On the USA Attack on Iraq, Part II
Interview with Koorosh Modaresi on the USA New Global Strategy
Question: It might be argued that the Iraqi regime, like the Taliban
regime, is corrupt, dictatorial and fascist and that its downfall
is the desire of all decent people. Why couldn't one be pleased, then,
at the USA attack on Iraq and see a positive side to this war, like
the war with the Taliban?
Koorosh Modaresi: Certainly, the downfall of the Iraqi regime is
the desire of all decent people. The Worker-communist Party of Iran
(WPI) alongside the Worker Communist Party of Iraq has struggled against
the Iraqi regime; this battle continues. However, the issue at hand
in this attack is not the overthrow of the Iraqi regime; this is the
USA's formula on the issue. Saddam Hussein's regime can also be overthrown
by dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad; must we see a positive side
to it? The USA was striving to establish its supremacy in the war
on Afghanistan too but the issue at hand there was the overthrow of
the rule of political Islam, which with limited casualties and destruction,
could guarantee the coming to power of a regime that was nonetheless
better. The outcome of the Taliban's defeat was not the USA's triumph
as the uni-power of the world, whatever the USA's formula for that
war. The result of that victory in Afghanistan from the viewpoint
of the world's people was the defeat of political Islam and the triumph
of some form of civilisation over Islamic barbarity. In fact, it is
for this very reason that the USA has returned to the issue of Saddam.
The Afghanistan war did not and could not, because of the nature of
the issue, establish the position and law of the jungle the USA wanted.
On this occasion though, the outcome of the USA war on Iraq will not
be the overthrow of Saddam, but rather the establishment of the USA's
domination on the world. This phenomenon will be worse for humanity
and the people of Iraq than the Iraqi Ba'ath regime. I think that
one must move beyond the formula the USA presents to the world with
the aid of lackey journalism and declare that the issue at hand is
something else. The USA's attack on Iraq is to establish the USA's
supremacy. If there was a civilised and human regime engaged in overthrowing
Saddam, then the question would have been fundamentally different.
As I said before, we should not accept the account they have placed
before us at face value. The issue is something else. It is not the
case that we must overthrow Saddam at the expense of devastating the
lives of the people of the region, world, including the people of
Iraq.
Question: What factors can stop the USA attack on Iraq and what is
to be done? What is the WPI's position on the 'anti-war movement',
which is taking shape and the groups involved in it? Will the WPI
take part in this movement?
Koorosh Modaresi: The actualisation of the USA attack on Iraq depends
on various factors, including establishing strategic and logistical
facilities in the region and neutralising European countries to accept
the USA's new role. One significant and fundamental factor, however,
is the protests which can and must be organised internationally against
USA militarism. If the USA and Western states face the surge of people's
protests, then they will be forced to retreat; consequently, we will
strive to constitute a significant pillar of the anti-war movement.
In reality, however, this movement attracts various groups to it.
As I said before, the outcome of the USA's militaristic policy will
be to strengthen political Islam and nationalism. In the process of
the shaping of the anti-war movement, this means that these groups
will try to present themselves as the representatives and voices of
the interests of the people of Iraq and the region, turn their own
slogans and perspectives into the perspectives and slogans of the
movement's participants and also draw legitimisation from this movement.
We must not allow this to happen. This movement must be the movement
of the civilised world and humanity against USA barbarity. Its demands
must not have any sympathy with Islamists and nationalists. We must
enlighten, mobilise, gather sympathy and turn humanity into the banner
of this protest. This is a complex struggle but in reality the civilised
world and humanity is with us, particularly after September 11. We
must use this opportunity. We must utilize this movement as the basis
of the emergence of humanity's movement against USA militarism.
Question: What are the main slogans in the context of the activities
of the Worker-communist Party of Iran against the probable USA attack
on Iraq and what is the WPI position, in particular, on the slogan
of 'Neither Bush, Nor Saddam'?
Koorosh Modaresi: Undoubtedly, one slogan cannot capture all this
analysis and reality. More than focusing on one slogan, attention
must be paid to declarations, resolutions, debating the issue in one's
locality and the process of the formation of this movement. As far
as the 'Neither Bush, Nor Saddam' slogan is concerned, I think that
this slogan accepts part of the USA's account. Clearly, the slogan's
elements are not only fine but they express the desires of any decent
person. In the current situation, however, placing the two together
implies that there is a war between Saddam and the USA and we are
saying 'no' to both of them. This is not the case. As I have said,
there is no war but an unjustified USA attack on Iraq. The issue at
hand is the USA not Iraq and not Iraq plus the USA. If our movement
fails to be clearly against USA militarism and begins from a defensive
position, it will not succeed. If someone asks my position on Saddam,
my reply will be that the issue at hand is not Saddam. I will not
accept this deception. You cannot paint a frog in the colour of a
canary and then debate the principles of conduct towards canaries
with me. The situation is exactly like the Gulf War. Then, too, we
did not accept that the issue at hand was Kuwait and its independence.
Question: In the event of a USA attack on Iraq and the presence of
USA forces in the region, the region's political geography will be
altered and will affect the political situation in Iran as well as
the political forces in opposition. What is your analysis of this
change in the region and Iran?
Koorosh Modaresi: If the USA attacks and succeeds, then it will become
a country residing in the region. Today, if the USA wants to use military
force against anyone in the region it must first seek the agreement
of several countries, sheikhdoms and emirates. By having a permanent
base in an Iraq it has seized, the USA will be placed in a more established
position, allowing it to do anything it wants. This is not a bright
future. Neither we nor the people of Iran want to go to war with the
USA. However, the USA has shown, and today with its 'Pre-emptive Strikes'
policy has declared, that if the people of Iran, Saudi Arabia or any
other place in the region decide to adopt a policy which is not to
the liking of the USA or if any state in any of these countries comes
to power that might, by its economic development, limit USA influence,
the USA will simply occupy their oil producing regions or devastate
the entire country by using its permanent military base. With this
policy, the USA is turning the Gulf region into its own backyard.
If we have learnt lessons from the past and present, this is a gloomy
future for the region. The USA will become the cause of instability
and the growth of reactionary groups in the region in the same way
that Sharon was the cause of the growth of Hamas in Palestine.
Politically, the presence of the USA next to Iran is not beneficial
for the Islamic Republic and will strengthen groups supportive of
the USA. As I said regarding Iraq, we are not for 'weakening' the
Islamic by at the expense of the people's devastation. One can overthrow
the Islamic regime by dropping an atomic bomb on Tehran. This USA
policy will bring nothing but devastation for the people.
The above is the translation of an interview first published in International
Weekly number 126 dated 7 October 2002. It was first published in
English in WPI Briefing number 76, dated 10 October 2002.