BY WHAT dialectical process did Brian Grogan reach the conclusion that revolutionary socialists must take sides in the Iranian/Iraq conflict? (25 Sept). There is not even a whisper of a Marxist analysis of the nature of the regimes of the two countries.
He writes that the aim of the Iraqi attack is to roll 'back the gains of the Iranian revolution.' Have not Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs done this very successfully themselves without outside help?
Of course we hold no brief for the murderous Baathist regime in Baghdad. But if Hussein has slaughtered communists and Kurds, Khomeini has not been backward in persecuting Iran's national minorities. Hundreds, if not thousands of Baluchis, Kurds, Azerbajanis, and Arabs have fallen victim to Great Iranian chauvinism and Shi-ite obscurantism.
True, in Iraq Hussein has not yet forced women back behind the chador; nor is there any evidence of adulterers being stoned or thieves having their hands chopped off. But I am sure that Brian would not claim these as 'gains of the Iranian revolution.'
On the surface at least Iraq's war aims appear to be only the return of territory seized by the Shah in 1975. There may of course be CIA involvement behind the Iraqi attack but as yet we have no evidence for this. We cannot base our political positions on conjecture.
The correct slogan for revolutionary internationalists to raise is no imperialist intervention in the Iranian-Iraqi war. We must call on the masses of both countries to turn their arms against their oppressive regimes and to set up organs of genuine popular control. This would act as a revolutionary spark which would set the whole of the region aflame.
CHARLIE VAN GELDEREN, London