CODIR recently interviewed Soheil Asefi, a well known, young Iranian journalist, campaigning for democracy and social justice in Iran. In this extensive exclusive interview, that will be published in two parts, Soheil Asefi speaks about the reality of life in Iran today. In the following pages, we publish the first part of this interview. CODIR encourages all those supporting the campaign for peace, democracy and social justice in Iran to read this facinitating commentary.
10th April 2010
CODIR: Mr. Soheil Asefi, thank you for accepting CODIR's invitation for this interview. To begin with, could you please briefly talk about yourself and your views? When and why did you leave Iran?
S. A.: Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak on behalf of some of the forces whose voices are not reflected in the mainstream mass media. First and foremost I define myself as an independent journalist who has paid for his radical and independent views. From the age of 15 I started working with cinema and cultural publications. Over time I wrote for the politics and culture pages of numerous papers in Iran. There are no dissident and independent publications in today's Iran. For some time there was the possibility of writing for some of the religious reformist papers. Under circumstances when independent research and analysis of the contemporary history of Iran was rare, numerous articles of mine were published in the history, politics and culture pages of the high-circulation daily "Shargh", and were well received. This reaction, and the overwhelmingly positive reception of people in Tehran and other cities of Iran, highlighted the thirst for information and knowledge following the thirty-year old pressure and suppression by religious rule over Iran. It was at this stage that we witnessed the emergence and growth of most of the left student media, and also a new chapter with a presence in virtual media and the ability to speak in new ways.
As asserted by those who worked closely with me, those articles drastically changed the atmosphere in the Iranian newspapers. I remember that during the peak of my works, the person who is referred to as a reformist by the religious reformists, i.e. Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, referring implicitly to the articles that were printed in some of the country's newspapers as "analysis of history", was quoted to say that "this is indicative of an awakening of those who used to say that this 'revolution' in ours and is not Islamic." With ever increasing pressure, including warnings from the office of the head of the country to the publishers of these reformist newspapers about their contents, including my articles, the prospect of my collaboration with printed media in Iran diminished. This happened at a time when the "religious reformists" themselves never tolerated my company, even though my articles were always laid-out on the front page due to their journalistic nature. For some time, and through censors, I was allowed to write in this or that section of their papers. However, the hysteria of "religious reformists" against independent, radical and left groups, led to a point that I had no chance to write for printed media anymore.
I then had no choice but to start up my own paper. But where? In the virtual space! My Weblog whose title was my own personal name, i.e. Soheil Asefi, was launched. This was at a point in time when Weblog publishing in Iran was very young. This Weblog was filled with many articles about the politics and culture of Iran and the world. From time to time, some pieces that were published in the printed media were also reflected in this Weblog. Also, quite a number of links to the news sites in various Farsi and global media were posted which according to our web-meter, were visited daily by hundreds of Farsi-speaking visitors from all over the world, including the remote rural areas of Iran. Working for the electronic daily "Rooz" (RoozOnline) was the next step. This daily was published by a few reformist journalists in and out of Iran. During my collaboration with this electronic daily, many articles, reports and interviews with various authorities and members of the Islamic parliament about current issues were published. These were concurrently published in my own Weblog too. This project was also disrupted after the security forces raided my house and confiscated my computer, my rough drafts and archives. They even took my poems and my university writings; I was a screenplay student.
Four days later I was detained by the Islamic Revolutionary Court. Then there were many days of solitary confinement and interrogation while a large archive of 10-years of professional journalistic work was on the interrogator's table in the infamous detention center 209 of the Intelligence Ministry within the notorious Evin prison. Interrogators in the Islamic Republic, who call themselves "experts", questioned me word by word about every single one of my pieces and writings and wanted to know about my "motivation" to do "this"! I had to answer for every word in my pile of articles. I had to explain the reasons for my opposition to the executive order [of the Supreme Leader] on the Article 44 of the Constitution, which deals with the privatisation policies of the regime. The "experts" or interrogators interrogated me for several days on two fronts, i.e. the left and the media. They were always unhappy that I did not cooperate with them. I told them many times that I am not their "co-worker". I spent the entire period of my detention, which involved torture and mostly psychological torture, in solitary confinement.
At that point in time, and despite the political strains in the new government, many of my "reformist" and so-called "liberal" or "neutral" colleagues who currently are in jail or free on bail or outside the country, still had their publications and were active, but never tolerated my presence and company. It is interesting that in prison it was indirectly proposed to me to be at least a "reformist". This situation continued with assigning bail for me and sending me to the general ward of the prison alongside the financial and drug criminals, etc. My bail was originally set at 500 million toomans (~$500,000) which was unprecedented for a journalist. Later on, with the efforts of my family and my mother Nahid Kheirabi, who herself is a journalist and political activist, and the pressure from media, my bail was reduced to 100 million toomans (~$100,000) and the collateral was the house that belonged to my father Shahrokh Asefi, who was educated and lived in Europe for many years. He was a young engineer from the ambitious revolutionary generation who returned to Iran after the revolution; he earned this house with his work.
When I was temporarily released, I had lost 11 kilos. After 60 days in solitary confinement, although I was in good spirits, my general health was not very good. I was still banned from writing and the university administration told me that I could not continue my studies and graduate (I had one semester left to graduate), after about 4 years incurring financial and other costs. Eventually, after so much fighting back, I managed to get my bachelor degree in cinema. However, continuing my education, professional journalistic work, and even my daily life became impossible. To continue my education and work, about a year and a half ago I left Iran for Germany. Presently, I reside in Germany under the "Writers in Exile" program that is run by the German P.E.N. Centre and the Human Rights Office of the city of Nuremberg. From time to time I write a column in a local newspaper. I am trying to continue my professional work as a journalist who is the voice of his nation.
CODIR: A powerful protest movement has been going on in Iran in the past few months that has entirely overshadowed the developments in Iran. It seems that the youth and students have a significant role in this protest movement. What is the reason for this weighty role of the youth in these events?
S.A.: Well, as you may know, more than 70% of the Iran's population today is made up of young people. These youth, very much like the youth their age anywhere else in the world, have their needs and demands that are not fulfilled by the framework of Islamic Republic. The students, too, have always been in the forefront of the struggle of the people of Iran for democracy and social justice in the past 50-60 years or so. A significant part of the discontent against the rule of the Ayatollah's consists of women and the youth, as you may have seen in the pictures that were sent out from Iran. At present, 65% of Iranian students are women, and the number of female professors is also high. The laws of the Islamic Republic however, value each woman as half of a man. The rules and regulations that were set in place by the theocratic regime, after the revolution of 1979, instituted discrimination in areas like testifying and marriage. Therefore, considering this situation and the everyday violation of their basic rights, it is natural that women and young people are at the forefront of protests. In the 21st century these youth and women are demanding their basic rights and step into the struggle for these rights.
CODIR: You yourself, and all the youth that participate in the current protests against the Islamic regime were born in the years after the revolution of February 1979 and during the years of the Islamic Republic. Do you see these protests as a movement to restore the achievements of the revolution, or do you believe that this protest movement is the continuation of that revolution? Basically, from the perspective of the youth, what do you think is the nature of this protest movement?
S.A.: The youth my age are from the generation who in their formative years became familiar with concepts such as "revolution" only in the educational text books of the Islamic Republic and the atmosphere that dominated the society. Naturally we do not have positive feelings toward these terms. In essence, we do not even know the real meaning of these terms. The political tendency that essentially opposes any kind of radicalism and fundamental changes has been condemning any sort of progressive thinking. In the midst of the suppression by the theocratic regime and the collapse of the East Bloc this tendency has promoted its own objectives. I can tell you that the majority of today's young generation in Iran is not much aware of the history of the world developments, for instance, the reasons behind the 1979 revolution and the developments after that.
I briefly mentioned in my answer to your previous question that the generation that you see in the streets, is seeking to regain its violated basic rights. The right to choose outfits, life style etc. are among the most basic human rights that potentially 70% of a society with Iran's background is deprived of. If we call the recent movement the "movement of joy" we have not gone too far. This is a movement whose demand is to fill the gap that has been created by the ruling regime in the past 31 years. This movement desires another kind of life, human life based on the criteria declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that has no place in the models of the Islamic Republic. The image that some of today's youth have from the previous regime sometimes consists of yearning for the lost social freedoms and life style, but this is just on the surface. The reality is one of years of resistance for this generation in pursuit of the most basic social rights, during a regime whose culture stems from Shiite weeping and grieving; from the time that it found itself in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war years; to the years of imprisonment, executions, and harassments and arrests in the streets; until today when it is mourning for many in its generation who were shot in streets or were killed or harmed in prisons under torture or rape.
I remember the time when I was lying in my cell and was thinking about outside. In response to my cynical question about the number of mullahs in Iran the interrogator said "there are as many mullahs in Iran as the number of your hairs!" I remember the dreary days after freedom, when the society and particularly my generation was so politically inactive. I would have never dreamed and believed in that cell that only two years later I would witness such scenes of people, and the younger generation in particular, in the streets. What happened? The answer to your question is here: in my evaluation, this is undoubtedly a movement to revive the three historic slogans of freedom, independence, and social justice. These have always been in the core programme of change-seeking forces since the Constitution Revolution, and every single time were defeated. You could see these three historic components during the February revolution too, and today once again you can see it in the minds of a generation that has been the target of the ruling regime to estrange it from revolutionary concepts.
In 1988, during the massacre of political prisoners who were revolutionary radicals- a great potential for change, any one of whom could have played an alternative role in the future of Iran- not only were the prisoners physically eliminated, but as I mentioned earlier, all kinds of books about political philosophy were also published and promoted in the Islamic Republic that essentially refuted any form of aspiration and radicalism as being "ideological". I remember one of my interrogators telling me repeatedly that Marxism is "good" in the sense of "justice" and so on, but you know that today is capitalism's time! This blend of contradictions in the present system of Iran is the real image of what is happening there today. I see the recent protest movement as the logical extension of the real concept of the unfinished revolution of February 1979. On a historic basis, I know and believe that the slogan of "Where is my Vote?", chanted repeatedly by people during the events of recent months after the election, is a historic reference to the same search for the revival of the progressive slogans of the February 1979 revolution. It might be that a large number of people, particularly the young generation, are not able to analyse this movement of theirs in this manner, but I believe that their movement follows the same logic that I have mentioned.
CODIR: What are the main demands of the protest movement? Does this movement have an organised leadership? How do you see the role of Mr. Mousavi and Mr. Karrubi in this movement?
S.A.: In order to answer your questions, I have to quickly mention the events that happened prior to the presidential election and continue at present. A pseudo-election was held in Iran. As was the case in all of these past 30 years, there was no democratic process, unlike the process in liberal democracies. The more radical candidates of the religious reformist faction were all disqualified and only three were allowed; previous president, Mohammad Khatami, who fully abided by the Supreme Leader; the ex-speaker of the parliament who was known for being conservative and obeying the Supreme Leader; and the last Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic who in the past years was always quiet and did not come into sight.
Over some election games, Mohammad Khatami withdrew, and the remaining candidates of the religious reformists were then Karrubi and Mousavi, i.e. two of the closest individuals to Ayatollah Khomeini. One was the Prime Minister during the war with Iraq, which was a dark time for social conditions. In this period, thousands of militant activists and political prisoners were mass executed in a national catastrophe. The other candidate had always had key positions in the regime at various periods, and during the Khatami presidency, he was known to be the brake against reformists. There was also another candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, an ex-commander of Sepah (Islamic Revolution Guards Corps) who in today's structure of power sides with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and was not taken very seriously.
As well as the social and cultural pressures, the psychological atmosphere that developed amid the presence of the most extremist factions of religious fundamentalists in the Ahmadinejad government was a factor in the election climate. These religious conservatives wanted to eradicate all the openness gained during the religious reformist government. This was balanced by the deep abhorrence of a large section of people, especially the urban middle class, of Ahmadinejad and his intention to return the society to the situation of the 1980's. On the other hand, great sections of the population were disappointed with the in-system reforms and the trend that Khatami had represented.
The "system", at this time tried to heat up the cold process of elections by arranging televised electoral debates. The dire political and economic position of the Ahmadinejad government was a good opportunity to bring part of the silent population to the stage with the hope of reform through Mousavi and Karrubi. Holding a high turn-out election would pull the desired rabbit out of the hat, which I believe was the election of Ahmadinejad, who was very close to the main foreign macro-policies and domestic nuclear policies of the regime and also close to Ayatollah Khamenei. However, the entire scenario did not happen as such.
The people's demands which I referred to previously as the logical continuation of the February 1979 revolution, upset the equations once again. Election campaigns turned into colorful festivals to announce the participation of a large section of the urban middle class in Iran, who up until then were living in depression and a gloomy atmosphere. Masses, and the youth in particular, in Tehran and a few other large cities of the country took to the streets and stayed out late to chant and cheer in a festive mood. As part of my job, during this time I followed every moment of developments in Iran. Among these people you could see people with green symbols that represented Mir Hussein Mousavi's campaign. Out of these people, many wanted to vote for him, and some did not want to vote for anybody. There were others that did not carry any green symbol, and may have wanted to vote or not to vote. This variety, this rising up for change, that incidentally became the election motto of one of the candidates, i.e. Mehdi Karrubi, was the very nature of the protest movement that is going on in Iran. For the first time ever during the election campaigns, Mr. Karrubi's team, which consisted of a number of religious and semi-religious neo-liberal reformists, introduced a package of well developed and detailed programmes for various strata of people. All of this was happening at a time when neither of the two reformist candidates, nor Ahmadinejad, had any structured economic plans or ways out of the crisis except the prescriptions of the IMF.
However, the popular demands had led to an uprising and the media propaganda had raised the bar for people's expectations. The election was held with a large turn-out. A large section of the silent minority who were disappointed with Mohammad Khatami came to the polls again if only to repulse Ahmadinejad. Contrary to what many expected, in the very first hours after the election, the desired candidate of the Supreme Leader and militarised capital was pulled out of the polls as the landslide winner. The religious reformists claimed that the election was fraudulent and an election coup had been perpetrated. Once again there was a reason to go to streets for the same people who had chanted and cheered in the streets. A huge rally was held that attracted people from various strata of the population, not only the middle class but also a large section of the less fortunate in the south of Tehran. Neither Mousavi nor Karrubi had called for this rally.
In reality, it was after that million-strong presence of people that these two woke up from the shock of this turn out and joined the people. The rally was pushed to violence and I believe you all know about the stories of killings, arrests and tortures. That demonstration, in which all chanted with one voice in the streets: "don't fear, don't fear, we are all together", was never repeated again! The reformists had no specific and horizontal plan to organize this huge popular potential for realising change, and they themselves were afraid of this massive presence of people who poured into streets like a revolution. This movement went on. Referring to the green symbol used by Mousavi, it was called "The Green Movement". A diverse spectrum of people, particularly from the middle class in Iran and abroad, participated in this movement. It was suggested that there was no distinct leadership, that Mousavi and Karrubi were the symbolic leaders. As ever the opportunists got to work to take advantage of the media that had, to no avail, tried to contain that popular Green that I described, exclusively for them.
The "Green Movement" became a business in Washington and London and Paris where some claimed to be the representatives of the religious reformism. Some demanded their own share and some denied the essence of the movement and dreamed of their imaginary revolutions. All of this was going on outside of Iran, more than inside Iran, and among various political activists. I believe that in this chaos the demand and objective of the popular movement in Iran is to get rid of the principle of Supreme Leadership and move to some sort of secular system based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This may not be your final objective, or mine but it is the interim and basic target under the current situation against a system that has continued its rule in the most sensitive area of the world, based on its own rationale for 31 years, has suppressed revolutionaries and its opposition in the harshest way possible. This is a regime that has seen nothing but the continuing and systematic violence of human rights right from the beginning and the creation of extensive economic and social crises.
As I see it, Mehdi Karrubi and Mir Hussein Mousavi and their supporters, as part of the existing regime and within the framework that they are defined, have done their job- with whatever motivation they may have, under circumstances that due to systematic suppression in the past 31 years in Iran, means no other serious alternative is left. In essence the slightest presence of opposition to the Islamic Republic is not tolerated but these individuals have stepped up the movement for transition to another phase, with their own terms. Let's also not forget that a large portion of population is traditionally religious, and remember on what specific course and against which regime we are moving. But whether these individuals want or are able to act accordingly, I am not sure at all. What structured and detailed plan is there? Unfortunately none! This is the very vacuum of democrat alternatives under current circumstances that hurts. Some analysts, however, believe that based on similar experiences in other nations over different periods and phases, these kinds of movements will dictate their own reactions and we have to wait for more divisions in the body of the Islamic Republic regime. Personally, although I do not reject Mousavi and Karrubi, I am not their supporter and have no specific expectations from this political faction.
CODIR: What are the main demands of the youth in this protest movement?
S.A.: The demands of the youth are those I mentioned earlier. They want jobs. They want a free space to breathe and to have the basics of a human, decent life. Their movement is the movement of joy. It is the movement for change and to reject the devastating legislated inequalities enforced in the present regime. Maybe after dealing with these demands that are their basic rights, they will think of freedom and that there are other more profound concepts too. The existing situation is very natural in the current circumstances in Iran; 31 years of friction between the ruling culture and the youth who today, thanks to information technology have access to everything in the world and demand fundamental changes. They don't want mullahs anymore.
CODIR: In developing countries the youth that take part in social movements are normally very ambitious, they want class and gender equality, social justice and preservation of the environment, and are in solidarity the working class. Could the same be said of the demands of the youth movement in Iran?
S.A.: I guess in my response to your previous question I tried to picture the current scene of events in Iran and speak about the demands of the youth and the reality of what is happening in Iran. Regrettably, 31 years of the Islamic regime in Iran has made a large part of the young generation estranged from these concepts. There are, however, ambitious and idealistic young people among this generation. They have flourished. They have grown. Some are rising from the ashes of their parents, but their views are more dynamic about the world. The new generation of the left and ambitious movement in Iran continues its own way despite the disarray and the exploitation of some groups of this movement. Like any other movement in Iran, this movement lacks the necessary organisation. This part of the young generation of Iran is informed and knows about its counterparts all over the world. It exists in the shape of journalist, student activists, labour activists, women activists and environmental activists. Its approach essentially has an eye on the demands of the working class of Iran. It is active in NGO's, which until recently were scarcely present. It is concerned with the rights of children, women, gays, the environment and is active in these areas. It makes the effort to raise the awareness of society about these matters. Due to the unprecedented extent of suppression, particularly in the past few months, many of these activists were incarcerated, sentenced to long prison terms, are out of jail with hefty bails, or were forced to leave the country. However, some activities are now pursued underground and more seriously. Last year during HumanitÉ Festival in Paris, when I saw the passion and mood and spirit of solidarity, and the wonderful change-seeking youth from all over the world, I thought of my friends and ambitious youth who are imprisoned in Iran or are continuing their work in Iran under repression. The media must be the voice of the struggles and demands of this component of the young generation of Iran.
CODIR: University students in Iran have had a substantial role in the political events of the recent 80 years. The movement that led to the revolution of February 1979 had significant and vital ties with the universities and university students. The left revolutionaries had a stronghold in universities at the time of the February revolution. Could the same be said about the developments of recent months?
S. A.: As far as I know through my close contacts with Iran, in all the days of the recent months, all the left forces were present on the stage. There is no systematic and organised presence though, and there are still debates among the left activists over this movement, and what is actually known as the Green Movement. Regrettably they have not concurred over a common denominator yet. A number of leftists fully support the Green Movement whereas some other groups would like to go along with it while keeping their distance and independent flag. There are some that totally oppose it. There are also left political prisoners, from Mansour Ossalu and Ibrahim Madadi, two trade unionists who are in jail because of pursuing their trade union rights, to women activists like Aliyeh Eghdamdoost who is in prison only because she attended the peaceful demonstrations of women. Recently a great number of left activists who were arrested and some were released on bail, like Omid Montazeri who is a left student activist and was said to have been sentenced death and later on his sentence was reduced to six years in prison. Despite the unprecedented clamp down on left political parties and organisations in Iran during the last 31 years the left is still present at all levels of society and the regime's fear from their presence and their potential power is very evident in the recent events. Official authorities of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly warned against the presence of Marxists in the recent movement. But they (left) always do what they have to do, even under circumstances that their organisation and assembly becomes almost non-existent. They make use of their past historic experiences, and that's the secret of their survival.
CODIR: The extreme leftist from one side, and reactionary right forces from the other side, both maintain that the policies and actions taken or being taken by Ahmadinejad have an "anti-imperialist" or even "socialist" nature. Part of this is the result of close relations between the Iranian government with Latin American states and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. As a young writer and a progressive thinker, what do you think about this matter? How do you see the nature of policies introduced by Mr. Ahmadinejad?
S.A.: This is a very rudimentary question. This is the subject that has provoked extensive debates and discussions among the Iranian left forces on one hand, and between these forces and the extremist neo-liberal forces in Iran on the other hand. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, uni-polarization on one hand, and competition among the great powers of the world over the global markets on the other hand, there has been some ambiguity about the global scene for some of the progressive forces of the world. As you pointed out in your question, those two mentioned forces take advantage of this situation for their own goals and contrary to the reality of the situation in Iran. Unfortunately, at the peak of the struggle of the Iranian people, the voice of the progressive and left forces of the world did not resonate as it should have in support of the popular movement in Iran. In some cases we witnessed such clich� and superficial characterisation of the existing situation that made the conscious Iranian activists deeply sad, e.g. all of these events are 'velvet' and are steered by the great Western powers, particularly the US, that the Ahmadinejad government is elected by the masses and is in confrontation with the US. Surely, the right also drew on these sometimes and claimed that your global friends are friends of Islamic fascists.
For instance, over the time that I have been living in Germany, as a journalist in exile that has always been radical and independent, various media have interviewed me many times, except the few left press that are published here. This is because the perspective of part of the global left about various developments, especially in Iran, is unfortunately not a realistic and objective look at the political scene in Iran. Yes, the Islamic Republic has been in dispute with the US from the day it was created and established but this hostility stems from their deeply reactionary and anti-modern nature. In fact, it was behind the slogan of "Down with USA" that they crushed thousands of anti-imperialist and left forces in an organised manner, and this suppression of left forces in various areas is still going on.
Under the pretext of the threat of the Islamic Republic, Americans have deployed military forces to a large part of the Middle East in the past 30 years. This game, being a critical game for political Islam, was created directly by imperialism at a certain point in world history and cost the Iranian people big time. We have to see a country which is independent and raises the flag of opposition to the US and imperialism, that will move forward and promote the interests of working people and to expand democracy. Today, we are talking about a country that claims the most opposition to the US but the use of the term "imperialism" and "syndicate" is banned in it. Imperialism has a clear economical definition. This is a complicated situation and in this complexity, it is difficult to say where Bolivia or Venezuela stands and what other countries in the Americas are doing.
The closeness between the head of the Iranian government and Latin American countries and Hugo Chavez really shocks and deeply saddens the progressive and left forces in Iran. They have tried many times to have their voice heard by those who claim to strive for "another world", and so far this effort has been practically fruitless. This amity with the present president of Iran and their support for him and Iran's regime, which is under the control of mullahs, is shocking to us. What they do is unbelievable and is not consistent at all with the basic pillars of today's civilisation and democracy, socialism, and our views and beliefs, which they claim to believe in too. Though they talk about opening new ways to fight imperialism in the world of socialism, regrettably they follow the outdated and obsolete approach and thesis of "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend."
Their policy makers must know better than in today's world, there are two forces in struggle with imperialism:
1. The camp of progressive, peace-loving and justice-seeking forces, which includes them and us;
2. The camp of regressive forces, remainders and remnants of slavery and feudalism era who want to take the people of the world back to the Stone Age.
The Iranian regime and the friend of theirs, Ahmadinejad, are in the first ranks of the second camp. A review of all the events of the recent months in Iran, and the economic plans of this coup government, which are pursuing the prescriptions of the World Bank and the IMF against the interests of the people and especially the working class, indicate the real orientation and nature of Islamic regime. Despite the fact that Khatami had a strong inclination toward neo-liberal economy, the Khatami government was not able or did not want to control all negative aspects of the "structural adjustment" policy. Even at that time there were clear and evident indications that the competition, i.e. militarised capitalism, was taking shape and rising to power. When this capitalism took the power, it put the plan for elimination of subsidies on its agenda for several reasons.
One justification was that since the 3rd Development Plan the preparations were made for "targeted subsidies" [i.e. elimination of subsidies], and some sort of stabilisation and shift was planned. Here it is also necessary to recognise the roots of the specific policies of those governments in neo-liberalism. The other pretext in favour of the government was the interpretation of Article 44 of the Constitution (dealing with ownership in macro economy) and the role of this Article in favour of the government. [With the executive order of the Islamic Supreme Leader] the 9th government [1st terms of Ahmadinejad in office] gained a solid support in terms of high military and political power, and from the clergy and also ideologically. Therefore, it got the opportunity to implement these changes and reforms. The other reason was that the Ahmadinejad government itself was very keen on making these changes. The militarised capitalism has its own needs and necessities, one of them is the elimination of subsidies. The ultimate goal of neo-liberal and neo-conservative capitalism (which eventually is the economic model of the Ahmadinejad government) is to eliminate the subsidies, because it wants to convert labour to a commodity and release it in the market, and not taking any responsibility to protect wages and the standard living of people. These responsibilities are considered barriers for the foreign investments which the government is seeking with a staggering hunger. We clearly see that with regard to development plans and economic studies they constantly recommend getting the approval of a foreign consultant in any way possible, even by paying extra money. In many cases they know that a foreign consultant does not even have ten percent of the information or analytical knowledge of a domestic consultant, but they insist on getting its approval. This is because they want to open the doors for foreign capital. Foreign capitalism does not like unions and syndicates; does not like subsidies. It just wants to take advantage of cheap labour and run its business. It wants to take advantage of unemployment, and reduced wages.
Anyway, in my opinion, if any of the previous governments and even any of the religious reformist candidates had assumed power at the current situation, it would have been facing a deep economic crisis. I believe Ahmadinejad's government is the most extreme right-wing government that Iran has ever seen.
CODIR: Could the current movement in Iran be considered as a movement of the middle classes as opposed to and in contrast to the interests and demands of the working people and working class? Why is that some groups outside of Iran, in keeping with accusations of the regime and its propaganda system against this movement, regard this movement as similar to the developments in Ukraine and Georgia, in favour of the US and therefore take a hostile position against it?
S.A.: You may call it a middle class movement, but whether in the present stage it is against the interests and demands of the working class of Iran or not, there is no reason or proof or analysis that confirms it. In developing countries like Iran, the middle class plays a central role and has a significant weight. As it develops and grows, this movement could and should attract the working class to it, but that a wider discussion. The course of this movement in the current stage is very important in drawing the working class to it.
What I have noticed with regard to the interaction of Americans with the popular movement of Iran in the recent months is that they do not try so much to exploit these developments in an organised manner. They try to intervene through steering and directing, and support propaganda. For a long time, they have been employing certain individuals under various titles. There are various think-tanks that finance these individuals. There are also "Green Movement" businessmen. They may drag certain segments of the middle class, who may not have a high political knowledge, plus a number of sincere but uninformed political activists inside and outside of Iran to follow them. However, in my opinion, the objective developments in Iran are much more convoluted and complicated than the intentions of these individuals. Some of them have been part of the Islamic Republic's regime. Some of them have now left the country and are mostly residing in the US and Britain, serving the interests of ultra right-wing. Under the guise of reformists they present themselves as guardians of the "Green Movement" and declare that the whole world is green.
I believe that the Green of the people of Iran, in fact the rainbow spectrum of the demands of the people of Iran, is far from the Green of the "Green Movement" businessmen who are alien to the laws of social development and think of Iran as the scene to implement their velvet revolution theories. They are financially and morally supported by the above-mentioned centres and would like to inflict their theories upon the discontented people of Iran and execute those theories. In my opinion, there was no connection between the two presidential candidates and the US. This is the truth. What happened in Iran was different from the events in Ukraine or Georgia. In Iran, we are talking about a historical background of struggles, and then there is a government of a regime with the characteristics that were mentioned before. Overall, despite the intentions of some individuals or reformist political groups, to organise and execute a velvet revolution, knowing the circumstances in this society and this regime I don't believe that such methods could ever be executed in this form in Iran.
There are many complexities. My final conclusion is that from the point of view of American system, Iran's government is a conforming government in the economic arena, but on the political stance, which is important at the global level, Iran is defiant. I give you a few examples. For the West, the price of oil is not as important as the security of oil. We saw that the price of oil soared to as high as $140/B. But if the security of oil is at risk, then the West will step in. Who puts the security of oil at risk? Iran? We don't know.
The other argument is that the US has attempted to approach Iran in friendship a number of times. One instance was the scandal of MacFarlane and Iran-Contra. This has happened many times and later on it became known that some things were happening behind the scene. One of the reasons for what happened to Tudeh Party of Iran after the revolution had to do with this. This party was the victim of such behind-the-scene developments. Uncovering the clandestine networks of Mujahedin and Fadaian organisations was not an easy job. I don't believe that they were identified merely by mullahs and doomed to that destiny. This is not conspiracy theory or like the reasoning that the Iranian right-wing employs in an attempt to smudge the historical facts; today, there are numerous facts to make us believe this.
CODIR: What is the role of the working people in this protest movement? Does the current movement encompass the slogans and the working people of Iran? What is the role of left political forces and the socialist and left intelligentsia in this movement?
S.A.: As I mentioned earlier, in these past month many of left political forces and socialist intellectuals stood beside the people and accompanied them everywhere, and as in the past, paid dearly for it too. Although the media is not available to them for these efforts to be visible as they should be, the proof is in many names that you may hear in the news. In my opinion, the socialists and the working class must consciously move shoulder to shoulder with this movement without giving up their own ideals, with their own banner and not under the flag of any Green (or any colour for that matter) political tendency that would be making the same mistake as in the February revolution. This was the large-scale strategy of some progressive political groups and they dearly paid for it too. I believe that the objective at the current phase is democracy and transition to a secular system, and particularly such democracy that the people take part in its making. Therefore, I believe that the left and democratic forces in Iran could accomplish their task by advocating their own class and trades union demands in a democratic movement. Socialist and democratic tasks could both be pursued at the same time. If there is going to be confrontation or hindrance, let it be from the other side. Let them ask us to break away our course from the lefts, workers and working people who have a history of struggle in this country. I think when a democracy-seeking, democratic movement is formed, the veteran and powerful left, socialist, democratic, and labour movement has to assume its historic task in that movement. They should not side with those who are the real enemies of the working people and whose hearts are somewhere else but at this stage are in opposition to the regime. These progressive forces must diligently find the common points and accompany the movement in specific ways, and leave their mark on it, however small it may be.
I believe that social activity through awareness and gaining experience in action, and particularly learning from historical lessons, would help the fresh leadership of this movement and impact upon its direction. I don't believe in a calculating "common front" view to say that for now let's go together and will have our dispute later. A discrete analysis, and demands that satisfy the needs of all in the society and are democratic must be pursued right from the beginning. The working class has been fighting for freedom for a long time now. For instance, one of their demands has been to have organised trades unions. What did the Bus Transit workers (VAHED) want? In the first place, they wanted a union. What do Metalworkers want? What do the workers of Alborz Rubber want? Their own union! Parallel to this, they want a decent living too. They have economic demands too. Similarly, the modern middle class that have participated and engaged in the Green Movement, besides its democratic demands which they took to the streets under the pretext of elections, could have trade demands too, and in fact it does. Teachers in the streets could say "where is my vote?" don't just put anybody over my head and make him a minister. I would like him to be someone with whom I can engage in free and effective negotiations, and tell him my priorities. I suppose economist narrow-mindedness and dogmatic and calculating views are a factor too, particularly among a large part of religious reformists and their cohorts inside and outside of Iran. This is not a tendency that would have standards and criteria and analysis.
CODIR: How do you see the future of the current developments in Iran? What is your view point?
S.A.: The fact is that after the recent events, the Islamic Republic has completely lost its legitimacy. The people learned quite a few things in this process. Awareness has become institutionalised. When I talk to people in Iran, despite the disastrous economical and social conditions that worsen every day, the people are very fearless and hopeful. I cannot foretell the type and fashion of the change process in Iran now, but I believe that this process of change, even if it drags for a longer time, will raise the awareness of the society about certain concepts. I hope that this historical transformation will lead to a relatively stable democratic situation and course and the establishment of secularism.
I don't believe that the regime intends to retreat. I don't know how far the militarised capital will go in dispute with other parts of the regime. Will the regime give concessions to the West and US to secure its survival? I don't know, and due to the structure and nature of the Islamic Republic I am not too sure or optimistic about realisation of their plans and their survival. Anyway, I think that now they intend to do so. For instance, passing the "Economic Plan" bill with such a rush was to complete a puzzle that was laid out years ago and if this piece of puzzle was not completed, the plan would have remained unfinished. Monopolising the power and capital in the hands of a bunch of military people must accompany the elimination of subsidies for the labour force, and instead, those who serve to protect the status quo must be rewarded. I am concerned yet optimistic about the future outlook. What I expect from the progressive forces and our friends across the world is solidarity with the popular movement in Iran, and to put as much pressure as possible on the governments to consider the disastrous situation of human rights in Iran when dealing with Islamic Republic. Nuclear energy is not of concern to the people of Iran. It would be great if in the course of solidarity with the people of Iran, particular discussions, dialogues and also actions are organised and held by the left forces around the world so that left and democrat forces of Iran could participate in them and have their views voiced by the media. This is a very serious void. The voice of the left and progressive forces of the world has not been in concord with the democratic struggle of the Iranian people. They must open their eyes and have an active presence in public. This is what we can and must do at this moment.
CODIR: Are you familiar with CODIR's activities? Do you visit CODIR's site? What do you think about the contents of CODIR as a defendant of the democratic rights and freedoms in Iran?
S.A.: Yes, I have occasionally followed CODIR and have always been glad that a progressive group in Britain is vocal and on the side of the struggles in my country through raising awareness and media work. These types of activities must be expanded at this stage. There must be a more powerful presence in the scene by getting help from Iranian democrat activists and international and Iranian left forces. There is a lot to say and many untold points. Thank you for this opportunity.
