Iran: A View from the Labour Front (Rahnema)

This is an extract from a Tehran Bureau interview with Saeed Rahnema, a labour activist in the 1979 Islamic Revolution who is now a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, Canada. The full interview includes Rahnema's analysis of labour's role in 1979 and the aftermath of the Revolution:

TEHRAN BUREAU: When I read articles about Iran today, there is a great deal of social unrest around economic issues, particularly workers not getting paid. There are many labor actions but not a labor movement per se. I wonder what kind of possibilities there are for economic issues becoming more of a question for the Green Movement?

The Latest from Iran (29 March): Questionable Authority

RAHNEMA: There is now a major economic crisis in Iran. Massive unemployment, terrible inflation (close to 30%), and at the same time, as you rightly said, there are many factories that cannot pay their employees. In terms of leadership there is political anarchy.


You have got government-owned industries and then you have partially state-owned industries under the control of bonyads or Islamic foundations. The most significant bonyad is the Foundation of the Oppressed and Disabled (Bonyad-e Mostazafan va Janfazan). These are industries which had belonged to the Shahs' family and the pre-revolution bourgeoisie. After the time of the Shah they were all transferred to this particular foundation, which is now run by people close to the Bazaar of Iran and the clerical establishment. The bonyads are so large and so important that they are responsible for 20% of the Iranian GDP [Gross Domestic Product], which is only a bit lower than the Oil sector. Bonyads are not under the control of the state and pay no taxes.

It is an anarchic system with no serious protection for workers. Workers do not have a right to strike. They do not have unions and this is the main problem.

Many of these industries are heavily subsidized. But the government has decided to end some subsidies, along with the elimination of many gas, flour, and transportation subsides too. By ending subsidies, or having targeted subsidies, there will be more problems and more industrial actions. But these industrial actions --- and you rightly separate labor actions from a labor movement --- need labor unions. Labor unions are the most significant aspect of the rights of workers. Unions need democracy and political freedoms, a freedom of assembly and a free press. That is why the present movement within civil society is so significant for the labour movement.

This is something that tragically some so-called Leftists in the West do not understand. We read here and there, for example, James Petras among others, who support the brutal suppressive Islamic regime, and take a position against women, youth and the workers/employees of Iran who confront this regime. It is quite ironic that the formal site of the regime's news agency posted a translation of Petras' article accusing civil society activists of being agents of foreign imperialism.

What we need is continued weakening of the regime by street protests along with labor organizing. And, I think it is very important that we recognize that the Green Movement is part of a larger movement in Iranian civil society. The Green Movement is a very important part, but, it is not the whole picture. The Green Movement is now closely identified with Mr. Mousavi. So far he has been on the side of the people and civil society. Everyone supports him. But what will happen? Will he make major concessions? That remains to be seen.

TEHRAN BUREAU: There is a lot of confusion about the character of the regime because of its populist rhetoric. I am wondering what effect this confusion has on the possibility of organizing a trade union movement in Iran?

RAHNEMA: From the beginning, there were many illusions about the regime. One section of the Left, seeking immediate socialist revolution, immaturely confronted the regime and was brutally eliminated during the revolution. Another section of the Iranian left supported the regime, under the illusion of its anti-imperialism, and undermined democracy by supporting or even in some cases collaborating with the regime. This section paid a heavy price as well. Now, ironically, some leftist in the west are making the same mistakes under the same illusions.

There are four major illusions about Iran. The first is that the regime is democratic because it has elections. Leaving aside election fraud, in Iran not everyone can run for Parliament or the Presidency because an unelected twelve-member religious body, the Guardian Council, decides who can be nominated. Also, the Supreme Leader, who has absolute power, is not accountable to anybody.

The second illusion is the Regimes' anti-imperialism. Other than strong rhetoric against Israel and the U.S., the regime has done nothing that shows that they are anti-imperialist. Actually on several occasions they whole-heartedly supported the Americans in Afghanistan and at times in Iraq. Anti-imperialism has a much deeper meaning and does not apply to a reactionary force which dreams of expanding influence beyond its borders. If that is anti-imperialism, then the better example is Osama Bin Laden.

The third illusion is that this is a government of the dispossessed. A lot can be said about this, but I will limit myself to two income inequality measurements. Currently the Gini coefficient is around 44. (The range is from zero to a hundred, with zero as the most equal and one hundred as the most unequal.) This is worse than Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, and many other countries, despite the enormous riches of Iran. Interestingly, this figure is not so different from the time of the Shah. The other measurement, the deciles distribution of the top 10% and lowest 10 % income groups, shows that the top deciles' per capita per day expenditure is about 17 times that of the lowest deciles. This figure is also quite similar to the pre-revolutionary period.

The fourth illusion is that the regime is based on a 'moral' Islamic economy and not a capitalist economy. This moral economy, as Petras calls it, is nothing but the most corrupt capitalist system that we could possibly imagine.

TEHRAN BUREAU: There are some nascent unions, such as the bus drivers, sugar cane workers at Haft Tapeh, as well as teachers. These groups have been asking for international solidarity for a long time now. I wonder why those groups have had such a difficult time developing support. Have the conversations among "left" groups about anti-Imperialism blinded them to these small but very real organizing efforts?

RAHNEMA: No doubt. Some among the left in the West make the same mistakes that the Iranian left made during the revolution -- focusing on anti-imperialism and undermining and minimizing democracy and political freedoms. If the left really cares about the working class, how can this class improve its status without trade unions? How can trade unions exist and function without democracy and social and political freedoms?

Another aspect that some leftists don't take into consideration is the significance of secularism and the dangers of a religious state, particularly, the manner in which such regimes impinge on the most basic private rights of the individual, particularly women. Even if the Islamic regime were anti-imperialist, no progressive individual could possibly condone the brutal suppression of workers, women, and youth, who want to get rid of an obscurantist authoritarian and corrupt regime. The underground workers groups and other activists within civil society need all the support they can get from progressive people outside Iran, and they despise those so-called leftists in the West who support Ahmadinejad and the Islamic regime.

Iran: The Opposition's Campaign in the US --- Sequel With Revelations and A Lesson

First, the update on the story of "a senior aide" to Mehdi Karroubi giving a press conference in Washington and the subsequent focus on his comments about a split between the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad, rather than the Green Movement's strategy, objectives, and views of US policy on Iran.

Iran: The Opposition’s New PR Campaign in the US
The Latest from Iran (14 March): False Strategies, Real Conflicts

Having been told that the aide was not Ataollah Mohajerani, the former Minister whose appearance in Washington last October brought tension rather than American support for the Greens, we put together the identity of the aide last night. Tehran Bureau, which to our knowledge has published the only significant report of the press conference, has now withdrawn the cloak of anonymity, so we can confirm that the speaker was Mojtaba Vahedi, "chief of staff" to Mehdi Karroubi since 1982 and editor-in-chief of reformist newspaper Aftab Yazd until January 2010.



The issue was not necessarily Vahedi's emphasis, as tangential as it might be, that "over the past nine months, we've seen Mr. Khamenei go from praise and support to silence to refusal to back the president". (An example of Vahedi's analysis can be found in an interview in Radio Zamaneh.) Rather it was the media's treatment of him as a spokesman for Karroubi.

A knowledgeable EA correspondent summarises:

The Khamenei-Ahmadinejad split is at best a rumor with no substantial elements to back it up. But then again, these people's claim to fame is the ability to produce "insider" information from within Iran and use their former proximity to ruling circles and people within Iran....I am sure Vahedi has proven links and solid contact with the people inside Iran, however he is not necessarily (and my gut feeling is that he isn't at all) a spokesperson or representative for Karroubi. In the same way that [Mohsen] Makhmalbaf doesn't necessarily represent Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The revised Tehran Bureau article backs up this point with the single line, "Vahedi asked that his comments not be attributed to Karroubi."

The problem actually stems from good intentions. Reporters in Washington want to get a picture of events inside Iran but face the challenges of getting around regime restrictions and gaps in communication. So they seize upon individuals --- who may have had significant inside Iran but are now outside the country --- as "spokesmen" when, in fact, they are expressing personal opinions.

In this case, the outcome was a fizzle. Vahedi offered little for "mainstream" journalists to grasp, so apart from Tehran Bureau, the effort disappeared. Yet, if his comments had been reported, they were likely to be misleading and counter-productive: the lead would have been his speculation over Khamenei and Ahmadinejad rather than any sense of the state of the opposition and its ambitions.

Put bluntly, this is a case where older visions of leaders handing down their insights through "senior aides" continue to overshadow the reality of a disparate Green Movement which, battling the regime's suppressions, can struggle to provide a focus for observers. Mir Hossein Mousavi's "We are the Media" still needs fulfilment.

UPDATED Iran: The Opposition's New PR Campaign in the US

UPDATE 14 March: We've put the pieces and think we have the story of what happened at the press conference. More to come....

Iran: The Opposition’s Campaign in the US — Sequel With Revelations and A Lesson

UPDATE 2255 GMT: A journalist at the press conference writes to assure us that the "former Karroubi aide" was NOT Ataollah Mohajerani. The journalist also says that the theme of the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad rift, which was the Tehran Bureau headline (but which we think is tangential in the political situation) was the big pitch of the aide both during the formal conference and afterwards in conversations.

All of this indicates that the attempted PR effort of the opposition has been rather botched, with almost no coverage and a failure to bring out the points that would resonate in the US such as the position on sanctions and the declared aims of the Green Movement.

UPDATE 0915 GMT: Barbara Slavin, one of Washington's top journalists, adds, "A top aide to Mehdi Karroubi...said [President] Obama should send Nowruz [Iranian New Year] greetings this year. However, he argued that the message should focus on human rights and commemorate the scores of Iranians --- such as Neda Agha Soltan --- who have been killed since June by plainclothes thugs, prison torturers, and government executioners."

More than four months after their last public-relations effort in the US, Iranian opposition leaders have made another move to influence American political circles. "A senior aide to opposition cleric Mehdi Karroubi" met journalists at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Friday. The senior aide "worked with [Karroubi] for more than 25 years" but is now based outside Iran (while he is anonymous in the TB story, skilled Iran-watchers will identify him easily).

The headline claim in Tehran Bureau is that the aide revealed that "Iran's supreme leader has cooled his support for president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad". That, in fact, is not much of a story. The claim --- at least as reported in the article --- has no specific evidence but echoes a number of points (such as the incident over Ahmadinejad's close ally Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai) that we have noted since last summer.


What is far more significant is the strategy behind the assertion. Putting forth the vision of a Khamenei-Ahmadinejad rift tries to shift a US Government from an approach to Iran based solely on "engagement"; it may even accept that Washington can work with the Supreme Leader while boycotting the President.

Even more important, but tucked away in the TB story, is this assertion from the senior aide: "The end goal is to have transparent, free and fair elections....Once that happens, you can be certain the Iranian people will elect [a president] who will secure peaceful and friendly relations with the world."

Last October, when a close ally of Karroubi appeared at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, US journalists criticised the Green Movement's speaker for refusing to declare acceptance of Israel and renunciation of Iran's nuclear programme. In this article, no mention of the Israelis or the Bomb and thus no cause for a dismissal of the Greens.

Instead, the senior aide said that the Obama Administration's nuclear-first approach, at the expense of ignoring Iran's human rights violations, is "exactly what Ahmadinejad wants....If the U.S. reverses this approach and focuses on pressuring Iran for its human rights abuses...this is what the Iranian government fears most." he said.

And another point to notice:

Karroubi's aide recommended the use of "smart sanctions", targeted financial sanctions against members of the Revolutionary Guard. "For such sanctions to be truly 'smart', we need only to look at the multitude of companies set up in Dubai in the past 3-5 years," he said, hinting that much of import traffic to Iran from the UAE happened under the auspices of the Guards....

"As an Iranian, I'd hate to see our citizens suffer. But even if they are hurt in the short term, whatever shortens the life of this government is in the interests of the [Iranian] people."