Iran's Confused Future

The turmoil in Iran continues. With the Shah and the Shah's man deposed the various factions that had combined for that objective are again taking divergent paths. Chances of civil war between the former anti-Shah factions is growing as each tries to impose its own vision of an Iran without the Shah. The collapse of Bakhtiar's "telephone" government had brought formerly hidden differences out into the open.

Predicting Iran's future is as dangerous as playing Russian roulette solo. Yet Iran's strategic position at the crossroads of three continents overlooking the Persian Gulf (shipping route for much of the Middle East's petroleum exports), as as a supplier of oil to the west and cheap natural gas to the Soviet Union, as the owner of the fifth largest armed force in the world, and as a new focus for an increasingly aggresive Soviet Union demands that an assessment of this complex situation be attempted. Just one consequence of recent events is that the cessation of Iran's oil exports has meant that current world oil consumption exceeds supply by some 2 billion barrels daily.

Roll on the Shah

The Shah came to power in a CIA sponsored coup in 1935 by overthrowing the nationalist government of Mahammed Mossadiq. Oil companies were immediately denationalised. It was a bonanza for the US and British monopolies. The Soviet Union, too, asked for a stake in Iran's oil industry.

With total foreign domination of the oil industry, Iran became the second largest exporter of crude oil in the world. Iran was made the main supplier of oil to the isolated fascisms of South Africa and Israel. Before striking oil workers stopped the flow to these countries, Iran supplied 90% of South Africa's oil. South Africa's petrol prices have rocketted and as the search for new sources began, legislation was being prepared making it illegal to divulge the country's oil sources. Israel is meanwhile negotiating with Egypt to replace its shortfall.

Despite its massive oil exports, the Iranian people have gained little benefit. That profit that did not disappear to the foreign monopolies ended up part of the Shah's family fortune. That fortune exceeds $ (US) 25 billion invested mainly in a supposed chanty — the Pahlavi foundation (Pahlavi is the Shah's family name).

The Shah's family has extensive properties in the United States. They also own 5% of the First National Wisconsin Corporation Bank and about 50% of the Canal Street Development project in New Orleans.

The Shah used the revenue from the large rise in oil prices in 1973 to build Iran's armed forces into the most powerful and modern in the Middle East. He actively pursued the role of regional gendarme in defence of the US interests. The armed forces were strictly disciplined by an officer elite drawn exclusively from the upper classes. The pride of the armed forces was the Shah's personal Imperial Guard — the "Immortals".

Let's Modernise with the Shah

The Shah had a strange notion of the path to "modernisation". In the early years of this rule he forced land reforms in the countryside which aimed at replacing feudal relations with capitalist relations. The peasants waged armed struggles against these "reforms". In the course of these reforms the Shah's family grabbed for itself 25% of the total land. This alone generated for them an annual tax-free income of $ (US) 1 billion.

The Shah claimed in 1974 that his policies would make Iran "one of the world's leading nations within a generation". These policies which developed an extensive industrial sector at the expense of agriculture turned Iran from being self-sufficient in food to an importer of 60% of it's essential needs in food. One example of the decline of agriculture is the water problem. Robert Graham, in his book, Iran, the Illusion of Power, says that at present "roughly 4.5 million hectares of land are capable of being irrigated but only 70% has the neccessary infrastructure and less than 30% is being properly watered". And because the distortion of the economy has driven farmers from the land into the cities looking for work, lack of maintenance has destroyed many of the traditional underground channels which exploit ground water - the ganat system. Illiteracy remains widespread in the countryside.

Khomeini has described the Shah's industrialisation programme as a montage - assembly of foreign components rather than genuine development of national industries. Most industry belongs to the Shah, the royal family and its henchmen or to foreign investors. "We can see through these that the country has been turned into a colony of foreign interests".

Ambitious industrialisation has pushed out the smaller local capitalists and spiralled inflation to levels of 50%. And still there are only 2,000 miles of roads in the whole country while 70% of the population has no electricity or running water. Industrialisation has also created a large and militant working class of 3 million. Workers have formed the backbone of the movement to topple the Shah. Since late last year a virtual general strike has paralysed Iran's economy while co-operative distribution teams have meant that the ordinary people have not had to suffer.

Roll on the Opposition

The land reforms and industrialisation brought with them an influx of western ideas and practises. The Shah attempted to force these on the Iranian people. He attacked many traditional Islamic practises. Nearly all of Iran's people are Shi' ite Muslims. Shi'ite leaders (mullahs) have traditionally played a major role in political life. As they opposed the Shah's practises he tried to undermine their authority. They played a leading role in the armed struggle against the land reforms in the 60's.

As the Shah's regime increased its repression the religious leaders denounced the Shah and turned to the Ayatollah Khomeini, a leading Shi'ite theologian forced into exile in 1964 by the Shah. In the course of his long exile thousands of Iranians visited him first in Iraq and for the last two years in Paris to discuss how to replace the Shah.

In loose alliance with the mullahs were the national bourgeosie organised under the banner of the "National Front". With the mullahs they directed the anti—upsurse calling demonstrations and setting demands as well as organising the running of the country in the wake of the Shah's departure.

page 9

The Shah came to power by destroying nationalised industries and throughout his reign brought in foreign capital and experts to control Iran's industry. Many of the National members of Khomeini's provisional government (including Prime Minister Bazargan and the foreign minister) were involved in the nationalised industries which were supplanted by the foreign monopolies.

Paradoxically it was the Shah's own industrial policies that created the large urban elite which forms the social base of the National Front. Many were western educated. Iran had the largest number of overseas students per capita of any developing country. While illiteracy ran at 60% the numbers of Iranians in institutions of higher education had leapt from only 2,835 in 1944 to 67,268 in 1970. This elite had simmered under repression of democratic rights carried out by the police and secret police (SAVAK) and their exclusion from the fortune made by the Shah's family and their corrupt coterie.

The National Front and the mullahs united to replace the Shah with a democratic republic based on Islamic principles with Khomeini as titular head. This republic would be based on an independent self-sufficient capitalist economy, pursuing a foreign policy of Arab solidarity and genuine independence. Until the last few days they have between them dictated the line of the mass democratic and anti-imperialist movement.

Their task was not easy. The Shah's regime has murdered 40,000 Iranians in the last two years. The hated secret police (SAVAK) engaged in assassination and torture on a wide scale. The army was regularly turned on the people. Thousands of political prisoners filled the jails. As the mass movement heated up, bullets, boyonets and tanks firing point blank into the demonstrations were thrown against it; To no avail.

But these were not the only factions opposed to the Shah. A large number of left groups, loosely organised and with vague policies won immense support from the Iranian workers and peasants as well as many students. These groups are worried about the mullahs gaining any substantial share of power in the new Iran. They correctly suspect many of the mullahs. This is reflected in attempts to institute an "Islamic" legal code including stoning for adultery (only the woman) and chopping off hands for theft.

Splits Appear

Until the Shah's Imperial Guard moved to crush rebel air force men in Teheran Khomeini had appeared in complete control of the mass movement. The "Immortals" were met by a wall of armed civilians who defeated them in two crucial days of bitter fighting. At the same time leftists including the students, distributed arms to the people who used them to take over the police stations and destroy pro-Shah forces. In this situation Bakhtiar was forced to resign. The first battle had been won.

But Khomeini and Bazargan had opposed the arming of the people and immediately called for them to hand in their arms and for the many rank-and-file army men who had deserted to the side of the people to return to their units. Most have refused this. And despite executions of 8 key pro-Shah generals and 15 other military leaders they are not satisfied that enough has been done to eliminate the remnants of the pro-Shah forces.

It is clear that the mullahs and national bourgeoisie oppose the arming of the people. Although they are nationalists and democrats they still wish to replace the Shah's elite by their own. The Iranian people who have suffered tyranny for so long are determed to keep the intiative in their own hands, but lack a coherent organisation to lead their struggle to gain the leadership of Iran's national democratic revolution.

Iran: the Collapse of the American' Dream

Four months ago, on October 30, President Carter reassured the Shah's son that "our friendship and alliance with Iran is our important basis on which our entire foreign policy depends". At the same time Carter's ad visors in the CIA and the State Department were saying that the burgioning mass movement against the Shah would not amount to anything.

No, in the space of those four months the Shah has fallen, his prize troops have been defeated by street fighters, the head of the secret police has been executed, and his force abolished, Iran has withdrawn from the US sponsered CENTO alliance and replaced the Israeli Embassy with a PLO office. The Ayatollah Khomeini, who the US has conspicuously ignored and refused to negotiate with, has returned to his country in triumph and installed a provisional government dedicated to independence from either superpower.

It is a living example of not only the ineptness of those who guide the American foreign policy, but also of the paralysis of will that has struck the once dominant global power. Into this vacuum of American power has leapt the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile on the Northern Border

As the Iranian crisis developed the Soviet Union moved 75,000 Iranian-speaking troops to its border. It has welcomed the toppling of the pro-US regime - a regime it had contended for the favours of. A leader of the Soviet "communist" party in Iran explained their pleasure: "The Soviet Union would be very happy if, on its southern border there will be a friendly government with no foreign bases. A friendly Iran would be the greatest guarantee for the Soviet Union's security".

The Soviets are confident they can gain further sucesses in Iran. Their puppet party (the "communist" Tudeh Party) is being pushed into building an independent power base. The forces to the left of the provisional government are without a clear perception of the nature of the Soviet Union and the danger it poses to Iran's revolution; The Soviets are probably looking to succour such groups in the hope that the provisional government (or even its replacement) would be forced to tilt closer towards them. It is apt that many people quote the sad fate of Afghanistan where an organised pro-Soviet group subverted their revolution, quickly liquidated those genuinely committed to independence in a series of purges, and tied their country to subservience to the Soviets. This is a real danger in unstable Iran.

No Turning Back

The most urgent task for the Iranian people is to unite against any attempts of Soviet social-imperialism to subvert their revolution. The division between the different anti-Shah groups creates the ideal situation for Soviet intervention. Under a treaty signed in the 20s they even have this as a right. The policy of Khomeini to renegotiate the natural gas agreement with the Soviet Union which guarantees the Soviets cheap gas must irk them.

The readiness of the Soviets to intervene in Ethiopia, South Yemen, Afghanistan and Kampuchea shows their offensive posture. The need for unity to defend Iran's newly gained independence is urgent.

James Morgan