TUDEH Party of Iran on current political situation

In an interview, the first part of which was broadcast on Iranian television on Wednesday, August 4, Massoud Pezzekian made clear references to the power struggle that is currently underway within the Islamic government. The controversial statements of Baqer Kharrazi, the leader of Iran’s Hezbollah, the news of the dismissal of Zolghadr and the appointment of Mohsen Rezaei, who, like Jalili, is opposed to negotiations and the memorandum of understanding signed with the United States, as the representative of the “leadership” and secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (SNS), are among the examples of these factional wars in the past week that were also mentioned in Pezzekian’s remarks. Pezzekian also referred to the corruption that exists at all levels of government decision-making. In part of his speech, he referred to the popular protests of January 1404 and the deaths and injuries of those who were injured in these protests, saying, “I still cannot forget these events, and we should not have let this happen,” although he did not say who killed the several thousand people he himself does not deny were killed. In another part of his speech, he said that given the difficult conditions resulting from sanctions, war, and economic restrictions, the government considers reforms an inevitable necessity for the country’s future.

Of course, what Pezizian intends for economic reforms is a repetition of the same failed neoliberal policies of the past decades that have played a key role in creating a nationwide economic crisis and pushing tens of millions of hardworking Iranians below the poverty line. According to Pezizian: “The right way is for our factories and companies to be truly managed by the private sector… Of course, these things are very difficult. Change is always difficult… Managing this situation is with God’s help, otherwise it is not that easy.”

Pezzekian, at the beginning of his third year as president, is making these remarks at a time when, according to statistics published by the Statistical Center of Iran, annual inflation has increased by 4 percent to 66 percent, the highest inflation in all the years since the revolution. In addition, the latest statistics show that poverty and deprivation are rampant in the country, and nearly 40 percent of the Iranian population lives below the poverty line defined by the Islamic Republic itself. In his speech, Pezzekian did not clarify how, with all this corruption - which is officially and unofficially led by the petty and big leaders of the Islamic Republic - the needs of the country's working people, including pensioners who have been persistently demanding an address to their extremely dire living conditions in recent weeks in numerous protest movements across Iran, are going to be met. It was only in the news that the Social Security Organization announced that "the total outstanding claims of retirees since April and May of this year have reached 82 hemats (82 trillion tomans), and efforts are continuing to secure the necessary financial resources to pay these arrears as quickly as possible."

In addition to the growing economic crises and the escalation of intra-governmental conflicts, the developments of the last few days related to the war have once again placed Iran and the region in a situation that is perhaps best described as “no war, no peace.” The risk of a large-scale military confrontation remains real and serious, but diplomacy is also underway to prevent it; threats continue, but negotiations are also underway; and regional governments are preparing for a new security order in the region while trying to prevent a larger war. The security and defense agreement between Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia is an event that the Islamic Republic cannot ignore: Pakistan is a nuclear power; Turkey is one of the most important military powers in the region and a member of NATO; and Saudi Arabia has been rapidly increasing its political, economic, and military weight in recent years. The rapprochement of these three countries within the framework of the “Mecca Agreement” could be a sign of the formation of a new balance of power in and around the region, which is no longer necessarily defined along the old axis of “Iran versus the Arab states of the Persian Gulf.” The strong reaction of fundamentalist circles and hardline representatives in Iran to this development is also noteworthy in this respect. The issue is not just about facing another military agreement. The bigger question for the Iranian regime should be: Is the main goal of these new regional security arrangements to contain Iran’s power and role in the region? We believe that is the case.

In this regard, the recent talks between Iran and Oman on the Strait of Hormuz are also of particular importance. Abbas Araqchi, while pointing out the good progress of these talks and reaching an agreement, said that of course such an agreement does not mean the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. It is clear that if these talks lead to a lasting agreement, its importance will not only be in restoring relative security to shipping. The Strait of Hormuz has now become a junction where several crises are intertwined: the security of the Persian Gulf, oil and energy exports, Iran's relations with its Arab neighbors, and most importantly, the risk of a direct confrontation between Iran and the United States. Therefore, any practical agreement on the Strait of Hormuz can be considered the first serious sign of a reduction in tension. But it would be a mistake to equate the reduction in tension with the resolution of the crisis. A stable political framework for regulating Iran-US relations or for the security order of the region has not yet been formed, and as long as such a framework does not exist, the possibility of a quick return from the negotiating table to the battlefield remains.

The military aggression of US imperialism and the criminal Israeli regime against Iran in recent months was a great disaster for our homeland, and its negative consequences for the future of Iran cannot and should not be ignored. The widespread US attack on the country's vital infrastructure has undoubtedly had and will have catastrophic consequences for the Iranian people and the entire region.

On the other hand, while diplomats are negotiating and the world media is discussing Trump, the Strait of Hormuz, and new regional balances, inside the country, the authoritarian and anti-people regime’s machine of repression and killing is still at work. Executions continue, death sentences are issued, and pressure on political prisoners, civil activists, and ethnic and religious groups remains part of the country’s daily reality. The “no war, no peace” limbo has become an opportunity for the regime to continue suppressing popular protests while at the same time trying to survive and stabilize its future and fill the power vacuum at the top of the government pyramid after Ali Khamenei.

In recent decades, the Islamic Republic has repeatedly shown that it blurs the line between political opposition and “security threat” by relying on external danger and conspiracy. Criticism and opposition to the regime’s anti-national policies are interpreted as collaboration with the enemy, and protesting the state of work and life is transformed into an issue of “national security” and a justification for violent and bloody suppression of popular protests. This is why war and foreign aggression and violent internal repression should not be considered two separate issues.

Dealing with this situation is a serious political test for progressive forces, both in Iran and elsewhere. Progressive politics cannot support bombing Iran, destroying the country’s infrastructure, or “regime change” through war. The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan and the region’s numerous wars should be enough to abandon the illusion of “freedom through bombing.” But opposition to the aggressive policies of American imperialism and the criminal Israeli regime cannot and should not be an excuse for directly or indirectly defending the Islamic government of Iran and remaining silent in the face of the bloody repression of the Iranian people.

One can oppose the US military aggression against Iran and at the same time demand a halt to executions in Iran. One can oppose the expansion of militarism and the arms race in the region and at the same time defend the release of political prisoners and the right of the Iranian people to protest. One can oppose the sanctions that are destroying the lives of ordinary, hardworking Iranians and at the same time hold the Islamic Republic government responsible for the brutal and bloody violation of the fundamental rights of Iranian citizens. These two positions do not contradict each other.

In the current situation, and as the death machine of the Islamic Republic’s judiciary hangs another young man every day, widespread opposition to and struggle against the death penalty becomes urgent. The campaign against the death penalty in Iran can also be a point of convergence for a broader range of democratic and progressive forces, from those whose main priority is preventing war to those whose focus is on human rights and the fight for political freedoms. This is a moment when international solidarity with the Iranian people takes on a very specific meaning: not supporting a war to overthrow the government through foreign intervention, nor remaining silent in the face of the brutal and bloody repression of the Iranian people in the name of fighting imperialism, but simultaneously striving to prevent war and to stop the machine of execution and repression.

On the foreign front, negotiations with Oman may temporarily reduce the risk of war over the Strait of Hormuz; new security arrangements in the region may eventually create a new balance of power; and Trump may continue to alternate between military threats and negotiations. But for someone in prison awaiting execution, these geopolitical developments do not have the same meaning and significance. Diplomacy may stop wars between states, but another important issue is what force can stop the Islamic Republic from fighting domestic opponents and the discontented Iranian people.

For progressive forces, the answer is clear: no to imperialist aggression against Iran; no to repression and dictatorial rule; immediate halt to executions and immediate and unconditional release of all political-religious prisoners!