A vote of confidence from abroad for Netanyahu and Trump

Abbas Goya

When I first heard the news of the brutal killings on January 8 and 9, I involuntarily turned to the person beside me and said: “Anyone — even Trump — if he overthrows the Islamic Republic, I would not oppose it.”

These words were spoken by someone who considers himself a staunch communist. I do not offer them as a justification. They were not a political position; they were an expression of personal despair — of utter desperation.

For countless reasons already discussed, it is clear that in the foreseeable future no mass movement — without “external” backing or without a qualitative transformation in its forms of struggle — is capable of overthrowing the Islamic Republic. By “external” force, I do not mean foreign states, but the world’s socialists and workers. Such intervention would only become conceivable if workers and socialist activists in Iran could demonstrate that they are a viable force on the country’s political stage. I do not ignore Kurdistan in this equation.

In my earlier piece, “Post–Black ThuFriday: Obstacles and Solutions,” I argued that our response must be urgent and must confront the central obstacle: the apparatus of repression. I did not expect miracles. But the indifference — or rather, the incapacity — of organizations claiming to be communist to address this principal obstacle has been revealing. When no answer is offered from the left, the protesting masses will inevitably seek answers from the right.

I agree with the assessment of the Workers’ Organizing Action Committee, based on field observations from within the protests in Iran: those chanting for Pahlavi are not troubled by the possibility that Reza Pahlavi may serve as a tool of Netanyahu; on the contrary, many see this as his strength. They view him as someone connected to “real power.” Extreme desperation has driven them to reach toward any force that promises to topple the Islamic government.

Last Saturday, Iranians abroad effectively cast a vote in favor of military intervention by Israel and the United States. The gatherings held in support of Reza Pahlavi were not simply about him. They were demonstrations in favor of foreign military intervention. A movement saying “yes” to intervention by foreign states has emerged as a tangible political force.

The recent massacre — which for many amounted to a coup de grâce to civil and peaceful protest — has transformed the political landscape. It did not begin with this massacre, but at that moment the shift became definitive and widespread. Protesters, seeing no path to arm themselves or alter the balance of power internally, have in effect authorized Israel and the United States to intervene. Jerusalem and Washington have acquired a degree of perceived legitimacy for intervention that they could scarcely have imagined. Netanyahu and Trump stand on the verge of being cast as “saviors,” while Reza Pahlavi plays a marginal role — more attendant than leader.

But the essential questions remain: do the United States and Israel truly enjoy such support inside Iran itself? And even if they do, would Washington — despite what appears to be a blank check from millions of wounded and desperate people — actually embark on a project to overthrow the Islamic Republic?

These are the questions before us.

What is to be done? The first step is to refuse denial. I, too, briefly slipped into it, because what stands before us is shocking. But we must move beyond shock. We must look steadily and unflinchingly at the bitter reality of our present conditions. Only then — perhaps, and only perhaps — can we begin to discern a path forward.