MENA: Yemen, Iran and the Arab Revolution

Yarmouk Camp, near Damascus, symbol of the Arab Revolution

Battle lines in the Middle East continue to be drawn between the US bloc and the rising China/Russia bloc over control of the hydrocarbon resources of the region. This has not become an open proxy war since the China, Russia bloc do not want to be drawn into a fight over oil in MENA (Middle East, North Africa) where the stakes are so high. At stake is the fate of Iran. Iran is in the camp of Russia and China. It has the 4th largest reserves of oil and 2nd largest reserves of gas in the world. Its immediate interests are to get the sanctions lifted and its own oil flowing. It has a stake in Iraq where the Shiite led regime and militias are driving back the IS forces in the north. It is the main force that is keeping al Assad in power in Syria.

In Yemen the latest front in a series of connected fronts has opened as the US bloc led on the ground by Saudi Arabia and a coalition of the US lackey states, lines up against the popular Houthi rebellion that has overthrown the US sponsored dictator who has flown the country. While the US bloc claims that the Houthi are armed by Iran, Iran denies this though the Houthi have links to Hezbollah another Iran proxy. Iran as part of the China/Russia bloc is clearly engaged in a struggle with the US bloc for control of MENA.

We advocate independent working class action in defence of the Houthi uprising without any political support to the bourgeois leadership or its proxy role aligned to the Russia/China imperialist bloc.

The Arab Revolution threatens both blocs

While the inter-imperialist rivalry underlies these wars in MENA, the real threat to both blocs is the unfinished Arab Revolution. In 2012 a year into the Arab Revolution re-opened in MENA we wrote a balance sheet in which the success of the revolution was clearly in the armed masses fighting against dictatorships. To the extent that uprisings were steered into parliamentary ‘solutions’ as in Tunisia and Egypt the revolutions were halted. Where these rebellions met overwhelming armed repression as in Bahrain they were aborted. Where they met armed repression but survived to arm a popular resistance movement as in Libya and Syria, the revolutions are still alive.

Most important, the Arab Revolution had to be joined up at Palestine from East, West, North and South. If the Syrian revolution did not join up militarily with the Palestinian struggle it would be doomed. If the Libyan and Egyptian Revolutions remained separated they would not succeed. Thus it was necessary for the revolution to remove the imperialist borders imposed by Sykes Picot in 1919 and turn the Palestinian struggle into a Pan Arab Permanent Revolution.

In those countries where the revolution succumbed to the siren songs of bourgeois parliamentary democracy, they failed to arm themselves and win over the ranks of the army. In Egypt the SCAF (Supreme Command of the Armed Forces) sacked the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Morsi and continued its historic role since Nasser as the military Bonapartist institution that is the backbone of the authoritarian state defending capitalist rule in Egypt, not only from the external enemy, but from the internal enemy, the populist Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian masses.

The most important task of this military regime is to isolate the Egyptian masses from the rest of the Arab states. One of the first acts of Al Sisi was to close the border to Gaza and to the uniting of Egyptian and Palestine revolutions. Today Al Sisi joins the Yankee coalition bombing IS in Libya and invading Yemen with Saudi planes and tanks to smash the rebellion as they did in Bahrain.

In those countries where the resistance armed itself, civil wars opened up against dictatorships like al Assad in Syria, al Maliki in Iraq, and the NTC in Libya. Yet in none of these countries has the armed resistance united across borders to join the Palestinian struggle. But neither have they been disarmed and destroyed. Every attempt has been made by both US and Russia/China blocs to isolate and destroy the popular resistance creating power vacuums in which other forces especially Islamic jihadist were able to fill the gap. In Iraq this has meant that the non-sectarian resistance to al Maliki has been overrun by the Sunni IS in the North while the Shiite militia from the South have become the dominant force in pushing the IS back. Similarly, in Syria the non-sectarian militias have become the target of not only al Assad but of the IS and its jihadist allies such as al Nusra. The IS has now moved against the Palestinian revolution attempting to take over the refugee camp at Yarmouk on the outskirts of Damascus.

Sectarian or imperialist wars?

So while the armed revolution advanced from 2011 to 2013, it has been overtaken by counter-revolutionary forces who may want to carve out Islamic states in much the same way that Israel carved out its Zionist state. These are the open enemies of the Arab Revolution. The result is that in both Syria and Iraq the dictatorships have aligned themselves with the counter-revolutionary Shiite forces against the Sunni masses in an attempt to turn what are potentially anti-imperialist and revolutionary wars into reactionary sectarian wars. It is the stalemate between these dictatorships and their Sunni opposition that has created the vacuum that the Islamic State has moved to fill. Yet the fundamental fault lines of the wars in MENA are not sectarian but imperialist.

Yemen demonstrates this exactly. Look who is driving the ideology of the anti-Shia, anti-Iran realpolitik; Israel and Saudia Arabia with the US providing the intelligence and supplying the weapons. Israel, the Zionist reactionary state has fought wars against Hamas and Hezbollah. Along with Saudi Arabia the home of the Wahabi Sunni sect and al Qaeda, both are client states of the US bloc armed by the US to the teeth, and backed up by not-so-secret Israeli nuclear weapons! But who joins in this god squad of mercenary states after a bloody purge of the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Sisi and his secular Egyptian army that isolates Gaza on behalf of Israel. Turkey even chimes in from the sidelines fearful of a vacuum being filled on its borders by a Kurd nation that threatens its own territory.

Look to see who is backing the opposition. The Iraqi regime forces trained by the US are incapable of stopping the Islamic State. In Iraq, as in Syria, it is the Shia militia led by Iranian generals and backed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that are putting up the only opposition to the revolutionary democratic militias and the Islamic State. Iran is part of a military bloc with Russia and China. Russia has recently committed to supply S-300 missiles which are a defence against aircraft if not an Israel nuclear missile attack. Of course, both blocs are in the final analysis attempting to maintain stability of the whole of MENA against the revival of revolutionary uprisings that become linked into one united struggle.

For a United Front with Palestine!

There is only one force that can solve the crisis of war ridden MENA in the interests of the popular masses, those masses themselves. Revolutionaries recognise that the Arab masses are fighting a revolution against both imperialism and its national dictators, bought and paid for by imperialism. We give no support to fake anti-imperialist bourgeois war lords and jihadist mullahs who claim religious rights to steal the land that has been liberated by the masses’ struggles. If not the creations of one or other imperialist bloc, they are competing to create new bourgeois mini-states that do deals with one or both blocs for the franchise to pump oil or gas.

Against the counter-revolution in Syria, Iraq and Libya, the popular armed militias have to fight the dictators and their imperialist backers, and the jihadists who hijack the revolutions to create caliphates. This can only succeed as a common front with the Palestinians who have carried the burden of the Arab Revolution for generations. The key is Egypt the most powerful state in MENA that is the pivot between the Middle East and North Africa.

As we argued from the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt the workers program against a military Bonapartism of Mubarak (and now Al Sisi) is clear. Re-activate the unfinished ‘democratic revolution’ as the Permanent Revolution. This means building a Marxist party that can raise a transitional program to mobilise the working class to build workers councils and militias to fight for the immediate demands of workers and poor peasants through strike action and a political general strike.

Such a program will challenge the Islamic fundamentalism of the Muslim Brotherhood youth who have come to the fore with the arrest of the old Morsi generation and who are no longer following the road of parliamentary reform. Drawing the masses behind such a program will force the hand of the SCAF to resort to an Al Assad type civil war. This will split the ranks from the SCAF officer corps and create the conditions for an armed insurrection.

The revival of the revolution in Egypt will draw the US and Israel in to defend the Al Sisi dictatorship at all costs. The loss of Egypt would allow the revolution in North Africa to link up to the Palestinian and Syrian revolutions. It would signal that the non-sectarian Arab forces can form a bloc from Libya to Iraq and a potential alliance with the Kurds.

The only solution is the Permanent Revolution where the proletariat, small traders and poor peasants led by a mass proletarian party overthrow the bourgeois state and build a workers’ state. The legacy of the reactionary Stalinist parties that entered popular fronts with the secular Baathists and Nasserites has to be replaced by the program of Permanent Revolution of a new Leninist Trotskyist International.

The Permanent Revolution in MENA requires a transitional program that begins with the struggle for basic democratic rights of assembly and speech. But nowhere in MENA are such rights possible without workers taking power. The semi-colonial state is the agent of imperialism in extreme crisis. Imperialism can only survive by using these client regimes to super-exploit and oppress the masses. There can be no reform of the existing state and society. A revolutionary insurrection is necessary based on workers, farmers, and soldiers councils defended by popular militias from Tunisia to Yemen.

For a Revolutionary Marxist party!

For the Permanent Revolution!

For a Union of Socialist Republics of MENA!

The Syrian Revolution

The imperialists and their local stooge dictators are trying to contain the Arab Revolt. In Tunisia and Egypt the revolution has been steered into a parliamentary transition by the military so far successfully co-opting the majority against the more militant minority. In Bahrain and Saudia Arabia the ruling class has used its military to squash protest and to terrorise dissidents with jail and torture. In Libya, imperialism has directly intervened when it was clear that Gaddafi could not defeat the armed rebellion he provoked, and is now trying to contain the rebellion behind a new pro-imperialist TNC regime. In Syria we have a revolution that is facing brutal repression which continues to galvanise mass opposition in the streets leading to increasing splits in the army and the prospect of an organised popular revolution. But the Syrian opposition has not yet learned the lesson of the Arab revolt. Imperialism and its stooges will not give up power peacefully. There is no peaceful compromise. In Syria, then, we see the most advanced front in the Arab Revolution halted by the opposition’s illusions in a peaceful settlement. The fate of Hama is the acid test.

Hama: Regime vs Opposition

Hama is the key to the fight between the regime and the opposition. The Baathist Regime (which came to power in 1963 based on the tiny Alawite Shia sect) blames all opposition to its rule on the large Sunni majority and radical Islamicists rather than working class opposition to a ruling class dictatorship. The brutal suppression of the Sunni rebellion in Hama in 1982 with 20,000 killed (Robert Fisk’s estimate) proves that the regime only retains power by a dictatorship and cannot be brought down peacefully. Though there are still liberal academics who say that if Assad purges his regime of those responsible for the killings of 1982, and today, then a negotiated settlement is possible.

But the regime's own actions disprove the charge of sectarianism. Its suppression of the opposition is totally indiscriminate; witness the horrific torture, murder and mutilation of Hamza Al Khateeb (picture above). The regime has killed at least 1,500 since the ‘Days of Rage’ in February, and in the last days of July, maybe thousands more.  Promises of ‘new era’ democratic reforms, the lifting the state of emergency imposed in 1963, and planned negotiations, are just ruses to confuse and divide the opposition. These all failed as the demand of the opposition to ‘end the regime’ became more popular. But how to 'end the regime' is less straightforward. Meeting in Turkey on July 17 the external opposition couldn't agree on whether to form a alternative government or wait to see how the uprising went. But they all agreed that it was necessary to use 'civil disobedience' to achieve 'democracy'. Just what 'civil disobedience' means when innocent children are shot in the streets was not made clear.

“As for the domestic opposition, it has fallen short until now and has been slow to organize itself. It is organized into two main groups: the Damascus Declaration group and the National Democratic Gathering. Each group includes several political parties. These groups are the organized domestic Syrian opposition. In addition, youth coordinating committees (tansiqiyyat) today form the backbone of the entire Syrian opposition. Youth are organized within the framework and context of the work and mission they are carrying out: the organization of marches and protests, while also confronting the violence of the regime. They have matured politically. An important document published by these local coordinating committees is until now the best written statement issued by any Syrian side, including opposition political parties. The Union of Coordinating Committees has issued a similar statement, but in lesser detail. It includes over eighty percent of the coordinating committees. Furthermore, the organization now has official spokespersons... Everyone believes in the "three no's" that I mentioned earlier and have one goal. The goal is democracy and the "three no's" are: no to military intervention; no to sectarian strife; and no to the use of arms in any way”. Jadaliyya

A number of individuals and sections from the army have defected, some claiming to have formed a Free Syrian Army. As yet there does not appear to have been any organised armed defence. The central city of Hama became the symbol of this popular opposition when its inhabitants occupied and barricaded it against the entry of tanks for several weeks. But this did not become an armed defence. The situation in Hama opened up the possibility for the formation of armed defence squads to man the barricades against the tanks and defend the city of 800,000. Here was an embryonic commune that could have created a militia to defend itself. But it did not; the ban on arms remained and the lessons of other revolutions, including Libya, were not heeded. Clearly this reflects a class contradiction between the liberal opposition reluctant to resort to arms for fear that this will be used by Assad to justify his armed suppression, and radicals who have sworn that Hama will not be destroyed again as it was in 1982. How they would do that without resorting to arms is unclear. It is likely that Assad knows that the pressure to arm the opposition is building and has now turned once again to open repression to target the militants. On the 29 of July the regime moved its tanks in shooting indiscriminately at protesters and dwellings. 

What are the lessons?

1. First we have to say clearly that this regime, like that of Gaddafi in Libya, is a semi-fascist regime. It responds to democratic protests against its repressive rule by military attacks on civilians. We have to reject the lies spouted by Chavez, Castro etc who believe that because the Assad regime claims to be ‘socialist’ and against Israel so that it is to be defended against imperialism and Israel. Israel is facing big demonstrations at the moment and may use the old ploy it charges Assad with, of seizing on a military operation against Syria to clamp down on its domestic troubles.
2. Second, the Baathist regime cannot defend Syria from imperialism and Israel. Again like Gaddafi, Assad has opened up to imperialism and introduced neo-liberal measures which reward the regime's elite and punish the people. Second, the Baathists like all Arab ruling classes have made peace with Israel and do not actively support the Palestinians. Thus the Baathists are not Arab nationalists but stooges of imperialism and Israel. Only a national revolution lead by the armed workers can defeat the regime and its imperialist allies.
3. Third, the way forward for the opposition is to follow the lead of Libya to build a popular militia to defend the uprising, splitting the ranks of the army from the high command, and building popular committees of workers, poor peasants and soldiers, in every town and city. Assad relies on the officer caste drawn from the Alawite minority (6-12%) to discipline  the Sunni majority (3/4 of population) and Kurd minority, as the base of his army. Already the level of defection has forced Assad to use mercenaries like the Shabbiha (ghosts) to terrorise the population. Drawing on these popular committees it is necessary to form a national leadership that can isolate and defeat the regime and create a new government based on the workers and peasants.

Reform or Revolution?

The liberal view of the revolution is that the regime must either increase the level of violence or negotiate a settlement. It argues that once the merchants, businessmen, professionals etc. side with the opposition Assad can negotiate the terms of ‘democracy’.  But it is obvious that for the masses it is too late for that, especially after the new attacks at the end of July. The call for the ‘end of the regime’ now means all of those who have been implicated in the regime over its bloody history. It’s not a situation like Egypt where the army feigned neutrality and staged a quiet coup. The army is too far embedded in the Assad Regime as most of the officers are Alawites loyal to Assad. There can only be two outcomes.

1. Either, the regime uses total violence and kills 10s of thousands, forcing many more into exile or underground. This may or may not spark military intervention. If the UN decides to intervene under some ‘humanitarian’ resolution, the imperialists will substitute a UN authorised puppet regime in the place of the Baathists to make a ‘transition’ to democracy. This does not change the outcome, as only imperialism's local agent is changed. The Baarthist dictatorship is replaced by a UN sponsored military ‘protectorate’.

2. Or, the opposition organises an armed insurrection, wins over large sections of the ranks of the army, makes clear that those who killed innocent civilians will face justice, but offers amnesty to those who have not taken an active part in the killings. In this way the people can form a popular militia capable of taking power and forming a government based on the working class and poor peasant masses and defeating any attempt by imperialism and its gendarme, Israel, to stage a military counter-revolution.

Permanent Revolution

Revolutionary Communists (not Stalinists, Maoists or phoney Trotskyists who have betrayed the cause of communism) call this process Permanent Revolution. It is based on a transitional program which first raises immediate democratic and economic demands in order to demonstrate in practice that to achieve these a working class revolution is necessary. Thus we support the democratic demands but say that even these demands for ‘freedom’ of speech, assembly, the rights of citizens, workers, etc cannot be realised by any bourgeois government in Syria. To do so would be to give the masses more control over the economy and put limits on the ruling regime’s profits from the economy that has undergone neo-liberal reforms. Such neo-liberal reforms cannot be removed without the nationalising of the economy under workers control.

Already the revolution has proven this to be correct. Basic democratic and economic demands have been met with military repression. And despite recent talk of a ‘new era’ of reforms, this has been a bluff, and the military has again moved into the cities and towns to smash all resistance. It is necessary to reject the call for ‘no arms’ and build armed self-defence committees. It is necessary to organise all those who defect from the army, to get access to their weapons, to stage mutinies and the taking over of arsenals.

In this way a People's Militia can be built capable of resisting and defeating Assad’s mercenaries. To do this it is necessary for the youth committees to take the leadership. Even in the absence of a world revolutionary party, that leadership needs to understand the necessity for a Transitional Program: to call for a national assembly of all the organisations in struggle including the youth, workers, peasants and soldiers committees, to put forward a program for a workers government based on representatives of all the committees of workers, peasants and oppressed people.

For a World Party of Socialist Revolution based on the Transitional Program of 1938!

For a Workers and poor peasants’ Government in Syria and for a Federation of Socialist Republics of the Middle East!