Click here for a PDF version
2016 U.S. Election
The 2016 U.S. election by the ruling parties presented a portrait of the world in a skewed mirror. The rise
of national development and sovereignty worldwide is the foremost historic capitalist task. This
development is even more substantial during the forward march of history after the demise of both the
USSR and the Cold War international framework—an outcome ultimately caused by the tide of national
development. Without respect for the right of nations to self-determination and the sovereignty of semi-
colonial countries there is no chance for political success. Washington’s policy per the requirements of
their imperial interests is to depict the right to self-determination of oppressed peoples and countries as
the malady of the world; a most skewed image of reality that is presented by politicians of the Republican
and Democratic parties alike and their cohorts.
The task of seeking alignment and collaboration with national development and sovereignty was missing, obfuscated and warped by the two ruling campaigns during the election. The customary pattern of ruling politics before, during and after elections (i.e. imperial interests) was held on to by the leading candidates with more contradictions to account for and justify. Domestic policy mirrors the state’s foreign policy and was thus similarly disfigured during the ruling parties’ election campaigns.
Respect for national sovereignty of semi-colonial countries, like Iran, Cuba, and Korea is the enabler of peace and economic growth across the board--not only for the United States and its western allies but also the countries suffering from death and destruction of civil wars that require rapid reconstruction and also countries such as Russia facing the adverse impacts of economic sanctions by Washington. The plan to manage the aftermath of Washington’s wars of occupation in the greater Middle East region, nation- building or disengagement from nation building as it is called by successive Administrations, instead of a principled stance of recognition of sovereignty, withdrawal of US forces and respect for peace can only further distance the United States from its interests and weaken its alliances in the region. The wars of occupation have turned into the engine of opposite results for Washington’s interests.
Washington is trying to wash its hands from its wars in the Middle East but is further gripped by the civil war of broken states. Its negative attitude toward national sovereignty in the region is the fundamental reason for its military occupations and the resulting civil wars. Moscow, looking for a remedy, runs for cover for its brutal opposition to Ukraine’s sovereignty and steps into the Syrian Civil war—with Washington’s approval. The result is an intensifying of the conflicts of collapsed sovereignty in the region, the Sunni and Shia divide and the Balkanization of an oil rich region, pointed out by the horror in Aleppo during the last part of 2016.
The forward motion of the right of nations to self-determination is full of pitfalls and will backtrack if it is devoid of progress. This is a fact demonstrated by the numerous civil wars in the broad West Asia to North Africa region that have sprung out of Washington’s 21st century wars of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. The grip of national sovereignty intensifies as demanded by the history of national and capitalist development—the net outcome is the progress of popular urban and rural societies pushing back against obstacles.
As a result of the successful revolution of 1979 there is a new power hierarchy represented by Iran in the West Asia to North Africa region. In Iran this new power is trapped by the anti-Semitism and anti- Americanism of its ruling classes from which it cannot extricate itself without the recognition of Israel. Its support to Palestine’s statehood or the return of the refugees—in either a two state or joined single state liberating solution—remains nothing but empty chatter without the recognition of the historical rights of Jews. The Jewish communities have suffered the most during the 20th century, perhaps even in all of history along with the natives of North-South-Central America and Africa. An Iranian recognition of Israel does not change the war drive of both Tel Aviv and Washington but it does alter the political framework to the detriment of imperial interests and in favor of the right of nations to self-determination across the region and worldwide.
The solution of the Israeli Arab conflict is the title match of the history of the modern Middle East. Israel and semi-colonial dictatorships aligned with Washington represent the old and divided Middle East. Yet these divided countries are moving in the direction of recognizing one another. Upon this outcome, if Iran holds to Anti-Semitism it will lose the title match.
The new power, thanks to victories of the popular urban and rural societies in the 1979 revolution in Iran, resists being torn down by civil wars in comparison to places impacted by Washington’s military occupation, like Afghanistan and Iraq and decaying dictatorships in other peripheral countries and areas such as Syria and Gaza. Egypt, with its muzzled Arab Spring, and Turkey, experiencing the suppression of civil liberties and the national right of Kurds by Ankara, both are highly urbanized societies far from civil war. The aforementioned countries with popular urban and rural societies, may extend their union based on the respect for sovereignty of minorities. Washington’s opposition to national sovereignty does not have the final say being that popular urban and rural societies count for far more during the 21st century.
Recognition of Israel is an enabler for Middle Eastern societies securing freedom and independence for all their populations across the board—whether Kurd, Turk, Yazidi, Turkmen, Baluch, Gilak, Mazandarani, Lor, Armenian, Assyrian, Bakhtiari, Qashqaie, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Jew or Arab and many others. Ultimately the population of Yazd in central Iran will bypass the existing Shia governance mandate and allow young Zoroastrians to swim along with Muslims in public pools, or allowing minority women in all of Iran to appear with their own dress code in public thus providing a union far greater and more empowering than the false union on display based on the suppression of minorities by Shia rule in Iran, or similarly the Sunni rule in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt against their respective minorities.
The expectations of the working class of the United States from the 2016 election results that they have mandated and the preponderance of the need for respect for national sovereignty of peoples and countries of the semi-colonial world is a rare blend during these changing times of world politics. New possibilities exist to advance peace and development, namely: independent politics.
1- “Great Expectations” anew, short of social advancement
The Presidential election in the United States is always a time of great expectations. Most often however, especially since the 1970s, the expectations do not pan out. During the last four decades, economic crisis and war are the chief concern and the conduct of Washington precludes meeting any broad expectations and social advancement. Countries and peoples around the world watched the U.S. election with expectation and hope for peace and respect for the sovereignty of semi-colonial countries. From West Asia to North Africa, the violation of sovereignty is expressed by incessant civil wars. Indications are that Washington’s military engagements will continue with the war against ISIL as well as direct or indirect interventions in the numerous theaters of civil war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya.
The 2016 United States election serves as a blueprint for both advanced and developing capitalist countries. The political equivalents of the Republican and Democratic Parties have replicas in European countries as well as in semi-colonial countries such as India, Iran, Mexico, and Brazil to name a few. The position of the United States as the leader of world capitalism indicates the worldwide resonance of its elections.
Politics in the election was utterly confined to an incumbent campaign by the Democratic Party candidate and the challenging Republican Party candidate. On the ballot were also two minority supplements to these two parties, Libertarian (on the ballot in 50 states) and Green (in less than 40 states). There were independent politics candidates including socialists (SWP), on the ballot in less than 20 states. According to CNN, 55.4% of eligible voters participated in the elections, lower than the last four elections since 2000.i Independent politics are not reported on in mainstream media.
The 2016 presidential elections had the usual appearance of what is typically said by the ruling candidates in this or that election or the change of any head of state: a rigged election, corrupt politicians, tax evasion, money from special interests, an undesirable advisor or manager, tools or agents of a foreign government intervening, and the need for investigation of the opponent’s breech of security protocol. The ruling campaigns spent much time on each candidate’s personal traits and temperament rather than discussing facts and policy. Sexism and racism as individual traits of candidates was advanced by the campaigns, media and content journalism, as well as exposing bigotry or labeling candidates with various qualities. Campaign expenditures were over one billion dollars just on the Democratic Party side. A solution to societal problems and the understanding of social relations as the cause of ills remained remote to the discussions and at best in the background.
Both candidates’ campaigns served up a menu of talking points lower than the intelligence of their constituents and the general public. The general public, as was reported by the media, was left to decide between ‘two unpopular candidates.’ Voters had to choose the one who they hoped could provide a plan for jobs and improvements in their livelihood. Here the choice seemed obvious as the campaign of the Democratic Party candidate was without substance. Little substance was presented by either candidates to meet the need of a wide electorate gripped with slow growth, economic downturn, low wages, debt, unemployment, longer working hours and more workload during manufacture, information technology services, office work, and general services and factory closures due to the relocation of plants to countries with cheaper labor. Plans offered by Donald Trump that won the day were more ceremonial than fundamental.
During the 2016 elections there were expectations for solutions to a range of problems faced by what is termed by the media and the press as the White Working Class. Union members traditionally voting for the Democratic Party started to look away and beyond their officialdom in support of the anti- establishment Republican candidate. The unexpected result was a popular surge that upset the establishment of both Republican and Democratic parties; an entirely different result for most media that had setup their own preference and expected outcome.
The notion of the working class, omitted by the political establishment from political vocabulary and denounced in theory and practice for so long, is awakening. The working class arrives on top in political discourse and in decision making where it produced an upset in the outcome of the 2016 elections. It forced the change process of rupture and overhaul in ruling politics of the establishments of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The support of the white working class and farmers or rural populations produced the victory of Donald Trump by granting him the number of electoral votes necessary to win the election. He addressed the white working class and farmers again and again during his campaign, asked for and received their landslide support. The support he received from Black and Hispanic voters were higher than that of the previous Republican Presidential contestant in 2012.ii
Hillary Clinton won the majority of the popular vote. Behind her stood the large campaign of Senator Bernard ‘Bernie’ Sanders who appealed to students, youth and working people —held back from nomination by the Democratic Party elite. If both the electoral and the popular vote are assumed to represent an equally divided number of voters in the 2016 election, an active composition, namely the vote of the white working class made the difference here. The distinguishing event of this election was the expectation of an opportunity by the white working class voters that could improve their livelihood. Current events in Western Europe and Brexit in Great Britain earlier this year indicate a similar direction as in the United States elections.
During the campaigns leading to the election, the two main contenders dealt with the status quo. The campaign of the Democratic Party led by the virtual incumbent, stressed the major gains that had been made in the past eight years as a legacy that needed to be continued—an abstract inclusiveness that required safeguarding. Many voters found the portrayal by the Democratic Party candidate far from reality. The Republican Party candidate basking in anti-establishment critique of the past and present conduct of the two ruling parties lamented the status quo. He professed that everything was wrong, from economics and politics to jobs leaving for overseas. He stated that the government data with regards to unemployment is unreliable, that rural America is suffering, that inner cities are in bad conditions, that the elections are rigged, all while targeting Muslims and illegal immigrants. These were basic elements in his message and rhetoric of anger and dissatisfaction wrapped in imperial nationalism: “Make America Great Again.” “Already Great,” was the response by the Democratic Party candidate.
The reference to a “past glory” hurled into this election by the two leading contenders of the ruling coalitions was meant to represent the United States of post-World War II, for the Republican candidate, and the United States of the 1960s, for the Democratic contender, despite the obvious impossibility of going back to those times or to recreate the conditions of those eras. The reason for both candidates relying and borrowing from various chapters of distant history stretching back as far as 70 years ago is the economic growth and better times experienced during these eras. However, the future does not indicate sustained growth, but rather contraction and uncertainty. Thus, short in substance, both campaigns proposed the illusory to a population that, however unconsciously, shares the memory of both these periods.
It took World War II, destruction of Europe and Eurasia, nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki— “the unimaginable devastation caused,” to achieve what is termed as a phenomenal economic growth in the United States from 1945 to 1960 and the “faster” growth of Western Europe in the same period. The Western European “economies have struggled with low growth and high unemployment, lagging behind the United States from 1973 to present”.iii Numerous imperial wars as in Korea (1950-53) and Vietnam (1945-75), did not sustain the growth. To recall the rising standard of living of the generation of the 1940s and the 1950s can only go so far. Without present material substance, recalling past glories is to turn the perspective to a rear view mirror instead of the front windshield.
In the rear view mirror, looking further back in the history of The United States, both leading candidates cast a cursory glance at the history of the civil war and slavery in this country—the legacy of which, as Malcolm X pointed out, cannot be unlinked from the existing economic, social and political system in the United States, a matter recognized by leading academicians and politicians who characterize the problem as systemic. Likewise, mention of the revolution of 1776 failed to present the anti-colonial nature of that revolution. The American revolution of 1776 is a key historic event that has a natural affinity with the worldwide movement for the right to self-determination and independence. This worldwide demand runs counter to Washington’s enduring policy of opposing the right to self-determination, so vivid in the regions of Western Asia to North Africa. In their appeal to tradition, neither candidate recalled Thomas Paine’s stance that “independence is my happiness...my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.”
In 2016, a look at the front panorama of economic growth indicates a difficult future. The World Economic Outlook by IMF reports “weaker-than-expected growth in the United States” and an “economic growth of 2.2%” iv . However, the current economic recovery in the United States is higher than its allies and a stronger dollar is lauded versus other countries and especially China. A difficult future is the common position replicated by capitalist economies worldwide be they in semi-colonial countries like Iran, Brazil or India, countries who are on the rising arc of national development or junior partners of the United States among advanced economies of Europe and Israel. The future indicates an uncharted territory. To represent and maintain the status quo by ruling parties is without fortune. Everywhere the rulers must accede to the recognition of national sovereignty of aspiring nations be it the United States or Iran.
Moreover, there is a fundamental change in the post-World War II world framework and the position of the United States as the leading imperial power. Coming out of World War II, from Cold War to détente to implosion of the USSR, the position of the Realpolitik main contenders namely Washington and Moscow, both amount for naught. Both Washington and Moscow have a decreasing authority over the national sovereignty demanded by urban and rural popular societies in semi-colonial countries. This fact has been demonstrated by the increasing direct military engagements of Washington and the weakening or collapse of Moscow’s Communist officialdom the world over. Once Washington and Moscow have combined goals and forces as in Syria’s civil wars the contradictions between the two remain jarring and the endless disasters such as the case of Aleppo perpetrate.
Twenty first century imperial domain is supplanted by the forward drive of national domain as in China— the established and rising domain—an accepted intimacy that emphasizes anew the need to make the world great. As an example, in the United States, all of the items of hardship listed during the campaigns are also world problems of the international capitalist system. The notion of one imperial power becoming great at the expense of all the other powers and all the rest of humanity is more difficult to practice than ever before in the past. A solution to world problems is the requirement for a lasting contribution to improving domestic matters in imperial countries. More specifically, contribution to national development of semi-colonies is the requirement for economic growth and development among the advanced countries.
During the 2016 elections, the solution to the economic question, which is entirely woven into every facet of a world reality, was boiled down to paltry alterations to budgets and accounting, tax and tariffs, and some infrastructure repair and spending by the ruling campaigns. One trillion dollars of infrastructure spending was promised by Donald Trump, and the response by the rival candidate was to put a stimulus package in place. No serious attempt by either candidate was made to state the facts of world capitalist development—the shift of many volumes of industrial development to national domain countries such as China, according to data presented by Washington agencies like the World Bank and IMF—to point out the facts of the new world reality to the voters who would be able to corroborate the reality with their own life experience. Instead of international collaboration and development, demanding the common good for everyone, imperial candidates held onto country bashing—introducing jingoism yet again as the required pronouncement of trade by Washington.
The task of preserving the operation of a manufacturer such as Carrier in the state of Indiana for hundreds of its workers, most welcome by them, falls within the above framework. However, U.S. manufacturing in international perspective has moved from first place to second place since 2010 as the largest manufacturing nation in the world. v
In regards to domestic policy, the drive to push back the right to self-determination of oppressed countries is not conducive to improvement of the rights of Blacks, other minorities, working people and the social rights of citizens in general in The United States. During the Vietnam War era of the 1960s and the early 1970s, the advancement of the right to self-determination of oppressed nations was coupled with the advancements of civil rights of minorities, the peace movement, women’s rights, and popular rights. During the last 8 years, the continuation of war and increased drone strikes, in the region of Western Asia to North Africa by the current presidency goes hand in hand with the deterioration of race relations, as reported by mainstream media, in the United States.
In regards to foreign policy, there was no hint of a necessity to side with the increasing trend of the right to self-determination by underdeveloped countries and nations as the prerequisite to progress in politics and economics by the ruling campaigns. The simple notion that people are no different everywhere and can resolve their own problems was ignored. Just as expected, the current Democratic Party administration’s call for a ‘change we can believe in’ did not change the domestic policies of the United States or the fundamental Washington policy in regards to the national question of semi-colonial countries—the most fundamental historic capitalist task. The Obama administration tried to manage the aftermath of the military occupation that turns into civil wars in such countries. The Guantanamo concentration camp located on a part of Cuba held by Washington remains open.
The most radical representative of the ruling group during the election, Senator Sanders from Vermont, who spoke repeatedly for the need of a political revolution was asked directly about Iran during the debates. As an example, his answer was that, upon his victory in November, he would not normalize relations with Iran “on day one” of his presidency. Respect for the national sovereignty of Iran, or other countries for that matter, was shelved on the basis of the popularity or unpopularity of those countries’ respective regimes as presented by the mainstream media of the imperial domain.
Nothing was said of the fact that Washington’s wars of the 21st century had caused the displacement of over 10 million people—over 4 million to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and 6 million internally in Syriavi , tens of thousands of other people in Western Asia to North Africa and the hundreds of thousands trying to take refuge from these wars in Europe. This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands dead and the wholesale destruction of cities and homes in the region as witnessed in the horror of Aleppo. The grave situation in war torn countries was presented as the conflict of sects of Islam who shed the blood of one another according to the rules of antiquity. The war refugees were portrayed as the people requiring the most vetting for entry to Europe and the United States.
The competition between the two candidates came down to which country he or she would bash more. The Democratic Party candidate’s country bashing had Russia at the top of her list. The Republican candidate had Muslims and Islamic countries, China and Mexico on his list. Nevertheless, the country bashing was not without its twist. The twist is evident in the contrast between the president-elect countering of the daily security briefings, calling its findings “ridiculous” and the current diplomatic row and sanctions over Russian computer hacking. In his recent press conference the President-elect rebuffed charges by asking the room if anybody present really believes that he will be softer in dealing with Moscow than Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to Russia, not bashing it goes against the grain of a century of Washington policy. It further shelves an outdated Cold War international framework and promoting sanctions against it. The President-elect has repeatedly stated that it would be great if we are on the same page and collaborating with Moscow. However, such collaboration is hardly expected to produce dividends when seeking new partners in pursuit of Middle East wars, as the evidence presented by the participation of Moscow in Washington’s war against ISIL in Syria suggests. The dimension and alliances are 21st century but the outcome is no different than Moscow’s entry into Afghanistan (1980-88)—as Russian policy fosters the tearing apart of national sovereignty be it in Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine. Washington’s partnership with Moscow in Syria’s civil war does not gap the bloody divide in the concerned countries and further underscores the need for cease-fire and peace.
During 2016 election, the blueprint for the treatment of immigrant workers by calling them criminals and deporting the ones caught was offered by Washington as the leader of world capitalism. As it stands the current administration has deported over 2.5 million immigrants; vii the victorious Republican Party candidate promised to deport all 11 million, a number which he adjusted to 3 million immediately after his victory.
There was no call by the ruling candidates to secure and cherish the unity of working people and the immigrant workers. A solution to the citizenship rights of over 11 million immigrants in the U.S. was postponed by the candidate of the Democratic Party, much like her predecessors.
2- The Breakup of Iraq and Syria and the War against ISIL
Both leading candidates stated that the invasion of Iraq 14 years ago was a mistake. However, their statements on this matter had no bearing on present realities. The war against ISIL was declared imperative without a doubt. Evidently, the proof of weapons of mass destruction is no longer required. ISIL is Baghdad Baathism version 2—the ISIL Sunni form of the Baathist secular Sunni. ISIL spews out of the breakup of the Baathist state in the aftermath of the victorious Washington occupation in 2003. Like the breakup of celestial bodies and the pieces finding new orbits, upon the breakup of a state organization, ruling and state politics do not just evaporate into thin air.
The heavy pole that was the Baathist rule in Iraq, exemplified at its highest form by Saddam Hussein, demonstrated a state made of Sunnis, imposing its brutal rule upon Shias and Kurds and all elements, layers and classes of society. The pieces of this broken pole came together as they did in ISIL politics, finding fertile ground for further growth among the Sunnis risen to action against the Damascus Baathist Alawite rule in Syria after suppression of large-scale urban Sunni peaceful protests in 2011. This rise to action is the grand finale of the Baathist-Sunni orbit and the extinguishing act of this tendency.
ISIL was able to conquer many Sunni areas in Syria following Assad’s brutal suppressions in 2011, followed by its expansion into Iraq since 2014 capturing Mosul and threatening Baghdad. ISIL displays the past Baathist quality of violence against all non-Sunni components of Iraq and Syria, also minorities and women adding to that the reality TV versions of beheadings in a match with TV series in the United States and Europe. It lauds murder and terror bombings by lone individuals or small groups in Europe and the United States as few pieces of the Baathist-ISIL tendency begin to extinguish in the farther orbit.
The rise of ISIL in Iraq has no possibility of gaining an everlasting foothold no matter how many areas and cities it has managed or manages to seize. Peace or war, ISIL is without fortune as its brutal hegemony over all of Iraq is impossible and also at odds with urban, rural and tribal Sunnis. War against ISIL, led by Washington or regional powers of the Middle East, serves to deepening the existing division and discord.
A Baath-ISIL merger indicates the countermotion to both the exclusivist Shia militias and the rise of Kurdish sovereignty. It induces the Kurd development, far more consequential than its own rise and demise. It further cements Kurd sovereignty—the most positive development of the Iraq-Syria breakup and an aid to independence and freedom throughout the region. It provides impetus for the general rise of existing Shia militias and the creation of new ones in such territories. These militias, in the absence of an independent policy of peace and an end to the bloodshed led by the main Shia players, are sucked into the futile action of defense of the Damascus dictatorship or the war against ISIL in Mosul.
The new Iraq in 2003 after the United States occupation comes with all the three main pieces, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, a state ready to re-erect to replace the past Baath-Sunni rule. The reality of the existence of these three pieces in the new Iraq is stated by leading statesmen in Washington. Can a new state pole be created from Shia to press upon the Sunni and the Kurd? On paper, yes, in reality, hardly. The historic capitalist state in Iraq is molded for a Sunni pole. Going back is impossible, and a future for Shia rule over Kurd and Sunni as a state does not exist. The Kurd have already advanced to statehood in Eghlim-e Kurdistan.
In Iraq, the Sunni recoil from Shia rule is not because of ISIL nor brought on by it. The recovery and expansion of the Shia-Sunni union is at an impasse due to the absence of an independent unifier that would make Iraq compete for the expansion of the rights of Kurds and all minorities instead of the dead- end rivalry for imposition of Shia rule through militias. ‘Where does the expansion of the rights of the Kurds leave us,’ ask the ruling Shia who seek privileges over the rest of the society. No exceptional biased rights over others can be allowed for an Arab majority which the Shia represent in Iraq or anywhere else. The Shia suffering during the rule of Saddam’s Baathism should allow the Shia to feel the backbreaking oppression felt by the Kurds and to become their natural ally. A Shia alliance with the minorities has not materialized during the post-Saddam period due to the weakness of the Shia leaderships in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut on this question. Shia militias in Iraq took their model from Iran during the immediate following the revolution of 1979 by targeting minority religions, their lifestyle, businesses and properties—something still concurrent in Iran after four decades of Shia rule.
The power vacuum and reengineering of the state in Iraq in 2003, now under the U.S. occupation umbrella, provides impetus for the convergence of Shia populations stretching from east to west from Iran to Lebanon, and north to south from Iran to Saudi Arabia. The aftereffect is the Shia participation in the pilgrimage of Arbaeen/Chehelom turning into millions. A plethora of government and non-government forces that converge the utmost heterogeneity, the fortunes and the misfortunes that are represented by Shia politics in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon without producing fundamental progress to the participants of the region or solving any historical capitalist/democratic task. This Shia convergence does not move in the direction of enhancing sovereignty, freedom and independence in any of the above-mentioned Shia dominated countries.
In Iraq, the Shia government and leadership’s recognition, in principle and action, of the sovereignty of Kurds and all minorities is the measure that provides for universal peace among all components of society. The peace approach in Iraq, based on the recognition of historic democratic rights of national and religious minorities can be replicated in Syria and will fortify national sovereignty across the region. Similarly, ceasefire and peace in Syria can help end the civil war in Iraq.
Peace as a solution favors all the participants and the entire society. There is no military mission beyond the defense of the sovereignty and peace by all elements of Syria and Iraq, like the Yazidi, Kurd, Shia, Christian and women that have suffered from ISIL. Ending Sunni suffering from ISIL, just like ending Sunni suffering from the Damascus dictatorship is best served by peace. Military action to conquer Sunni regions will bring destruction and refugees and does not foster a bond between Shia and Sunni. Once driven back from aggression, murder and brutality among the Yazidi, Kurd, Shia, et al, the containment of ISIL to Sunni regions is a progression by itself. It leaves the matter of Baathism-ISIL to be evaluated and rejected by the Sunnis like the rest of Iraqis and Syrians, not by civil war but by peace.
The state artifacts in Iraq and Syria are designed and implemented by the imperial British and French during the first half of the 20th century. The breakup of these states is the end of such statecraft. The historic necessity to extend the rights of all elements from Sunni to Shia to Kurd and recognizing their sovereignty is already in place. There is no reason for any civil war in Iraq no matter who is at the top among the Sunni—Saddam’s generals, ISIL or any other. Fostering the right of the Kurds and not the war against ISIL is the task of the Shia majority that can secure peace and bring union for all those involved.
The problem in Syria is the very recognition of Sunni, Kurd and Turkmen and the cessation of civil war by Assad—far more important than Damascus’ government makeup, Alawites with or without Bashar Assad. In Syria, the state pole pressing hard on society is made of Alawite Shia Baathism. This pole is broken by the nature of a civil war; large territories of Syria are now outside of state command. Sunni, Kurd, and Turkmen have taken leave of the Alawite state domination. Death and destruction and the driving out of nearly 10 million of its inhabitants, decimation of historic society, with the excuse that it needs to solidify its rule or that it feels that its barrel bombs are more humane than beheadings. What is left is a broken Syrian state. There is no possibility of Alawite rule over Sunnis and Kurds in Syria no matter how many world players like Moscow step into the civil war and how much bombing and military action is pursued or how many Shia militias come to the rescue of Damascus.
Therefore, military intervention by Washington is not justified. The Sunni cities and Sunni populations are the best to overcome ISIL brutality in its strongholds in Iraq and Syria. Popular Sunni society is not behind Baathist-ISIL and in this stance, have the support of the majority of Iraqis.
Cease fire and peace in the theaters of civil war is the recognition of sovereign territories. Such an approach is only possible when revolutions of sovereign rights in the major countries of the region, the new history of the Middle East, are recognized by Washington.
There is no power on earth that can make any good come out of the continuation of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, or buttressing the Damascus dictatorship by current military undertakings in the region of Western Asia to North Africa. This region and its people require peace above all else.
3- Recognition of Iran Sovereignty as Key to Peace in the Middle East
In its modern history, Iran is recognized for realization of sovereignty. An achievement that can be adopted and applied by the United States as a set of patterns that can point to a peaceful conduct to benefit the entire region.
During the first quarter of the 20th century, Iran’s oppression at the hands of Czarist Russia came to an end with the revolution of 1917 and the creation of the USSR. Czarist Russia’s long imposition on Iran was rescinded fully by the revolutionary government. In 1921, Soviet government “annulled all the previous treaties” with Iran “as well as other treaties of Tsarist government concluded to the detriment of Iranian interests, and surrendered the rights to the loans of Tsarist government and its concessions. All the facilities belonging to Russia were handed over [to Iran] including railways, roads, and telegraph lines, port facilities in Anzali and lake Urmiya, the Russian Discounted-Loan Bank and other properties on the condition these were not turned over to another country”viii. Can Washington, nearly a hundred years later, announce a similar stance with regards to Iran given the victory of the revolution of 1979 over Washington’s installed monarchy in 1953? Can Washington commit to this clear historical capitalist task and requirement?
Washington can also implement its stance of recognition of China of the late 1970s on Iran. A non- belligerent stance that can usher in development and peace: let bygones be bygones. All the sanctions against Iran are rescinded. Rolling back China’s sovereignty as presently contemplated by the President- elect will not work. Its extension to include Iran serves all the populations of the United States and the rest of the world.
If all persuasions fail in respecting Iran’s sovereignty and Washington maintains rejection of Iran’s sovereignty, still there is the example of Puerto Rico for unhampered economic discourse. In Puerto Rico, Washington maintains the lack of recognition of sovereignty while allowing full economic relations, access to banking and trade—a measure that would shelf belligerency from Washington’s foreign policy with regards to Iran despite how much Washington accepts or rejects the government of Iran. It is impossible to try to penalize the people of Iran for overthrowing the Shah which is the source of Washington’s opposition to Iran. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty for once will give something positive to the countless Farsi propaganda agencies like Voice of America/BBC to talk about instead of the present setup of former royalist leading bands of disenchanted Farsi staff propagating falsehood. It can help the realization of the need to shut down such propaganda.
The proposition that Iran is a “danger” is false. The claim by Hillary Clinton during her campaign speeches, or by President Obama, that Washington’s nuclear accord with Iran removed a threat “without firing a bullet” is equally false. In fact, before this accord there was extensive electronic sabotage and assassination of scientists in Tehran by the use of explosives. The proposition to reject the existing accord by the President-elect will not produce any benefits for Washington if such course is adopted by the new administration. Revolutions are not easily rollbacked by the outmoded forces that they have overthrown.
The Iranian revolution of 1979 and the new history of the Middle East since then is akin to Europe’s history after the Great French Revolution of the 18th century. While the French revolution had its foes on continental Europe, it did not face the scale of foes present against the revolution in Iran. Societies of the great classical revolutions in America and Europe, before modern colonialism and imperialism, had only the sky above. Iran, like the rest of the Middle East region has a sky above it crowded with imperial imposition. Despite all opposition, history has shown the justification for all revolutions such as Iran’s. Revolutions represent the peoples and their progress in history. The exuberance of the realization of this historic capitalist task, declaring Iran’s sovereignty, ushers in the new history from West Asia to North Africa—nations building themselves through sovereignty not by Washington’s hollow nation-building. Rolling back revolutions of semi-colonies the size of Iran’s by imperial military force would require the obliteration of the rights of working people, Blacks and other minorities in the United States on a par with Nazi Germany. This would mean a political direction opposite to the events and expectations of the 2016 election in the United States.
In 1979, Iran overthrew the hated monarchy, an autocracy which suppressed what was termed by the Shah as the Red and Black Reaction (Ertejaa-e Sorkh va Syah). The Red refers to socialists, communists and the working class and the Black referred to clerical and Islamic tendencies. The historic barrier to working class and Sharaa politics as old as the Constitutional Revolution of 1908 (Enghelab-e Mashroote), breaks apart by the force of the revolution. Although after the revolution much of the old state responsible for the suppression of democratic rights remains, nevertheless the barrier between Islam and politics falls apart. The new state politicians focus to suppress “the Red,” the destruction of independent politics that would set the stage for rescinding their own rights won by the revolution. Given the long association of the Red and the Black, notwithstanding the suppression of the Red by the ruling Shia, the marriage between the two can never be broken. The Shah’s labeled Black Reaction is bygone. So too, will be his labeled Red Reaction in time.
The revolution abolishes the monarchy and ends anti-Islamism. Any clerical personality old enough to know Iran before and after the revolution, will tell how only after the revolution the clerics earned respect where before they counted for nothing. Washington chose to pick up the mantle of anti-Islamism, the remnant of Shah’s policy, to counter the success of the revolution. Accordingly, Iran moved backward into dark past centuries and this is what you get for overthrowing a despot and ending anti-Islamism. In fact, Iran moved forward into chapters of national sovereignty led by its ruling classes and their political cast: the best and brightest spokesmen of Mashroote and Mashrooa ruling politics. These were forces that put the state before the interest of the peoples and nations and sought to block independent political development of popular urban and rural society. The result is the inability of the newly risen Shia leadership in Tehran to secure independence and freedom, demonstrated by its policy to hold on to the remnants of the royal state instead of extending the rights won by society in general to minorities and independent politics in particular—a process that is in tune with imperial interest.
Through the removal of the anti-Sharaa (Sharaa setizy) barrier by the revolution, that has the mantle of Chehelom in its development path to victory, Iran becomes a full-fledged Islamic Republic as the new government of the country led by a most conservative and taught man, who by conservative virtue, a known non-political grand ayatollah, comes to admonish and oppose the hated Shah. This scholar of jurisprudence becomes, not by personal choice but by necessity of the demand of the entire ruling body, the shepherd of the reorganization of the capitalist state in the country. Outside of the ruling proposal for a Sharaa government there was no clear counter-proposal by any of the ruling political factions. The U.S. educated, the British educated, the European educated, from university to Hozeh, professors and theologians in their greatest numbers, the entire political spectrum of Mashroote and Mashrooa, supported the new definitions of political regime as a matter of expediency and necessity if not in principal.
The net result of the effort of the Islamic Republic by any past standards of statesmanship in running the country is on a par from Qajar to Pahlavi including the attempts by the post-revolution regime to hold on to suppression of independent politics, minority and women rights. In spite of the latter’s government policies supported by imperialism, as an index to development, thanks to the revolution, the country’s 40 thousand university students in 1979 is now up to more than 4 million. In a region torn by civil wars on the borders of nationality and religion, Iran is a United Nations, a country of nearly ten nations who are not at war with another. The ruling policy debate on Iran’s nations is into solutions of post-suppression forced by the victory of the revolution of 1979. Iran has a long way to go, to be the beacon of the unity of nations, but there is the possibility that it might get there by the force of the march of history and the imperial opposition to this march. State organizations and ruptures in the aftermath of revolution of 1979 places the many nations of Iran at an objective advantage during post-suppression.
As odd as that might seem, the removal of the barrier to anti-Islamism opens the possibility to overcome anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. The latter two are no more than the leftovers of the political legacy of absolutist monarchy—the main state form of the country for its longest capitalist past. The capitalist class in the country, bazaar and traders, new industrialists and the super-rich are the social forces behind anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They represent the weak social force of the country and not the strong. Popular urban and rural Iran discarded the leftovers along delivering the society from the absolutist monarchy during the revolution of 1979 and continue with this instinct and consciousness more than ever before.
Iran’s body politic is the last source of objection to normalcy and recognition of its sovereignty. Iran’s ruling body politic was leaning towards U.S. Republican Party under the monarchy. It continues so during the Islamic Republic. Iran’s ruling politics is a replica of the U.S. Republican and Democratic Party; the closest to it found anywhere in the Middle East. Tehran’s leading press repeat assessments of Democratic and Republican Party in their daily reports. In Iran, the ruling parties label themselves as Ossulgara (Principals) and Eslahtalab (Reformist). They put forward replicas of themes by the Republican and Democratic Party with regard to state plans as well as economic, social, political and cultural policies. For example, the Sharq daily reports the rightist takeover in Washingtonix and Kayhan reports on the draining of the swamp by the president-electx . The objection to Iran’s ruling political spectrum by Washington portraying them as something different than what they are is without merit.
The objections to normal relations with Iran by the Democratic and Republican Party candidates are without substance. History is the stage for men to do government when it is required of them. The organization of Islamic governance/Guardianship of Islamic Jurist (Velayate Faghih) took place when the main schemas of royal state were updated with Velayat in place of Saltanat (monarchy), Khebregan for senate, Islamic parliament in place of the old, elected presidency in place of the prime-minister of the Shah. The outcome was a plan that won the day among the entire spectrum of ruling parties of the country. In total, the government’s update to an Islamic Republic relies, from city council to Velayat, directly or indirectly, on a voter mandate and universal suffrage. So much so that the government is a source of envy to many regimes in the region.
The creation of the Shia militia in Iran is subsequent to the victory of revolution. xi The militia is right out of the playbook of all the classical revolutions of 18th and 19th century in Europe and America. The militia and Passdaran in Iran owes its development to Washington’s foreign policy and support to the invasion of Iraq more than anything within the whim and powers of the Iranian government. Similarly, a smaller prototype Hezbollah in Lebanon owes its development to Israel’s invasion of the country. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty places militia development on a peaceful track. It takes the militia out of militia. The majority of the population has moved beyond the adoration with militia due to the violations of privacy and democratic values by Shia militias.
Any number of objections to Iran’s practices in the field of judiciary, capital punishment, conditions of religious minorities and sects have similar parallels among many of the friendly countries of Washington.
The objections by Washington to deny Iran sovereign rights with regards to the setup and practice of Judiciary in the country are without merit. Upon the victory of the revolution the Judiciary lifts the ban on the entrance of clergy who half a century back were driven out by the victorious first Pahlavi, and enters into the creation of a parallel Sharaa judiciary, Islamic Revolutionary Courts, that are coupled with the rise of Shia militias. The Sharaa judiciary runs parallel to the old state judiciary and integrates the two into a one state judiciary. Isn’t this something Washington would wish for in Afghanistan, a country torn between secular and Sharaa in an unending civil war? Give or take the fortune or misfortunes of “Human Rights” in all the concerned countries as reported by Washington agencies, Iran’s judiciary is no less than on par with the judiciary of the friendly countries recognized by the United States. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty by Washington will help relax Iran’s judicial compulsion through peace and development.
The United State currently has many times the number of engineers and scientists as it had during the 1940s. There is more technological innovation and application than any time in the past. Yet absent respect for national sovereignty and promotion of wars against countries by Washington this many fold increase in technical expertise is not able to address the systemic economic crisis in the United States. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty allows for Iran to benefit from growth. Push back on recession worldwide. The technology and knowhow can be attained by Iran given the opportunity with resulting sharp economic growth. It can help create a rise in productivity in both countries.
What about anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, Marg bar Amrika (Down with America) and Marg bar Essrael (Down with Israel)? Anti-Americanism does not start nor does it end with Iran. It is an international fixture of capitalist development and imperial setup before and beyond Iran. The state politics of Iran defines anti-Americanism during the rule of the Shah, the second Pahlavi. Prior to that, during the first Pahlavi, in tune with a then world reality, Iran’s ruling body politic was anti-British.
Prior to the coup d’état of 1953, the leaderships of the movement of nationalization of oil in Iran operated based on that premise and unfortunately met with failure. The central leader of this movement (Prime Minister Mossadegh) was arrested and banished and the clerical leader (Ayatollah Kashani) opted to cash in for anti-Americanism. The second Pahlavi as much as he owed his throne to the Washington coup d’état of 1953, practiced and espoused anti-Americanism. During his waning months, he would entrust the helm of government to the American educated only. He blamed his ultimate fate on the machinations of America. State politics after the revolution continues this legacy. In the absence of monarchy, anti- Americanism in Iranian politics hangs by a thread ready to be swept aside when the hour comes. Iran’s ultimate decision makers are its people, instinctively conscious of their interests.
Anti-Semitism is a relic of the monarchy. The state during the monarchy practiced it unsparingly with regards to both Israel and Arab states as he recognized these states only for their use within an anti- Semitic context. The attitude of the people is all-together different with the awakening brought about by the revolution. Love of Jew and Palestinian is equal in the eyes of the people. Anti-Semitism hangs by a thread in the absence of the monarchy. Upon the strength of its people, Iran views the love of Palestine and the Jew, the recognition of both Palestine and Israel and peace over and above any agitation for war.
The simultaneous embrace of Palestinian and Jew and the recognition of Israel by the current Shia ruling politics in Tehran, instead of its present empty phraseology of anti-Semitism, is in tune with the consciousness of people and the needs of national sovereignty. Recognition of Israel would upend 60 years of history of the Middle East that is caught in the cul-de-sac of conflict necessitated by rulers. This embrace and recognition will be the biggest blow to anti-Semitism since World War II and the greatest aid to Palestinian sovereignty. Deliverance of truth will sound the trumpet of peace from West Asia to North Africa. The countless missiles produced by the militias will be placed at museums as militias no longer would be seeking war but peace; the tunnels under Gaza would turn to a tourist attraction. Peace and development will triumph and war would have no place. Is this something Washington has any dream for? Is this why it objects to anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism by Iran’s rulers? Or is it utilizing the weakness in Iran’s sovereignty to press for endless plans of military occupations and action no matter what the solution? The extensions of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq have had the effect of increasing the number of forceful settlements by Tel Aviv; the marks of retrogression of these wars is abundantly clear. Cease fire and peace, recognition of sovereignty of peoples and countries breaks this cycle for the entire region.
Washington’s policy vis-à-vis Iran, the rejection of Iran’s sovereignty, has resulted in over three decades of wars. Had there been recognition of the Islamic revolution by Washington, there would be no Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980 and the ensuing 8 years of war. And there would have been no Desert Storm of 1991 or an Iraq invasion of 2003. Still true today is that the recognition of Iran’s sovereignty is the antidote to all the sectarian wars in Iraq, the Damascus civil war in Syria and beyond.
Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty elevates all rights to sovereignty in the region. It will uplift the multitudes of nations and religions from West Asia to North Africa. It will have effects as far as elevating both the Palestinian and the Jewish nations. It will strengthen Israel like never before envisioned in the entire 60 years of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict which has been perpetually locked in anti- Semitism on both sides, the position of suppression of Palestinians by Tel Aviv and the anti-Semitism of Arab powers.
The recognition of Iran’s sovereignty will lift the large territories of the Sunni triangle in Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia into strengthening Sunni sovereignty to the detriment of the political leaderships driving to the contrary as demonstrated in the war against Houthi in Yemen by the current leaderships. This recognition will also help foster the acceptance of Shia in Saudi Arabia, Kurds in Turkey, and the Arab Spring in Cairo. It will halt the drive by ruling groups tied to the civil wars in the region to brittle evermore and prepare the region for breakups of countries or collapse of states and will foster the will of people for sovereignty, voluntary union and peace.
During the era of wars in the 21st century by Washington in the Middle East, a system of war on demand, without anyone asking for it, has been introduced to the peoples of the region. Respect for sovereign rights of nations puts forward the development of water and electricity infrastructure solutions and the endless industrial and agricultural development that will follow. Development and peace on demand instead of war is the required change in Washington’s policy in the Middle East. Recognition of Iranian sovereignty by Washington is the key to securing peace throughout West Asia to North Africa region. Otherwise, the net result of Washington’s wars of 21st century will continue yield the bitter fruits of civil war and destruction.
The task of seeking alignment and collaboration with national development and sovereignty was missing, obfuscated and warped by the two ruling campaigns during the election. The customary pattern of ruling politics before, during and after elections (i.e. imperial interests) was held on to by the leading candidates with more contradictions to account for and justify. Domestic policy mirrors the state’s foreign policy and was thus similarly disfigured during the ruling parties’ election campaigns.
Respect for national sovereignty of semi-colonial countries, like Iran, Cuba, and Korea is the enabler of peace and economic growth across the board--not only for the United States and its western allies but also the countries suffering from death and destruction of civil wars that require rapid reconstruction and also countries such as Russia facing the adverse impacts of economic sanctions by Washington. The plan to manage the aftermath of Washington’s wars of occupation in the greater Middle East region, nation- building or disengagement from nation building as it is called by successive Administrations, instead of a principled stance of recognition of sovereignty, withdrawal of US forces and respect for peace can only further distance the United States from its interests and weaken its alliances in the region. The wars of occupation have turned into the engine of opposite results for Washington’s interests.
Washington is trying to wash its hands from its wars in the Middle East but is further gripped by the civil war of broken states. Its negative attitude toward national sovereignty in the region is the fundamental reason for its military occupations and the resulting civil wars. Moscow, looking for a remedy, runs for cover for its brutal opposition to Ukraine’s sovereignty and steps into the Syrian Civil war—with Washington’s approval. The result is an intensifying of the conflicts of collapsed sovereignty in the region, the Sunni and Shia divide and the Balkanization of an oil rich region, pointed out by the horror in Aleppo during the last part of 2016.
The forward motion of the right of nations to self-determination is full of pitfalls and will backtrack if it is devoid of progress. This is a fact demonstrated by the numerous civil wars in the broad West Asia to North Africa region that have sprung out of Washington’s 21st century wars of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. The grip of national sovereignty intensifies as demanded by the history of national and capitalist development—the net outcome is the progress of popular urban and rural societies pushing back against obstacles.
As a result of the successful revolution of 1979 there is a new power hierarchy represented by Iran in the West Asia to North Africa region. In Iran this new power is trapped by the anti-Semitism and anti- Americanism of its ruling classes from which it cannot extricate itself without the recognition of Israel. Its support to Palestine’s statehood or the return of the refugees—in either a two state or joined single state liberating solution—remains nothing but empty chatter without the recognition of the historical rights of Jews. The Jewish communities have suffered the most during the 20th century, perhaps even in all of history along with the natives of North-South-Central America and Africa. An Iranian recognition of Israel does not change the war drive of both Tel Aviv and Washington but it does alter the political framework to the detriment of imperial interests and in favor of the right of nations to self-determination across the region and worldwide.
The solution of the Israeli Arab conflict is the title match of the history of the modern Middle East. Israel and semi-colonial dictatorships aligned with Washington represent the old and divided Middle East. Yet these divided countries are moving in the direction of recognizing one another. Upon this outcome, if Iran holds to Anti-Semitism it will lose the title match.
The new power, thanks to victories of the popular urban and rural societies in the 1979 revolution in Iran, resists being torn down by civil wars in comparison to places impacted by Washington’s military occupation, like Afghanistan and Iraq and decaying dictatorships in other peripheral countries and areas such as Syria and Gaza. Egypt, with its muzzled Arab Spring, and Turkey, experiencing the suppression of civil liberties and the national right of Kurds by Ankara, both are highly urbanized societies far from civil war. The aforementioned countries with popular urban and rural societies, may extend their union based on the respect for sovereignty of minorities. Washington’s opposition to national sovereignty does not have the final say being that popular urban and rural societies count for far more during the 21st century.
Recognition of Israel is an enabler for Middle Eastern societies securing freedom and independence for all their populations across the board—whether Kurd, Turk, Yazidi, Turkmen, Baluch, Gilak, Mazandarani, Lor, Armenian, Assyrian, Bakhtiari, Qashqaie, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Jew or Arab and many others. Ultimately the population of Yazd in central Iran will bypass the existing Shia governance mandate and allow young Zoroastrians to swim along with Muslims in public pools, or allowing minority women in all of Iran to appear with their own dress code in public thus providing a union far greater and more empowering than the false union on display based on the suppression of minorities by Shia rule in Iran, or similarly the Sunni rule in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt against their respective minorities.
The expectations of the working class of the United States from the 2016 election results that they have mandated and the preponderance of the need for respect for national sovereignty of peoples and countries of the semi-colonial world is a rare blend during these changing times of world politics. New possibilities exist to advance peace and development, namely: independent politics.
1- “Great Expectations” anew, short of social advancement
The Presidential election in the United States is always a time of great expectations. Most often however, especially since the 1970s, the expectations do not pan out. During the last four decades, economic crisis and war are the chief concern and the conduct of Washington precludes meeting any broad expectations and social advancement. Countries and peoples around the world watched the U.S. election with expectation and hope for peace and respect for the sovereignty of semi-colonial countries. From West Asia to North Africa, the violation of sovereignty is expressed by incessant civil wars. Indications are that Washington’s military engagements will continue with the war against ISIL as well as direct or indirect interventions in the numerous theaters of civil war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Libya.
The 2016 United States election serves as a blueprint for both advanced and developing capitalist countries. The political equivalents of the Republican and Democratic Parties have replicas in European countries as well as in semi-colonial countries such as India, Iran, Mexico, and Brazil to name a few. The position of the United States as the leader of world capitalism indicates the worldwide resonance of its elections.
Politics in the election was utterly confined to an incumbent campaign by the Democratic Party candidate and the challenging Republican Party candidate. On the ballot were also two minority supplements to these two parties, Libertarian (on the ballot in 50 states) and Green (in less than 40 states). There were independent politics candidates including socialists (SWP), on the ballot in less than 20 states. According to CNN, 55.4% of eligible voters participated in the elections, lower than the last four elections since 2000.i Independent politics are not reported on in mainstream media.
The 2016 presidential elections had the usual appearance of what is typically said by the ruling candidates in this or that election or the change of any head of state: a rigged election, corrupt politicians, tax evasion, money from special interests, an undesirable advisor or manager, tools or agents of a foreign government intervening, and the need for investigation of the opponent’s breech of security protocol. The ruling campaigns spent much time on each candidate’s personal traits and temperament rather than discussing facts and policy. Sexism and racism as individual traits of candidates was advanced by the campaigns, media and content journalism, as well as exposing bigotry or labeling candidates with various qualities. Campaign expenditures were over one billion dollars just on the Democratic Party side. A solution to societal problems and the understanding of social relations as the cause of ills remained remote to the discussions and at best in the background.
Both candidates’ campaigns served up a menu of talking points lower than the intelligence of their constituents and the general public. The general public, as was reported by the media, was left to decide between ‘two unpopular candidates.’ Voters had to choose the one who they hoped could provide a plan for jobs and improvements in their livelihood. Here the choice seemed obvious as the campaign of the Democratic Party candidate was without substance. Little substance was presented by either candidates to meet the need of a wide electorate gripped with slow growth, economic downturn, low wages, debt, unemployment, longer working hours and more workload during manufacture, information technology services, office work, and general services and factory closures due to the relocation of plants to countries with cheaper labor. Plans offered by Donald Trump that won the day were more ceremonial than fundamental.
During the 2016 elections there were expectations for solutions to a range of problems faced by what is termed by the media and the press as the White Working Class. Union members traditionally voting for the Democratic Party started to look away and beyond their officialdom in support of the anti- establishment Republican candidate. The unexpected result was a popular surge that upset the establishment of both Republican and Democratic parties; an entirely different result for most media that had setup their own preference and expected outcome.
The notion of the working class, omitted by the political establishment from political vocabulary and denounced in theory and practice for so long, is awakening. The working class arrives on top in political discourse and in decision making where it produced an upset in the outcome of the 2016 elections. It forced the change process of rupture and overhaul in ruling politics of the establishments of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The support of the white working class and farmers or rural populations produced the victory of Donald Trump by granting him the number of electoral votes necessary to win the election. He addressed the white working class and farmers again and again during his campaign, asked for and received their landslide support. The support he received from Black and Hispanic voters were higher than that of the previous Republican Presidential contestant in 2012.ii
Hillary Clinton won the majority of the popular vote. Behind her stood the large campaign of Senator Bernard ‘Bernie’ Sanders who appealed to students, youth and working people —held back from nomination by the Democratic Party elite. If both the electoral and the popular vote are assumed to represent an equally divided number of voters in the 2016 election, an active composition, namely the vote of the white working class made the difference here. The distinguishing event of this election was the expectation of an opportunity by the white working class voters that could improve their livelihood. Current events in Western Europe and Brexit in Great Britain earlier this year indicate a similar direction as in the United States elections.
During the campaigns leading to the election, the two main contenders dealt with the status quo. The campaign of the Democratic Party led by the virtual incumbent, stressed the major gains that had been made in the past eight years as a legacy that needed to be continued—an abstract inclusiveness that required safeguarding. Many voters found the portrayal by the Democratic Party candidate far from reality. The Republican Party candidate basking in anti-establishment critique of the past and present conduct of the two ruling parties lamented the status quo. He professed that everything was wrong, from economics and politics to jobs leaving for overseas. He stated that the government data with regards to unemployment is unreliable, that rural America is suffering, that inner cities are in bad conditions, that the elections are rigged, all while targeting Muslims and illegal immigrants. These were basic elements in his message and rhetoric of anger and dissatisfaction wrapped in imperial nationalism: “Make America Great Again.” “Already Great,” was the response by the Democratic Party candidate.
The reference to a “past glory” hurled into this election by the two leading contenders of the ruling coalitions was meant to represent the United States of post-World War II, for the Republican candidate, and the United States of the 1960s, for the Democratic contender, despite the obvious impossibility of going back to those times or to recreate the conditions of those eras. The reason for both candidates relying and borrowing from various chapters of distant history stretching back as far as 70 years ago is the economic growth and better times experienced during these eras. However, the future does not indicate sustained growth, but rather contraction and uncertainty. Thus, short in substance, both campaigns proposed the illusory to a population that, however unconsciously, shares the memory of both these periods.
It took World War II, destruction of Europe and Eurasia, nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki— “the unimaginable devastation caused,” to achieve what is termed as a phenomenal economic growth in the United States from 1945 to 1960 and the “faster” growth of Western Europe in the same period. The Western European “economies have struggled with low growth and high unemployment, lagging behind the United States from 1973 to present”.iii Numerous imperial wars as in Korea (1950-53) and Vietnam (1945-75), did not sustain the growth. To recall the rising standard of living of the generation of the 1940s and the 1950s can only go so far. Without present material substance, recalling past glories is to turn the perspective to a rear view mirror instead of the front windshield.
In the rear view mirror, looking further back in the history of The United States, both leading candidates cast a cursory glance at the history of the civil war and slavery in this country—the legacy of which, as Malcolm X pointed out, cannot be unlinked from the existing economic, social and political system in the United States, a matter recognized by leading academicians and politicians who characterize the problem as systemic. Likewise, mention of the revolution of 1776 failed to present the anti-colonial nature of that revolution. The American revolution of 1776 is a key historic event that has a natural affinity with the worldwide movement for the right to self-determination and independence. This worldwide demand runs counter to Washington’s enduring policy of opposing the right to self-determination, so vivid in the regions of Western Asia to North Africa. In their appeal to tradition, neither candidate recalled Thomas Paine’s stance that “independence is my happiness...my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.”
In 2016, a look at the front panorama of economic growth indicates a difficult future. The World Economic Outlook by IMF reports “weaker-than-expected growth in the United States” and an “economic growth of 2.2%” iv . However, the current economic recovery in the United States is higher than its allies and a stronger dollar is lauded versus other countries and especially China. A difficult future is the common position replicated by capitalist economies worldwide be they in semi-colonial countries like Iran, Brazil or India, countries who are on the rising arc of national development or junior partners of the United States among advanced economies of Europe and Israel. The future indicates an uncharted territory. To represent and maintain the status quo by ruling parties is without fortune. Everywhere the rulers must accede to the recognition of national sovereignty of aspiring nations be it the United States or Iran.
Moreover, there is a fundamental change in the post-World War II world framework and the position of the United States as the leading imperial power. Coming out of World War II, from Cold War to détente to implosion of the USSR, the position of the Realpolitik main contenders namely Washington and Moscow, both amount for naught. Both Washington and Moscow have a decreasing authority over the national sovereignty demanded by urban and rural popular societies in semi-colonial countries. This fact has been demonstrated by the increasing direct military engagements of Washington and the weakening or collapse of Moscow’s Communist officialdom the world over. Once Washington and Moscow have combined goals and forces as in Syria’s civil wars the contradictions between the two remain jarring and the endless disasters such as the case of Aleppo perpetrate.
Twenty first century imperial domain is supplanted by the forward drive of national domain as in China— the established and rising domain—an accepted intimacy that emphasizes anew the need to make the world great. As an example, in the United States, all of the items of hardship listed during the campaigns are also world problems of the international capitalist system. The notion of one imperial power becoming great at the expense of all the other powers and all the rest of humanity is more difficult to practice than ever before in the past. A solution to world problems is the requirement for a lasting contribution to improving domestic matters in imperial countries. More specifically, contribution to national development of semi-colonies is the requirement for economic growth and development among the advanced countries.
During the 2016 elections, the solution to the economic question, which is entirely woven into every facet of a world reality, was boiled down to paltry alterations to budgets and accounting, tax and tariffs, and some infrastructure repair and spending by the ruling campaigns. One trillion dollars of infrastructure spending was promised by Donald Trump, and the response by the rival candidate was to put a stimulus package in place. No serious attempt by either candidate was made to state the facts of world capitalist development—the shift of many volumes of industrial development to national domain countries such as China, according to data presented by Washington agencies like the World Bank and IMF—to point out the facts of the new world reality to the voters who would be able to corroborate the reality with their own life experience. Instead of international collaboration and development, demanding the common good for everyone, imperial candidates held onto country bashing—introducing jingoism yet again as the required pronouncement of trade by Washington.
The task of preserving the operation of a manufacturer such as Carrier in the state of Indiana for hundreds of its workers, most welcome by them, falls within the above framework. However, U.S. manufacturing in international perspective has moved from first place to second place since 2010 as the largest manufacturing nation in the world. v
In regards to domestic policy, the drive to push back the right to self-determination of oppressed countries is not conducive to improvement of the rights of Blacks, other minorities, working people and the social rights of citizens in general in The United States. During the Vietnam War era of the 1960s and the early 1970s, the advancement of the right to self-determination of oppressed nations was coupled with the advancements of civil rights of minorities, the peace movement, women’s rights, and popular rights. During the last 8 years, the continuation of war and increased drone strikes, in the region of Western Asia to North Africa by the current presidency goes hand in hand with the deterioration of race relations, as reported by mainstream media, in the United States.
In regards to foreign policy, there was no hint of a necessity to side with the increasing trend of the right to self-determination by underdeveloped countries and nations as the prerequisite to progress in politics and economics by the ruling campaigns. The simple notion that people are no different everywhere and can resolve their own problems was ignored. Just as expected, the current Democratic Party administration’s call for a ‘change we can believe in’ did not change the domestic policies of the United States or the fundamental Washington policy in regards to the national question of semi-colonial countries—the most fundamental historic capitalist task. The Obama administration tried to manage the aftermath of the military occupation that turns into civil wars in such countries. The Guantanamo concentration camp located on a part of Cuba held by Washington remains open.
The most radical representative of the ruling group during the election, Senator Sanders from Vermont, who spoke repeatedly for the need of a political revolution was asked directly about Iran during the debates. As an example, his answer was that, upon his victory in November, he would not normalize relations with Iran “on day one” of his presidency. Respect for the national sovereignty of Iran, or other countries for that matter, was shelved on the basis of the popularity or unpopularity of those countries’ respective regimes as presented by the mainstream media of the imperial domain.
Nothing was said of the fact that Washington’s wars of the 21st century had caused the displacement of over 10 million people—over 4 million to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and 6 million internally in Syriavi , tens of thousands of other people in Western Asia to North Africa and the hundreds of thousands trying to take refuge from these wars in Europe. This is in addition to the hundreds of thousands dead and the wholesale destruction of cities and homes in the region as witnessed in the horror of Aleppo. The grave situation in war torn countries was presented as the conflict of sects of Islam who shed the blood of one another according to the rules of antiquity. The war refugees were portrayed as the people requiring the most vetting for entry to Europe and the United States.
The competition between the two candidates came down to which country he or she would bash more. The Democratic Party candidate’s country bashing had Russia at the top of her list. The Republican candidate had Muslims and Islamic countries, China and Mexico on his list. Nevertheless, the country bashing was not without its twist. The twist is evident in the contrast between the president-elect countering of the daily security briefings, calling its findings “ridiculous” and the current diplomatic row and sanctions over Russian computer hacking. In his recent press conference the President-elect rebuffed charges by asking the room if anybody present really believes that he will be softer in dealing with Moscow than Hillary Clinton.
When it comes to Russia, not bashing it goes against the grain of a century of Washington policy. It further shelves an outdated Cold War international framework and promoting sanctions against it. The President-elect has repeatedly stated that it would be great if we are on the same page and collaborating with Moscow. However, such collaboration is hardly expected to produce dividends when seeking new partners in pursuit of Middle East wars, as the evidence presented by the participation of Moscow in Washington’s war against ISIL in Syria suggests. The dimension and alliances are 21st century but the outcome is no different than Moscow’s entry into Afghanistan (1980-88)—as Russian policy fosters the tearing apart of national sovereignty be it in Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine. Washington’s partnership with Moscow in Syria’s civil war does not gap the bloody divide in the concerned countries and further underscores the need for cease-fire and peace.
During 2016 election, the blueprint for the treatment of immigrant workers by calling them criminals and deporting the ones caught was offered by Washington as the leader of world capitalism. As it stands the current administration has deported over 2.5 million immigrants; vii the victorious Republican Party candidate promised to deport all 11 million, a number which he adjusted to 3 million immediately after his victory.
There was no call by the ruling candidates to secure and cherish the unity of working people and the immigrant workers. A solution to the citizenship rights of over 11 million immigrants in the U.S. was postponed by the candidate of the Democratic Party, much like her predecessors.
2- The Breakup of Iraq and Syria and the War against ISIL
Both leading candidates stated that the invasion of Iraq 14 years ago was a mistake. However, their statements on this matter had no bearing on present realities. The war against ISIL was declared imperative without a doubt. Evidently, the proof of weapons of mass destruction is no longer required. ISIL is Baghdad Baathism version 2—the ISIL Sunni form of the Baathist secular Sunni. ISIL spews out of the breakup of the Baathist state in the aftermath of the victorious Washington occupation in 2003. Like the breakup of celestial bodies and the pieces finding new orbits, upon the breakup of a state organization, ruling and state politics do not just evaporate into thin air.
The heavy pole that was the Baathist rule in Iraq, exemplified at its highest form by Saddam Hussein, demonstrated a state made of Sunnis, imposing its brutal rule upon Shias and Kurds and all elements, layers and classes of society. The pieces of this broken pole came together as they did in ISIL politics, finding fertile ground for further growth among the Sunnis risen to action against the Damascus Baathist Alawite rule in Syria after suppression of large-scale urban Sunni peaceful protests in 2011. This rise to action is the grand finale of the Baathist-Sunni orbit and the extinguishing act of this tendency.
ISIL was able to conquer many Sunni areas in Syria following Assad’s brutal suppressions in 2011, followed by its expansion into Iraq since 2014 capturing Mosul and threatening Baghdad. ISIL displays the past Baathist quality of violence against all non-Sunni components of Iraq and Syria, also minorities and women adding to that the reality TV versions of beheadings in a match with TV series in the United States and Europe. It lauds murder and terror bombings by lone individuals or small groups in Europe and the United States as few pieces of the Baathist-ISIL tendency begin to extinguish in the farther orbit.
The rise of ISIL in Iraq has no possibility of gaining an everlasting foothold no matter how many areas and cities it has managed or manages to seize. Peace or war, ISIL is without fortune as its brutal hegemony over all of Iraq is impossible and also at odds with urban, rural and tribal Sunnis. War against ISIL, led by Washington or regional powers of the Middle East, serves to deepening the existing division and discord.
A Baath-ISIL merger indicates the countermotion to both the exclusivist Shia militias and the rise of Kurdish sovereignty. It induces the Kurd development, far more consequential than its own rise and demise. It further cements Kurd sovereignty—the most positive development of the Iraq-Syria breakup and an aid to independence and freedom throughout the region. It provides impetus for the general rise of existing Shia militias and the creation of new ones in such territories. These militias, in the absence of an independent policy of peace and an end to the bloodshed led by the main Shia players, are sucked into the futile action of defense of the Damascus dictatorship or the war against ISIL in Mosul.
The new Iraq in 2003 after the United States occupation comes with all the three main pieces, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, a state ready to re-erect to replace the past Baath-Sunni rule. The reality of the existence of these three pieces in the new Iraq is stated by leading statesmen in Washington. Can a new state pole be created from Shia to press upon the Sunni and the Kurd? On paper, yes, in reality, hardly. The historic capitalist state in Iraq is molded for a Sunni pole. Going back is impossible, and a future for Shia rule over Kurd and Sunni as a state does not exist. The Kurd have already advanced to statehood in Eghlim-e Kurdistan.
In Iraq, the Sunni recoil from Shia rule is not because of ISIL nor brought on by it. The recovery and expansion of the Shia-Sunni union is at an impasse due to the absence of an independent unifier that would make Iraq compete for the expansion of the rights of Kurds and all minorities instead of the dead- end rivalry for imposition of Shia rule through militias. ‘Where does the expansion of the rights of the Kurds leave us,’ ask the ruling Shia who seek privileges over the rest of the society. No exceptional biased rights over others can be allowed for an Arab majority which the Shia represent in Iraq or anywhere else. The Shia suffering during the rule of Saddam’s Baathism should allow the Shia to feel the backbreaking oppression felt by the Kurds and to become their natural ally. A Shia alliance with the minorities has not materialized during the post-Saddam period due to the weakness of the Shia leaderships in Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut on this question. Shia militias in Iraq took their model from Iran during the immediate following the revolution of 1979 by targeting minority religions, their lifestyle, businesses and properties—something still concurrent in Iran after four decades of Shia rule.
The power vacuum and reengineering of the state in Iraq in 2003, now under the U.S. occupation umbrella, provides impetus for the convergence of Shia populations stretching from east to west from Iran to Lebanon, and north to south from Iran to Saudi Arabia. The aftereffect is the Shia participation in the pilgrimage of Arbaeen/Chehelom turning into millions. A plethora of government and non-government forces that converge the utmost heterogeneity, the fortunes and the misfortunes that are represented by Shia politics in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon without producing fundamental progress to the participants of the region or solving any historical capitalist/democratic task. This Shia convergence does not move in the direction of enhancing sovereignty, freedom and independence in any of the above-mentioned Shia dominated countries.
In Iraq, the Shia government and leadership’s recognition, in principle and action, of the sovereignty of Kurds and all minorities is the measure that provides for universal peace among all components of society. The peace approach in Iraq, based on the recognition of historic democratic rights of national and religious minorities can be replicated in Syria and will fortify national sovereignty across the region. Similarly, ceasefire and peace in Syria can help end the civil war in Iraq.
Peace as a solution favors all the participants and the entire society. There is no military mission beyond the defense of the sovereignty and peace by all elements of Syria and Iraq, like the Yazidi, Kurd, Shia, Christian and women that have suffered from ISIL. Ending Sunni suffering from ISIL, just like ending Sunni suffering from the Damascus dictatorship is best served by peace. Military action to conquer Sunni regions will bring destruction and refugees and does not foster a bond between Shia and Sunni. Once driven back from aggression, murder and brutality among the Yazidi, Kurd, Shia, et al, the containment of ISIL to Sunni regions is a progression by itself. It leaves the matter of Baathism-ISIL to be evaluated and rejected by the Sunnis like the rest of Iraqis and Syrians, not by civil war but by peace.
The state artifacts in Iraq and Syria are designed and implemented by the imperial British and French during the first half of the 20th century. The breakup of these states is the end of such statecraft. The historic necessity to extend the rights of all elements from Sunni to Shia to Kurd and recognizing their sovereignty is already in place. There is no reason for any civil war in Iraq no matter who is at the top among the Sunni—Saddam’s generals, ISIL or any other. Fostering the right of the Kurds and not the war against ISIL is the task of the Shia majority that can secure peace and bring union for all those involved.
The problem in Syria is the very recognition of Sunni, Kurd and Turkmen and the cessation of civil war by Assad—far more important than Damascus’ government makeup, Alawites with or without Bashar Assad. In Syria, the state pole pressing hard on society is made of Alawite Shia Baathism. This pole is broken by the nature of a civil war; large territories of Syria are now outside of state command. Sunni, Kurd, and Turkmen have taken leave of the Alawite state domination. Death and destruction and the driving out of nearly 10 million of its inhabitants, decimation of historic society, with the excuse that it needs to solidify its rule or that it feels that its barrel bombs are more humane than beheadings. What is left is a broken Syrian state. There is no possibility of Alawite rule over Sunnis and Kurds in Syria no matter how many world players like Moscow step into the civil war and how much bombing and military action is pursued or how many Shia militias come to the rescue of Damascus.
Therefore, military intervention by Washington is not justified. The Sunni cities and Sunni populations are the best to overcome ISIL brutality in its strongholds in Iraq and Syria. Popular Sunni society is not behind Baathist-ISIL and in this stance, have the support of the majority of Iraqis.
Cease fire and peace in the theaters of civil war is the recognition of sovereign territories. Such an approach is only possible when revolutions of sovereign rights in the major countries of the region, the new history of the Middle East, are recognized by Washington.
There is no power on earth that can make any good come out of the continuation of the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, or buttressing the Damascus dictatorship by current military undertakings in the region of Western Asia to North Africa. This region and its people require peace above all else.
3- Recognition of Iran Sovereignty as Key to Peace in the Middle East
In its modern history, Iran is recognized for realization of sovereignty. An achievement that can be adopted and applied by the United States as a set of patterns that can point to a peaceful conduct to benefit the entire region.
During the first quarter of the 20th century, Iran’s oppression at the hands of Czarist Russia came to an end with the revolution of 1917 and the creation of the USSR. Czarist Russia’s long imposition on Iran was rescinded fully by the revolutionary government. In 1921, Soviet government “annulled all the previous treaties” with Iran “as well as other treaties of Tsarist government concluded to the detriment of Iranian interests, and surrendered the rights to the loans of Tsarist government and its concessions. All the facilities belonging to Russia were handed over [to Iran] including railways, roads, and telegraph lines, port facilities in Anzali and lake Urmiya, the Russian Discounted-Loan Bank and other properties on the condition these were not turned over to another country”viii. Can Washington, nearly a hundred years later, announce a similar stance with regards to Iran given the victory of the revolution of 1979 over Washington’s installed monarchy in 1953? Can Washington commit to this clear historical capitalist task and requirement?
Washington can also implement its stance of recognition of China of the late 1970s on Iran. A non- belligerent stance that can usher in development and peace: let bygones be bygones. All the sanctions against Iran are rescinded. Rolling back China’s sovereignty as presently contemplated by the President- elect will not work. Its extension to include Iran serves all the populations of the United States and the rest of the world.
If all persuasions fail in respecting Iran’s sovereignty and Washington maintains rejection of Iran’s sovereignty, still there is the example of Puerto Rico for unhampered economic discourse. In Puerto Rico, Washington maintains the lack of recognition of sovereignty while allowing full economic relations, access to banking and trade—a measure that would shelf belligerency from Washington’s foreign policy with regards to Iran despite how much Washington accepts or rejects the government of Iran. It is impossible to try to penalize the people of Iran for overthrowing the Shah which is the source of Washington’s opposition to Iran. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty for once will give something positive to the countless Farsi propaganda agencies like Voice of America/BBC to talk about instead of the present setup of former royalist leading bands of disenchanted Farsi staff propagating falsehood. It can help the realization of the need to shut down such propaganda.
The proposition that Iran is a “danger” is false. The claim by Hillary Clinton during her campaign speeches, or by President Obama, that Washington’s nuclear accord with Iran removed a threat “without firing a bullet” is equally false. In fact, before this accord there was extensive electronic sabotage and assassination of scientists in Tehran by the use of explosives. The proposition to reject the existing accord by the President-elect will not produce any benefits for Washington if such course is adopted by the new administration. Revolutions are not easily rollbacked by the outmoded forces that they have overthrown.
The Iranian revolution of 1979 and the new history of the Middle East since then is akin to Europe’s history after the Great French Revolution of the 18th century. While the French revolution had its foes on continental Europe, it did not face the scale of foes present against the revolution in Iran. Societies of the great classical revolutions in America and Europe, before modern colonialism and imperialism, had only the sky above. Iran, like the rest of the Middle East region has a sky above it crowded with imperial imposition. Despite all opposition, history has shown the justification for all revolutions such as Iran’s. Revolutions represent the peoples and their progress in history. The exuberance of the realization of this historic capitalist task, declaring Iran’s sovereignty, ushers in the new history from West Asia to North Africa—nations building themselves through sovereignty not by Washington’s hollow nation-building. Rolling back revolutions of semi-colonies the size of Iran’s by imperial military force would require the obliteration of the rights of working people, Blacks and other minorities in the United States on a par with Nazi Germany. This would mean a political direction opposite to the events and expectations of the 2016 election in the United States.
In 1979, Iran overthrew the hated monarchy, an autocracy which suppressed what was termed by the Shah as the Red and Black Reaction (Ertejaa-e Sorkh va Syah). The Red refers to socialists, communists and the working class and the Black referred to clerical and Islamic tendencies. The historic barrier to working class and Sharaa politics as old as the Constitutional Revolution of 1908 (Enghelab-e Mashroote), breaks apart by the force of the revolution. Although after the revolution much of the old state responsible for the suppression of democratic rights remains, nevertheless the barrier between Islam and politics falls apart. The new state politicians focus to suppress “the Red,” the destruction of independent politics that would set the stage for rescinding their own rights won by the revolution. Given the long association of the Red and the Black, notwithstanding the suppression of the Red by the ruling Shia, the marriage between the two can never be broken. The Shah’s labeled Black Reaction is bygone. So too, will be his labeled Red Reaction in time.
The revolution abolishes the monarchy and ends anti-Islamism. Any clerical personality old enough to know Iran before and after the revolution, will tell how only after the revolution the clerics earned respect where before they counted for nothing. Washington chose to pick up the mantle of anti-Islamism, the remnant of Shah’s policy, to counter the success of the revolution. Accordingly, Iran moved backward into dark past centuries and this is what you get for overthrowing a despot and ending anti-Islamism. In fact, Iran moved forward into chapters of national sovereignty led by its ruling classes and their political cast: the best and brightest spokesmen of Mashroote and Mashrooa ruling politics. These were forces that put the state before the interest of the peoples and nations and sought to block independent political development of popular urban and rural society. The result is the inability of the newly risen Shia leadership in Tehran to secure independence and freedom, demonstrated by its policy to hold on to the remnants of the royal state instead of extending the rights won by society in general to minorities and independent politics in particular—a process that is in tune with imperial interest.
Through the removal of the anti-Sharaa (Sharaa setizy) barrier by the revolution, that has the mantle of Chehelom in its development path to victory, Iran becomes a full-fledged Islamic Republic as the new government of the country led by a most conservative and taught man, who by conservative virtue, a known non-political grand ayatollah, comes to admonish and oppose the hated Shah. This scholar of jurisprudence becomes, not by personal choice but by necessity of the demand of the entire ruling body, the shepherd of the reorganization of the capitalist state in the country. Outside of the ruling proposal for a Sharaa government there was no clear counter-proposal by any of the ruling political factions. The U.S. educated, the British educated, the European educated, from university to Hozeh, professors and theologians in their greatest numbers, the entire political spectrum of Mashroote and Mashrooa, supported the new definitions of political regime as a matter of expediency and necessity if not in principal.
The net result of the effort of the Islamic Republic by any past standards of statesmanship in running the country is on a par from Qajar to Pahlavi including the attempts by the post-revolution regime to hold on to suppression of independent politics, minority and women rights. In spite of the latter’s government policies supported by imperialism, as an index to development, thanks to the revolution, the country’s 40 thousand university students in 1979 is now up to more than 4 million. In a region torn by civil wars on the borders of nationality and religion, Iran is a United Nations, a country of nearly ten nations who are not at war with another. The ruling policy debate on Iran’s nations is into solutions of post-suppression forced by the victory of the revolution of 1979. Iran has a long way to go, to be the beacon of the unity of nations, but there is the possibility that it might get there by the force of the march of history and the imperial opposition to this march. State organizations and ruptures in the aftermath of revolution of 1979 places the many nations of Iran at an objective advantage during post-suppression.
As odd as that might seem, the removal of the barrier to anti-Islamism opens the possibility to overcome anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. The latter two are no more than the leftovers of the political legacy of absolutist monarchy—the main state form of the country for its longest capitalist past. The capitalist class in the country, bazaar and traders, new industrialists and the super-rich are the social forces behind anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They represent the weak social force of the country and not the strong. Popular urban and rural Iran discarded the leftovers along delivering the society from the absolutist monarchy during the revolution of 1979 and continue with this instinct and consciousness more than ever before.
Iran’s body politic is the last source of objection to normalcy and recognition of its sovereignty. Iran’s ruling body politic was leaning towards U.S. Republican Party under the monarchy. It continues so during the Islamic Republic. Iran’s ruling politics is a replica of the U.S. Republican and Democratic Party; the closest to it found anywhere in the Middle East. Tehran’s leading press repeat assessments of Democratic and Republican Party in their daily reports. In Iran, the ruling parties label themselves as Ossulgara (Principals) and Eslahtalab (Reformist). They put forward replicas of themes by the Republican and Democratic Party with regard to state plans as well as economic, social, political and cultural policies. For example, the Sharq daily reports the rightist takeover in Washingtonix and Kayhan reports on the draining of the swamp by the president-electx . The objection to Iran’s ruling political spectrum by Washington portraying them as something different than what they are is without merit.
The objections to normal relations with Iran by the Democratic and Republican Party candidates are without substance. History is the stage for men to do government when it is required of them. The organization of Islamic governance/Guardianship of Islamic Jurist (Velayate Faghih) took place when the main schemas of royal state were updated with Velayat in place of Saltanat (monarchy), Khebregan for senate, Islamic parliament in place of the old, elected presidency in place of the prime-minister of the Shah. The outcome was a plan that won the day among the entire spectrum of ruling parties of the country. In total, the government’s update to an Islamic Republic relies, from city council to Velayat, directly or indirectly, on a voter mandate and universal suffrage. So much so that the government is a source of envy to many regimes in the region.
The creation of the Shia militia in Iran is subsequent to the victory of revolution. xi The militia is right out of the playbook of all the classical revolutions of 18th and 19th century in Europe and America. The militia and Passdaran in Iran owes its development to Washington’s foreign policy and support to the invasion of Iraq more than anything within the whim and powers of the Iranian government. Similarly, a smaller prototype Hezbollah in Lebanon owes its development to Israel’s invasion of the country. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty places militia development on a peaceful track. It takes the militia out of militia. The majority of the population has moved beyond the adoration with militia due to the violations of privacy and democratic values by Shia militias.
Any number of objections to Iran’s practices in the field of judiciary, capital punishment, conditions of religious minorities and sects have similar parallels among many of the friendly countries of Washington.
The objections by Washington to deny Iran sovereign rights with regards to the setup and practice of Judiciary in the country are without merit. Upon the victory of the revolution the Judiciary lifts the ban on the entrance of clergy who half a century back were driven out by the victorious first Pahlavi, and enters into the creation of a parallel Sharaa judiciary, Islamic Revolutionary Courts, that are coupled with the rise of Shia militias. The Sharaa judiciary runs parallel to the old state judiciary and integrates the two into a one state judiciary. Isn’t this something Washington would wish for in Afghanistan, a country torn between secular and Sharaa in an unending civil war? Give or take the fortune or misfortunes of “Human Rights” in all the concerned countries as reported by Washington agencies, Iran’s judiciary is no less than on par with the judiciary of the friendly countries recognized by the United States. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty by Washington will help relax Iran’s judicial compulsion through peace and development.
The United State currently has many times the number of engineers and scientists as it had during the 1940s. There is more technological innovation and application than any time in the past. Yet absent respect for national sovereignty and promotion of wars against countries by Washington this many fold increase in technical expertise is not able to address the systemic economic crisis in the United States. Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty allows for Iran to benefit from growth. Push back on recession worldwide. The technology and knowhow can be attained by Iran given the opportunity with resulting sharp economic growth. It can help create a rise in productivity in both countries.
What about anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, Marg bar Amrika (Down with America) and Marg bar Essrael (Down with Israel)? Anti-Americanism does not start nor does it end with Iran. It is an international fixture of capitalist development and imperial setup before and beyond Iran. The state politics of Iran defines anti-Americanism during the rule of the Shah, the second Pahlavi. Prior to that, during the first Pahlavi, in tune with a then world reality, Iran’s ruling body politic was anti-British.
Prior to the coup d’état of 1953, the leaderships of the movement of nationalization of oil in Iran operated based on that premise and unfortunately met with failure. The central leader of this movement (Prime Minister Mossadegh) was arrested and banished and the clerical leader (Ayatollah Kashani) opted to cash in for anti-Americanism. The second Pahlavi as much as he owed his throne to the Washington coup d’état of 1953, practiced and espoused anti-Americanism. During his waning months, he would entrust the helm of government to the American educated only. He blamed his ultimate fate on the machinations of America. State politics after the revolution continues this legacy. In the absence of monarchy, anti- Americanism in Iranian politics hangs by a thread ready to be swept aside when the hour comes. Iran’s ultimate decision makers are its people, instinctively conscious of their interests.
Anti-Semitism is a relic of the monarchy. The state during the monarchy practiced it unsparingly with regards to both Israel and Arab states as he recognized these states only for their use within an anti- Semitic context. The attitude of the people is all-together different with the awakening brought about by the revolution. Love of Jew and Palestinian is equal in the eyes of the people. Anti-Semitism hangs by a thread in the absence of the monarchy. Upon the strength of its people, Iran views the love of Palestine and the Jew, the recognition of both Palestine and Israel and peace over and above any agitation for war.
The simultaneous embrace of Palestinian and Jew and the recognition of Israel by the current Shia ruling politics in Tehran, instead of its present empty phraseology of anti-Semitism, is in tune with the consciousness of people and the needs of national sovereignty. Recognition of Israel would upend 60 years of history of the Middle East that is caught in the cul-de-sac of conflict necessitated by rulers. This embrace and recognition will be the biggest blow to anti-Semitism since World War II and the greatest aid to Palestinian sovereignty. Deliverance of truth will sound the trumpet of peace from West Asia to North Africa. The countless missiles produced by the militias will be placed at museums as militias no longer would be seeking war but peace; the tunnels under Gaza would turn to a tourist attraction. Peace and development will triumph and war would have no place. Is this something Washington has any dream for? Is this why it objects to anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism by Iran’s rulers? Or is it utilizing the weakness in Iran’s sovereignty to press for endless plans of military occupations and action no matter what the solution? The extensions of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq have had the effect of increasing the number of forceful settlements by Tel Aviv; the marks of retrogression of these wars is abundantly clear. Cease fire and peace, recognition of sovereignty of peoples and countries breaks this cycle for the entire region.
Washington’s policy vis-à-vis Iran, the rejection of Iran’s sovereignty, has resulted in over three decades of wars. Had there been recognition of the Islamic revolution by Washington, there would be no Iraq invasion of Iran in 1980 and the ensuing 8 years of war. And there would have been no Desert Storm of 1991 or an Iraq invasion of 2003. Still true today is that the recognition of Iran’s sovereignty is the antidote to all the sectarian wars in Iraq, the Damascus civil war in Syria and beyond.
Recognition of Iran’s sovereignty elevates all rights to sovereignty in the region. It will uplift the multitudes of nations and religions from West Asia to North Africa. It will have effects as far as elevating both the Palestinian and the Jewish nations. It will strengthen Israel like never before envisioned in the entire 60 years of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict which has been perpetually locked in anti- Semitism on both sides, the position of suppression of Palestinians by Tel Aviv and the anti-Semitism of Arab powers.
The recognition of Iran’s sovereignty will lift the large territories of the Sunni triangle in Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia into strengthening Sunni sovereignty to the detriment of the political leaderships driving to the contrary as demonstrated in the war against Houthi in Yemen by the current leaderships. This recognition will also help foster the acceptance of Shia in Saudi Arabia, Kurds in Turkey, and the Arab Spring in Cairo. It will halt the drive by ruling groups tied to the civil wars in the region to brittle evermore and prepare the region for breakups of countries or collapse of states and will foster the will of people for sovereignty, voluntary union and peace.
During the era of wars in the 21st century by Washington in the Middle East, a system of war on demand, without anyone asking for it, has been introduced to the peoples of the region. Respect for sovereign rights of nations puts forward the development of water and electricity infrastructure solutions and the endless industrial and agricultural development that will follow. Development and peace on demand instead of war is the required change in Washington’s policy in the Middle East. Recognition of Iranian sovereignty by Washington is the key to securing peace throughout West Asia to North Africa region. Otherwise, the net result of Washington’s wars of 21st century will continue yield the bitter fruits of civil war and destruction.
i “Voter turnout at 20-year low in 2016”. Gregory Wallace. (November 30, 2016). http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html
ii “Trump Did Better With Blacks, Hispanics Than Romney in ’12: Exit Polls”. Amanda Sakuma. NBC News. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/trump-did-better-blacks-hispanics-romney-12-exit-polls- n681386
iii Berman, Sheri. “Boom and Bust”. Review of “The European Economy since 1945” by Barry Eichengreen. New York Times book review. (March 25, 2007).
iv World Economic Outlook; (October, 2016); http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/pdf/text.pdf
v “According to United Nations estimates, China displaced the United States as the largest manufacturing nation in 2010. In 2014, according to the U.N. figures, China’s value added in manufacturing reached $2.9 trillion, compared to $2.1 trillion for the United States.” Levinson M. U.S. Manufacturing in International Perspective. Congressional Research Service (CRS). (April 26, 2016)
vi syrianrefugees.eu
vii The 2.5 million deported by Obama Administration does not include the 2016 figures not announced yet. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/u-s-immigrant-deportations-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2007/ viii Encyclopedia Iranica; Russia; ii. Iranian-Soviet Relations (1917-1991). خطر گردش بهراست با شعار چپ
ix http://sharghdaily.ir/News/111951/%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%B1--%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%B4- %D8%A8%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%A7- %D8%B4%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%E2%80%8C%DA%86%D9%BE
x ترامپ قبل از ورود به کاخ سفید سیفون را کشید http://kayhan.ir/fa/news/94557/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%BE-%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84- %D8%A7%D8%B2-%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AF-%D8%A8%D9%87-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%AE- %D8%B3%D9%81%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%81%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B1%D8%A7- %DA%A9%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AF
xi The main opposition to the monarchy—whether in prisons of the Shah or in exile—was politically tied in one fashion or another to the ruling groups of the country. The main groups of this opposition all had a militia. Their creed went with worship of their militia. Even outside of Iran among the student movement or opposition in Western Europe and the United States, the dominant tendencies all acted like militia members. They were militia-acting Maoist and militia-acting National Front (Jebhhe Melli) or Islamic National Front who had little respect or tolerance for independent opinion and politics. Independent socialists were the only exception who rejected this entire approach as false and harmful to the fight against autocratic monarchy. Inside Iran the dominant tendencies were small groups known as Fedayeen and Mujahidin. The national figure of opposition, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had defined Shia militias, opposed armed action of the guerrillas. Yet he was the one who realized the program of creation of militias yearned by the mainstream opposition upon the victory of the revolution. Once ejected from Iran by inflicting terror and bombing for its supposedly denied government post and position in 1982, Mujahedin continue with their militia albeit in more theatrical dimensions and are lauded by Washington’s foreign policy for such stance and conduct since the victory of revolution in 1979.
Posts
