MIM wants to stress again that it will be doing no double-dealing on Iran. We regard this as ideological duty for all Maoists. It is not something special for imperialist countries, quite the contrary. There is no Maoism calling for defeat by U.$. imperialism in a Third World country. Genuine scientific communists are prepared to go it alone against the whole international communist movement for this point, but it has already proved unnecessary with the growing support for the resolution to disband the RIM.
We are having a very complicated struggle at the moment. It has enough components to become too complicated to comprehend; however, some issues should not be linked together.
MIM will not be making any deals to support the Iran point, because we do not want to find ourselves having to periodically make new deals to support that point. MIM only deals with revolutionary forces for which the Iran point is not like pulling teeth. It's like MIM said about "too much evidence" a while back. You can judge a revolutionary based on how much evidence and what kind of evidence they need before they see a point the same way you do.
Perhaps there are some struggles MIM could win with an effort "like pulling teeth." That would be OK for a united front alliance, but it should not be done in building parties.
The national bourgeoisie can go one of two ways--toward resistance of imperialism or service. When no imperialist is willing to have a certain puppet, that puppet lacks links to finance capital. To call someone under military attack by U.$. imperialism "fascist" is therefore unscientific, unless there is some non-U.$. imperialist willing to have a puppet. Lately that is not happening much.
Democratic presidential candidate Clark admits to having given NATO the order to attack Russian forces at an airport in the Yugoslavia conflict, but another officer mutinied--perhaps all pre-arranged for effect, we don't know. In the 2004 Democratic campaign, this fact came out again, and even some Democrats said, "at least Bush does not attack someone with nuclear weapons!" Russians did go to bat in Serbia and had real inter-imperialist conflict there. For this reason especially, MIM has considerable sympathy for Partija Rada's stance on the NATO invasion, even while we took a different stance--so much for loose accusations that MIM is trying to be a Comintern coming from people mixed up with real hegemonism. Partija Rada came under attack for being a CIA front, but MIM defended Partija Rada because Partija Rada's position fell within limits of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, because of inter-imperialist conflict. It was a matter of which imperialist side to lean against, not a matter of being a lackey of imperialism in general.
(We still have not heard from Partija Rada on Iran.)
In the ex-Yugoslavia case, the proof is that Russian troops did end up on the ground, so it was not just a question of Amerikan lackeys but also Russian ones. Partija Rada perceived this and took the stance that Serbian chauvinism was the key link in the intra-proletarian bloodletting. It's actually the most important instance where the "empire" thesis bites the dust. Partija Rada should not link its own case to the Iranian case and instead should stand as an international example refuting the "empire" theory. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the world has no such inter-imperialist conflict.
Russian imperialism may also go to bat in Ukraine, Belarus etc. We see some inter-imperialist rivalry in the Islamic countries, but no real inter- imperialist conflict yet. Putin did not use the banking system to deliver aid to the Palestinians. Imperialist collusion in the Islamic countries and the Third World is principal over contention at the moment.
The labeling of the national bourgeoisie as "fascist," when it has no links to finance capital will lead to intensified intra-proletarian conflict. The proletarian side must work out its internal difficulties and can only do so in the face of imperialism. When the communists themselves violate the rules of anti-imperialist strategy, there is little chance for anything but intra- proletarian bloodshed.
The RIM (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) is the leading international proponent of intra-proletarian bloodshed and recruiting to the U.$. military machine. RIM teaches its parties to evade class analysis, and so none of their parties realize that the vast majority of bourgeoisie is found in the First World. These parties do not know where the bourgeoisie is and so are apt to oppose the Cultural Revolution and support revisionism. They are likely to name non-bourgeois people bourgeois in the Third World especially. Politically, the next logical step is to start calling people "fascists" with no class analysis. Their plot is to stir up intra-proletarian bloodletting along religious lines and recruit troops for imperialism from Aztlan and other countries in the name of globalization.
MIM sympathizes with the parties that have been put on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list at one time or another. If these parties maneuver to be taken off the list, that is understandable, especially in the heat of the struggle. Nonetheless, these organizations cannot expect MIM to accept geopolitical compromise of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles. It is not in the interest of formation of new Maoist parties to promote knowledge of parties that are at a stage of needing a relative accommodation with u.$. imperialism. In fact, this perception of accommodation may be the reason that new Maoist parties have not formed despite some examples of People's War since the 1980s.
We suspect it may be normal for some parties to be in temporary difficulties. Yet what MIM is looking for is a party conducting People's War that will serve as an example of how we can teach the principles of Maoism. Even one such party would be sufficient. That would be ideal, but short of that, a statement on Iran opposing Maoists' adoption of the defeatist strategy would still be a good step forward.