Debate on the foreign policy of IranI wanted to convey my deep appreciation for the Anti-imperialist Camp for taking the brave position of supporting the victory of Ahmedi Nejad in the Iranian elections.
I'm aware of the crazy defamation of Ahmedi Nejad in the West, where the hypocrisy of the left is converging with the self interest of the exploiters and the oppressors to pose "democratic" racist Israel and the "moderate" Saudi royal family and the Egyptian police state as natural allies for the West democracies.
Here in Palestine, where people experience Western imperialism on the receiving side of its sharp edge, Ahmedi Nejad could win any election with much bigger margins without even campaigning.
I think you should carry the discussion from the defensive to the offensive, using simple facts.
First of all, it is not true at all the Iran is working for "hegemony" in the region - it is only working to overcome the long time kleptomanic hegemony of imperialism and Zionism that force economic and cultural backwardness on the whole region. This is why the Islamic revolution was confronted with bloody war in the 1980s, and this is all the reason for today’s constant aggressive threats against Iran.
Second, it is not true at all that Iran has "sectarian" policy - it is Imperialism and its puppet regimes that try to blaze sectarian conflicts to prevent the people from uniting against imperialism. The cooperation between Iran and Hamas is the best proof of the ability of the people of the region to overcome this most dangerous imperialist trap.
Than, the main issue in Iran is class war for control over the revenues of its oil reaches. Nobody can solve the problems of economic development within 4 years, but Ahmedi Nejad did big steps in the right direction, in spite of disruptive resistance from big parts of the establishment. It is most instructive to compare this to the first four years of another "populist" in far away Venezuela.
It is also interesting to follow the foreign policy of this supposedly "religious conservative" president. I don't think he was preaching Islam while helping the people of Nicaragua overcome centuries of US hegemony and poverty. Just follow the facts and ask yourself what it may mean.
At last, Iran is one of the few states in the world where there are meaningful elections where people can make real choice. In this sense it is one of the most democratic states in the world. Of course, nothing is perfect, and we always aspire for the better, but in the Iranian election the Iranian people had to choose and they did choose the leadership that proved its readiness to serve their interest best, and not those of foreign imperialism or the local elites.
Y.B., activist from within 48 Palestine
Response by the Anti-imperialist Camp
We cannot absolve Iran for what it did in Iraq which shows the deep troubles they can create. (Which does not mean, that the Iraqi resistance did much better).
But actually their main criteria in Iraq is to have a friendly regime and to extinguish Baath or any pan-Arabist force. For this purpose they fully co-operated with the occupation. And you know how important the Iraqi question was for a certain period do trouble the US empire. It is not only the US to introduce sectarian policies in Iraq, it was also Iran and they continue to do so.
One can explain all of this and maybe even understand it, and possibly today a non sectarian anti-imperialism is damned to remain marginal but we cannot other that also to warn of the disasters this can and did produce (see Iraq).
The interests of the Iranian regime in general are opposed to imperialism but their interests are at the same time not fully congruent with the ones of revolutionary universalist anti-imperialism. That is why we said that they follow also a policy of big regional power sometimes to the detriment of anti-imperialism.