Hilary Clinton slips up on Iran, admits there's a state apparatus and a "group" that controls it.

Mahmoud,  cool the rhetoric, open the economy, we can be mates

I was reading the news this morning and am warned again about the future of the world being threatened by Iran. Let’s see, how many different “foreign” enemies have I had to be concerned about in my life? There was the Soviet Union and their “communism” which the Vietnamese were taking up so four million of them had to die to save us. Oh, I forgot, there was the IRA of course. Then, after the Soviet Union collapsed it was the “war lords” in Somalia like Aidid. Then there was Iraq, they would possibly destroy the US with their weapons of mass destruction that they bought form the USA weapons manufacturers.

Now there is this amorphous group, al Qaeda that is named after a tactic used in struggle. All I really know about them is that a lot of the people influential in it are former allies of the United States receiving lots of taxpayer money and encouragement from the US government and Pakistans secret service, the ISI.

But Iran is emerging as the most dangerous threat to nuclear obliteration and war although the country hasn’t ever invaded anyone as far as I know. I do know, that the US orchestrated a coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratic secular regime (1) of Mohammed Mossadegh and installed in its place the murderous dictatorship of Mohammad Rezā Shāh better known as the Shah of Iran. (2)

Hilary Clinton says to the world, "I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders to take hold of the apparatus of the state," The apparatus of the state is indeed in the hands of religious zealots in Iran, guys with 7th century ideas, something that's never stopped the US government before. But you’ll notice that the appeal to take control of the state apparatus is directed at “civil” (market oriented non mullahs) and “religious” (mullahs that will allow global corporations free access to Iranian oil and markets) leaders. She doesn’t suggest that “workers” “take hold of the state apparatus”. I mean, aren't there more of us than any other group?


We should consider such statements a step in the right direction for two reasons. First, it is a capitalist politician publicly announcing that there is such a material thing as “the state”, that it is not an abstract or “divine” entity. And that she publicly calls for some group, although not workers, to take control of it. So if pro market “responsible” religious leaders can be asked to control the state, then we must draw the conclusion that Ms Clinton believes that it is possible for workers to take hold of the state. She doesn’t raise this because it is not something she supports; she’d rather have the present regime.

Workers taking control of the state in Iran would have a dramatic effect on Iran/US relations; an ousted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs would be wined and dined in Washington as the “trusted” opposition heroic figures in the global struggle for democracy and freedom. Heck, if they fled the country even the Zionists would give them asylum because a workers' government in Iran wouldn't be too popular with them either. Iran also has a long history of political struggle, as does Iraq, against capitalism, colonial domination and, in Iran’s case, the despotism of the US/British imposed Shah. Like Iraq, the CIA assisted dictators crush the Labor movement and physically eliminate opponents.

I think I’ll write to Hilary and ask her if she would consider adding workers to her list of groups she asks to take hold of the state apparatus in Iran or anywhere else for that matter.

(1) Read: All The Shah’s Men by Stephen Kinzer
(2) NYT on CIA in Iran