How Intercontinental Press Grappled with Khomeini's Iranian Revolution in 1979-1981

“Anti-Imperialist” Ally or Emerging Enemy?

The pages of Intercontinental Press (IP) during the crucial years of 1979 to 1981, along with related documents, offer a dynamic insight into how sections of the Fourth International and the US Socialist Workers Party (SWP) grappled with the unfolding Iranian revolution. These sources highlight key areas of agreement, evolving understanding, and significant political debates regarding the nature of the revolution, the character of the Khomeini regime, the threats it faced, and the strategic tasks for revolutionaries.

Understanding of the Iranian Revolution

Intercontinental Press broadly viewed the 1979 overthrow of the Shah's regime as a deepgoing defeat for imperialism. It was seen as a result of a massive and spontaneous popular mobilisation, driven by revolutionary enthusiasm and a desire for change that dealt significant blows to imperialist rule in the Middle East. The revolution's success was seen as inspiring other oppressed and exploited peoples in the region.

Articles reported on the escalating protests leading to the Shah's fall, noting the initial phase marked by open letters demanding democratic rights from professionals and political figures, followed by larger student, merchant, and working-class movements. Religious feast days were utilised as opportunities for mass demonstrations, which repression only intensified. IP featured "On-the-scene reports" from Iran, aiming to provide readers with direct coverage of events.

The revolutionary movement brought about significant initial gains, including democratic rights such as freedom of expression, organisation, and the right to strike and demonstrate. The emergence and activity of workers' committees and shoras (councils) in factories and offices were highlighted as the revolution deepened. The HVK Theses on the Iranian Revolution, published in IP, explicitly described the revolution as a "new stage of the permanent revolution".

Understanding of the Khomeini Regime

While acknowledging the initial anti-imperialist thrust of the revolution, the analysis in IP documents distinguished the mass movement from the government led by Ayatollah Khomeini that came to power. The "Islamic Republic" was characterised by some Iranian Trotskyists as a "New Mask for Capitalist Rule".

This perspective argued that the Khomeini leadership's initial aim was a "cold transfer of authority from the old regime to the bourgeois group around the ayatollah". After the February 1979 insurrection, the Islamic leadership quickly moved to co-opt or suppress mass organisations and consolidate the capitalist state. While workers' organisations like shoras continued to exist and struggle, the regime actively dismantled them or brought them under its control.

Debate existed regarding the characterisation of the Khomeini government. While it was clearly seen as bourgeois, the US SWP leadership, whose views were published in IP, tended to describe it as an "anti-imperialist government". This view was based on the observation that the government engaged in measures against imperialism, such as expelling US military advisers and closing bases immediately after the Shah's overthrow.

However, critics argued that characterising a capitalist government as "anti-imperialist" was problematic. David Keil, in a letter published in IP, went further, calling the government "pro-imperialist," though David Frankel disagreed with this term, arguing it failed to distinguish between a capitalist government resisting imperialism and a puppet regime. The critique "Where the Current Line..." published in relation to Frankel's IP articles, argued that the government's anti-imperialism had weakened after consolidating power and was hostile to the Iranian working class. These critiques highlighted the regime's increasingly repressive nature, including attacks on civil liberties, censorship, and repression against political parties and oppressed nationalities. Saber Nikbeen's analysis, associated with the HKS, described the Islamic leadership's use of "Islamic 'internationalism'" as a pretext for repressing oppressed nationalities. The war with Iraq, starting in September 1980, was also used by the clerical capitalist regime as a pretext to attack grassroots movements and the political opposition, reducing the political space gained in the revolution.

Different Approaches to the Revolution

The documents, particularly those from 1981 onwards discussing the SWP's line, reveal significant debate and differing approaches to the Iranian revolution.

• SWP Leadership's Anti-Imperialist Focus: Articles by David Frankel and Janice Lynn in IP and The Militant (often reprinted in IP) emphasised the central danger posed by imperialism and tended to characterise the Khomeini government as an "anti-imperialist government" that should be defended against imperialist attacks. This approach saw the struggle against imperialism as the primary axis, framing the internal class struggle within that context. They argued that the Khomeini government had roots in the mass revolutionary upheaval and its anti-imperialist policies meant the threat of counter-revolution from this government could be discounted despite partial repression. They also claimed that revolutionary gains like shoras and political parties continued to exist under the regime.

• Critiques of the SWP Line: Critiques published in IP or closely associated documents directly challenged this view. The perspective of "Where the Current Line of the SWP Leadership Goes Wrong" argued this approach represented a "serious departure" from Trotskyist analysis of colonial revolutions. It argued the SWP line "abstractly elevate[d]" the anti-imperialist struggle led by the capitalist regime above the class struggle within Iran and the need for a workers' government. Critics contended that the SWP press downplayed the regime's repression against workers and the left. They rejected the idea of prioritising dangers on a "greater-evil versus lesser-evil" basis, calling it a "sterile way of posing the problem" akin to Maoist ideas of primary/secondary contradictions. David Keil's letter questioned the Militant's position on the crisis and its coverage of repression. Saber Nikbeen's later analysis, associated with the HKS, described the HKE (a faction that split from the united HKS) as evolving towards acting as a "socialist advisor to the Islamic Republic" and adapting to anti-working class actions of Islamic currents.

• Permanent Revolution Framework: The framework of Permanent Revolution was explicitly invoked by some groups, such as the HVK, whose theses published in IP stressed the necessity of transitioning the democratic revolution towards a socialist one. The Sattar League's programmatic declaration in early 1979, published in IP, outlined a transitional program linking democratic and social demands to the goal of a workers and toilers government.

Understanding of the Threat of Counter-Revolution

All sources agreed that imperialism posed a constant threat to the revolution. Imperialist actions included economic blockades, freezing assets, aiding supporters of the Shah, increasing military presence, and conducting press campaigns against the revolution.

However, the central debate revolved around the role of the Khomeini government itself as a potential source of counter-revolution. The SWP leadership line, as reflected in Frankel's articles, argued that the threat of counter-revolution coming from the current capitalist government could be discounted because of its anti-imperialist stance, seeing the main danger as an external invasion or a coup that would replace the regime with something more reactionary.

Critiques strongly contested this, arguing that the Khomeini government was actively engaged in its own offensive to co-opt or destroy grassroots organisations and reconstitute the capitalist state. They argued that the regime's repression against the working class and the left was extensive and that failing to confront the regime's counter-revolutionary measures made it impossible to effectively defend the revolution. The HKS document stressed that the present civil current (the Khomeini regime) had "imposed" conditions of war and repression on the masses, which determined the character of the period. The HKS analysis explicitly positioned the capitalist Islamic Republic as the "enemy".

The centrality of democratic demands versus anti-capitalist demands

The Iranian revolution initially secured significant democratic rights, such as freedom of assembly, organisation, and the right to strike. The initial demands of the liberal opposition included calls for constitutional rights from the 1906 constitution. The revolutionary movement also saw the rise of workers' shoras and demands related to working conditions and economic control.

The debate on strategic orientation highlighted differing views on the relationship between these demands and the overall revolutionary goal. The SWP leadership's emphasis on defending the Khomeini government as "anti-imperialist" was criticised for downplaying the need to struggle for the political independence of the masses and their own demands, which were necessary steps towards socialist revolution. Critics argued that a capitalist government's anti-imperialism must be judged not just on foreign policy but also on its stance towards fundamental democratic tasks like land reform, national rights, and political freedoms.

The HVK Theses, published in IP, explicitly listed "Removing limitations on political freedoms and workers organizations" as a key demand alongside anti-imperialist ones. They saw the suppression of democratic rights and workers' organisations by the regime as inherently linked to its capitalist nature and its efforts to reconstitute the state. The critique of the SWP line argued that ignoring or downplaying the regime's attacks on democratic rights and working-class organisations meant retreating from a strategy aimed at building a workers and peasants government. The struggle for democratic rights against the regime was seen as essential for advancing the class struggle and effective anti-imperialist resistance.