opportunity to fill its prisons and embark on
a new wave of arrest of workers, women, youths, intellectuals, activists
of national and religious minorities in an effort to deprive the masses
of the only weapon left to them: protest and collective action.
Nor can one rely on the intervention
of other players on the world stage. There is no doubt that Washington's
victory in the Middle East, and especially in Iran, will be a major
regional transformation against the interests of some world powers.
However one cannot deduce from this that these powers will stand up
to the United States. Nor does this mean that they will be able to stop
America pursuing its interests. The position of Europe is more or less
clear. There is really no reason why they should pursue the policy they
had pursued regarding Iraq. They will follow the US either haltingly
or running fast behind it.
Russia and China too, despite
their current opposition, are capable of using Iran as a lever to gain
certain advantages and gain their share of the war booty. Given the
existing relations within the global political power structure, at a
time when those in power in the White House have rebelled against common
norms of international relations, one cannot imagine that Russia or
China's choices will go much beyond non-acceptance and challenging of
the US hegemony. Within such limitations, opposition, however serious,
does not appear to present an obstacle to Washington's authoritarian
tendencies.
Emphasizing internal differences
within ruling circles in the United States is also undoubtedly exaggerated.
These differences are real. However they are only directed at reducing
the error coefficient, avoiding unforeseen consequences. There is little
doubt that amongst the US elite there are no principal objections to
military intervention in Iran (30). It should be added that none of
the political factions has ruled out military attacks. Differences are
essentially limited to the scale and spread of the military operations,
the kind of weapons to be used as well as debates on the management
of the operation. The questions are more focused on technical issues:
is the use of nuclear weapons acceptable? (31) Have all necessary precaution
been taken regarding Iran's reaction? Is Donald Rumsfeld capable of
managing and leading another military conflict? (32) Within such a framework,
although differences can affect the plan for the military operation,
its timing or intelligence and diplomatic preparations, it is impossible
believe that they will lead to a change in policy and a review of strategic
directions.
Under present circumstances, therefore, there is little point looking
for a force capable of reigning in US aggression within the upper echelons
of official power. Such a force to oppose the US must be found elsewhere:
somewhere within the depth of those movements standing up to it. No
force in the world, except the region's destitute and poor -- those
already "living in hell" - can save the region from the barbarism
that awaits it. It is impossible to end the horror show, whose principle
players are forces of death, unless wide-ranging, independent and progressive
movements completely overturn the situation; and brings the huge power
of the people of labor and toil to become engaged in self liberation,
self rule and control of their own destiny.
Today Iran is the front line.
Neither the victory nor the defeat of the peoples of this country in
direct confrontation with one of the most powerful enslaving empires
of human history is pre-ordained. The destiny of this battle will depend
on answers to two essential questions. Will the majority of the Iranian
people, those who have nothing but their labor power to live for, be
able to overcome the subjective and political obstacles challenging
their united, decisive and independent movement? Will they be able rise
as a powerful and broad movement against ruling reactionaries and the
colonial enslavement, and offer a brighter future for Iran? And can
these people rely on the active support and solidarity of the millions
in the region, and the support of egalitarian and progressive anti war
forces throughout the world in the life and death battle against imperialist
aggression and reactionary repression?
In answering these questions
it must be emphasized that in the current situation in Iran the only
force capable of halting imperialism's advance must primarily present
a radically different political and structural perspective for the majority
of the population of this country. First and foremost it must convince
the millions of Iranian who over the last 28 years have witnessed nothing
but injustice and repression by a religious state to conquer apathy
and get involved within the ranks of the anti war movement. An inability
to unite the struggle against imperialism with the struggle for political
freedom and self rule will condemn this movement to becoming an appendage
of the regime, isolated and paralyzed (33).
It should be noted that without
attaining an independent identity, opening an alternative political
/structural horizon is impossible. This in itself is dependent on overcoming
existing theoretical challenges and defeatist tendencies operating on
two opposing fronts and threatens the political space with a clear split.
Despite contrary political positions these tendencies share common ideas.
In their perspective, the Iranian people presently have neither the
capability nor the potential to self-defense and self-emancipation.
Neither can they have any role outside the political games being played
by the major powers. Thus any possibility of fighting the US while opposing
the Islamic regime is rejected, negating either is proof of the other.
In choosing between bad and worse, the only political choice presented
to the people is to choose between fundamentalist Islamists and imperialism
or between sovereignty and freedom.
At one extreme, there are
those who see Bush's aggression against Iran as the main threat and
call on the Iranian people to unite behind the religious state. In their
view Iran's reactionary regime is the main force against imperialism
and not only any attempt at its overthrow should be set aside but even
weakening its position is tantamount to aiding and abating imperialism.
28 years ago the advocates of this view were in the forefront of the
forces justifying the Islamic government's brutal repression of those
who fought for freedom, equality and democracy in Iran. They were instrumental
in paving the way for the consolidation of one of the most dictatorial
and reactionary regimes of the region (34). These same currents have
once again become active. Their position that resistance against imperialism
is means we should rally round the Islamic regime has damaged the mobilizing
power of anti imperialism. It has deprived it of its liberating and
progressive content.
On the other extreme, the
Islamic republic is painted as the greater evil. Here we see tendencies
which under the guise of defending freedom, directly or indirectly support
US intervention in Iran. In their view a dictatorial and violent regime
as the Islamic Republic cannot be overthrown by its people alone. Only
foreign intervention and military repression (not unlike Mussolini and
Hitler's methods) can crack this regime. Accordingly, in the current
world conditions the US government remains the only force willing and
capable of bringing about such a change, irrespective of its nature
or the specific policies it pursues regarding Iran. In this analysis
the opportunity created by the overthrow of the regime through US intervention
will allow the Iranian people to participate in politics and take charge
of their own destiny.
The least danger of the hold
of these two twin-like tendencies in Iran's political scene, particularly
amongst certain leftwing forces, will be to turn the current bipolar
position into a permanent situation. The choice between bad and worse
simply chokes an independent movement capable of change and liberation.
It will close the door on those forces which are capable of breaking
down the historic hurdles of enslavement and fear.
Undoubtedly the threat of
colonialism is serious. We must stand up to this threat and mobilize
all our forces in this struggle. However, to rely on reactionary religion
in order to achieve this is tantamount to ignoring the main question.
It is to forget that it is precisely the Islamic republic regime that
has created the conditions that allow imperialism to question Iran's
national sovereignty and take such bold steps towards colonizing the
country. Moreover, confronting imperialism from a reactionary fundamentalist
viewpoint (even supposing it does not end up in compromise and a sell
out deal -- as it has done in the past) will have no other consequence
but to strengthen the religious dictatorship. And this is tantamount
to destroying nearly three decades of bloody struggle by workers, students,
intellectuals, women, youth and religious and national minorities, groups
that have fought for emancipation from this regime.
Clearly the overthrow of
this dictatorship is an urgent necessity. Every day that lengthens the
life of this regime, engulfs the majority of the people of Iran in further
calamity, forcing them to face harsher political and social conditions.
Were such accumulated social and political conflicts to remain unresolved,
the outcome can be nothing but destruction and desolation. It should
be understood, however, that the consequences will not be the same irrespective
of who overthrows the Islamic republic regime. Overthrow of the Islamic
regime by Pentagon and the CIA will not bring anything but a continuation
of destitution and misery, albeit in other formats.
Let us not forget that the
force that has the greatest role in the political overthrow of the Islamic
regime will play a crucial role in determining its successor. What can
one expect from an alternative regime that seeks to help the construction
of a new Empire engineered through cruise missiles and B52 bombers,
a force that has officially moved from the globalization of the Middle
East towards colonizing it and promises a new era where instead of a
new 'Pax Americana' promises a 'new Holocaust'.
Under such circumstances
where can one find hope for the establishment of a social and political
alternative? It is clear that this global power can replace the current
regime with a variety of alternatives, but none that might serve the
interests of LashkarAbad, ZourAbad, Kouye Tollab (some shantytowns in
Iran) or an alternative that will bring about a better prospects for
a Tabrizi student, a woman in Khoramshahr, a worker in Sanandaj, a tea
plantation worker in Lahijan or a child in Zahedan.
Effective resistance against
the intervention of the most powerful contemporary imperialist country
can only be achieved through an independent, widespread movement: A
movement capable of dramatically changing the balance of forces; a movement
capable of mobilizing huge power of the down trodden masses, those on
the margins of society. This is impossible except by a movement capable
of struggle for self determination and self rule, a force capable of
uniting the struggles for political freedom with social emancipation,
one capable of presenting a hopeful alternative regarding the lives
of millions of deprived and exploited masses. The least cost in failing
to achieve such a perspective will be that pseudo-fascistic military-religious
groups will to try and manipulate the wave of despair and distress amongst
the deprived, and mobilizing sections of the population, help the repressive
state and its war machine protect the current system of terror and fear
(35). Under these prospects, uniting in a struggle against neo liberal
capitalism and the corporate agenda of global domination can become
a force capable of mobilizing a true anti imperialist movement.
And finally confronting the
aggressive policies of the United States towards Iran, necessitates
the formation of a movement emerging from the multi ethnic, multi-national
and multi-religious solidarity movement that can liberate itself from
racial and sexual divisions. A movement that in a country like Iran,
riddled with numerous ethnic, religious and gender crises, would be
capable of firmly standing up to patriarchy and religious and ethnic
hierarchy. Such a movement must be capable of combining the struggles
against sexual, national, ethnic and religious discrimination with the
struggle against imperialism in order to thwart colonial attempts at
misdirecting current disaffections. To call on the peoples of Iran to
unite on the basis of collective self rule and regional self determination
can create the umbrella organization that recognizes various social
movements and unites them in a battle against imperialism (36).
Progressive and in particular
left wing forces, those who believe in socialism, have an undeniable
responsibility in taking the first steps towards such a plan. Responding
to this necessity depends on the capability of these groups to overcome
mental paralysis, short sighted political views and false opinions,
so that they are capable of picturing a new world order. These forces
must believe in the power of the masses as well as their own ability
to achieve political and social emancipation. They must accept that
not only is it disastrous to ignore wider horizons, but overlooking
scattered and smaller potentials and failing to unite such forces can
also be catastrophic. They should not allow the role of the vanguard
to be less than the followers, and the anti-imperialist struggle to
degenerate into a mere formalistic or moral duty, good for historic
documentation.
The Iranian working class
and the toiling masses have both the potential and capability of standing
up to US aggression. They can stop their country becoming a protectorate
of the US and its citizens slaves of American multinational corporations.
However the ultimate defeat of Washington's plans for the Middle East
requires the solidarity and coordinated resistance of the peoples of
this region and an active international support movement. Such solidarity
is necessary even to dissuade the US from following its "Imperial"
project on Iran. Such a movement can only rise from within the radical
progressive forces of the Middle East.
We should not have any illusions
about religious and ethnic movements. Such movements cannot stop the
disaster engulfing the countries of the region one after the other,
indeed they play an important role in the creation if this terrible
situation. By dividing the peoples of the region to rival religious
and ethnic groups (through creating a wall separating religious from
non religious people, between secular forces and religious forces) and
by encouraging conflict between them, these movements have in practice
served the interests of imperialist powers (37). Today in the Middle
East, the enforcers of the New Order project are confident that they
can rely at all times on the support of one nationality or ethnic group
against the other. They can seek the cooperation of one religious group
to suppress another group. Most importantly they can rely on religious
fatwa against all communists and non believers. Today the main function
of major Shiite organizations in Iraq or Kurdish nationalist groups
in this country has left no doubt the power of religious and ethnic
groups in paving the way for imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation.
The Middle East requires
another movement. One that can challenge religious fundamentalism, ethnic
narrow mindedness, tribal rivalry whilst fighting against Imperialism.
One that can strengthen genuine solidarity between the deprived, suppressed
Arab, Kurdish, Turkish, Fars, Turkmen, Baluchi people and unite their
struggles against imperialist pillage and capitalist enslavement. We
must create a common language for the Afghani, Iranian, Pakistani, Iraqi,
Tajik, Palestinian worker and toiler. This new movement must create
an opportunity for the Assyrian, Armenian and Jewish, Zaratostrian and
Muslim, believers and non believers in the region to respect each other
in order to open the doors to a new world, ending the era of wars, dictatorships,
injustice, poverty and inequality.
The first step is to build
an alliance capable of uniting dispersed anti imperialist, anti capitalist
struggles. A social forum capable of stopping the isolation of regional
struggles and creating a widespread movement. A movement capable of
engaging and involving the revolutionary potentials of women, the youth,
students, workers and peasants throughout the region. Unity amongst
such movements will create the framework for building national unions
and creating multinational movements. The formation of nation-wide trade
unions, women and student movements can not only become the backbone
of a genuine revolutionary/secular social forum in the Middle East,
but is itself a genuine qualitative political metamorphosis in the region.
Worker activists, together with progressive women, students, accompanied
by writers, artists, journalists and many other social groups whose
very existence is being challenged under the present conditions can
act now. Although the path ahead is exceedingly difficult, it certainly
is not a dead end.
The struggles of the Iranian
people and the peoples of the Middle East against Imperialism and reactionary
forces are a struggle that will directly influence the destiny of humanity
on our planet. In this battle we will either witness the burial of the
architects of the New World order of slavery, and their twin allies
in the backward religious movements, or the world will succumb to violence
and barbarism. There will be few places left in the world that can remain
immune to events in the Middle East.
However it is also true that
one can find nowhere on earth where solidarity with the resistance of
the peoples of the Middle East will not play a crucial role in the eventual
outcome of these events. The anti capitalist movement, anti imperialist
movements and especially the international antiwar movement play a vital
role in awakening the people and neutralizing the deceptions created
by corporate mass media. These struggles and campaigns can also play
an important role in mobilizing the protest movement in the centers
of world capital, creating despair and division amongst the US elite
and their allies.
However the experience of
the last few years has shown that given the complicated political scene
in the region, these campaigns can themselves face contradictions and
adopt unworkable positions. Capitulation to the bipolar scene in the
Middle East (choosing to side with imperialism or the regimes in the
region) can paralyze the anti war movement. Within the framework of
such an outlook, some tendencies go as far as not only supporting the
regimes of the region in the name of anti imperialism, but also denying
the existence of any movement that defines itself in opposition to both
imperialism and local regimes. They are silent against tyrannical regimes
such as Iran's Islamic Republic (arguing that one shouldn't find ideological
justification for imperialist intervention). In fact such forces are
helping to create the disastrous conditions where the protests against
poverty, deprivation and dictatorship are suppressed and independent,
progressive anti imperialist movements are paralyzed.
Last February and March ,
in the middle of the 'nuclear debacle', at a time when Washington was
trying to justify another military intervention in the Middle East,
the Islamic regime in Iran embarked on a new wave of terror and repression
of various social forces. Unprecedented violence was used to attack
gatherings of protesting bus company employees in Tehran. Workers who
were demanding pay rises and the right to set up their independent organizations.
Thousands were arrested; women and children were held hostage and peaceful
protest by women celebrating International women's day were attacked
by thugs and club-wielding Islamic militia. Security-military forces
opened fire on Kurdish and Arab protesters in Sardasht and Ahvaz and
some young protesters were executed. "Voice of America' was quicker
than any progressive group at condemning these events, the White House
issued non-stop statements. However the silence of some in the anti
war movement was not once broken.
Whatever the excuse for this
reluctance, it is difficult to understand how such actions can strengthen
the international antiwar movement or how they can strengthen the anti
imperialist movement of the Iranian people. Can one imagine any society
where setting up workers organizations is a crime, where demanding a
fair wage is an offence punished with imprisonment and where protesting
against discrimination and deprivation is repressed, being capable of
confronting imperialism and capitalist plunder? Can one find a better
ground for the advance of US tanks than a country where the society
is impoverished, repressed, facing religious, national and sexual repression,
where society is sinking in a quagmire of addiction and prostitution?
If a repressed population can only find Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney on
their side, will they not waver over Washington's adventurous interference
in their country?
There is no doubt that worldwide
protests against Bush' war mongering policies have the potential of
becoming an influential power capable of changing the course of events
in the Middle East. However the realization of such an aim demands that
such protests take place not only against imperialism's war efforts
but also in protest against the dictatorial, repressive policies of
corrupt reactionary regimes in the region (38). Success depends on whether
anti war anti imperialist movements themselves can become the support
base for the creation of an independent, self emancipating movement.
A movement capable of making the cradle of the first Empire of the third
Millennium it’s grave. Comment
Ardeshir Mehrdad is co-Editor of Iran Bulletin - Middle East Forum .
[email protected]
Footnotes
1. A large number of articles have countered the propaganda war unleashed
by US administration to justify their aggressive policy against Iran.
Among them see: Antony Loewenstein, Spining us to war in Iran. March
08, 2006 http://www.zmag.org/;
John Pilger, Iran: the next war, February 13, 2006, New statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/;
Jorge Hirsch, war against Iran April 2006, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
; Edward S. Herman & David Peterson, The Iran Crisis as a Prelude
to U.S. and / or Israeli aggression, Nov. 2005, http://www.coldtype.net/
; Michael T. Klane, Oil, Geopolitics, and the coming war with Iran ,
http://www.commondreams.org/
2. Here the structural crisis
of capitalism is understood as described by István Meszáros:
a deep, permanent (unlike cyclical), and intensely destructive crisis
where the normal tendencies for development are in turn ruinous. István
Mészáros, The Uncontrollability and Destructiveness of
Globalizing Capital, http://www.isf.co.uk/
3. There have been a number
of studies on the ineffectiveness of the present global command system
of capitalism, the US hegemony in the capitalist world being questioned
or the impossibility of maintaining the superiority and privileges of
American monopolies there. See for example: Immanuel Wallerstein, U.S.
Weakness and the struggle for Hegemony, Monthly Review, July -- August
2003 ; Peter Goven, U.S. Hegemony Today, Monthly Review, July-August
2003 ; István Mészáros, Socialism or Barbarism
, From the American Century to the Crossroads , Monthly Review Press,
2001.
4. See America's National
Security Strategy 2002 & 2006, http://www.whitehous.gov/
first published in 2002 and reiterated in 2006. I have
reviewed the Bush administration's approach to global developments and
international relations in Rahe Kargar no 170 Summer-Autumn 2002 (Farsi)
5. For an elaboration of "accumulation by dispossession" see
David Harvey, The New Imperialism , Oxford University Press, 2003; A
Conversation with David Harvey, Logos, Winter 2006
6. See George Caffentzis, From Stealing to Robbing: A Post-Script to
"No Blood for Oil! (3/27/2003)
7. I have elaborated on the
unilateralist policies dictated by the US government in the international
arena, as well as its isolationalism, especially during the presidency
of Bush junior in another article - Another World is Possible Rahe Kargar
no 169 Winter 2001 (Farsi).
8. The Project for New American
century http://www.newamericancentury.org/
9. From the point of view
of the "new order" the Middle East is defined by two characteristics.
Firstly its extensive oil and gas deposits resources place the region
and its countries within the bounds of "vital interests" of
global capital. Secondly the cultural "backwardness" and its
political equivalent, namely "irresponsible", "incompetent"
or "rogue" States. For the strategists of the "new order"
the ultimate solution for such a region is to remove the oil and gas
deposits beyond the realm of national sovereignty, and place them under
the "mandate" of world capital and its political command headquarters,
which is currently situated in the Pentagon. The tasks for the project
for restructuring the Middle East and the countries therein is dictated
by neo-liberalism: the complete abolition of social welfare, the sale
of public resources and state enterprises, deregulation of financial
systems, freeing trade, de-regulating and coercive casualisation of
the labor force, de-organizing workers and making it impossible for
them to organize collective resistance and confrontation with the owners
of capital.
10. There is nothing new
warmongering. The history of capitalism, just like previous class based
social orders is full of large and small ruinous wars. Nevertheless
war and military intervention assume a different place than before within
the present objective necessities of imperialism in its current stage
of development, namely the implementation of the project of violent
and imperious globalization. It has been implemented by the neo-conservative
crew in power and facilitated by the more favorable post September 11
conditions. George Bush's government, while extolling the virtues of
the miracle of the "invisible hand" chooses war as the main
route for fulfilling "national interests", even going so far
as to consider using nuclear weapons. The assumption is that the unequivocal
military superiority of the US renders any challenge to the hegemonic
and leadership role of the US unfeasible. Richard Perle describes the
place of war in Washington's foreign policy with rare openness: "(There
will be) no stages"“ hesaid "we don't try to piece together
clever diplomacy but just wage a total war." See John Pilger, The
colder war, Mirror, January 29, 2002.
11. The Beirut-based Daily
Star published a widely cited article where it was alleged that the
invasion of the oil-rich Khuzestan province would be the first step.
The web site Global Security reveals a strategy named "the Khuzestan
plan" where US and British forces will try and repeat their success
in Iraqi Kurdistan by supporting an ethnic uprising in Iranian Khuzestan
and create a protectorate called "Ahwaz" or "Arabestan"
with some form of de facto autonomy. See Zoltan Grossman, Khuzestan:
The first front in the war on Iran? zmag.org, November 07, 2005
12. Washington hopes that
even if the invasion does not result in complete occupation of the country,
by occupying the neighboring provinces its position within Iraq would
improve. This will strengthen their hands in controlling the Iraqi Shiites
and neutralize them as a winning card in Iranian hands.
13. I owe this interpretation
to Moshe Machover in a speech given to a seminar on Middle East organized
by the Jewish Socialist Society in March 2006 in London.
14. David Manning, Mr. Blair's
chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized
the discussion between George Bush and Tony Blair "Our diplomatic
strategy had to be arranged around the military planning" These
discussions took place three weeks before the invasion of Iraq and in
them Tony Blair thought the second UN Security Council resolution on
the country "was essential for both countries to lobby for a second
United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as an
insurance policy against the unexpected". See Don Van Natta Jr.,
Bush was set on path to war, British Memo says, New York Times, March
27, 2006
15. In an interesting article
Norman Solomon comments on a recent Wall Street Journal headline "U.S.
Chooses Diplomacy on Iran's Nuclear Program" thus: "It's a
time-honored scam: When you're moving toward aggressive military action,
emphasize diplomacy". See Norman Solomon, The Iran Crisis: 'Diplomacy'
as a Launch Pad for Missiles
16. R. Nicolas Burns under
Secretary for Political Affairs addressing the House Foreign Affairs
Committee called Iran the "central banker of terrorism" and
went on to say "Today, the Iranian leadership is actively working
against all that the U.S. and our allies desire for the region -- peace
in Lebanon, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and an end to
terrorism. In fact, no country stands more resolutely opposed to our
hope for peace and freedom in the Middle East than Iran." See R
Nicholas Burns, Opening Statement before the House International Relations
Committee, March 8
17. The relationship of the
hub and spoke is the relationship of the main capitalist countries (spokes)
with the hub (US) in the post second world war period. See Peter Govan
footnote 3 ibid
18. US senator John Maclean
in a television interview in early March. See Antony Loewenstein, Spinning
us to war in Iran. March 8, 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein03012006.html
19. See Ghali Hassan, Selling War Against Iran. Propaganda campaign
portrays Iran as a pariah state February 7, 2006.
20. It may be useful to make
two points. Firstly Bush is not alone in creating a crisis around the
issue of nuclear weapons. Certain powerful circles in Iran, in particular
among the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij (a paramilitary
organization) are also interested in blowing up the crisis. To transform
the nuclear project into a national question allows them to hide behind
an incited "patriotic sentiments" of certain sectors of the
population. Moreover an accentuation of the crisis speeds up the process
of militarization of the state structure and extends the influence of
military and quasi-military institutions. Second, although the quest
for nuclear energy, even in countries as rich in oil and gas deposits
as Iran, may not be mistaken on the long term perspective, long term
economic interests of the country is clearly the last thing in the mind
of a regime such as the Islamic Republic which is pursuing a nuclear
program with such tenacity.
21. Recent opinion polls
show that the propaganda offensives of large news corporations have
had some effect in changing public opinion in favor of another military
intervention in the Middle East. See Americans would back military action
in Iran dispute, Pollsays, Bloomberg, January 27, 2006. And also Ghali
Hassan ibid footnotes 19.
22. Each of these has its
advocates among influential neo-conservatives. For example Richard Perle
wants a political alliance of Iranian pro-US anti-Islamic regime groups.
For him the aim of an attack on Iran is not occupation but creating
conditions for a directed popular uprising to topple the regime. See
The Richard Perle Interview by John Hawkins, Others who in the past
strenuously fought for a "democratic revolution" such as Michael
Ledeen appear to have had an about turn in the face of quasi-fascistic
military-religious gangs and the populist policies of Ahmadinejad, and
are looking at separatist movements and rebellions among the various
ethnic groups as a solution to the question of Iran.
23. The official allocation
of 75 billion dollars to establish a media network to serve US propaganda
machinery is an overt act in smoothing the political and psychological
space inside Iran and to facilitate Washington's multilateral intervention.
In his speech to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Nicolas Burns
expounds at length on the priorities and uses of this allocation. See
footnote 16 ibid.
24. The Financial Times is
explicit: The intelligence wing of the US marines has launched a probe
into Iran's ethnic minorities at a time of heightened tensions along
the border with Iraq and friction between capitals ... the Pentagon
was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the Islamic
government, and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone
to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are
splitting Iraq. US Study probes Iran’s ethnic mix, FT. com site,
Feb 23, 2006.Seymour Hersh quoting a Bush adviser with close ties with
the Pentagon in the New Yorker paints a similar scenario. See Seymour
M. Hersh, the Iran Plans, the New Yorker, Issue of 17-04-2006.
25. Over the last few months
the two provinces of Khuzestan and Baluchestan have witnessed a number
of bomb attacks on government buildings, oil pipelines, assassination,
hostage taking, and such like. There are currently many unanswered questions
relating to their nature and source, and it difficult to ignore some
level of linkage with Washington's policies in Iran. Hersh's (ibid)
quotes Patrick Clawson an Iran specialist and deputy director of research
in the Washington Institute for Middle East policy that underground
activities and sabotage are part of the US plans in Iran, and are indeed
his own preferred option.
It should also be noted that evidence for the footprints of the Iranian
regime has also not been lacking. Throughout its life the regime has
never flinched fro the use of terror and sabotage to create the right
atmosphere for repression or for factional purges. See for example Hossein
Bastani, Rereading a dossier of terror, August 9, 2005 (Farsi) http://www.emruz.info/
26. Ahmadinejad's letter
to George W Bush is a superb glimpse into the real nature of his so-called
anti-imperialist slogans. Putting aside the tone and condescending nature
of the advice offered at the core of this "diplomatic initiative"
was nothing but an official invitation to open the door for dialogue.
One might ask what, other than expediency, has persuaded a president
who for 28 years has been calling America the Great Satan and marching
under the flag of "death to America" to bashfully invite Bush
to talks and deals just at the moment when the ultra-conservative Bush
regime is plugging Islamic lands with bombs and rockets and openly declares
war on the Islamic Republic by putting it at the top of its list of
"rogue states". You can see the real core of the way the Islamic
Republic views the "Great Satan" when Ahmadinejad bases his
invitation to talks not on shared interests of the two people, or even
the two governments, but on shared religious beliefs. That is in order
to soften the opponent and arrive at an agreement he places his bets
on the conservative and fundamentalist core of the Christian-Zionist
ideology of Bush and co. What, other than dimwittedness, can persuade
some on the left to mistake this for progressive and anti-imperialist
populism?
27. A week-long military
maneuver in April in the Persian Gulf where the regime paraded new weapons
to present an image of a regional military power with high defensive
and offensive potentials.
28. Over the last few months
the regime has tried to portray itself as capable of hitting US interests
anywhere in the world. An official invitation to join the newly created
"martyr brigade", videos by a high ranking security official
in the Revolutionary Guards (with a pseudonym of Dr Abbasy) threatening
the US with revenge terrorist attacks in case of attack on Iran, and
other threats by official Revolutionary Guard commanders are examples.
29. This view is strongly supported by members of the American Enterprise.
Michael Ledeen was advocating a military attack on Iran to dry up the
roots of Iraqi resistance on the eve of the occupation of the country.
Michael A. Ledeen, The War on Terror Won't End in Baghdad, Wall Street
Journal, September 4, 2002.
30. Today the Republican
ultra-conservatives have been joined by well known liberal voices in
the Democratic Party such as Hillary Clinton in advocating a pre-emptive
strike on Iran.
31. Alongside pressures on
Russia to prevent sale of military equipment to Iran, there have been
open discussion as to the possibility of using nuclear weapons against
the country. The debates have now shifted such that the question is
not whether an attack on Iran will take place, but whether it will be
with conventional or nuclear weapons. While the aim of airing such issues
may possibly be to pressurize Russia, it is not inconceivable that there
are those in the Pentagon or the White House who have entered the actual
use of nuclear weapons into their calculations. See Seymour Hersh ibid,
Saul Hudson, Bush Won't Exclude Iran Nuke Strike, Reuters, April 20,
2006. For an analysis of a nuclear attack on Iran see: Michel Chossudovsky,
Nuclear war against Iran, http://www.globalresearch.ca/,
January 3, 2006; Aijaz Ahmad, The Imperial nuclear order, http://www.hinduonnet.com/,
Vol: 23, Iss: 09, 19-05-2006
32. Most of the criticisms
of the war, particularly those coming from military or security sources,
are directed against the weakness of the non-military leadership of
the Pentagon. They are accused of a bunker-mentality giving impractical
advice out of touch with reality from behind concrete walls.
33. Interestingly even when
many colleagues holding such views were physically purged in the wave
of repression by the Islamic regime in the first years of its existence,
they were rarely able to embark on a radical critique of the roots of
their beliefs. The result was that a section went on bended knees to
the opponent's camp and waxed lyrical over the virtues of capitalism
and imperialism. Another section sunk into their shells for over 2 decades,
becoming bystanders in the political arena, until today's favorable
conditions has given them a chance to move again.
34. Undoubtedly, acute crisis
in foreign relations and the danger of military conflict and war increasingly
favor the emergence and growth of religious-military gangs. With the
militarization of the government apparatus a condition may well arise
when the discredited velate faghih (absolute rule of the supreme religious
leader) may give way to the absolute rule of military commanders who
are presently hiding behind a cloud of populist slogans. This scenario
- whether through force or compromise - is most likely if the regime,
confronted with the current storm, were for whatever reason to weather
the storm for some time. For this reason the control of the Majles-e
Khebregan (Assembly of Experts), which elects the Supreme Leader (or
Leadership Council) in the forthcoming elections will be critical. See
Ardeshir Mehrdad & Mehdi Kia, New -- conservative, regime crisis
and political perspective in Iran, Iran Bulletin Middle East Forum,
series II, no. 3, December 2005.
35. An example is the various
Shiite sects in Iraq. One might well ask whether the role of Ayatollah
Sistani or Mohammad Bagher Hakim in creating conditions for the occupation
of Iraq was less than Saddam Hussein or Taha Yassin Ramadan. If one
made it easier to occupy the country, the other gave a fatwa sanctioning
Iraq's occupation by America and its allies. In the name of Islam, and
for the sake of a morsel of power and a constitution that institutionalized
religious and sexual tyranny, they sold of the people of Iraq and their
interests to Halliburton, Chevron, Bechtel, and Texaco, if not to Christian-Zionist
fundamentalism!
36. I have expounded in another
article the meaning of participatory democracy and self-government as
a progressive and liberating alternative to religious and colonial despotism.
I wrote "there are only two roads facing the new order: either
become liquidated as an independent political unit or restructure the
political power in the country in such a way as to enable it to confront
this "new order". In the current perspectives facing the world
it would be difficult to define an alternative. One can say with confidence
that the democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic is that political
order which is based on strengthening the people in the depths, and
their real participation and self-government." And "the real
alternative of the ruling power is that structure of power that is decentralized,
organized from below, and based on the self-government and participation
of all the sections of society in decision making in all the affairs
that effect their life. The more direct this influence, the more direct
that participation. This is a structure of power that in distributing
political and material resources, ends all geographic, ethnic, religious,
and sexual differences. Its basis structure are local and regional self-governing
societies, and self-government of both production and distribution",
See Ardeshir Mehrdad. Which alternative: Colonial rule or participatory
popular sovereignty? Iran bulletin -- Middle East Forum Series II no
Zero, Summer 2003 http://www.iran-buletin.org/
37. In the current conditions
of the world, it is difficult to imagine ethnic nationalism culminating
in independent nation-states. On the contrary it is clear that they
end up as new colonies, protectorates and city-states under tutelage.
Today, rather than a force of national or social liberation, warlords
and mercenary armies arise from ethnic nationalism.
38. There is no shortage of voices among the anti-war movement that
take an independent and progressive stand. See for example Campaign
for Peace and Democracy initiated by Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, Howard
Zinn, Frances Fox Piven and many others. Campaign for Peace and Democracy,
http://www.igc.org/