The Black Scenario, the White Scenario
A discussion of the political situation in Iran
The following article is the intensive discussion and facts raised by the author in a vast seminar
about the political situations of Iran,
held in April 1995 in which all members of the Central
Committee of the Party and some of the cadres participated.
The Black Scenario: The Clarification Statement
Discussion of the black scenario starts from an essential observation which is not first and foremost about Iran, but about this era in which we live. Today, every time you turn on your TV, you see wandering people escaping a disaster who are carrying whatever they could take of their belongings followed by a CNN reporter who talks about the anguishes of these people. In the portrait news, they show the bodies of people killed, explosions of cannons, mortars and ruined cities. Viewers feel that these pictures are not unique or unexpected events. These disasters are not the result of an event which there is an end to, a war that occurred uncharacteristically and is scheduled to end. You don’t feel that the victim supported a particular conflict or had any role in his painful outcome or that he is supposed to do something tomorrow to save his life. You are witnessing the "permanent status," a way of life. The frustration as if it is the given scenario of many people’s lives that neither they nor the viewer is supposed to do something about it. It seems this is not an event but more so a scenery. Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan Chechnya, etc., etc... In all of these cases, the images show the "permanent status," and not a brief painful conflict in the context of a social change.
These images, do not force the viewers to any reaction, primarily because it seems to be hiding behind ideas. For instance, behind this schema that the viewers do not understand the language of the victim on the TV screen. You do not understand that he says he buried his child and fled and he is the only person from his family who is alive, that his house was destroyed. We hide behind the fact that this tragedy probably is geographically thousands or hundreds of kilometers away from us, or that this image is not from the present-day or not just this moment; perhaps the victim has already received some help and shelter; may be the injured, or the crumbling survivor of the particular massacre, has died and his suffering has ended. Millions of people every day hide behind these factors to escape the pain of reality. This, unfortunately, is a contemporary human trait that believes if a tragedy happened in another time and place to another human being, especially in today’s terminology, if this happened to human beings with "different culture," it is not as much painful as if had happened here to them. Such existing distance in places and times, allowing you to setback and say you do not have the nerves to watch these images which break you down, so then you turn the TV off and go about your daily activities. Discussion of the Black Scenario is the fact that for you and I and so many other people, it will be impossible to hide and setback. The images could be our own pictures and from the people whose language we understand. This could easily be the story of these people. This could be a picture of the "permanent status" in Iran. In this situation, there is no way that even the most nearsighted people can avoid the primary and immediate sensation of the tragedy as well as there being no escape from the responsibility. If we ignored the tragedy in Rwanda or Yugoslavia with an excuse that we cannot do anything then this time we must do something. There should be no TV to turn off.
There is a huge difference between what I have called a black scenario and a revolutionary upheaval. Discussion of black scenario is not merely about a bloody conflict. The scenery of an army, which starts shooting people and where people cry out "cannon, tank and guns have no effect on us," is not an image of black scenario. This is an image of a revolution. In the revolution there would be carnage as well. But the characteristic element of the black scenario is desperation in the society. It is the disability of the society in understanding why this situation occurred, how long it will last and how it will end. Revolution is the scene of struggle, a conflict, sometimes extremely bloody, where people think it is necessary to improve the social conditions. There is no historical development advanced without adversity. My discussion, in spite of the determination of the people and in the context of frustration and desperation of the public of the black scenario refers to a situation that is not for the transformation of society but the destruction of the civil society.
This situation could occur in Iran too. The way things conceivably are going, it is not unlikely that one day people around the world view on their TV screens refugees who have fled Shiraz, Isfahan, Rasht and Arak who are whimpering that a particular Islamic faction, a certain detachment of the unique Aryan Front, or a splitting sect of Mujahidin, have destroyed their cities, their homes, schools and the people who have been slaughtered. This situation can become, not just an exception, but a rule of thumb, a way of life, which lasts twenty years in Iran. It could be just like a decade ago in Lebanon, the situation of today in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, making an everlasting and eternal state in the minds of a generation of people who believe it has never been otherwise nor can it be.
The recognition of this threat, the likelihood of this black scenario in Iran, in my opinion, is a serious indicator of political forces and their leaders’ eligibility criteria. As far as we are concerned, this is a crucial debate. Everybody knows what we say about society, class, exploitation, revolution, freedom, equality, and so on. But do they also know that we are talking about such gloomy prospects? The starting point of my discussion about the black scenario is that we are the living personalities of a history that can take this terrifying journey. We are not actors in a play in which our words and actions have already been written and given to us. A communist who does not know his historical tasks and targets, I think, is not a true communist. In Marxism, nowhere is it written about "black scenario" and the times of the breakage in society and what to do or the duties of the communists in such times. It is up to us that we should recognize this. Here also, in the final analysis, the debate continues over the conditions and requirements of advancing the communist movement of the working class. The question before us is whether we can recognize our responsibility in such a situation and take charge. This responsibility may mean ruling out this prospect, or in the case of the event, quickly bringing it to an end. Worker Communist Party by addressing this issue declares yes, we deal with this prospect and recognize it as our political responsibility. We say, yes it is possible. This scourge is not just for "Yugoslavia" to come but the "Persians," who are vaccinated since it seems the art is essentially with them! The debate is over communism and social responsibility. Only communism, that in these critical times, able to response to such problems, can prove its competency in history to millions of people and turn its social horizons, ideal society and norms and values to the values and ideals of broad masses of working people. If we assume this prospect is likely and our warning is real, then the political party that becomes indifferent and neglected, will be irrelevant and useless.
The occurrence background of the black scenario
Various opposition groups, including our own party have seen the subsequent political development in Iran, traditionally a transition from one government to another one. In this picture, if coups, wars, and uprising, etc. are happening they are practically conveyor belts to conduit for shifting of the former administration to the next one. In other words, this period of transition, with all the possible wars and bloodshed is a linear segment that connects both conventional situations. On both sides of this situation, the two governments and two social status are relatively defined and conventional. When people talk about overthrowing the Islamic Republic, they think about this image. Islamic Republic will go and another state, another regime, will replace it. As I noted in our discussion, we see the possibility of the process that could go in another way too. The aftermath of the overthrow of the Islamic Republic can be linked to an unsound state. This personification, according to the images we have from various countries around the world which are affected by the chaos, is not difficult.
Why this black scenario is possible in Iran? We briefly review the main factors.
1. There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic is in a deep political and economic crisis. We mentioned this fact in the International journal as the "final crisis," for which I think the extermination process will not be an economic change or political improvement but a crucial political transformation. Islamic Regime, in its present stature, is not capable to resolve or mitigate seriously. This transformation may cause the fall of the regime, or the regime’s factional bloodshed conflict, or however changes that undermine the structure of the regime. Below, I mention the more likely state. Certainly, a deep political crisis has been initiated from which the overthrow of the Islamic Regime or significant transformation is in an inevitable stage.
2. Islamic Republic is not the monarchy regime that would be exterminated. Even after overthrow, several religious factions and armed Falange groups, relatively strong and implacable terrorists and anti-societal, it will remain that potentially they exist in the region and they can be present, politically – militarily, in every part of the country struggling for the restoration of the Islamic movement power. We can better imagine the multitude of the personage of such scenario if we add to this image, the opposition Falangist adventure groups, both Islamic and Aryan, the political and military mobs, which in an instable situation, they raise in any corner of the society. The formation of the next government in Iran, is subject to the removal of all these factions from the scene.
3. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War balance, political crises and governance, especially in undeveloped countries, as were controlled by the sphere of influence within the two blocks of East and West, now all will become longlasting and complex. As a matter of ideology and philosophy of government and political foundations in many countries has become an open issue for different political currents in determining the political and ideological characteristics of the regimes in these countries and they challenge each other in the exposed battles. The ideological and political vacuum and unspecified structure of the bourgeois regime in Iran is quite obvious. Neither constitutional monarchy, nor parliamentary system, nor absolute monarchy or Islamic despotism, has been ever accepted or legitimized as a durable form of government in Iran. An important issue in any serious political crisis in Iran is, not only the composition of the next government, but the nature of the next government. This is not just a matter of class struggle, but also the axis of the internal conflicts amongst bourgeoisies in Iran. Due to the global environment and the absence of the models and camps of bourgeois hegemonic throughout the world, it is not even possible for the bourgeoisie in Iran to form the government without a severe conflict.
4. International longstanding agreements between the imperialist powers and the rival camps have vanished and the whole world has now become the scene of a multi-polar competition over spheres of influence. There is no doubt about global and regional power struggle over influence in Iran. An element of a possible civil war in Iran will be this competition. This competition in some crisis centers in the world, including Bosnia, has created serious obstacles to solve or alleviate the problem. For instance, there is no doubt that with any crisis or chaos that lasts more than few months, the West would do something in Khuzestan or the North bank of the Golf. American military presence and the West, either directly or with the United Nations coverage, on the part of Iran in such situation is not the insignificant assumption at all. If the black scenario begins in Iran, at least to the numbers of the neighboring countries and regional and global powers, there will be Imams, Presidents, Khans (Lords), Leaders and Generals followed by their armed factions, pursuing the interests of the relevant circles.
Due to these and other factors, I think the black scenario in Iran is a real possibility.
Islamic regime: Transmutations?
The transmutation of the Islamic Regime, here to say, should not be ruled out. Logically, there is still a case to be made that the change of regime from within or even by an integrated power outside the political forces might take place. As a matter of "assimilation," either for the West or for the Iranian bourgeoisie seeking transformation, it is initially creating a proWest Islamic republic then undermining and eradicating the "Islamism" from its content via an economic and cultural process or even a political-military action. The assumption of a strong Pro-West supporter faction existing in the Islamic regime is true. So the question of assimilation becomes how this West wing faction destroys the anti-West factions without destabilizing politically and opening an environment for the people’s involvement and revolution. The Rafsanjani occurrence in this topic for the West and the Iranian bourgeois opposition was becoming desirably relevant but that project failed and it can now be reconsidered with a kind of military theme and arrangement. The first step and the appearance of this development could be, as the supreme leader, Khamenei declares the emergency (with justifications such as the economic situation and factional problems and the need for unity and "saving the regime," etc.) and then authorizes a military delegate of the regime to take control. The apparent excuse may be the army delegate, despite their "reluctance" and at the request of the Honorable Supreme Leader have taken this "important task" to form the cabinet for "the rule of law and order and the security" then they establish a series of immediate actions in the absence of the Islamic Parliament. At the same time, the mullahs will be advised or practically warned to just rely on the advice and let the emergency rules of the "dedicated military brothers" to do their work. In other words, as the mullahs keep their unearned wealth and are ensured of their safety, go behind the scenes, and soldiers and bureaucrats, with the support of the Supreme Leader, are pushed to the front stage. The Islamic regime would remain; the religious foundation of the country and the religious pressures on people would be continued. The mullahs, while keeping their stolen wealth and without the fear of people’s retaliation, slowly back off and the Muslim prayers in the army take over the power. Something like former Pakistan with a Supreme Leader for calming and reassurance. This can serve as the beginning of the transformation process, because the army with its discipline would be replaced the undisciplined and uncontrollable agencies of the "clericalism" which is the fruitful ground for factional clashes. This model can internally become any type of regime, including an entirely pro-American regime. This is the model that, especially the West has routine skills to work with and understands its mechanisms. As Rafsanjani cannot give without difficulty, the green light to the West, certain Guards and military Muslim generals can easily offer just that. The scope of the military organization and weaponry and military equipment facilitate such military government of daily contact with the Western states and foundations without interfering the factions’ surveillance. As this process leads the power to the army and the guard, the formation of the next stages of the regime transformation will more practically continue by manipulating the personalities of the characters and forces in the forefront. The military Islamic regime in its calculated future, will become un-Islamic by a controlled coup and the existence of the Islamic nature of the regime will be over. This process, I think is logically possible for the bourgeoisie and there are indications and evidence of its happening. It is conceivable with the rise of popular protests, the regime declares sort of martial law and emergency conditions. However, the martial law will not just for intimidating people but also for establishing new balances among its own ruling factions. As I said this is the starting point for the development of the regime’s transmutations. As far as the different factions concerned, I think none of them will immediately and directly resist the Islamic Martial law, because of this entire experience and the guarantor for "saving the regime," it appears as the only solution. But the factional conflicts in the new format will also continue.
The idea Iranian bourgeois opposition, either republican or monarchist, will protest the clearly oppressive character of the Islamic military regime, is a vain illusion. The Iranian bourgeoisie during its ashamed history in the twentieth century any suggestion was given, regardless a little petty demands here and there, had generally compromised and I think they would try to bestow with the Rafsanjani’s version of military regime.
It is clear that this process, targeting removal of the regime is very negative and undesirable for the Iranians’ movement. The Pakistani style and Islamic military republic alternative will still continue forcefully as a regime of extensive oppression, more intense execution and enforce broader poverty to the people of Iran. Efforts to cripple such process is the mission of the worker-communist movement and all the forces that are fighting to overthrow the Islamic regime for the establishment of political freedom. But this is another issue that should be addressed separately.
An overview to the Iranian oppositions: Criteria
In the brief discussion in the international journal about black scenario, I said some of the social forces in their nature belong to the black scenario and others have the beneficiaries ensuing white scenario. In order to obtain a category of these forces, we must generally make it clear what type of process can become the black scenario and what factors may facilitate its forth coming. I think the most important factor is the method of the demise of the Islamic Republic and the political collapse that remains in its place. The result of destruction of the Islamic Republic is not a political blank scene for establishing an alternative government. But the emergence of a range of groups and Islamic armed forces at the scene to maintain their power, either nationwide or dividing the country into areas occupied by different groups, in war with each other, and more importantly they stand opposed to the people and their movement. Any alternative government after the collapse of the Islamic Republic must be able to deride them and dissolve the armed groups and military factions. The factional military groups will not be limited solely to the Islamic parties. If such political scene to be created and relatively lasts long, a wide range of political and sectarian gangs, and armed thugs and ethnic groups will emerge. What force or forces can stand up to disparage these factions? When I said that a government of the People’s Mujahidin (MEK) was a delusion, I referred to its social and political nature and said this group not only could not play such a role, but it is one of the characters of the black scenario, one of the sects and factions readily participating in this form of disorder. The key indicators are social status and social profile of the political parties. The armed Islamic movement that is active on a regional scale and has inherited the large parts of the weaponry materials and ammunitions from the Islamic regime and easily commit crimes and violence against people, could be responded and resisted only by the movements and political parties that are able to mobilize an enormous district of the society against them. The huge political and military gangsters that emerge in such circumstances could only be collapsed by such progressive movements. This is not the task of quasi-religious sects whose members are mid aged students who are just dealing with their sexual problems. They are themselves in the same category. Mujahidin and Mohtashami can engage one another in arm conflict for years and fire artilleries from their trenches and destroy peoples’ homes without defeating each other. They are two armed gangs, though isolated from people, they continue to exist while they are funded and armed and are mercenaries of different powers. The problem is solved only by the forces who have distinctive foundation and acting within the scope of the social classes and they represent more durable interests of the society in the modern history. Communism as a social movement of workers, which historically has represented freedom and equality in society, and internationally is recognized for its modernism and humanism and as a movement with distinctive and extensive involvement of its social perspective, can organize the power of working class to the scene and overcome such a situation. Communism can isolate such forces and destroy them by people’s powers. Communism can end such disintegration and chaos.
But this is not just the Communists or the progressive forces and the parties representing the lower classes who can potentially contribute in this situation; some subdivisions of the Iranian bourgeoisie are not in favour of a black scenario and can be potentially incorporated in the forces to end it. The discussion is about the social status of the political parties and their civic existence in the social foundations and metabolism. Struggle of the workers and the bourgeoisie is done in the context of a civil society. The struggle is over the economic, political and cultural characteristics of human society. Sections of bourgeoisie in final analysis obviously prefer to destroy the world rather than give up the power to the working class. But the problem today in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, and the supposed scenario in Iran is not this. The main threat in the Iranian case is coming from other marginal groups who do not represent the main social classes in the political economy. I think the main grounds of the three main political traditions of secular bourgeoisie in this century, does not belong to the black scenario. But given their deep divisions and their superficial leaders who do not have perspective, especially in this particular period when they neglect significant events that are happening in front of them, in such situation, they could fall into the vortex.
The national reformism, for which the Tudeh Party was its center-wing in a particular period and the range of Fedai - Rahekaregar was its left-wing during the 1979 revolution, has been disintegrated and dispersed after the collapse of the Soviet bloc. For the Tudeh Party being antiAmerican is still the meaning of life and the anti-American cleric is the most epic character of their political world. It is not unlikely this party, with exactly the same mentality, to find themselves alongside the Islamic movement in the event of civil war in Iran.
The fate of the former left-wing of this range is not much more encouraging. The Fadai-Rahekaregar regardless of very small splits, have turned to the right. Some officially have become nationalists and proglory of Iran. People like Mr. Keshtgar who earlier understood Marxism as the theory of "sowing, developing and harvesting," under the influence of the Soviet Camp, today in critique of this Marxism has found the authenticity of Iran and he is worried about the foreign intervention in the fate of his country. Or like Mr. Amir Khosravi, relieved of the impositions of the Soviet bloc, has totally ignored the social history of twentieth century and is feeling longing for the constitutional revolution in a century ago of his own country, voila we had seen its own products in a way that it could contribute in its era. Mr. Negahdar pursuits the good monarchist everywhere for unity. On the other hand, the Rahekaregar and its surrounding circles are still dazed over the "victory of democracy." While the bourgeoisie has so far abandoned its bustle of "victory of democracy," and has ended its siege and seeking solutions for its own miseries, these people ignore the present time and they are still dipped in the epoch of 1989 and in praise of democracy. However, I think this range naturally benefits the white scenario. These are traditionally, in terms of social and economic factors, represent the industrial growth, creation of factory and the wealth reforms. They are the industrious and left wing of the bourgeoisie. It is another issue if they really understand the sensitivity of the situation and recognize the important requirements of this period. Although one, or a small group, or a splitting circle of this range may do non-rational actions, in general and at most they will be in the sideline of the events. If they are not the active element in preventing the black scenario in Iran, they will not be the aggravating agents.
The National Liberal spectrum also has its own problems. The National Front has traditionally been the official pathway for this trend. The word "liberal" to describe this trend is profoundly misleading. Liberalism as a political school of thought has never been seriously represented in Iran. These people have shown no traces of any specific liberalism. They were never devoted defenders of the bourgeois individual and civil rights, they have not been insisting on a secular society, not throughout their history quarreled with the clergy and religion. Whenever they have felt their political campaign has endangered the foundation of the system or the left is emerging, they have immediately embedded under the reign of monarch or the cloak of religion. For what they have been mistakenly known as liberalism, is their tendency for republicanism and often being pro-constitutionalism. In one word summed up as only being anti-Shah. They are rather non-cleric Republicans and not liberals. They are just Non-clerics but not laics and seculars. They still don’t do politics without being blessed by clergy. The latest example is an article from Mr. Bijan Hekmat published by Keyan in London. After a long sermon about what he believes "the Left becomes wised," and after expressing pleasure to our emphasis for demanding a modern and secular state, he expresses in the last paragraph of his article, his exhilaration for the re-establishment of the Islamic Revolution Mujahidin Organization, and wishes the good Mullahs to regard this process carefully! He is an example of "Liberal" in Iran who, especially after so many crimes committed by religion, cannot think of the issue of government and political power without clergy and Islam. It is unclear now that he is masking himself as the host of the modernism and secularism, when "if God willing (Inshallah)," he is supposed to become modernist and secularist.
As I said, they are mostly Nationalist Republicans rather than liberals. One of these groups which uses the words National Republicans as its name, is very convenient. The literature of this political current is full of nationalistic and racist slogans and rhetoric. In their speeches, they propagate sacred land, Iranian ambitions, the glorious essence and excellent spirit of Iran and Iranians. It is ironic these people, within the Iranian political framework are called liberals and pluralists, while anyone who has similar beliefs in Germany, France and England, and glorifies his land, preaching about supremacy of his own people, spreading hatred against foreigners, he will be named a fascist, a racist and a skinhead. Fortunately, nobody has tried to translate the superb ideas of Iranian liberalism into French or Germany, otherwise finding homes for their activists in Europe would have been a challenging job. (The National Republicans have wisely dropped the word national in the English translation of their names). However, these charming Iranian liberals are not generally relevant and significant forces. They don’t have dignitaries or active organizations. Another tendency of parliamentary and liberalism, if it is compatible with this title, may rise among the circles of the intellectual dissidents inside Iran. This political wing has not much weight today. It is not difficult to understand, especially for the general public, a parliamentary democracy in Iran, especially with the half-heatedly and counterfeit Iranian Democrats, will be mostly comparable to The Philippines and Thailand, rather than England and France. As far as the issue of black and white scenarios is concerned, I think, like the previous category, in the final analysis they benefit to protect the foundation of the civil society, and with their sporadic divisions and lacking leadership, they cannot strongly influence this and that process.
The so called monarchist is the political current that would actually be active, and its moves must be carefully watched today and in the future. By saying Monarchist, I mean not necessarily the followers of Reza Pahlavi or the defenders of declaring the immediate monarchy, but the advocates and the supporters of the former regime. The characteristic of these people is not insisting on the immediate monarchy or putting Reza Pahlavi in reign, but their defense of the former regime and distancing themselves from liberals and parliamentary gestures and their clear support for declaration of a strong government, even the military one. This is a broad spectrum which includes numerous organizations and groups. Apparently it is scattered without organization, but in practice, I think it is close to political power than all of the bourgeois oppositions. Several factors are in favor of this spectrum. First, unfortunately the hard and bitter experience of life under the Islamic Republic and the absence of a known progressive political alternatives, have created a hope for large numbers of people to restore the previous situation. In the minds of many, the negative characteristics, inferiority and humiliations in civilians’ lives under the former regime have been lost. Many think of the past as a state of prosperity, modernity, especially spreading of Western culture that are the key indicators in the interpretation of better life for the broad masses of the people. And of course, it is forgotten that the Islamic Republic was the product of the Monarchy Regime. In fact, economic problems and declining growth in the former regime, superficiality of the modernization process, cultural backwardness of the regime and its interdependency coalition with religion, and above all the oppression of Marxist and workers’ movements which is the main element in the fight against the reactionary culture and ethics in today’s society, were the main factors for the rise of the Islamic regime. However, as the economic downturn of the Islamic regime intensifies and the Islamic Regime dictates more reactionary culture and ethics, the tendency to restore the former state automatically would widespread then it would increase the influence of the Monarchists. However, their potential power which other bourgeois oppositions do not have is a conceivable alternative to the Islamic Regime, regardless of how it is implemented, or if it is possible or not today. Furthermore, despite of their contemporary political unorganized, this spectrum has the broad absorption inside Iran which covers, not only politicians and civil and military activists and scholars of this spectrum but a significant portion of their class, the capitalists, managers and technocrats. Despite the lack of compromised national leaders among the Monarchist factions in this specific period, in case of intensity of political crisis, it is quite conceivable such leaders would emerge and this spectrum would provide them sufficiently. Finally, an important element of the political entity of this spectrum is the active support of the West. Not only material and financial support, but also political, military and diplomatic support from the United States and the West will be awarded to this spectrum, despite compromising efforts of the Mujahidin or Republicans groups with the West. Especially it is really possible with the help of the West and the United Nations’ military forces, the government of this spectrum emerges in Khuzestan and the southern provinces then be extended cross the country and would be recognized internationally in the case of the collapse of the Islamic Republic. It is difficult to discuss the Monarchists’ action in the context of a black scenario. On the one hand it is clear, contrary to Islamic sects and armed thugs they remain interested in restoring stability and normal social interactions. One of the main fears they have is the "disintegration" of the country. To a large degree they are the political representative of the gigantic Iranian and Western capital investments who perceive Iran mainly as the field for profit and production; they will reasonably try to prevent the circumstances of destructions. But on the other hand, for the full consolidation of their power, they are the main base of any civil war and do not hesitate manslaughter and oppressions. It is difficult picturing them to concede, practically to a left-wing government which empowered through a political mechanism and the election process and people’s decisions. In the latter case, I mean the coup conspiracy and waging war against leftist rule, to be honest, I think they will be escorted by the main part of the Republican spectrum. Encouraging the Iranian glory and the attempts of national oppression is their second aspect. This political current, especially the mad Aryans and fascist factions, if they seize power, they definitely lead the country to an artificial ethnic conflict and civil war. On the other side of the ethnic conflict, even if it is calm today, the day such scenario follows, there would be enough demagogic leaders belonging to real or virtual ethnics to resist them and bring people to the risk of ethnical war.
The Kurdish Autonomy-seeking Parties
I think the main forces of the Autonomy-seeking of Kurdistan, Democratic Party of Kurdistan Iran and the new Kamala are not the characters of the black scenario and they are quite concerned of optimal solution of the Kurdish problems. Democratic Party, the mainstream of the Kurdish nationalism movement, is not ultranationalist and has a strong tradition of political struggle. The issue for the new Kamala is ambiguous since its political, intellectual characteristic and weight of the current practice are not properly defined and predicable. There is no doubt, however, if an oppressive chauvinist of any kind emerges in Tehran then the political solution would be impossible. The war continues and the Kurds’ issues remain unsolved. But I think any National government which accepts referendum and respects the free vote of the Kurdish people, can solve the problem. It is indeed likely that an arm conflict occurs among these forces and different factions of the Democratic Party conflicting one another for resolving the unity problems or they crusade against the communists and the workers’ movement. But these are short-term and transient in the general direction of politics in Iran. If violent conflicts take place among the different ethnic groups, yet in my opinion inviting the more civilized and politically experienced branches to a political solution is possible. If it goes in the issues of the ethnics’ direction, then I think the main risk is, primarily emerging a chauvinist government and then different self-appointed opportunist and demagoguery tribal leaders will rise everywhere that cause civil war.
Ethnic and nationalism conflict and the problem of "territorial integrity":
I think the nationalism conflict, contrary to some interpretations, is not the main content of the black scenario in Iran. If this crisis begins and continues to persist, then it is quite possible to become part of this image by arriving the ethics and nationalist groups to the scenes. This is not the main issue and it won’t be the starting point. The main parties in the conflicts won’t be the ethnic and nationalist groups. This image of Iran as the fragile coalition of nations that are apparently waiting for the central government to decline and then desire their own way for establishing local governments, is not an actual image. But if the civil society binding crushes and the typical economic life suspends, then it is not unlikely that some desperately desire for nationalistic separation. The procedure of nationalism and ethnicity primarily can be preferred as the reaction to the chauvinist and fascist tendencies. The zealous followers of the Iranian glory and Aryans who sanctify the "territorial integrity" can impose this route to people. If any motion is to get the label of nationalism and ethnicity, in Tehran they give signal that "that motion will be responded by an iron hand," and deploy the troops, in the other sides, especially in this era with many brave small bourgeoisies, they can also transform the country into the ethnic and tribal wars. The only political force which can isolate ethnicity and nationalism in such conditions is the one that recognizes the most comprehensive political freedom and civil rights for people; therefore, the rivalry nationalistic demands can be directed to the political channel. The ethnicity problems will not be solved by the ethnocentrism and chauvinism groups representing the other sectors of society. In short, the next possible conflict in Iran can also contain the ethnic battles. But this depends on how the efforts of forces like us allow the fascist tendencies and glory-seeking, Aryans and etc. conquer the political grounds. Our extensive publicity and persistent activity against nationalism, Iranian supremacists and ethnocentrism so far has restricted the scope of their boards; also with increasing sensitivity among the left movement toward nationalism we can contribute to a future for Iran in order to blockade the perspective of the kind of Yugoslavia’s civil war. These activities should be vigorously continued.
It should be emphasized here that preventing the black scenario does not mean "defending the territorial integrity of Iran." "Territorial integrity," is not our problem and formulation. As we, neither, insist on the closure of the Iran’s specific geography. Iran may become smaller or larger than this layout. Firstly, it is important that any changes in the geographical and political parameters must be exercised with the free will of the people, and secondly, our problem is that this generation of people based on what type of social situations they live in a geography named Iran. It is clear if some forces want to impose a reactionary regime in one part of this geography by provoking ethnicity, religions or by force of arms, they may cause war. Communists and workers, either locally or nationally may confront such efforts militarily. But this is not a battle over territorial integrity, but the quality of life for the people.
White scenario: Labours exercising their power, or "national reconciliation?"
Black and white scenario is not the reconciliation discussion against violence, or moderation against extremism debate. Let me quote an example of misinterpretations. Mr. Mohammad Arassy, a member of the "true constitutionalists," after reading my article "the illicit dreams of Mujahid," has published an article in Kayhan in London. Inspired by my article, he divides the political groups on the two categories. He says, with Aryan bigotry resonance: "As a political activist writes," (which seams it is contrary to the spirit of the constitutionalism to name the writer) "Some groups are planning black scenario for Iran and the others white one!" in his category there are the pro "national reconciliation," "sovereignty," "cultural pluralism" and advocates of peace! He then makes a list: all writers’ associations (!) human rights organizations, agencies of the real constitutionalists, the Iranian National Republicans, the Followers of Mosadeq, Fedaian Majority, the Democratic Party of Iranian People, a faction of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, who support the territorial integrity of the country…The Iranian prince Reza Pahlavi, providing his efforts for the national reconciliation, can allocate a prominent position in this spectrum. Religious figures, especially those Islamic scholars who believe in the separation of religion from the state, are the planners of the white scenarios. On the contrary, those who plan black scenarios are the "preachers of violence," those who humiliate "reconciliation," and deny the political personalities because of their past mistakes. And of course one of these groups, according to Mr. Arassy is "extreme militant left."
Mr. Arassy can think whatever he wants. But the reality is that the forces which benefit in a white scenario, regardless how radical or moderate they are, revolutionaries or pro gradual transitions, they take advantage from the survival of civil society as part of the political struggle scene. We are perhaps the vigorous example of what Mr. Arassy calls extreme left who have not alleviated our socialistic goals and we do not think the bourgeoisie will release its control over the human life and their existence peacefully or with Mr. Arassy’s mediation, it concedes to the equality and freedom of people. But if there is generally a political current in Iran that really wants to avoid the experiences of Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, it is the worker-communist. This is due to the fact that we clearly anticipate the human, social, political and cultural losses of such situation. It is not so difficult in the future affairs of Iran to make an armed gang and occupying a few towns or villages and fighting this and that group politically and militarily. But this will be a major setback in the general principles of class struggle for the worker-communism as a movement of the working class to change society. The economic and social metabolism in society functioning is not only to our benefit but crucial to us. Working people need not to be desperate, displaced and humiliated but to be able to consider the party and the revolution for a far better world. It is important to us, even vital, the human beings’ future prospects and expectation of life are not deteriorated under the pressure of killings, mortars, artillery, hunger and displacement. Threatening to rupture the binding of society has been a constant threat to the left and communism. There are factions of the bourgeoisie that are willing to destroy society in case of labor and communism empowerment. We just forcefully confront them. I do not know if in the near future in Iran when such situation occurs, the "writers’ associations," what they can or will do, but it is clear what the working class and worker communist must to do. They must ultimately end this. The political and military mobs must be removed from the scenes. They need to restore civility and I think it’s in this process. The bourgeoisie and its various currents show their real nature to people, we must mobilize the socialist forces, establishing the workers government to end the terror and barbarism era. Our task to relieve Iranian people from this nightmare will take political and military efforts. It would be best if this threat could be avoided, otherwise it must quickly and forcefully be put to an end.
Worker-Communist has its place in the white scenario. Firstly, since it is extremely beneficial in the course of this path. And secondly, based on its social class it could decisively end this process by the force of the working class and organizing the broad masses of the people around a clear socio-political alternative. If this process led to civil war and civic destructions, the Worker Communist Party is bound to be in the scene as a powerful party by employing massive military actions. People should know this. But this is not just our discourses. We also believe that we do not forget our principles as our Party takes military actions. Surely the Army of this Party not only does not threat the civilian population but also protects them. For sure this party will not pound the civilian residential and working zones, even if these zones are the residents of the fanatic followers of the opposing forces. Livelihoods of people surely won’t be bounded. Their communication links and access to their necessities won’t be obstructed. This party surely treats the war prisoners according to the best human standards. At present day we do not have the death penalty nor did we during war times. We assure people in all areas under the control of the workers’ army that not only will the civility be continued but all the rights announced in the party’s program will be guaranteed for people. In such mayhems, the Worker-Communist will bring security, prosperity and hope to the people.
The agreement between the political groups for attempts to avoid the black scenario is not an agreement on the "national reconciliation," or on conceding issues. It is an agreement on maintaining a level of the political culture and commitment to certain principles, even if the virulent conditions have happened. The question is to what extent each political party can or is willing to avoid this scenario; or if it takes place, how quickly will they act to put an end to it. It should also be somewhat flexible. However, the black scenario is not about flexibility.
What could be done?
What is the practical significance of this debate for us? The most important practical aspect of this debate is the fact that we perceive this possibility and prepare ourselves to confront it. We announce the elements involved in this scenario are religion, the religious ignorance and Islamist factions, national prejudices, ethnocentrism and glory-seeking tendencies. We announce that we will stop these thugs by mobilizing people against them. The main and most important task which this analysis touches is our readiness as a political Party and preparing the workers as the working class to act immediately in such circumstances.
Secondly, developing this knowledge to the public and alerting them of this path. There is widespread hatred against the Islamic Republic and the countdown for its overturn has begun. We should alert people of the reactionary tendencies in such circumstance. We must explain to the people how the secular trends of a secular regime, non-nationalistic, non-ethnic and pro broad political freedoms, like the Worker Communist Party of Iran, are the safeguards against such black scenarios as happened in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
These two aspects are both our own tasks. The preparation of both our Party and the progressive section of the working class for effective involvement and awareness of the broad masses of the people to the possibilities and the destructive capacities of the reactionary religious zealots, nationalists and sectarians is our direct task. Whether other opposition groups generally understand the importance of the issue or not, regardless of their tasks, the Worker Communist Party should commit its support to the task of avoiding the black scenario in the time of ousting the reactionary Islamic Regime. And not only this, the Party must declare, in the event of such circumstances and the occurrence of a civic disintegration and extended military conflicts, as a political force, and if required by military actions, to end this turmoil as soon as possible. We will mobilize people against this condition. Even in the time of military combats we must declare and comply with the human principles and broadminded freedom. It must be clear that even if the situation worsens, the Worker Communist Party will be representing the humanity and civilization.
As far as the other opposition groups are concerned, I think something must be done so that extensive opposition groups first publicly recognize such threat, then officially pledge to the creation of the minimum practical and important principles towards avoiding such scenario or ending it. Of course I do not presume documenting such pledge automatically necessitates these groups remaining in the political ground or guarantees their determination. The possibility that such commitments would be violated by some of these forces is not trivial at all. But these commitments are firstly a tool for creating awareness among the people and raising their expectations of the opposition forces. Secondly however, these are principles and requirements that each group has accepted at a certain time and put the violating groups, in terms of debate and publicity in troubles. However, it will be some kind of hesitation for certain groups. These obligations will not be enforced legally, but they give the committed forces the political tools that publically isolate those who defy their pledges, and minimize their damages. This is a project that I think the Politburo can and should follow in detail.
Is committing to the common principles intended in the unity of action, the Coalition or the Front for different forces? No, it’s not. Unity, of course, is a subject that should be investigated based on each case, and it is not impossible that different groups with totally different political trends will be working together with a specific issue. But the Coalition or the Front for us in today’s political context is irrelevant. In fact, today’s conditions in which the public faces different political choices, requires to stress on the tremendous differences of the political and social perspectives of different forces. This clarifies the political situation in Iran and prevents the spread of misunderstandings. However, the commitment to common principles for avoiding the black scenario is nothing to do with establishing the Coalition or the Front even if it is not the suggestion for a bilateral or multilateral agreement among the signatories or the participants. As the pledge of different forces in the world to the Declaration of Human Rights, is not the Coalition of these forces and they may not even be in touch. The various Iranian Opposition Forces can commit to a statement that suggests a relationship between each of them independently with its containing principles. This is not the joint statement, and can principally have an independent name. For example: with the name of the town in which it is issued, like Paris Declaration, or the Declaration of London, etc. It is important to indicate the possibility of a black scenario during the overthrow of the Islamic Regime. In such declaration, by the opposition groups, it underlines the required principles of how to avoid it. This is an important step to isolate and marginalize the elements of a black scenario in the future of Iran’s developments.
However, in the final analysis the only guarantee to avoid the black scenario and the only tool we can surely rely on is the practice of the Worker Communist Party of Iran. While the people are fighting to overthrow the despised Islamic Regime, we must prevent the reactionary forces (some of which I mentioned) lead the struggle of the Iranian people to this direction.
Organizing a revolution led by the working class against the Islamic Republic of Iran, is our method and endorsements for a white scenario. The Workers’ State is the most comprehensive and most complete example of a modern and secular political regime, so to speak. A government that guarantees freedom and equality for all and opens the political scene for direct involvement of people in their self-determination extensively will isolate and neutralize all the reactionary forces. Our first invitation would be for the working people and whoever believes the freedom and equality are sacred expressions, to join our Party for common struggles against the Islamic Regime and all gloomy prospects which the reactionary bourgeois conspires for millions of people in Iran.
Translated by Ezat Malaky
English translation: Ezat Malaky