France: the war in the Middle East and the reformist left

The imperialist aggression against Iran and Lebanon is provoking outrage among large sections of the youth and the working class worldwide.

[Originally published in French at marxiste.org]

In France, the bourgeois media treat the war in Iran (which they fully support) differently from the war in Lebanon (which they deem ‘problematic’). This difference in treatment reflects the position of French imperialism, which seeks to defend its significant economic interests in Lebanon and its (faded) image as its ‘protector’. Conversely, the young people and workers outraged by these wars make no distinction – quite rightly – between the aggression against Iran and the aggression against Lebanon.

However, it must be noted that, two weeks after the start of these wars, no mass mobilisation has been organised in France to oppose them. There have been protest rallies, but none have extended far beyond the circle of the most dedicated left-wing activists.

To give a collective expression, on the streets, to the anger aroused by the wars in Iran and Lebanon, the organisations of the labour movement – starting with the CGT and La France Insoumise (LFI) – would need to throw all their forces into this battle. Yet, at this stage, they are doing nothing of the sort. This is linked to the fact that their political positions on these wars are fundamentally mistaken, as we shall show with regard to Iran.

The PCR’s position

But first, let us begin by summarising the position of the Parti Communiste Révolutionnaire (PCR) and our International, the RCI. We unconditionally support Iran against US imperialism – which is the most reactionary force in the world – and its Israeli ally. We unreservedly condemn this new military aggression against a country that has for decades been subjected to pressure, sanctions and aggression from the western imperialists.

From the perspective of the struggle of the exploited and oppressed throughout the world, the most favourable outcome would be the defeat of the Americans and Israelis – that is to say, in concrete terms, their inability to subject Iran to their imperialist dictates. Such a defeat would weaken Trump, Netanyahu and their respective imperialist powers. It would also weaken the European imperialists who support the Israeli-American war effort.

People will ask us: ‘But what about the Iranian regime? Wouldn’t a defeat of the Americans and Israelis mark a victory and a strengthening of the mullahs’ regime? Doesn’t your position amount to supporting this reactionary and dictatorial regime?’

Absolutely not. We have no sympathy whatsoever for the current Iranian regime. Incidentally, it has not been weakened by but, on the contrary, strengthened (in the short term) by the Israeli-American aggression, which has had the effect of rallying the masses around the regime. That said, our position on this war is not determined by the nature of the Iranian regime; it is primarily determined by the imperialist nature of the war Iran is facing – and by the class interests at stake.

The most favourable outcome would be the defeat of the Americans and Israelis / Image: public domain

We want the Iranian regime to fall – but we do not want that fall to be brought about by an imperialist war, as this will only worsen the situation of the Iranian masses. It could even lead to the dismemberment of Iran, which Netanyahu openly desires.

Never has regime change brought about by western imperialist aggression led to the emancipation of the peoples concerned. The situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (among others) bears witness to this. In all of these countries, the people have been plunged into barbarism by the imperialist interventions of recent decades, all of which were organised under the banner of ‘democracy’ and other false promises.

Our position is clear: it is up to the Iranian people, and them alone, to rid themselves of the mullahs’ regime. As for the Revolutionary Communist International, we advocate a revolutionary programme in Iran – as elsewhere: to put an end to exploitation, poverty and oppression, the Iranian masses will have to expropriate their capitalists and embark on the socialist transformation of society. There is no solution to their suffering on the basis of Iranian capitalism.

The central problem in Iran is precisely the absence of a mass party defending a revolutionary programme. This party must be built – and it will be built. 

For the time being, one thing is certain: the current imperialist aggression does not advance the Iranian people’s struggle for their emancipation by a single millimetre. Only the struggle of workers worldwide against their own bourgeoisie – and against imperialist aggression against Iran – can play a decisive role in the struggle for the emancipation of the Iranian people. 

That is why we say: ‘Hands off Iran! Down with the American, Israeli and European imperialists! For the unity of workers worldwide against imperialism and capitalism!’

The PS and the CGT

Let us turn to the positions defended by the leaders of the reformist ‘left’.

The position of the Socialist Party (PS) is not worth dwelling on, as it differs in no way from that of the French government. The PS does not oppose the war against Iran and accuses the Iranian regime of “plunging the entire region into chaos and violence”. Their position simply confirms what we already knew: the PS leadership openly defends the interests of French imperialism.

What about the CGT, the most powerful organisation of the French labour movement? In the first paragraph of its statement from 2 March, the leadership of the trade union confederation declared:

“The CGT condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the attack carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran and Iran’s retaliation against eight countries in the region hosting US bases, even as negotiations were underway on the nuclear issue.”

Thus, the CGT leadership firmly “condemns” both “the attack” by the imperialist aggressors and the “retaliation” by the country under attack, which has already endured years of economic sanctions and, last June, 12 days of intensive bombing.

Between the imperialist aggressor and Iran, the CGT leadership refuses to take sides / Image: Avash Media, Wikimedia Commons

Between the imperialist aggressor and Iran, the CGT leadership refuses to take sides: it stands above the fray and castigates both sides “in the strongest possible terms”.

Had Iran not retaliated against the Israeli-American aggression, the CGT leadership would not have had to condemn the Iranian “retaliation”. But since Iran did retaliate, since Iran defended itself (which we believe is its right!), it provoked the extremely firm condemnation of Sophie Binet and the CGT’s leadership. Further on in the statement, this position is reaffirmed in the following terms: “We call for an immediate halt to the strikes” – including the Iranian strikes – “and for de-escalation by all parties”. The CGT’s leadership lumps Iran and its imperialist aggressors together in the same condemnation. It is deplorable.

But there’s worse. Not only does the CGT leadership fail to support Iran against its aggressors, it calls on the European imperialists to “defuse the conflict”. After criticising Trump and Netanyahu, the CGT statement explains: 

“We will not accept France aligning itself with this imperialist and warmongering policy, as the statement published by France/Germany/Britain on Sunday evening suggests.” 

In reality, “suggests” is a very mild euphemism, for when this CGT statement was published on 2 March, the French, German and British imperialists were already making a direct contribution to the war against Iran. But this euphemism is intended to soften the following demand from the CGT leadership:

“European diplomacy must fully assume its role in defusing the conflict and creating the conditions to enable Iranians to choose their own future.”

Alas, in the real world, “European diplomacy” is imperialist diplomacy, based not on the CGT’s statutes, but on the economic and military power of European imperialist powers. Is the CGT leadership unaware of this? One assumes not. The fact remains that by calling on “European diplomacy” to “defuse the conflict” and to “create the conditions enabling Iranians to choose their own future”, the CGT leadership is proposing to place the fate of the Iranian people in the hands of the European imperialists, that is to say, in the hands of a ‘diplomacy’ backed by European militarism – itself linked to American and Israeli militarism.

If we refuse to be swayed by empty words and phrases, there is no other possible interpretation of this statement by the CGT leadership. It is far less openly subservient to the interests of French imperialism than that of the PS, but the results are not very different.

The Greens and the PCF

The official positions of the Greens and the French Communist Party (PCF) are very similar to those of the CGT leadership. They do not express categorical support for Iran against its imperialist aggressors. They do not even affirm Iran’s right to defend itself. And they ultimately call for imperialist ‘diplomacy’. The two things are linked: when one relies on imperialist ‘diplomacy’, one is (at least implicitly) calling on Iran to submit to it.

In its precise wording, the statement from the Greens is slightly more radical than that of the CGT, which should serve as a warning to CGT activists. Otherwise, the Greens distinguish themselves above all by insisting on “the previous Iranian nuclear deal negotiated under the Obama administration (JCPOA)”, which is said to have “demonstrated that negotiation can produce diplomatic results and open up avenues for de-escalation”.

This is absurd. The ‘diplomacy’ in question, under Obama, was based on the overwhelming economic and military superiority of US imperialism. The JCPOA was not an “agreement” between equal powers, but a diktat imposed on Iran: in exchange for a partial lifting of economic sanctions and military pressure, the Iranian regime agreed to submit its nuclear programme to the control of the western imperialists. Is this ‘diplomacy’ satisfactory from a basic democratic perspective? Obviously not. But it fully satisfies the leaders of EELV (Europe Ecology: the Greens).

The French bourgeoisie has jumped on the bandwagon of the Israeli-American war in an attempt to defend its own interests / Image: public domain

On what grounds is France allowed to freely manage its nuclear programme, whilst Iran must submit its own to the controls and restrictions of the western imperialists? Answer: in the name of imperialism, that is to say, in the name ‘might makes right’, which the statement of the Greens claims to reject. This duplicity serves French imperialism, which the EELV leadership does not wish to antagonise.

For its part, the PCF begins by opposing France’s participation in the “bombing and plundering of the Iranian people”. It also writes that, in Iran, “change can only come from the Iranian people themselves”. Very well. But in a completely contradictory manner, the PCF leadership, too, relies on imperialist ‘diplomacy’: “France must work with the countries of the region to secure an immediate ceasefire, halt the widespread violence and ensure respect for international law”. Further on: France “must, with complete independence, be a voice for peace and international law”.

Let us remind the leaders of the PCF that France is an imperialist power – a third-rate one now, certainly, but imperialist nonetheless. As long as the French bourgeoisie remains in power, it will not defend “peace” or so-called “international law”; it will defend its class interests. In this instance, the French bourgeoisie has jumped on the bandwagon of the Israeli-American war in an attempt to defend its own interests, and in particular its credibility with its allies in the region.

Calling on the French bourgeoisie and its government to defend ‘peace’ in the Middle East is to harbour illusions about the nature of French ‘diplomacy’. Consequently, it amounts to de facto support for the lies of Macron and his ilk regarding the real objectives of the French intervention. The primary duty of communists is, on the contrary, to denounce them.

The position of LFI

One might expect the LFI leadership to have put forward a better position than those of the Greens, the PCF and the CGT. This is not the case. In the press releases and statements of LFI leaders, we find the same errors and contradictions. French “diplomacy” is called upon to ensure “peace and respect for international law”.

LFI’s official statements emphasise so-called “international law” and the role of the UN. On this issue, we refer the reader this article from 2016, in which we wrote:

“The UN has never prevented – and will never prevent – a single war. It has never played a progressive role. This institution is merely a forum in which the major imperialist powers debate mainly secondary issues. When an important issue is on the agenda, the UN does not have the final say: it is the major powers who decide, according to their interests. We saw this, for example, with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. For reasons linked to the interests of French imperialism, France had taken a stand against military intervention at the UN. What did the Americans do? They invaded Iraq anyway, without a UN mandate. And this is just one example among many.

“It is true that, at times, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council agree on certain military interventions. But these interventions nonetheless retain their imperialist, and therefore reactionary, character. The first Gulf War in 1990 was supported by the UN. So was the embargo imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003, which, according to sources, had between 500,000 and 1.5 million victims, the majority of whom were children. More recently, there was the intervention in Libya (2011), the results of which everyone can now see for themselves. And what of Haiti, a martyred country which, since 2004, has been living under the de facto dictatorship of the UN ‘Blue Helmets’?”

Furthermore, it must be noted that in its calls for French ‘diplomacy’, the LFI leadership goes even further – in the wrong direction! – than the CGT, the PCF and the Greens. For example, on 5 March, the LFI parliamentary group published a statement asserting that:

“France must obviously respect the defence agreements binding it to several Gulf states, within the framework of a strictly defensive posture, as initially announced by Emmanuel Macron. But this defensive framework cannot serve as a pretext for supporting the offensive led by the United States.”

Nothing about these few lines makes sense. The “defence agreements” between France and the Gulf monarchies are imperialist and reactionary in nature, so the French labour movement must not “respect” them. It must denounce and fight them. As for the possibility of a “strictly defensive posture” by the French military, that is a very bad joke. The mere fact of participating in the “defence” of the Gulf monarchies is a positive and effective contribution to the Israeli-American aggression, particularly in a context where stocks of “defensive” (anti-aircraft) munitions are a decisive factor.

Whatever it may say, the LFI leadership de facto supports French imperialism’s participation in the aggression against Iran.

On the Palestinian question, the LFI leadership stood firm against its opponents on the right and ‘left’. Conversely, this time it is adopting an absurd and, in fact, reactionary position.

The PCR offers critical support to LFI. Whilst defending our Marxist programme, we will campaign for LFI’s victory in April 2027. But the above is a flagrant – and, frankly, scandalous – expression of the profound political shortcomings of the leadership of this reformist movement. All the more reason to build the PCR and the RCI, which firmly defend the ideas and programme of proletarian internationalism.