Interview with Ali Javadi
Published in “For a Better World”
FBW: Why issuing a resolution about the subject? What is the necessity of issuing such resolution by the faction?
Ali Javadi: The political situation in Iran has changed. This new situation demands a clear general policy defining worker-communist stance.
The threats by the two poles of international terrorism have intensified and gained new dimensions. Massive war naval ships are stationed in the gulf. Military manoeuvres by the Islamic Republic have increased. Military attacks of “shock and awe” kind in American and Israeli military circles are discussed every day. The Western media talk of the probability of military attack and the plans for such attack. They even speculate on the day, date, extension and the details of a military attack. The consequences of and the reactions towards such attack are being discussed in think tank circles. On the other hand the Islamic regime too keeps threatening the other side, giving ultimatums and staging military manoeuvres. The capture of British navy personnel is an attempt in this direction.
One of the vital conditions of intervening in political situations is an accurate analysis of the possible political trends in the society. For us communists, an accurate analysis of this trend and adoption of a clear and real stance is a vital necessity. That is why the Faction of Worker-communism Unity Party saw it necessary to issue its resolution.
FBW: What are the differences between the policies published in this resolution with that issued by the Politburo of the Worker-communism Unity Party?
Ali Javadi: Our resolution has a clearer emphasis on the war of the terrorists and the conditions of the workers’ revolution and defeat of the policy of the new world order. However, the question is not just the differences in the resolution. At least it is not the issue at the moment. The issue is policies and the way they are presented and implemented. Unfortunately, today, policies that are followed by the Party, although are against both the probable war and military attack, ask at the same time parts of this camp to support people’s struggle in Iran. In addition, another political trend has some sort of hope for the consequences of the economic sanctions. They think economic sanctions will instigate more protests and dissatisfaction in the society. And that the Party will rise and lead this movement. These policies are all criticized by us. Our resolution has clearly dissociated itself from such understandings. The resolution has also presented a clear practical and tactical deduction for the possible consequences of the war.
FBW: This resolution contains two fundamental aspects regarding the military attack and the rise of a new wave of tension between the poles of international terrorists; the workers’ revolution and the defeat of the New world Order policy. Why are these two aspects vital? Why are they the starting points?
Ali Javadi: The world entered a blood filled terrorist competition after the September 11. It started a new wave of massacre in the world. The wars that we are witnessing in this era have the stamp of this blood filled tension. In every corner of the world, there are terrorists with turbines (Islamic head cover for Imams), bomb and Kalashnikov who kill people indiscriminately. They explode places and kill people. Women, men, young and old are all victims of this terrorist war. The Islamists call this genocide “Islamic Jihad” and their shy supporters call it “anti imperialism”. On the other hand, there are military Generals ready to shoot who are experts in “shock and fear” operations. They are equipped with the latest weapons of mass destruction. They are experts at destroying a whole country. They shed blood and show their triumphs on international media in order to intimidate people. This huge international crime is being called “the long war on terror” by the White House, and it has been called “the war of civilisation against terrorism” by their more intelligent propaganda apparatus.
This terrorist mass murder competition has formed two new poles, i.e. two terrorist poles; the Islamic terrorism on the one hand and the state terrorism on the other hand. (For more in dept discussion on this issue please see the article “The World after September 11” by Mansoor Hekmat). Today’s world division is to some extend similar to the divisions between the two poles of capitalism during the Cold War. (Although in terms of economical and geographical competition there are significant differences). There is no international conflict that can escape the consequences of this competition. The two poles influence the tensions in the region. Eventually, the latter sooner or later finds itself in the midst of this competition. In this situation, the implementation of any principled and civilised policy demands a radical and determined stance against this international tension and the two actors. There is absolutely no room for sympathising with any of them. Any sway towards any of them will have severe and devastating political consequences. Thus, one of the main principles of a communist policy is to be against both poles of international terrorism.
We are communists and aim to organise a workers’ revolution. We follow this strategy under any situation; in peace and war. Situations only determine the framework within which we pursue our policies. The content of our policy and strategy is to organise the workers’ revolution and overthrow the Islamic regime whether in peace or war. Of course war conditions do bring about destructive and hard effects on our practice. We are not like the loopy “left” who think war, poverty, destitution and dictatorship provide “more favourable” conditions for the “masses” to be more “radical”. On the contrary we strongly believe that every degree of welfare and civilisation actually helps the conditions for our struggle to organise a workers’ revolution. A better material and living condition for the people and more political and legal rights pave the way towards our goal of overthrowing the Islamic regime and establishment of a socialist republic.
Thus, we have incorporated these two elements in our general policy. Adopting a “third” stance towards the competition and tension between the two poles of terrorism, endeavouring to defeat the New World Order policies and also adopting a revolutionary overthrow of the Islamic regime constitute our general policy. Mansoor Hekmat has stated this policy concisely.
FBW: How does any deviation from this general framework manifest itself in the wake of possible new war of the terrorists? What are the “left” and right wing deviations? What are the consequences of this deviation?
Ali Javadi: They are different. Relying on any of the two poles of terrorism, reducing any confrontation against them, diminishing the protest policy against the murderous regime of Islam, and also shading away the policy of the defeat of New World Order are examples of these deviations.
In the wake of escalation of state military threats, some parts of the forces within the “left” movement that belong to the nationalist-Islamic movement rise up in defence of the “country”, “land” or “own government” and side with the murderous Islamic regime. There are many such examples. We all remember the “left” and their defence of “own country” during the Iran-Iraq war. Such conditions can push some parts of the society and political forces towards policies of “defending ourselves” and “in line” with “own government”.
On the other hand, any military attack is seen by some political forces, whose whole political strategy revolves around overthrow of the Islamic regime; use the war as an excuse to pursue their policy. They believe and advocate that military attack will be a driving force for more discontent amongst people and hence a tool for weakening the regime. They argue that these two elements will facilitate Islamic regime’s overthrow.
The consequences of such anti social and anti people policies are quite clear. Any military attack is in practice an attack on ordinary people and their lives. The victims of war and military attacks are people, the most ordinary and innocent people. In fact, military attack provides the Islamic regime with an excuse to intensify more suppression, dictatorship and military coup d’etat. On the other hand, people are bombarded, houses ruined, and peoples’ ability to fight back and carry out any social protests will in practice be negated. Contrary to what a lot of politically simple minded people think, a military attack will in fact prolong Islamic regime’s political life. For this regime, war is a “god sent”. In addition, any closeness to and support of the Islamic regime under the guise of war and “nation”, gives yet more opportunity for the regime to survive. Both policies will in practice end up strengthening both poles of international terrorism.
FBW: Let’s talk about combating the situation. Threats of war and economic sanctions have caused worsening of peoples’ situation. The right wing and some “left” wing analysis believe war will instigate more social unrest and protests. What do you think will happen?
Ali Javadi: Economic sanctions or military attack on Iran will not result in more protests by people. This is the propaganda policy of the US Foreign ministry and its allies. It is not reality, it is not the truth. People whose houses have been bombed, deserted, drowned in their own blood have not got much of a chance or ability to engage in social or political struggle.
At the moment more than 80% of people live under the official poverty line. Even talks of future economic sanctions have caused an increase in the prices of many commodities. Under such conditions earning a living for provision of basic amenities is the priority for most people.
Contrary to what some say, such actions not only do not increase social struggles, they actually disable people. Even if military attacks or economic sanctions did lead to discontent and an increased level of struggle in the society, should we have supported such policy? I don’t think so! Definitely not!
I repeat. We are communists and struggle for organisation of a workers’ revolution. Such revolution does not happen as a result of poverty, destitution or inability. It emerges as the result of consciousness and practical and political ability of the working class. Poverty and destitution is not the material condition of a workers’ revolution. It can, however, possibly be grounds for right wing and adventurous policies. Even if poverty encourages discontent, it will not provide the grounds for a communist and liberating policy. On the contrary it will be used by corruptive and right wing forces to pursue their own agenda.
Of course, under such conditions, as I mentioned earlier, our policy is our revolutionary goals, i.e. organisation of workers’ revolution and defeat of New World Order policies.
FBW: How probable is the outbreak of war? What would be the extend of the war?
Ali Javadi: I don’t think there is a high probability of war. The elements that contribute to its probability are the rising competition and rivalry between two main forces, namely the US military and the Islamic regime. The Nuclear weapon issue of the Islamic regime, its Middle East claims, NATO’s and its regional allies’ attempt to impose compromise and new balance of power to political Islam, and military incapability of US in Iraq are all the amongst elements that turn the possibility of war into reality. On the other hand, USA’s same military position and its engagement in Iraq, the risk of any more attacks turning into an all out regional war, the anti war sentiment of the public, and its consequences in the world and the region are amongst elements which could make the outbreak of war less probable.
I believe any military attack on Iran will quickly turn into an all sided tension in the region. Any such attack must target Islamic regime’s control headquarter, communication centres, the navy, the air force and nuclear facilities. Such attack resembles the “shock and fear” attacks in Iraq 10 years ago. Attacking the Uranium enrichment facilities with thousands of centrifuges is itself a nuclear disaster as devastating as Chernobyl. Attacking the regime’s military installations can not be carried out without attacking residential areas. Such attacks will inevitably lead to retaliatory and terrorist reactions from the Islamists. The Islamist thugs, who use human body as bombs, turn passenger plains into explosive jets are all experts in genocide, terror and destruction.
I think military operations in Iran will be the start of an all out war in the region. Borders will no longer limit such tension. Economic, military and residential areas will all be targets of military and terrorist operations from both sides. The consequences of such a war will be extensive and very devastating.
FBW: One action taken by the Islamic regime has been to increase its policy of suppression. Will the regime be able to totally suppress peoples’ protests the way it did in 1989 after the end of the Iran-Iraq war? Why?
Ali Javadi: The Islamic regime does not have the capability of repeating the blood bath it created after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when it murdered political prisoners. It does not posses the essential political cohesion. There are so many opposing factions within the regime. It faces a society which is so different from the 1981-1989. The first and most important factor contributing to this difference is the existence of a generation of people who hate the regime. The young generation demands the overthrow of the regime. It faces people who are counting seconds to its downfall. To these factors, we have to add the presence of a strong worker-communist movement, organisations and political party. Besides, continuous repression is not going to save the regime in the long run.
The Islamic regime is not in the position it used to be. It is on a downwards slope. To repeat the previous genocide is not easily possible. It does not, however, mean that it will not try to continue suppression and halt peoples’ struggle. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have a strategy for survival. Nor suppression, or “withdrawal” and “compromise” with people can save this regime. It attacks in order to survive. It retreats in order to survive. It stages a coup d’etat in order to exist. These actions can have negative and momentarily effects on peoples’ struggles. They can impose a push back on workers’ protests. However, these retreats and defeats are all temporary and will pass.
The role and reaction of Worker-communism is detrimental. If we manage to organise social movements, if our party gains enough influence and organisation in Iran, then the course of events takes a completely different direction. Any attack against people will be reciprocated by worker-communism in the form of protests. Peoples’ protests will shred the dissociated ranks of the Islamic regime. Gaps will widen.
FBW: Will the war result in escalation of tensions within the different factions of the regime or will it unite them? Which one is more probable and why?
Ali Javadi: I think, at the beginning, in the event of war, a military atmosphere will rule the society and the regime. The more right wing faction will try to unite or pacify the other factions under the banner of its military and thug policy against the people. They will not unite voluntarily. It is unimaginable. War and an atmosphere of war will push the military forces to the fore.
This condition will be short lived. The regimes factions do not easily unite. To unite a dissolving and scattered regime is not easy. Each faction sees the survival of the regime in its faction having the upper hand. They do not surrender to each other. Each faction will consider the other one as the factor contributing to the weakening of the pillars of the Islamic regime. Rivalry and competition between the factions are the constant factors between the forces constituting the Islamic regime.
At the same time, war after a short period will intensify the tension between the factions. Their attempts to survive will result in the demise of the regime. In middle term, the regime’s military forces will not obey a unified leadership. The possibility of a conflict within its own military is fearsome enough to stop the regime from entering such a terrain.
FBW: Some parts of the Islamic rulers, the remnants of Do-Khordad movement (led by Khatami), the Tudehists, and some parts of the Nationalist-Islamic movement have hopes in Rafsanjani. Will the current changes pave the way for emergence of Rafsanjani into the Islamic regime’s politics?
Ali Javadi: Such emergence is possible. However the more probable change is the intensification of the movement for overthrowing of the regime. Hoping for Rafsanjani will only materialize when people have lost the momentum for overthrowing the regime. It happens if the movement for overthrowing the regime has lost its real preconditions. This is impossible. The regime is in deep economic crisis and has reached a dead end. It does not have a political solution. It can no longer survive by suppression, compromise and dictatorship. Overthrowing the regime is the general sentiment among the people.
I think in the event of a war, sections of the regime or other forces will try to present themselves as the “saviour” and “hope” of people. Obviously the remnants of Do-Khordad and some nationalist-Islamists will be happy with a bit of the cake and follow them. However, under such situation, people will be looking for “saviour” and “hope” in the opposition forces and not in the ruling forces. Being the leader of social upheaval is the vital condition for aborting such trends and hopes from “above”. Leaders of Worker-communism must rise as the political leaders of the society and play their role.
FBW: What ever will happen to the government of Ahmadi-Nejad and the right wing of the Islamic regime?
Ali Javadi: Ahmadi-Nejad’s government is looking forward to war. War mongering and creating an atmosphere of war is one aspect of Ahmadi-Nejad’s and the right wing’s strategy. The policies of this faction in the region have had some head ways so far. Political Islam and Islamic regime are now one of the actors of the political scene in the region today. However, Ahmadi-Nejad’s government is under attack from two sides. On the one hand from people who are determined to overthrow the Islamic regime; and on the other hand, from “above”, i.e. sections of the ruling clique who consider the continuation of the current policies jeopardising their beloved Islamic regime. With or without war, Ahmadi-Nejad’s government will not last long.
FBW: Part of the pro west nationalists, Monarchists, has announced that in the event of a military attack on Iran, they will stand by the Islamic regime. What role will nationalism play in the events? Will the Islamic regime be able to recruit nationalistic prejudices in terms of “nuclear issue”?
Ali Javadi: It is more likely that such policies adopted by Islamic nationalists lead to losing their credibility even further amongst people than anything else. A force that finds itself next to the regime can not be the representative of people’s “NO”.
I think nationalism in opposition can have certain effects in the political arena of the society. It can play a role and be the source of negative changes in the society. People will not give credit to any force that stands by the regime.
FBW: How do you see the effect of war and economic sanctions in social movements and worker-communism?
Ali Javadi: I see it as completely negative. Economic sanction will cause more poverty and destitution in the society. It has already done so. The more poverty is inflicted on the society the more difficult will be the conditions of work and living for the working class and deprived people. As a result, the progress of the working class and worker-communist movement will diminish too.
FBW: What situations and issues does Worker-communism prepare itself for?
Ali Javadi: Worker-communism must appear as the leader of the society at the present moment. As Mansoor Hekmat said a leader communist who is not the leader of the society is not a leader. Our movement must fill the vacuum of leadership and organisation of the protest movement in the society quickly. Society is going through sensitive period. There are huge tasks ahead for Worker-communism.
Worker-communism is not under routine conditions. It must progress otherwise it will be forced to take a step back. It has to gain victory or will be defeated. There is no middle way for communism. To succeed, it has to focus on the following. Social protests must be identified by Communist’s policies and analysis. Forming a rank of Communist leaders in the society is the vital condition of any progress. Every society leaps forward as much as the perspective of its leaders. Worker-communism must position itself in the mainstream of the society. The protest movements must be intertwined with Worker-communist policies. Gaining hegemony in the movement for overthrow of the regime is the vital and determining condition. Communist leaders must clearly say to people how and in what process they will be able to overthrow the regime. A clear picture of developments leading to the overthrow of the Islamic regime must be painted. People must know what obstacles must be removed, where to begin, and how to move forward. Worker-communism must tell the society what plans it has for the society and how it intends to implement them.
My emphasis is on the rank of communist leaders and formation of an organising Party comprised of practical and social leaders. These two factors are the most vital conditions at the present moment.
FBW: How can one carry out the strategy of revolutionary overthrow of the Islamic regime and establishment of freedom and equality during war? What changes and preparations are necessary to achieve this goal?
Ali Javadi: Inevitably, war situation creates certain changes in policies and the kind of organisation and tasks of communists. One aspect of this change is to adopt policies that safeguard people during such situations. There are policies to minimize devastations caused by earthquake, storm and tsunami. War too imposes human loss. We must have policies to minimize the devastation of war. We can not be passive spectators. We must organise and unite people in order to minimize people’s hardships. For this we need clear, determined and real policies that provide answers to the present situation. The Party will become strong and able only if it can play such role.
People’s “NO” to war and uniting the society against war will become one of the main pillars of class battle. The Bolsheviks, during the October revolution, managed to get the people behind them by their anti-war policy. People’s “NO” to war put the Bolsheviks at the top of the social protests. Materializing such policy is the condition for progress during war times. Organisation of the “NO TO WAR” movement must be on the agenda right now.
FBW: What specific kind of organisation do you mean?
Ali Javadi: I think two kinds of organisation are necessary. Organising and helping war stricken people who are under bombardment on the one hand, and organising the social anti war movement, on the other hand.
We can not be indifferent towards the devastation and hardship imposed on people as the result of the war. We must, under any circumstances, organise aid and help to reach people. Communists must be leading people’s struggle in this front.
On the other hand, we must organise the anti war movement wherever it happens. War has two sides. The anti war movement is against both sides. I will expand on other forms of organisation in detail later.
FBW: In case of outbreak of war, how can people’s lives and safety be secured?
Ali Javadi: As I mentioned before, organisation of aid and help is one of our main policies. The implementation of such policy is dependent on the activities of our publicly known activists and leaders in place.