Workers World, Vol. 22, No. 17
April 22 – Can the Khomeini-Bani-Sadr government effectively prosecute a revolutionary war of liberation against U.S. imperialism while simultaneously conducting a ruthless struggle against the working class, the revolutionary students, and all the truly progressive forces, as well as the oppressed nationalities?
This is really the central question facing all of Iranian society. All logic as well as all the historical experiences of the entire epoch of capitalist development, and particularly its latest, most aggressive and expansionist phase of imperialism, speak against it.
Both the Khomeini intransigents and the Bani-Sadr so-called moderates will violently object to any analogy with previous leaders of the anti-imperialist struggle who fell by the wayside and ended up by supporting the cause of imperialism when they attempted to destroy the working class and progressive movements.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely incontestable that Chiang Kai-shek started off as a revolutionary in the struggle against imperialism. Chiang even prattled about “world revolution.” However, when the workers and peasants rightly saw in the revolution the need to take over the factories and the land, Chiang moved violently against the working class and the peasantry, shifted away from his previous anti-imperialist stance, and gradually became the puppet of imperialism.
What took place on the social landscape of China for more than two decades proved to the hilt that it is impossible to effectively prosecute a genuine war of liberation while conducting a war of oppression and persecution against the revolutionary working class and peasant movement.
An example nearer home, although more distant chronologically, is the anti-imperialist struggle of Kemal Ataturk. One look at the sad situation of the Turkish people today under imperialist domination should convince anyone that if, while waging a struggle against the monarchy and foreign intervention, there is at the same time a war against the workers and peasants, suppressing their political freedom to agitate and organize under their own banner, it will end up in a victory for reaction and neo-colonialism.
Where is there a genuine revolution in the Middle East which has completely overthrown imperialism while continuing to persecute and oppress the workers? No, there is no such regime in the Middle East or anywhere else.
The Khomeini-Bani-Sadr government, which in the last few days has unloosed a violent offensive against the progressive and revolutionary students, ordering the closing of the universities and virtually attempting to suppress any type of real working-class dissent, has in truth opened up a counter-revolutionary offensive against the progress of the revolution itself. No amount of bold talk against imperialism can cover up this major retreat by both the Khomeini and Bani-Sadr forces.
Their joint effort to cloak this body blow to the revolutionary forces in the country under cover of religious principles is nothing but deception. It is of course not the first time that religious slogans have been utilized to deceive the masses in order to cover reactionary aims.
The cry for unity in the face of the external enemy sounds now like a hollow mockery. The Carter administration is not deceived by these false exhibitions of unity. Carter himself went on TV on April 21, precisely the day when the rightist elements were unloosed against the progressive and revolutionary students and workers in the universities to proclaim that Iranian society is “disintegrating.” He in fact was indulging in malicious delight at the reactionary blows against the progressive forces.
He also noted the attempt at violent suppression of the oppressed Kurdish people by the Khomeini-Bani-Sadr government. This is precisely what the imperialist bourgeoisie was hoping for – an attempt at suppression of the oppressed nationalities so that the imperialist could find a way to enter the fray in order to use it against both the oppressed nationalities and the bourgeois government in Tehran.
It is most instructive to see how the Bani-Sadr moderates, the representatives of the bourgeoisie proper, who are most conciliatory to imperialism as against the Khomeiniites, have been regarded by vast sections of Iranian society as liberal and even more progressive so far as democratic rights and social and economic issues at home are concerned.
However, this assault of a counter-revolutionary character against the progressive workers’ and students’ movement should unmask the true character of the Bani-Sadr forces. Their liberalism is made of words, whereas in deeds they have consistently capitulated to the rightists in the Khomeini camp on all the fundamental issues.
The Bani-Sadrs always find a formula for at first opposing the rightists in the Khomeini camp. Then, when the rightists attack, followed by Khomeini’s support, they quickly veer and surrender to the right. This is not merely a personal trait of Bani-Sadr. It is a political attribute of bourgeois liberalism which flirts with the left but surrenders to the right in the bourgeois camp in the moment of crisis.
The vacillation of the Bani-Sadrs, Ghotbzadehs, and Bazargans is an international phenomenon of bourgeois liberalism. The fact that it has taken place in an underdeveloped country does not diminish the political significance of this general phenomenon.
As for Khomeini himself, his intransigence is of a transitional character. He cannot vanquish the imperialist foe by first exterminating the progressive and revolutionary forces. All who have trod this beaten path have ended up in the dustbin of history. The lesson for the working class and for its vanguard element especially is most urgent at this moment.
The question must be asked: What phase of the revolution is Iranian society going through? Again it must be emphasized that the revolution has not gone beyond the anti-royalist, anti-shah phase. Notwithstanding the fact that a large and very substantial section of the bourgeoisie has fled the country and taken most of its wealth with it, the bourgeoisie is nevertheless in power in Iran today.
It is in power by virtue of its representatives in all the institutions of the bourgeois state. Does that include the Revolutionary Council? Of course. The Revolutionary Council may be petty-bourgeois in its social composition, but it is attempting to administer the bourgeois state on behalf of the bourgeoisie and not on behalf of the workers, the peasants, and the intelligentsia.
What about Khomeini and the clergy? Although they are not direct representatives of the bourgeoisie, nevertheless, by virtue of their petty-bourgeois aspirations as well as their clerical professions they tend to convey the impression of supra-class politics clothed in religious terminology.
As a social and political force it is to be remembered that they have no independent roots in the process of capitalist production and cannot stand on their own ground. Inevitably, they must pursue a course either on behalf of the socialist revolution or for the preservation and strengthening of the bourgeois order at the expense of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. It is they and Bani-Sadr who bear the direct responsibility for unleashing the reactionary assault on the left.
No amount of religious appeals can mask the class character of present Iranian society. It is divided into antagonistic classes of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The revolution has not stopped the process of capitalist exploitation and oppression. The class struggle has not let up for a minute.
All in the progressive movement who say that it is impossible to fight for working-class demands during a war of national liberation are in reality denying the very existence of the class struggle itself.
A war of national liberation in the context of the Iranian struggle means a war fought by and on behalf of the people. Every people is represented by a specific class from the national framework of the existing class structure. The Iranian people are now led, or properly speaking misled, by the bourgeoisie, which holds the reins of power.
A true war of national liberation can only be fought successfully and to the very end if it represents the mass of the people – the workers, peasants, oppressed nationalities, etc. – and not while the narrowest of social strata holds the levers of power and perpetuates class exploitation. Priority must be given to the struggle again imperialist war, and this is absolutely consistent with giving priority to the broad mass of the people in their struggle for self-emancipation from the bourgeoisie.
The working class has gained immeasurable strength and confidence in the course of the struggle against the repressive forces of the shah and against the bourgeois elements who supported the previous regime. This has elevated the masses onto the political stage in Iran. This is what the bourgeoisie has not accommodated itself to. This is what they will not tolerate. They are only biding their time for the proper moment to strike back, first at the vanguard of the workers, which at the present moment is symbolized by the struggle of the students and intelligentsia in the universities, and then against the working class generally.
The bourgeoisie, because of their basic class interests, cannot permit the onward march of the workers, students, and oppressed nationalities in Iran. They have not been able to do much else except flatter the revolutionary struggle of the workers, hiding their true feelings of intense hatred for the real revolutionary initiatives in the factories and in the universities by the working-class movement.
There can be no denying that a revolutionary situation exists in Iran. An indubitable characteristic of a genuine revolutionary situation is that neither of the basic classes in the country can go on as it is, can tolerate the status quo.
The revolution must either move forward with the working-class movement in the struggle against imperialism or backward with the bourgeoisie against the workers, students, and progressive movements.
The appeal for a so-called “Islamic cultural revolution” is in reality an attempt to turn the clock of history back. It is a masked assault on the democratic and progressive institutions which have developed since the revolution began and which are indispensable for the general enlightenment of the working class and are organically necessary for the working class in its struggle for self-emancipation from bourgeois influence.
The appeal for the so-called Islamic cultural revolution in the context of the present struggle can therefore only result in sheer deception of the masses. It is a mask to bring back clerical obscurantism as a weapon against the workers’ movement and should be resisted.
It is most illustrative of the temper of the governing groups in the Khomeini and Bani-Sadr forces that they have launched their reactionary offensive against the students and the workers precisely when imperialism is girding its loins for its imperialist interventionist war against the Iranian Revolution. The revolutionary working-class forces in Iran are formidable and while the blow struck by the reaction is a severe one, it is only an episode in the struggle. The struggle of the working class and the oppressed masses is only now really beginning.
Last updated: 11 May 2026