{"id":23868,"date":"2020-04-16T20:48:07","date_gmt":"2020-04-17T00:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theredphoenixapl.org\/?p=23868"},"modified":"2020-04-16T20:48:07","modified_gmt":"2020-04-17T00:48:07","slug":"labour-party-of-iran-toufan-imperialism-enemy-of-the-peoples-and-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/2020\/04\/labour-party-of-iran-toufan-imperialism-enemy-of-the-peoples-and-states\/","title":{"rendered":"Labour Party of Iran (Toufan): Imperialism. Enemy of the Peoples and States!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

a) Independence and National Sovereignty<\/p>\n

Freedom in its basic sense is nothing but the liberation of human beings from the constraints of
\nnature and society. Freedom is achievable only when human beings are capable of gaining
\nknowledge about nature and society and about the objective laws governing them and are willing
\nto change them; in other words, to have the desire to gain freedom.<\/p>\n

In the social scene, the achieving of freedom, as in nature, always requires constant and
\ncontinuous struggle. But, unlike in nature, it accompanies the denial or limiting freedom of one
\nsection of society that has gained its freedom through the oppression of others. For example, the
\nfreedom of women weakens the sovereignty of men and all forces that are involved in the
\noppression of women, and the struggle of nations for independence makes the sphere of
\ninfluence and power of the colonists smaller and weaker. In other words, human societies are the
\nbattleground of various classes and forces which have different and even conflicting interests and
\ngoals and are constantly struggling to achieve these interests and gain “freedom”. The struggle
\nfor freedom and the denial of freedom constitutes the broadest and most fundamental part of
\nhuman activity in existing social issues as well as in nature.<\/p>\n

Independence is basically a sort of freedom, one that guarantees the possibility of non-
\ncompliance as well as obedience. This independence for a country is nothing but the liberation
\nfrom subordination to the influence and dictate of others. Sovereignty is the result and effect of
\nnational independence and the guarantee of its preservation. Sovereignty means the complete
\nindependence of a state to solve its internal and external problems. Any interference, assigning
\norder, pressure, and exerting force \u2013 let alone military intervention \u2013 against a state threatens its
\nsovereignty, independence, and freedom. Sovereignty and independence is the tower within
\nwhich the peoples and nations of the world will be able to create their own state, society, culture,
\nand future without being imposed on by another state or power. Any restriction and denial of one
\ncountry’s sovereignty and independence by others means suppressing the freedom of the country
\nfor the benefit of others. Violating the right to sovereignty of others under various deceptive
\nexcuses such as defending human rights, democracy, etc., means the others are deemed to be
\nincapable of determining their own destiny.<\/p>\n

The view that recognizes national independence and sovereignty for some and void for others, is
\nan integral part of the ideology of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. The more expansion there is
\nof the capitalist economies, of capitalist-driven politics, of the spheres of influence of
\nimperialism, and the gaining of special military-political-economic privileges, the more the other
\ncountries’ freedom and independence will be seriously threatened. Imperialism is by nature
\noppressive and invasive. Its power lies in the perceived or relative weakness of others.
\nImperialism does not recognize or accept equality and justice. The rule of capital, and
\nparticularly of imperialist capital, threatens equality and social justice. The colorful U.S. and
\nEuropean imperialism’s claim of the necessity of a war against Yugoslavia for the sake of
\ndefending the people of Kosovo was no more than an old lie.This was not the first time that
\nworld imperialism has violated the sovereignty and independence of a weaker state by its
\naggressive military invasion. What distinguishes the imperialist NATO attack on Yugoslavia
\nfrom other imperialist aggressions is not that it undermines and discredits the rights, sovereignty,<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

and independence of others at the global level, but that it explicitly declares these issues to be
\n“obsolete” in order to start up a new era of imperialist wars to crush the resistance of so-called
\n“rogue” nations and states in order to maintain the “New World Order.” And all these are done
\nunder the banner of “defending democracy and human rights\u201d!
\nIn other words, imperialism, and in particular U.S. imperialism, seems to have become so
\ndistressed and uneasy and has suffered so much from the absence of democracy and the violation
\nof human rights in many other countries that it has ultimately sacrificed the rights of nations and
\ntheir sovereignty and invaded and destroyed other countries in order to bring them the \u201cgift\u201d of
\nhuman and democratic rights!<\/p>\n

b) The aggressive war and the defensive war of independence<\/p>\n

It can be said that the first victim of any aggression is the truth. In fact due to reaching a dead
\nend in their policies, all aggressors and warlords are forced to pursue war as the last weapon in
\norder to develop and achieve their economic and strategic interests. But these wars have always
\nused an excuse to mobilize and attract people. In other words, they simply lie to the people in
\norder to win the war. Europe’s savage slaughter of the indigenous people following the
\ndiscovery of the American continent and the killing of the “savage Indians”; and the annihilation
\nof the indigenous peoples of Australia and New Zealand are some of the examples. Most of the
\ntime, the lies are accompanied by justifications such as “responding to enemy attacks” as in the
\ncase of the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 at the start of Vietnam war. The Bush war against
\nIraq was launched under the banner of an “attack on United States of America\u201d in the wake of
\nthe terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The attack on Yugoslavia was justified under the
\npretense of \u201cpreventing the killing of the nation\u2019s people.\u201d Aggressive wars in Libya, Syria and
\nYemen were carried out under the banner of humanity and saving civilian lives. Predatory and
\naggressive wars always require a “humanitarian” cover to deceive public opinion.
\nThe very nature of war is determined by policies that have ultimately made war historically
\nnecessary. The imperialists’ invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999 was in fact a continuation of the
\npolicy of disintegration and weakening of the united Yugoslavia. The fragmentation of
\nYugoslavia was possible only in the face of a war. The war began with the “goal” of creating a
\n“peaceful region”without “violence and tyranny of the Serbs.” Using these lies, the imperialists
\nattacked the national sovereignty and independence of Yugoslavia.<\/p>\n

In the 18th and 19th centuries, with the goal of colonial domination of the continents of Asia and
\nAfrica, the new European bourgeoisie introduced the theory of “cosmopolitanism,” which Kant,
\nSchiller, and Goethe worked on with good intentions against the prevailing chauvinism at the
\ntime. They made it their motto to discredit the borders of the countries of these regions. In the
\nearly 1990s, on the basis of the globalization of capital and production and under the new
\nconditions of the collapse of the social-imperialist system, the U.S. became an undisputed power,
\nthe borders of countries were declared invalid again under the cover of \u201chistorical necessity\u201d and
\n\u201ccreating a world market\u201d. And interestingly, those borders lost the necessity of their
\npreservation where general imperialist interest wee concerned. The “New World Order” meant
\nthe unipolar imperialist world, the successor to the former capitalist and socialist bipolar world
\n(or Eastern bloc).<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

The relationship of imperialist countries with weak countries (read: “New Order”;) is the
\nessence of all politics that has been implemented the world over since the 1990s. This is a policy
\nof aggression and colonial dominance, all under the cover of modern globalized imperialism.
\nImperialism has become the most savage and anti-civilization force in human history today. The
\nU.S., driven by capital and with the world\u2019s largest military force at its disposal, considers its
\nborders so sacred \u2013 unlike the borders of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. \u2013 that
\nthey feel compelled to undertake a brutal and endless war in the Middle East in the name of
\n\u201cfighting terrorism\u201d. And now the same policy of aggression is being implemented in Syria and
\nYemen.<\/p>\n

The reality is that globalization is not a denial of national independence. The political fate of a
\ncountry should be determined by its people in accordance with international law. A state that
\nmakes decisions, not on the basis of imperialist interests but on the basis of national interests,
\nguarantees the preservation of that country’s political independence. If the outcome is not favored
\nby the imperialists (as in all former socialist countries, and even now in North Korea, Cuba, and
\nVenezuela, etc.) or if it causes dissatisfaction among its people through oppressive policies and
\nthe use of force and authoritarianism, it is up to its people to change the situation. It is up to the
\npeople to determine the scope of the non-antagonistic contradictions during an imperialist
\ninvasion. It is up to the people to determine how to conduct their struggle. It is up to the people
\nto determine how best to confront authoritarian tyranny after the elimination of imperialist
\naggression and sanctions and the change of reconcilable conflicts to antagonistic conflicts. It is
\nup to the people alone to overthrow tyranny and replace the old rule with a new one.
\nInvasive wars of imperialism and the occupation of countries ruled by tyrannical governments
\n(such as Iraq and Libya) cause disorder and chaotic situations for the people. Such wars create
\ndiscord and social and political tensions, intensify the conflicts within the societies, and generate
\ncrisis. Replacing Assad or Gaddafi or the Islamic Republic of Iran with a regime that implements
\nimperialist programs and policies, though under the pretense of democracy, is not a forward
\ndevelopment; instead, it represents multiple steps backward accompanied by inextricable
\nentanglement in a web of dependency.<\/p>\n

The forward development of a society means replacing its tyrannical and corrupt government
\nwith an independent and popular government. Positive development means the rejection of
\nGaddafi’s despotism and authoritarianism in Libya, the rejection of the Islamic Republic in Iran,
\nand the preservation of the positive factor of independence in both of them.
\nc) \u201cSanctions and economic boycott\u201d: the 21st century language of colonial aggression
\nThe economic sanction and blockade of a country is a direct violation of the UN Charter, and it
\nmeans the violation of the rights of that nation. One cannot oppose the violation of the rights of
\nthe Iranian nation but support the reactionary policy of economic sanctions as “positive”, as
\n“revolutionary” or as a “harbinger of socialism” for Iran.
\nThe nations of the world, regardless of their sizes and religions such as Muslim, Christian,
\nHindu, Buddhist, etc., regardless of their economic power, political influence, and military
\npower, all have equal rights and should enjoy mutual respect. Through the use of threats and
\ndefamation, the aggressive powers attack the weaker nations of the world, humiliate them, and
\ncreate a special status for themselves. To respect the rights of the nations is to believe in the
\nprinciple of democracy. To reject those rights is to accept and embrace the most vile and
\ninhumane elements of colonial tyranny.<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

The tragic fate of the Iraqi national chauvinist Kurds contains many lessons from which we can
\nlearn. The national chauvinist Kurds were in favor of the economic siege of Iraq that killed
\n700,000 Iraqi Arab children. The Kurds supported the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. imperialists
\nand their allies with the vain hope that they might benefit from the bloody aftermath. Today, they
\nhave become a base of the Zionist presence in the region. The fact that the invasion was a
\nviolation of human rights and of the rights of Iraq was of little importance to them. Kurdish
\nnational chauvinists naively hoped for freedom and \u201cindependence\u201d under the U.S. occupation of
\nIraq. And now they are witnessing the Turkish government\u2019s invasion of Syria with the aim of
\nviolating the rights of the Kurdish people and consequently punishing the Kurdish chauvinists
\nwho are in opposition to the pan-Ottoman and pan-Turkish policies of Recep Erdogan. Today,
\nthey are forced to condemn Turkish aggression against Syria. Taking an opportunistic stand
\ninstead of a principled one will lead to disaster. Every democratic country condemns such
\naggression, regardless of who the perpetrator is.<\/p>\n

Even under the pretext of “progressive” intentions, one cannot violate the democratic rights of a
\nsovereign nation. The grand teacher of Marxism condemns pushing socialist revolution onto
\nother countries because this \u201cgood intention\u201d has not come out of the very heart of society or
\nfrom its need for growth. It is, instead, a provocative and mechanical act. Invasion of nations and
\nviolations of the rights of nations cannot be justified by the nature of the heads of state. Those
\nwho advocate the invasion of a given country by using the argument that a tyrannical
\ngovernment is at work and is violating human rights have always wound up siding with the self-
\nserving cruelty of imperialism and colonialism.<\/p>\n

d) Dominance of the Dollar: another tool of suppression<\/p>\n

Current developments tell us that U.S. imperialism tries to preserve the dominance of the U.S.
\ndollar as the default form of currency exchange in the world. As the most powerful economic
\nand military country after the Second World War, the United States of America replaced the
\nBritish Pound with the U.S. dollar as a means of cementing its hold over global exchange. The
\nU.S. dollar was originally guaranteed to be backed by gold. The U.S. government voided this
\nguarantee as a consequence of waging costly wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos,
\ncovering the expense of these wars with the printing of extra dollars that no longer had gold
\nbacking. To save the central bank that had gold reserves, Nixon separated the dollar from gold
\nand let supply and demand in the competitive market determine its value. The exchange of oil
\nand other commodities in terms of dollars and the emphasis on the U.S. dollar as the only valid
\nand stable medium of exchange of global trade gave the United States of America the power to
\nseize control over the global banking and financial systems.<\/p>\n

The Euro, emerging as a competitor to the dollar, lacks the leverage the U.S. holds to maintain
\nits economic dominance. When Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein decided to sell their oil
\nin Euros, the U.S. imperialists prepared to invade their countries. Eventually, Iraq and Libya
\nwere destroyed by wars of aggression. The occupation of these countries actually preserved the
\ndominance of the dollar in the world. The Islamic Republic of Iran also decided to sell Iranian oil
\nin both dollars and Euros. This incensed the U.S. as the dual-currency policy not only increased
\nthe credibility of the Euro, it also shook the dominance of the dollar, the world’s most powerful
\ncurrency. Along with this Iranian move on the dollar, global resistance by China, in cooperation
\nwith the Russian Federation, India, South Africa, Brazil, and other countries in the world
\nincluding Latin America, emerged to end the dominance of the dollar, which had been
\nsystematically destroying the foreign exchange reserves of many countries. Conducting barter<\/p>\n

transactions, exchanging Chinese currency that has become a member of the global currency
\nbasket, establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Shanghai Cooperation
\nOrganization, establishing a free trade zone between the Eurasian Economic Union and
\nestablishing a BRICS group of emerging economic powers (Brazil, Russia, India, China and
\nSouth Africa) are among the tools the Chinese government has set up to counter the power of the
\ndollar. This move has been backed by many countries.<\/p>\n

U.S. imperialism, which has lagged behind in many economic arenas and is trying to boost its
\neconomy by violating the \u201crespectable rules\u201d of the World Trade Organization and abolishing
\nthe \u201crespected and sanctified\u201d neoliberal economic policies for its own country, has to draw a
\nwall around itself and support its domestic production. In such circumstances, it is imperative for
\nthe United States of America to rely on both military aggression and sanctions that are,
\nthemselves, the basis for military aggression in order to maintain the domination of the dollar.
\nAggressive U.S. policy toward the Middle East and Iran is part of this vital, general, and strategic
\npolicy and should be politically evaluated in the context of this dominance. The United States is
\nwitnessing that China’s Silk Road bypasses all U.S. dominance of the seas and straits, and
\nChinese and East Asian goods arrive at European markets about ten days earlier than they do
\nthrough the U.S.-controlled seas. The U.S is a staunch enemy of the Silk Road and does not
\ntolerate its extension towards Europe. Since Iran is a country that is adjacent to fifteen other
\ncountries and because it connects the Caspian Sea with the Persian Gulf, it contains more than
\n2,000 kilometers of the Silk Road, and monitors Middle East oil and gas, it threatens the
\nhegemony of the dollar by announcing its readiness to trade in Euros. The U.S. hostility towards
\nthe Iranian people is strategic and has nothing to do with the polite or impolite conduct of this or
\nthat Iranian government agent. The United States of America seeks only a puppet Iran that
\ndances to its tune.<\/p>\n

In the present world, an important front has been formed. In order to maintain their
\nindependence, territorial integrity and sovereignty, and in order to prevent their destruction and
\nto preserve their prosperity, nations must unite to end the global dominance of the dollar.
\nThe United States of America has established military bases everywhere it could to protect the
\nempire of the dollar and has deployed troops in oil-rich areas of the world that it does not intend
\nto leave. Their wishful presence in Iran also comes with the intention of maintaining the
\ndomination of the dollar and destroying our country. The Iraqi people today are demanding that
\nthe occupiers leave Iraq, but the United States is saying that it will not leave Iraq. The reality is
\nthat the United States is in critical need of Iran as a springboard to preserve its empire of the
\ndollar, to monitor the Strait of Hormuz and protect Saudi Arabia, to restrict the activities of
\nChina and Russia, and to enslave the countries of the region.<\/p>\n

Those sellouts that ally themselves with the U.S. in imposing sanctions on the Iranian people and
\nin overthrowing the Islamic Republic ignore the role of the masses in the struggle against the
\ncapitalist regime of the Islamic Republic. They know that when the struggle rises in Iran, the
\npeople will tie the struggle against the Islamic regime with the struggle against imperialism and
\nZionism in the region and will stand with Arab and Turkish nations to expel those imperialists
\nand Zionists from the region.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

a) Independence and National Sovereignty Freedom in its basic sense is nothing but the liberation of human beings from the constraints of nature and society…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":37417,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[199],"class_list":["post-23868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-iran"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/redphoenix.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/loh.gif?fit=399%2C400&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23868\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/37417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}