Iranian regime facing stormy times

Lukas Zöbelein, Sol - Sozialistische Organisation Solidarität (CWI Germany) Iran 6 February 2025

Coming up to the 46th anniversary of its establishment, Iran’s theocratic regime is facing several crises, internally and externally. In this article, we will try to analyse how these crises are related and thus affecting each other while posing insoluble problems for the theocratic regime under capitalism.

Internationally, the latest important event for the theocratic regime in Tehran in recent months was the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. Coming rapidly after Trump’s re-election victory this was a major blow, as Syria had been part of the so-called ‘axis of resistance’ Iran led. Assad’s fall came after other parts of this “axis”, Hamas and Hezbollah, had been weakened by the Israeli onslaught after October 2023. The theocratic regime had been one of the few supporters of the Assad regime apart from Russia. This backing was expressed in military support of Assad’s army by the Iranian so called ‘Revolutionary’ Guards’ foreign brigades, and in the 40 billion US dollars that the theocratic regime lent to the former Syrian regime since the beginning of the civil war in 2011.

This support was massively reduced by the Iranian theocratic regime as it reacted to the Israeli state’s genocidal war against the Palestinians. While this offensive has, at the time of writing, been largely paused by a fragile ceasefire, military action could restart. Israeli attacks and sabotage operations were able to greatly weaken the leadership structures of the so-called Palestinian ‘revolutionary’ forces. This led the Iranian leadership to focus much more on supporting Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. In turn, this helped Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Syrian National Army (SNA) to take over Syria quickly in December.

The capture of large parts of Syria by these two organizations of Sunni based right-wing political Islam has sparked a debate within Iran’s theocratic regime. Neither HTS, a former ISIS affiliate, nor the Turkish backed SNA, are friendly to the Iranian Shia regime. The Iranian debate is over the question of why so much money and military resources have been wasted in Syria. In particular, the leadership staff of the Revolutionary Guards has taken the position that everything has been done correctly. However, in media linked to the so called conservative wing of the regime questions are openly asked and discussed about what happened in Syria.

It is important to note that this question was previously only raised by forces that were clearly in opposition to the theocratic regime. For example, in all the major movements of the last decade, it was heard, again and again, the demand: “Do not support the ‘Revolutionary Guards’ but the people”. This referred to the fact that the theocratic regime put a massive number of resources into the financing of the so-called Revolutionary Guards’ foreign operations while having, at the same time, more or less starved the population at home.

This is why left-wing forces, along with the semi-legal and non-state controlled independent syndicates (trade unions), must now be careful that this demand is not taken away from them and taken up by either a part of the ruling elite or the pro-western imperialist elements within the opposition. A way to do this is if the Iranian left and the independent unions develop a programme that formulates alternative examples of how these 40 billion US dollars could have been spent. For example, to improve the health care of much of the population or to combat the poverty of the masses within Iran.

Given the continuing intervention of rival, big and small, imperialisms in the region, the latest events give an opportunity for the trade union and left-wing collectives to present an alternative foreign policy to the regimes’ one. On the basis that foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, such an alternative could show how a anti-capitalist workers’ government in Iran would have reacted to the collapse of the Assad regime and the current situation in Syria.

Concretely such a government of the workers and the impoverished masses would be based on pursuing a socialist internationalist course, including regarding Syria. That is, it would have used the differences between and within the ruling classes of the international imperialist states to help left forces within Syria. The first steps would have been opposing direct or indirect foreign intervention and calling on the Syrian workers and impoverished masses to organize independently of the remnants of the Assad regime, the HTS and the SNA. In addition, it would have defended the right of the Kurds to self-determination. Under such a banner, it would also have been possible for it to intervene practically to help the Syrian masses organise and defend themselves.

Within Iran the collapse of the Assad regime has led to more public rifts within the ruling elite as the government continues its ‘carrot and stick’ approach in an attempt maintain its grip. Last year saw a big increase in the number of executions to over 900, the highest number in nine years, but also the rulers making a few limited concessions. Thus, the government, led by President Massoud Pezeshkian, who belongs to the so-called reformist wing of the regime, lifted the ban on the use of WhatsApp and Google Play, last December. In a meeting of important politicians, Pezeshkian resisted the opposition to this from parts of the hardliners, who are in favour of continued repression.

These sorts of debates continue. For example, since the end of the ‘Women’s Life Freedom’ movement in the beginning of 2023, the laws regarding what women can wear have been tightened to the extent that they are now even tougher than they were before the movement. Recently further laws on clothing were passed but, so far, they have not been signed by Pezeshkian and put into effect. Significantly, up to now, Pezeshkian has not faced opposition from the country’s religious leaders. In fact, the religious leadership allowed him to become President last year precisely because they wanted a ‘carrot and stick’ approach rather than simple repression that risked provoking a mass movement. Now there are signs that Pezeshkian’s government is attempting to offer negotiations to Trump, although it is an open question whether Trump will respond in kind or renew its pressure and threats against the regime.

Regime’s weakness
In Iran, like in many other countries, the working class and poor face many pressing issues alongside the regime’s authoritarian rule. This is the background to repeated industrial and social struggles, especially those over the last eight years. Recent low election turnouts have shown the regime’s weak popular base. However, so far, there has been limited progress in the building of a political organization of the workers and impoverished masses that can pose a challenge by combining the struggle for democratic rights with that for social demands. Of course, continual repression, especially of activists, is a key factor to overcome. But the development of such an organised force is necessary, because it could democratically discuss the important social issues and be a forum to work out a general programme and concrete steps necessary as events unfold.

Such a force could, for instance, help organise the popular fight against the energy crisis, which has been afflicting Iran for years again and again and came back last year. This crisis is because, in particular, the pipelines that supply the country with natural gas are completely outdated and have been partially paralyzed by Israeli attacks. The obsolescence of the natural gas supply is due to a mass corruption that pervades the entire energy sector. This is an opportunity for socialists to intervene and argue for the demand for administration and control by the Iranian workers and impoverished masses over the oil and gas production and supply. Such a campaign would expose the right-wing pro-capitalist opposition within Iran as well as its imperialist backers, as they would openly position themselves against such demands and struggles.

The corruption that permeates the entire Iranian economy, whether state or private sectors, is deep into its economic core. It can only be defeated, and those who have become perpetrators of corruption can only be punished, if the key sectors of the economy are nationalised under the democratic control and administration of the workers and impoverished masses. This would allow that the economy could begin to be planned to meet the needs of the people rather than the profits of the owners and the privileges the top bureaucrats receive. In addition, such action would enable the accounts to be examined to solve the mystery of where the flow of money in privatization processes went, as well exposing the high wages paid to both the top state bureaucrats in the currently nationalised enterprises and managers of private enterprises in Iran.

Repeatedly over recent years protests have taken place in various cities and regions of Iran against poor working and living conditions. It would be an important step for these protests are generalised nationwide and for the activists to develop democratic structures. These would enable the discussion and debate to formulate both an action programme of demands and a policy for Iran’s future.

This comes back to the question of why the regime has squandered so much money in propping up an authoritarian regime in Syria that rapidly collapsed due to its lack of popular support when, in Iran, for example, there are urgent issues over the level and punctual payment of wages, better working conditions and work for the unemployed. A comprehensive action programme is needed. At the same time campaigning and struggling for these workplace demands they are linked to the questions of democratic rights, an immediate end to the executions this regime is carrying out and the freeing of all political and trade union prisoners. In a similar way the calls for an end to oppression, for freedom of opinion, freedom of the media and the right to organize themselves politically and in trade unions are central and are linked to the economic and social issues as for working people such democratic demands are calls to be able to freely for their demands.

To generalize the struggles, the already existing semi-legal syndicates (trade unions) can play a key role in mobilising for such protests and demonstrations when the possibility develops. Such generalisation may first be possible on a city-wide or regional basis, but the perspective needs to be for national action. In such situations the question of a general strike could be posed but that would require not just the question of organisation but what should be the aims of the strike. If the working class is able to stop the country then that would show that potentially it has the power to run the country if is organised to do so. The same question would be posed if, as we have seen before, that protests will develop spontaneously like in 2019 against fuel price rises or in 2022 after Mahsa (Jina) Amini’s death.

Before and during such developments Marxists would continue to explain that the rampant energy crisis, unemployment and other social problems are not simply the result of the regime’s authoritarian rule. They have their origin in the capitalist system and need to be countered by a socialist programme. This is why we see similar issues worldwide, including in states that are formally democratic. Marxists strive to create an awareness of the way capitalism works and an awareness that a change in society needs to be on a democratic socialist basis. And this is only possible under a government led by organisations of the working class and poor.

It is just as important that the syndicates and other organisations of the working class are further built. It is inevitable that there will be different ideas on their demands, programme, strategy and tactics. After all, there has been a long period of authoritarian rule limiting debate and persecuting activists. Nevertheless, clarifying these issues is vital. There can be no doubt that the overthrow of this regime will be welcomed; generally, the overthrow of authoritarian rule brings feelings of liberation and joy. But if the power does not come into the hands of the working people, then sooner or later the ruling class will reassert control. It may be a different faction of the ruling class in power compared to the one that ruled before, but the fundamentals of the capitalist system will remain. This may be hard for many to grasp in the first weeks of freedom, but it is the lesson of revolutions worldwide.

Building workers’ organisations
This is why Marxists, while striving to build workers’ organisations, also argue for a clear programme and strategy. To do this, work a nationally organised Marxist organisation/party is needed. Such an organised force could support and promote self-organising processes, especially in workplaces and communities, through its work. It is as important that workers and the impoverished masses organise themselves independently from pro-capitalist forces. While striving to build their own forces Marxists recognise that it is likely that most workers will not immediately join a revolutionary Marxist party. So, while working to increase support for socialist ideas and a Marxist organisation, Marxists support any step towards independent working class politics and agitate for the creation of a broad workers party based on a socialist programme. But this is not an ultimatum. If a genuine workers’ party begins to be formed on a limited programme, Marxists would support that and promote a revolutionary socialist programme within the party, so that this party’s creation becomes a step towards the creation of a mass socialist workers’ party.

With an insecure regime lashing out it remains important that international solidarity with the struggles in Iran is organized. The recent cases of Toomaj Salehi, Pakhshan Azizi, Sharifeh Mohammadi, activists who were sentenced to death, but whose sentences were changed to ones of imprisonment due to high pressure from inside and outside Iran, shows that protests can have an impact on the theocratic regime.

Iran remains one of the most important countries in the Middle East, given the size of its working class and its youthful population. Its recent history of struggles, especially over recent years, is a harbinger of the future. A mass movement in Iran leading to the overthrow of the regime would send shockwaves out internationally. If such a movement adopted socialist ideas, it would play a decisive part in transforming the region by setting a bold example. The challenge is to realise that potential.
https://www.socialistworld.net/2025/02/06/iranian-regime-facing-stormy-times/?

Back


Links Search