Imperialism And Resistance

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Speech

id="wmplayer"
type="application/x-ms-wmp"
classid="clsid:6BF52A52-394A-11d3-B153-00C04F79FAA6"
width="384"
height="280"> id="wmplayer"
src="http://www4.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/asx_files/gBwB0Mn75Fco.asx"
showStatusBar="false"
showControls="true"
kioskmode="false"
width="384"
height="280"
scale="100%">

The Venezuelan news report (video below – espanol) points out not only the victory of President Ahmadinejad, but also correctly discusses the class character of the vote, and the subsequent riots. The report also talks about the the psyop “color revolution” that is being promoted by the US regime affiliated “think tanks” under the guise of “democracy promotion” etc. See also Eva Golinger’s artice La “Revolución” Verde: El Guión se ha activado de nuevo: está vez en Irán.

“We call on the world to respect Iran because there are attempts to undermine the strength of the Iranian revolution,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in his weekly radio and television address on Sunday.

“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s triumph was a triumph all the way. They are trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they will not succeed,” Chavez said.

It should also be noted that President Ahmadinejad was strongly criticized by his opponents for building strong ties with the Latin – American pinkish red governments because, according to them, these countries were “far away.” This kind of thinking, of-course, was music to the ears of the imperialists, who have been irritated with Iran’s strong relationship over the past four years with Venezuela, and expanding relations with other countries in the region. Over the next few years, it would be important for the Ahmadinejad administration to not only continue building stronger ties, but to also begin student exchange programs, where younger Iranian Islamic revolutionaries can meet Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela, and vice versa. This would be a far more productive form of people-people social/cultural exchange, than one involving US/Europe, and would aid in strengthening south-south solidarity.

The rioters in Iran appear to have clarified class divisions within the Islamic Republic. This is not to say that the vast working class of Iran were not aware of these divisions, but they have, for the most part, given the benefit of the doubt to the upper classes. Now, with the riots, the kind of language that has been used against those who voted for President Ahmadinejad, along with slogans they have raised against the most cherished institution of the Islamic Republic – this issue has come to the surface, and cannot be easily dismissed.

Islamic movements, by and large, oppose direct class confrontations, and this was also true for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This is partly because an Islamic economic system not only includes within it a strong re-distributive component, but is also anti-corruption, and anti-exploitative. So, instead of expropriating wealth, there is a tendency towards encouraging (and requiring) the classes to share the wealth with the wider society. Furthermore, the Islamic economic system encourages balancing class interests, and not necessarily their elimination.

However, this requires a vigilance on part of an Islamic Republic, to account for any corruption, and intervene in case of any concentration of wealth. Iran has, for the most part, successfully improved the quality of life for its citizens. But, it cannot be denied that there is corruption, and there has been an amassing of wealth. This is what President Ahmadinejad has aimed to balance, and, in the process, ruflled the feathers of powerful individuals inside the Iranian establishment.

This task that President Ahmadinejad has taken on is central to Islamic governance, and has been outlined by Imam Ali (AS) in his letter to Malik Ashtar. A few quotes may help clarify:

But bear in mind that a good many of them are intensely greedy and are inured to bad dealings. They hoard grain and try to sell it at a high price; and this is most harmful to the public. It is a blot on the name of the ruler not to fight this evil. Prevent them from hoarding; for the Prophet of God -Peace be upon him – had prohibited it. And see to it that trade is carried on with the utmost ease, that the scales are evenly held and that prices are so fixed that neither the seller nor the buyer is put to a loss. And if inspite of your warning, should anyone go against your commands and commit the crime of hoarding, then deal him appropriately with severe punishment.

And with regards to the poor:

For God’s sake, safeguard their rights; for on you rests the responsibility of protection. Assign for their uplift a portion of the state exchequer (Baitul-mal), wherever they may be, whether close at hand or far away from you. The rights of the two should be equal in your eye. Do not let any preoccupation slip them from your mind; for no excuse whatsoever for the disregard of their rights will be acceptable to God. Do not treat their interests as of less importance than your own, and never keep them outside the purview of your important considerations, and mark the persons who look down upon them and of whose conditions they keep you in ignorance.

Select from among your officers such men as are meek and God fearing who can keep you properly informed of the condition of the poor. Make such provision for these poor people as shall not oblige you to offer an excuse before God on the Day of Judgment; for, it is this section of the people more than any other which deserves benevolent treatment. Seek your reward from God by giving to each of them what is due to him and enjoin on yourself as a sacred duty the task of meting the needs of such aged among them as have no independent means of livelihood and are averse to seek alms. And it is the discharge of this duty that usually proves very trying for ruler, but is very welcome to societies which are gifted with foresight. It is only such societies or nations who truly carry out with equanimity their covenant with God to discharge their duty to the poor.

President Ahmadinejad is a realist, meaning that he is fully aware that the Islamic Republic is still far from fully implementing the instructions on governance that Imam Ali (AS) has outlined. At the same time, he understood the necessity, and importance of moving in that direction in an Islamic Republic. I remain optimistic that, inshallah, Iran will come out stronger as a result of this turmoil – not the least because the events have exposed who stands where… Those opposed to the direction of the President may appear to have the upper hand with all the western media exposure they are getting, but it is my assessment that they have seriously lost power within Iran. And inshallah, the country will soon move forward with renewed energy.

see also Ardeshir Ommani’s article for more on class dynamics in Iran.

Who are the twitters ? Click here to learn more about them… I spent sometime on the network, reading exactly what was being said – and my own experience lends credence to the linked article.

A large number of the tweets are not only anti-President Ahmadinejad, but are also anti-Islamic Republic – with attacks on Ayatullah Khamenei, and Islamic system of Iran — They are also, by implication, anti-Palestinian (with tweets such as A imports Hamaas/Hizb. “thugs” to put down demonstrations). By now, it should be clear that the people behind the demonstrations, don’t just want an “honest election” (they got one, but refuse to acknowledge it) – rather, they want to dismantle the Islamic Republic. Venezuela’s President Chavez experienced a very similar campaign directed against him, and having that experience – the Bolivarian Government’s statement is right on:

The Bolivarian Government of Venezuela expresses its firm opposition to the vicious and unfounded campaign to discredit the institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, unleashed from outside, designed to roil the political climate of our brother country. From Venezuela, we denounce these acts of interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while demanding an immediate halt to the maneuvers to threaten and destabilize the Islamic Revolution.

Analysis of Iran’s Presidential Elections

By Zafar Bangash [Well known Sunni Muslim journalist and Imam in Toronto]

Iran’s presidential elections held on June 12 in which the incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, retained his post with a wide margin over his nearest rival Mir Hussain Mousavi has provided the Muslim-hating West another opportunity to spout its anti-Islamic venom. Through its corporate-controlled mouthpieces, the media, they had already declared Mousavi the winner even before the people of Iran had had an opportunity to cast their vote. When the result turned out to be contrary to their expectations, it was immediately denounced as “rigged”. It seems even Mousavi had fallen for this propaganda because as soon as the polls closed, he told a press conference in Tehran that he had “won”. How he could make such a claim when no results had come in?

When the first results started to trickle in late on Friday June 12 and showed Ahmedinejad leading by a wide margin, the Western media, led by the BBC News World Service started to question their authenticity. Others followed suit. Soon there was a flood of accusations that there must have been massive rigging otherwise how could Ahmedinejad be ahead by such a wide margin. This was based on the Western media’s own wishful thinking of Mousavi’s victory. Part of the reason for their failure to accurately read the mood in Iran is due to the fact that Western journalists stay at Five-Star hotels—Isteqlal, Azadi and others—located in North Tehran. It is in this is part of the city that the taghutis and other parasites of Iranian society live. Physically, these people may live in their mansions in North Tehran but mentally they are in Europe or North America—destinations they visit frequently. Such people feed their prejudices to Western reporters who need little prodding, based on their equally jaundiced view of the Islamic Republic, to reflect the most negative stereotyped images of Iran.

Some examples may help explain the point. In the weeks leading to the June 12 election, the overriding theme in Western media reporting was that most people would “boycott” the polls because they have “no faith” in the system. As the election campaign generated excitement, especially with televised debates between candidates, the Western media’s tune changed; their coverage started to focus on the “huge crowds” Mousavi was attracting and deliberately ignored the even larger crowds attending Ahmedinejad’s rallies. Media outlets that bothered to report Ahmedinejad’s rallies dismissed them as “rented crowds”. The largely ignorant Western public did not know the difference; besides, they had little interest in Iran’s elections. Their knowledge of Iran is based on the drivel fed to them by their own media: it is “building” a nuclear bomb and Ahmedinejad has threatened to “wipe out Israel”. Such prejudices are reinforced by the Iranian expatriate community that is largely opposed to the Islamic revolution, hence their decision to live outside Iran. Supporters of the revolution went back to Iran to help the Islamic Republic.

Western media reports started to speculate that Mousavi would win. Besides, their hatred of Ahmedinejad, the plucky Iranian President who drew rings around them with his masterful interviews, did not allow them to see that he may have support among the Iranian masses. President Ahmedinejad has maintained a level of modesty and simplicity that has earned him respect not only among Iranians but also Muslims worldwide. They saw in him a truly Islamic leader. The more the West hated and ridiculed him, the more the ordinary people of Iran admired him. But his popularity was not merely based on sentiment; he had promised during his first presidential campaign in 2005 that he would put Iran’s oil wealth on the tables of the poor. And this is what he did. He delivered this wealth to the Iranian masses in the rural areas where the majority resides. This majority had been ignored and dismissed by the liberals, reformists and other Western-doting Iranians. But they made the mistake of being taken in by the hangers-on from within the taghuti crowd in Tehran. Regrettably, it appears even Mousavi’s campaign has been infiltrated by such people despite the fact that during his tenure as prime minister (1981-1989), Mousavi was liked by the people because of his modest demeanour and able handling of the economy. It must also be pointed out that Mousavi was never elected to public office; he was appointed prime minister by Imam Khomeini (at that time, there were two offices: that of president and prime minister. Only the president was elected who then appointed the prime minister). In a constitutional amendment in 1989, the prime minister’s post was abolished and all executive powers were united in the office of the president.

Mousavi’s supporters have questioned the wide margin of Ahmedinejad’s victory. They were expecting that there would be a run off election because no single candidate would garner the 50 percent plus one vote as required by the constitution. This was again based on wishful thinking and the fact that Mousavi drew huge crowds in Tehran. Two days before elections, Ahmedinejad cancelled an appearance at one of his campaign rallies in Tehran because the crowd was so massive that he feared people might get killed in a stampede. Few media outlets reported this nor did they report the huge victory rally Ahmedinejad held on June 14 in Tehran. Instead, the media focussed on Mousavi’s rally on June 15. This was preceded by rumours that he and his supporters had been arrested; when this turned out to be false, their tune changed: the authorities had refused to give permission for his rally, they alleged. When this, too, turned out to be untrue, then the media changed its tack again: they said Mousavi’s supporters had defied the ban and the authorities were forced to “retreat”.

There was no interference from the authorities to disrupt the rally despite people setting fire to buses, smashing store windows and causing damage to property. At the end of the rally, some people tried to storm the Basij offices in Tehran. It was at this stage that shooting occurred that resulted in seven deaths. By nightfall, calm had returned. Both camps announced rallies for June 16 but only one—that of Ahmedinejad supporters—was held as they arrived at the rally site ahead of the opposition group and seemed to take control. Also, the Guardian Council announced on June 16 that it would hold a recount of those polling stations where the opposition said irregularities had occurred. This was rejected by Mousavi’s supporters who demanded that the June 12 election results be annulled and fresh ones held, a demand unlikely to be met.

Amid all the hype about rigging, some basic facts must be kept in mind. President Ahmedinejad may be unpopular in the West because of his outspoken views but he enjoys widespread support in Iran. His support base includes the rural population, the urban poor as well as the religious. This constitutes the overwhelming majority of Iran’s population. The urban educated middle class is a minority and is generally confined to the northern parts of Tehran. Their children are able to go to university, they drive expensive cars and frequent five-star hotels. It is this group that has largely coalesced around Mousavi. It would be unfair, however, to accuse Mousavi of egging the rioters to indulge in violence but there is little doubt that there are agent provocateurs within his group that are bent on creating chaos in Iran.

Ahmedinejad’s supporters are largely poor; most do not speak English, hence their inability to convey their feelings to Western reporters who in any case are not interested in their point of view, but they are solidly behind the revolution and know where their interests lie. It is this class of people that made the greatest sacrifices in defence of the revolution during the brutal Iraqi-imposed war in 1980-1988. This is not mere conjecture. In an article jointly authored by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty and published in the Washington Post on June 15, 2009, the two writers revealed that Ahmedinejad’s 2 to 1 margin was actually confirmed by their own survey of public opinion conducted in Iran three weeks earlier. “While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

The poll undertaken by two US non-profit organizations—Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, and the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation—from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. It was conducted by telephone from a neighbouring country (probably Dubai); field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and thus had nothing to do with the government of Iran or with Ahmedinejad.

In recent media coverage, much has been said about Iranian youth with the automatic assumption that they all oppose the Islamic government. This is not true, as the US-led survey found. The misconception has emerged because Western reporters only talk to north Tehran-based, university educated youth. These rich, spoiled youth do not represent the entire country. Nor is the Internet the harbinger of change, as made out by media reports. The poll by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty found “that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.”

There was an even more startling revelation made by the poll. Some reports have questioned how Ahmedinejad could win in the home province of Mousavi. Here is what the Ballen and Doherty survey found. “The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favoured Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.” It is not difficult to see why. Ahmedinejad had gone out of his way to help the poor and dispossessed in Iran. They in turn came out to vote with their feet. The survey also confirmed what we have said already: Mousavi’s “support came primarily from university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.” These are people that are well-connected and are able to convey their thoughts and ideas to Western reporters, hence the kind of images of Iran created abroad.

There is one final point that needs to be made. Some people have argued that in Iran people make up their mind only in the last two weeks of elections. Again, this is true only for the urbanized elites; the rural population knows who their friend or supporter is. Besides, the vote can swing either way: both toward and against Ahmedinejad and it is inaccurate to assume that all the swing votes would have gone to Mousavi. Ballen and Doherty reported that when their survey was conducted, “almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.”

Finally, one must make a quick comparison with what happened in the June 7 elections in Lebanon. Tens of thousands of people of Lebanese origin were flown from abroad, all expenses paid by the Saudis, to vote for the March 14 group led by Saad Hariri. The Saudis also paid each person $500 for pocket money. Despite this massive fraud, Hariri’s group got 68 seats in parliament (two less than they had in the previous one) while the Hizbullah-backed alliance got 57 seats (one less than in the earlier one). There were three independents. Hizbullah Secretary General did not complain that the election was rigged. He told his supporters to accept the result and move on.

There was little or no mention in the Western media about Lebanese vote rigging; the only thing one heard was that Hizbullah had been “defeated”.

via press TV

Hundreds of thousands of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supporters gather in a central Tehran square to call for unity and respect for the people’s vote.

The ralliers met once again at Valli-Asr Square, where they had gathered on Sunday to celebrate the results of the country’s Friday elections with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who according to figures released by the interior ministry won a second term in office with 63 percent of the votes.

This time however, the president will not be among them as he is on a visit to Russia to take part in the Shanghai Cooperation Council summit.

The Guardian Council, which is in charge of supervising elections in Iran, has responded to the requests on Tuesday by announcing that it is ready for a partial recount in the presence of candidate representatives.

According to the announcement, votes of disputed ballot boxes would be counted again.

A quick look at the characteristics of the leadership of those who refuse to respect the people’s vote in Iran.

Tele Sur report: Masivo apoyo popular al presidente reelecto de Irán Mahmoud Ahmadineyad (incluye entrevista con el embajador de Iran en Mexico).

Comunicado: La cancillería de Venezuela denuncia campaña injerencista contra Irán

16 de junio 2009. – La cancillería se pronunció en contra de la feroz e infundada campaña de descrédito que, desde el exterior, se ha desatado contra las instituciones iraníes para enturbiar el clima político. Denuncian actos de injerencia en los asuntos internos, para intimidar y desestabilizar la Revolución Islámica.

El Gobierno de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, a nombre del pueblo de Venezuela, ratifica su reconocimiento al pueblo y al gobierno de la República Islámica de Irán por la extraordinaria jornada democrática que protagonizaron el pasado viernes 12 de junio, cuando tuvieron lugar unas elecciones presidenciales que registraron niveles históricos de participación popular y resultaron en la reelección del Presidente Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

El Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela manifiesta su más firme rechazo a la feroz e infundada campaña de descrédito que, desde el exterior, se ha desatado contra las instituciones de la República Islámica de Irán, con el objetivo de enturbiar el clima político de ese hermano país. Desde Venezuela, denunciamos estos actos de injerencia en los asuntos internos de la República Islámica de Irán, al tiempo que exigimos el cese inmediato de estas maniobras de intimidación y desestabilización contra la Revolución Islámica.

El pueblo y el gobierno de de Venezuela albergamos la certeza de que el pueblo iraní sabrá solucionar sus asuntos internos y continuará la senda de la Revolución Islámica.

Readers of this blog probably don’t need a run down of the anti-Iran campaign being waged by the US/”western” media – so, instead, lets take a look at three examples of the left-liberals: there are still those who expect leftists to be more careful with their analyses, and to actually base their words on facts, and realities – instead of the opportunism that they are now displaying:

Below are three examples, comments follow:

“So, whatever the truth about the claims of a fix, these protests can do nothing but good. They may, in addition to getting rid of some particularly onerous forms of oppression, open up a space in which the left can operate more freely, and in which the labour movement can assert itself more forcefully.”

“An energized populace in Iran, willing to defy illegitimate state edicts, can only lead to good, fraud or no fraud.”

“In the end it will result in a crisis. This will be a government of crisis, which will probably not last its full term. The political and social divisions inside Iran will be widened. The militancy of the workers will grow and express itself first in economic strikes for better wages and conditions, as we have already seen in the past few years, and later as political strikes and demonstrations. The most urgent need now is to organize the workers and provide the movement with a coherent programme, policy and banner.

This can only be the red banner of socialism.”

The common assumption behind these kinds of infantile statements is that the Islamic Republic is a horrendous oppressive state, against whom any kind of protest is good. The overt reason for such an assumption can only be straight up Islamophobia – complete with orientalist imagery of the “mad mullah” waging a war against “freedom” (defined by the same leftists, of-course).

Even more problematic is what these leftists are supporting; Mousavi, and his movement to re-define Iran into a toothless nationalist republic, is backed by some of the most corrupt elements of the Iranian establishment. And they are located in the most affluent areas of Tehran. Whereas Ahmadinejad’s Islamic movement is located in the heart of every city, town, village’s working class districts.

Wittingly (for the most part) and (a few) unwittingly, the “western” left is, in essence, siding with the elite, upper classes, against the working class. Now, why are they supporting these elites – well, the twisted logic is that this has “politicized the Iranian people” and that civil strife of this kind is good, even if the cause they are supposedly fighting for is not real “fraud or no fraud”. This is like saying, that running towards a mirage is good, hey, at least you are running, it’ll get you energized. That is the kind of nonsense one would expect from those who engage in psyop destabilization, because their aim is to create a chaotic situation, and then swoop down and take the spoils.

This issue of “polticization” is yet another example of an outright racist attitude – the Iranian people are probably the most politically aware around (and the ones outside Tehran are the most aware). Just because the vast majority has not bought into western style secularism, does not mean they are not political. The opportunist left defines being “political” as being “socialist” or having a liberal-secular outlook.

The Islamic Republic has maintained strong links with its vast working class, and this has only gotten stronger under President Ahmadinejad. There may well be some disaffection with the government, specifically with regards to the economy, but anyone thinking that this is going to usher in secularism, socialism, or even a move in that direction, should cut down on any mind altering items that they may be consuming, and get back in touch with reality.

A couple of recent articles on Iran worth reading:

The Vineyard of the Saker: Insider report about the events in Iran:

Ahmedinijad is a person who lives simply, conducts himself without extravagance and is honest in his profession in every manner. Where as Mousavi is someone who is from the upper circles of the society and is seen as a part of the corrupt political elite.

Iran’s ‘Stolen’ Election: a Hardline Demagouge’s Victory Over a ‘Reformer’? Not So Fast

Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi’s supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I’m a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn’t feel elated – I felt a chill. To me, this didn’t look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a “preferential option for the poor,” to use the words of Christian liberation theology.