क्रान्तीकारी नेपाल

Introduction
This document summarises the first stage of an ongoing debate concerning the correct Maoist line on resistance to imperialist invasion. The debate began following an article by Sunsara Taylor in ‘Revolution’ the paper of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) entitled ‘’U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism. ..and the Need for Another Way.’ published on June 10th 2007 . This itself was a reply to an article by two American Trotskyists in the American Socialist Workers Party entitled ‘Standing Up To Islamophobia’ . Sunsara here opposed the tendency of some on the left to give support to the current Iranian regime as a response to threats by the US to attack Iran.
The email debate that followed is what is presented here. Many of those who emailed also linked the debate to the Political Report of the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist)-CPI( MLM). Particular attention was attracted by the statement in this document that the regime should be seen as the main enemy of the Iranian people, even during an invasion by the US.

People also debated the question of whether or not Maoists should support the Iraqi Resistance.

Two lines developed. One, proposed by the RCP (USA) is termed the ‘McWorld vs. Jihad’ line which argues that the world faces a choice between US imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism and that both should be oppossed, even when Islamic Fundamentalists are involved in resistance to US imperialism. This line also includes the line of the Central Committee of the CPI-MLM. This line was endorsed by Borhan Azemi and Reza J, among others.

The other line is termed ‘The National Resistance’ line. This line stresses Mao’s line on wars of national resistance. In particular it highlights Mao’s statment that, based on the objective situation, Maoists should form a broad national united front, which could include reactionaries, to oppose an invasion of an oppressed nation by an imperialist country. This line was supported by Harry Powell and Maoist 1, among others.

The part of the debate summarised here includes email contributions from August 07 when the debate started up until mid-October.

US Imperialism and the Principal Contradiction- The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
First let us look at the Political Report of the Central Committee (CC) of the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist-CPI( MLM). This report is entitled Iran’s Maoists Make Plans in the Shadow of War. It clearly states that “with the intensification of the contradictions between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the possibility of a military attack on Iran has become the main question in Iran and the world political scene.”
However, they go on to stress that the main enemy of the Iranian people is still the IRI: “it is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally. However the reality of the likely future – the plans of US imperialism – should be strongly presented and illusions or support for US policies should be opposed. This is the only way to prevent the disintegration of the mass movement in the interests of one or the other reactionary pole and line up support for the third pole.’
Based on this summation, their program means that “in certain times we may face with a situation where parts of the country are occupied by the imperialist armies and other parts are under the rule of the Islamic Republic-in such circumstances the question of the overthrow of the government in both areas must be the agenda of revolutionaries.”
Sunsara Taylor in her article ‘U.S. Imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism. ..and the Need for Another Way.’ clearly states that “as the U.S. ’s crimes against humanity in the Middle East mount, it is of tremendous importance for people in the U.S. to honestly confront and rise to the profound challenges and responsibilities before us in bringing this to a halt.”
However, she tries to distinguish between the just demands of the people in opposition to imperialist invasion and occupation and the reactionary interests of the outmoded strata: “in the face of an unjust war on Iraq and Afghanistan, there are both the just demands of the broad masses of people who oppose the U.S. occupation and ambitions to control the whole region, as well as the reactionary, theocratic opposition that reflects the interests of outmoded strata within those countries.”
This leads to the warning that “the need to support the just demands of the people should not be conflated with supporting the reactionary fundamentalist forces, nor should the ideology and program of these fundamentalists be equated with the interests of the broad masses in the region.”
US Imperialism And The Principal Contradiction- The National Resistance Line
Harry Powell states that we should judge the significance of Islamic and other reactionary forces resisting imperialism by their objective impact on the political situation, primarily, with thier subjective intentions being the secondary consideration.
Harry states that the principal contradiction in Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan is the contradiction ‘between imperialism and the oppressed nations’ He sees the contradictions between men and women, different national and religious groups in these countries as secondary at the current time. He states that ‘The main enemy of the people of Iraq , Iran and Afghanistan is imperialism; not Islam or homophobia.’
The positive nature of the Iraqi resistance is illustrated by the fact that the US would probably have attacked Iran , if it had not become bogged down in Iraq .
Hisham Bustani warns against ‘turning our back on the resistances in the Arab region and pretending they are not our problem, or the resistances do not represent us simply because they are Islamic or Ba’athists.’
However, Bustani believes that progressives must develop their own strategy for resistance to imperialism, rather than just relying on existing forces. He suggests an expansion of Arab struggle and ‘horizontal unity’ among Arab people to this end. Bustani suggests that progressives must also try to build an ‘optimum’ role for secularism and socialism in the anti-imperialist movement.
Ben Hu writes that Islam is the ‘central ideological pillar’ of feudals and comprador-bureaucra ts in Muslim countries. However, he argues that when an oppressed nation is under the military occupation of imperialist troops, there is a need to unite with any force, including Islamic Fundamentalists who are willing and able to organise resistance.
Ajith of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari, a participant in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM), criticises the lumping together of reactionary Islamic resistance with the occupiers of Afghanistan as enemies of the people. Ajith states this is ‘imperialist economism’.
However, Ajith argues that the relationship between fundamentalist forces and Maoists in a war of resistance is not ’simply antagonistic nor collaborative’ . Maoists cannot deny the objective role of Islamists in resisting occupation but this does not automatically mean they should endorse an Islamist group or unite with it.
Ajith argues against the idea that the world situation should be viewed as a series of inter-ruling class or reactionary conflicts where ‘revolution is only something that is added to this rather than accepted as the principal factor it really is’. In such a context Ajith argues that the defence of the right of oppressed people to resist ‘can only become conditional and weak’.
Maoist 1 takes the line that US imperialism is the principal enemy of the people of the world. Maoist 1 argues that US imperialism has devastated Iraq , Afghanistan and Somalia , reducing these countries to rubble and chaos. Maoist 1 argues that the poverty and mayhem spread by US imperialism is the principal contradiction for the people of the world. If Maoists refuse to accept this, they will simply isolate themselves from the people.
Maoist 1 asks how Maoists can hope to build up an independent force to fight US imperialism, if we do not support resistance struggles in the first place and do not unite with the people waging these struggles.
McWorld Vs. Jihad-the McWorld vs. Jihad Line
Sunsara Taylor characterises Bob Avakian’s [the Chairman of RCP (USA)]concept of “McWorld vs Jihad,” writing that “increasingly, humanity is being confronted with two intolerable choices: Bush’s crusade for empire or a reactionary Islamic fundamentalist response…The Bush regime has committed crimes on a far greater scale and is by far the greater danger to humanity…but both are complete nightmares. Both reinforce and feed off each other, and as they grow, they suck up the air to breathe for secular and progressive forces in this country and around the world… People in their hundreds of millions–in this country and around the world–must be presented with a third option, an option that refuses to choose between crusading McWorld or reactionary Jihad.” In short, the imperialists both depend on and “prop up” these old oppressive relations while at the same time they undermine them with new “modern” forms of exploitation which transform and disrupt those old relations.
McWorld Vs. Jihad-The National Resistance Line
The Trotskyists Thier and Hess, in their article ‘Standing Up to Islamophobia’ criticise Susara Taylor and the concept of a global struggle between ‘McWorld’ and ‘Jihad’.

They state that ‘Support for organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah isn’t primarily the result of a commitment to religious tenets, but because they represent a political alternative that has stood up against imperialism- -chiefly, the U.S. and its main ally Israel .
To understand religiously based movements, the starting point for socialists is not the religious ideology, but the social and political forces such movements represent.’

Thier and Hess argue the RCP-USA attaches too much importance to the ideology of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and not enough to the objective role they play in fighting imperialism.

However they also state that
‘Of course, socialists have important criticisms to make of Islamist forces. As in all religions, elements of Islam are explicitly conservative- -for example, the attitude that women are the inferiors of men. Such positions are barriers to building the most effective resistance to imperialism. ‘

Thier and Hess adopt a stance towards Hezbollah and Hamas that is mainly supportive, though critical in some aspects.
Maoist 1 criticises the Revolutionary Communist Party-USA for its line that US imperialism and Fundamentalism reinforce each other. Maoist 1 asks how America could be reinforcing Hezbollah, when it was sending bombs to Israel to be dropped on Hezbollah positions during the invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Maoist 1 asks how the 4 year long Iraqi resistance to US occupation shows that the Resistance and the US are on the same side.
Similarly, Maoist 1 criticises the Iranian RIM party Central Committee for saying that a US invasion of Iran would be a war of the US against one of its ‘puppets’. Maoist 1 argues that an imperialist cannot have an antagonistic relationship with a nation it controls like a puppet-why would there be the need to invade a country that the US controlled anyway?
Ben Hu points out that Christian fundamentalism underpined the US imperialist conquest of America and the genocide of the indigenous peoples there and how religion is used to motivate US troops in their imperialist wars.
Ajith argues that it is not right to uncritically endorse Islamic resistance but on the other hand it is wrong to say that their conflict with imperialism is just the conflict between two reactionary forces and has nothing to do with resistance to imperialism.
Ajith carries out a subtle analysis of fundamentalism. Ajith appears to ascribe the popularity of fundamentalism to the oppression of poor nations by imperialism. He describes the ‘McWorld Vs. Jihad’ view as imperialist economism because it denies the importance of the national struggle against imperialism.
However, Ajith seems to acknowledge that fundamentalism, despite its desire to return muslim countries to an ideal past, actually just preserves the status quo. The problem is that the bureaucrat capitalist forces that are transforming the countries, in an imperialist way, are also buttressing feudal forces at the same time. This is because the bureaucrat-capitali st forces tend to rely on the feudal forces for the maintenance of their own power and influence. Thus the fundamentalists believe they are struggling against the influence of the West when they are actually giving support to the feudal forces the West relies on.
However, Ajith states that when a country is occupied, reactionary and feudal elements that resist are ‘objectively, a part of the national resistance’, although as has been said, Ajith is not clear when or how Maoists should unite with these forces in such situations. Ajith states: ‘… in the specific context of resistance against
imperialist occupation, the relation between fundamentalist forces
and Maoists can neither be simply antagonistic nor collaborative. It
may contain both of them.’
Mao’s Theory of National Resistance-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
The CPI(MLM) stress the aims of a resistance movement: “In any case, the aims of a resistance are decisive in determining its character. The resistance of forces such as the Taliban and supporters of Saddam is a reactionary resistance. Chiang Kai-shek’s resistance against Japan was based on the aims of US imperialists and his class interests of feudal compradors and not on the basis of the national and class interests of the Chinese people.”
They write that the 1979 Iranian revolution “gave Iran political independence from America and now America wants to take it back. On the basis of such an analysis, they want to mobilise the people on the issue of national and political independence. Such a line is the expression of political compromise. Some of these forces also abuse the theories of the war of resistance against Japan of Mao Zedong.”
For them, the fundamental aspect of a national resistance movement is its direction, summed up by its leadership: “national resistance and wars are those resistance wars which are genuinely lead to national independence and this is impossible without proletarian leadership and social revolution.”
Borhan Azemi places importance on having an independent force before being able to talk about united front “when Mao formulated the united front, there has been well established, well organized, communist party of China under revolutionary line. There have been red areas that have been under the commands of revolutionary masses though leadership of communist party. Talking about Mao’s united Front without mentioning specifications and the timing that based upon that chairman Mao has formulated and practice that theory, is like that once Mao called that type of approach of those that have memorized Marxism-Leninism codes without knowing the historic facts and situation that are facing.”
Mao’s Theory Of National Resistance-The National Resistance Line
Maoist 1 criticises Sunsara Taylor’s article ‘US Imperialism, Fundamentalism. …And The Need For Another Way’. Maoist 1 argues that Sunsara does not take into account Mao’s theory of the War Of National Resistance. Mao argues that before the invasion of an oppressed country, the principal contradiction is between progressives and domestic reactionaries. When a country is invaded by the imperialists, Maoists try to join forces with domestic reactionaries in a united front against the invaders.
Ben Hu expands on this. He states that Mao in China exempted patriotic landlords from land redistribution, although they were expected to reduce rent. However, landlords that betrayed their country and sided with the Japanese were targeted for attack. Ben states the united front policies are about uniting all the people under the leadership of the revolutionary vanguard, against the invader.
Ben points out that Mao actually had as much reason as anyone to hate the Guomindang, as they had killed close members of his family, but he did not let this cloud his judgement.
Maoist 1 challenges the criticism by the Iranian party of Mao’s theory of national resistance. Maoist 1 points out that Mao never thought that Chiang Kai-shek was a nationalist. Mao did not advocate uniting with the Guomindang because of misjudgements about Chinag’s true nature. Rather he wanted to use this alliance to unite with patriotic elements of the Guomindang against Chiang’s line.
Fang Hong Tong quotes Mao as saying that ‘battles can only be fought one by one, meals can only be eaten mouthful by mouthful and that only a fool will try to swallow a whole banquet at one gulp’.
The Iraqi Resistance-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
The CPI(MLM) see the resistance against imperialist occupation in Iraq as spontaneous but inevitable: “the experience of Iraq has shown that the people will not be silent in the face of an imperialist invasion. If the US attacks and occupies the country, the people will resist spontaneously. If the communists are not present on the scene to channel the struggle and hatred of the people towards proletarian revolution, the people might tail the reactionary classes and be lead along another reactionary path.”
However, they criticize the antiwar movement in the West: “among Western antiwar forces, we are facing a trend that pays little attention to the class character and the social programme of the reactionary forces resisting the imperialists. They should distinguish between the different forces resisting the imperialists, and take a position in a way that would help the forming of a revolutionary resistance (not a reactionary resistance) against the imperialists.”
For the CPI(MLM), because there are no progressive forces within the resistance the antiwar movement ends up tailing or supporting reactionary parts of the resistance: “the weakness of the antiwar movement in the case of Iraq is that an anti-imperialist and anti-reactionary third pole has not existed in that country.”
Borhan Azemi & Reza J conclude similarly: “the objective reality in Iraq is that, since the oppressed Iraqi people couldn’t organize their independent force and action-independent from both Imperialists and reactionaries, and couldn’t achieve their struggle for freedom and liberty around a clear revolutionary political vision, they are being destroyed in the press between imperialists and Islamic fundamentalists.”
Sunsara Taylor notes that it is important not to accept the resistance on the basis of its popular support or the fact that it is standing up against US imperialism: “just because something has a big following among sections of the oppressed does not mean that it is a good thing.”
The Iraqi Resistance-The National Resistance Line
An interview with Abduljabbar al Kubaysi, secretary-general of the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance was distributed. Abduljabbar is also the founder of the Patriotic Islamic National Front which includes the Baath Party, the Iraqi Communist Party (Central Command) and the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance. Al-Qaeda is not included in this organisation. Abduljabbar argued against the idea that the Iraqi Resistance was responsible, in the main, for sectarian violence. He argued that the US occupiers, the puppet government and the forces supporting it were all promoting sectarianism for their own ends. He pointed out that the large tribes in the the Arab world usually include both Shiites and Sunnis.
Abduljabbar argues that Al-Qaeda has attracted supporters in Iraq due to the personal morals of its members. They argued against those Iraqis who wanted a temporary accomodation with the US to prevent an Iranian takeover. Al-Qaeda took the name of the Mujahideen Shura Council and argued for a line of protracted armed struggle.
The argument here seems to be that Al-Qaeda has attracted support in Iraq mainly because it provides people with a space to resist the occupation. It also attracts support partly because Islamic ideology has eclipsed Marxist and nationalist ideology in the Arab world, with even the Baath party trying to adopt Islamic language.
Abduljabbar says that 95% of sectarian attacks are carried out by government forces and the West, with only about 5% carried out by Al-Qaeda. Abduljabbar does not defend the sectarian attacks they are responsible for but tries to minimise this aspect of Al-Qaeda’s campaign in Iraq .
Abduljabbar says that Muqtada al Sadr has backed down in his resistance to the US under heavy pressure from the US and Sistani, a Shiite leader who collaborates with the US occupation. Now Muqtada cooperates with the American backed political process and his supporters sit in the puppet Iraqi parliament. Muqtada’s army is heavily involved in sectarian killings although Muqtada has publically opposed sectarianism.
Harry Powell says that the Iraqi Resistance (along with the Afghan Resistance) has tied down a large number of US and UK forces. This limits the ability of the imperialists to launch attacks on other countries. This has showed people around the world that imperialism is not all-powerful and has inspired them. It has also undermined the confidence of the British and American people in their own governments.
Harry Powell also argues that while the resistance has had this positive effect, the religious and reactionary groups within the resistance cannot unify the people, despite their mainly positive objective impact.
According to Ajith, the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Naxalbari , Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam . In Vietnam a revolutionary force was leading a national liberation war. In Iraq the national war is largely led by Islamic forces. However, it is still a manifestation of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations and peoples.
The Threatened Attack on Iran-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
The CPI(MLM) CC report characterises the threat of war on Iran as motivated by the US view that Iran is “a steppingstone to consolidate its domination over the Middle East and the world,” but that to do so “it cannot rely on a regime whose claims to political independence and self-proclaimed ‘nationalist’ character are one of the pillars of its legitimacy.” In addition, “the regime’s dependence on the world capitalist system is mainly through the European imperialists, and it also has ties with the Russian imperialists. This makes it an obstacle to the US imperialists’ plans.”
They go on, “only an anti-imperialist and anti-reactionary pole could mobilise the people and keep them active. Only by an active policy and putting forward the alternative of the third pole can we create hope and motivation for the masses to participate in deciding their own destiny.” What’s more, “the politics of the third pole is a class policy that first of all serves the interests of the working class and the majority of the people and opposes the political power of the reactionary classes and imperialists.”

In essence, this means “the politics of the third pole mean opposition to reaction and imperialism, which means opposition to the Islamic Republic and to any reactionary regime meant to replace it through intrigues, political manipulation, military crimes and possibly years of civil war of the kind going on in Iraq .”
They sum up their proposed position for the antiwar movement thus: “the present slogan of the global antiwar movement should be to prevent a US war against Iran . But this movement must at the same time support the struggle of the people of Iran against the IRI.” This is based on the conclusion that “the reality is that the majority of the people, in particular the people in the cities, would not defend the IRI and would remain indifferent in relation to a war between the IRI and the US .”
Borhan Azemi & Reza J “intend to show that IRI regime is dependent and part of the world imperialist- capitalist system. And its contradictions with U.S. imperialism will not change the nature of this regime. We cannot support one side in the contention between imperialism and the reactionary regime, and stand under the flag of one of those.”
They warn against support for reactionary regimes, including implicit support by not criticizing: “we think that the ISO, by making an absolute case of Islamophobia, has ended up standing with the reactionary Islamic extremist regime of IRI, and against the independent revolutionary front in Iran . This is what the Neocons have forced them to do. ‘You are either with us or against us’!”
The Threatened Attack on Iran-The National Resistance Line
Harry Powell says that Borhan Azemi believes the ‘essence’ of the Islamic regime in Iran is the oppression of women. Harry Powell believes communists should fight for the rights of women but he does not see the oppression of women as the main contradiction in Iran or the Middle East . Nor does he see the contradiction between religion and secularism as being the main contradiction, which is how Harry characterises the line of the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq.
Harry argues against Borhan’s line that the people of Iran should carry on trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) government even when Iran is under imperialist attack. He says such a line would simply isolate the Maoists from the people who do not want their country attacked by the US . Harry says we should call for the popular defence of the country while making clear our opposition to the Islamic regime.
Maoist 1 agrees with Harry’s line on Iran . Maoist 1 criticises the Communist Party of Iran (Marxist-Leninist- Maoist), which is a RIM party in Iran . Maoist 1 quotes this party as saying ‘It is clear that the people’s struggle should be focused on the main enemy, the IRI. As long as the IRI is in power, there cannot be any talk of aiming the struggle against the US and the regime equally.’ This is despite the fact that the Iranian party believes that a US attack and even invasion of Iran is imminent.
Maoist 1 talks of the misery caused by the invasion of Iraq and wonders what would happen if this was repeated in Iran . Maoist 1 believes the Iranian Maoist party would lose the support of the people if it argued that such devasation was better than living under the IRI. Maoist 1 argues that the Iranian Maoists will lose the support of the people if they are seen not to support resistance to US attack. People might even be misled into believing that the Iranian Party is a front organisation for US imperialism.
Maoist 1 points out that the Iranian Party is able to call on the Iranian people to overthrow the Iranian regime, even though it does not have the strength in the country to lead this. Why then cannot the Iranian Party urge the people to resist US imperialist invasion as its main task in the event of US attack?
Maoist 1 criticises the Iranian Party’s idea that if the US occupied Iran that revolutionaries could fight the US in areas it occupied and the IRI in the areas still under its control. Maoist 1 expresses opposition to this idea regarding it as ‘impossible’ .
Hisham Bustani argues that Iran is not a puppet state of imperialism. It is a regional power in its own right, with influence in Afghanistan and Lebanon and close ties to big powers like Germany and Russia . Neither is the IRI an anti-imperialist force. He says ‘ Iran ’s is a pragmatic nationalist/ sectarian project with expansionist aspirations. ‘ He accuses Iran of fostering sectarianism in Iraq and also notes Iranian logistical support for the US invasion of Afghanistan . But Hisham says that Iran does back anti-Zionist and imperialist resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Palestine (Hamas).
The Maoist Task-The McWorld vs. Jihad Line
For the CPI(MLM), “the politics of the third pole are essentially to pose an alternative to both the present and future reactionary regimes. That is why being against the threatened war is not enough. The real challenge is the future of Iran .” “The communists should create a third pole by relying on their closest allied forces that will represent the interests of the majority of the people and work to build a pole that has influence and authority over a vast section of the people.”

They stress the need for leadership over the mass struggles, “moreover, in order that the third pole become more than just an opposition, it must involve itself in leading the mass struggles and become a leading centre for the various struggles of the masses. The experiences of these struggles has shown that when the mass struggles arise, the existence of such a centre can play a positive role in the development of the mass struggle and expansion of revolutionary initiatives, and helps develop the political and practical strength of the third pole. The task of our party in this sensitive period is to draw a clear horizon for the revolutionary struggle.”

However, they still stress this will come about through PW: “Ultimately the third pole, in our view and in fact, is a new political power, one opposed to the old system and its effort to renovate itself. In the final analysis this pole will be materialised through people’s war, a people’s army and the new power. But the politics that will lead there must be put forward now and start becoming a reality.”
Sunsara Taylor stresses that “these things (crimes committed by Islamic fundamentalists) –whether they are being imposed by Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, by the Taliban in Afghanistan, by the state in Iran, or by “oppositional” movements–must be unequivocally rejected, not ignored, prettified, or tailed with identity politics.”
She sums up that: “those opposing the Iraq war and Bush’s “War on Terror” have to firmly direct their main efforts at their own government and at stopping what is by far the greater reactionary force–that of U.S. imperialism. But that does NOT mean having to support the rise of reactionary clerics in Iraq or the theocrats presently ruling Iran . People can and must learn to differentiate between the just demands and struggle for national liberation and the reactionary and theocratic programs of outmoded forces posturing and pimping off the sentiments of broad sections of these societies for national liberation.”
The Maoist Task-The National Resistance Line
Harry Powell argues that Maoists in countries occupied by the imperialists should be engaging in armed resistance. He argues that Maoist armed groups would be better able to defend themselves against reactionaries. They could also unite women and religous minorities-groups the Islamists cannot unite. Once these armed groups were established, they could make a temporary alliance with reactionary resistance groups.
Harry suggests we should be not so quick to condemen non-socialist resistance and more willing to assess the failings of Maoists in not leading resistance.
Maoist 1 says Maoists should study the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) that concluded it could not fight the monarchy and the bourgeois parties all at once. Instead they decided to make an alliance with the bourgeois parties against the monarchy. The plan has been that the contradiction with the bourgeois parties will only become the main contradiction with the defeat of the King. Similarly, Maoists should not fight Islamists and occupiers at the same time, in the same country.
Mohammed Ayub said that revolutionaries should organise people in Iraq without threatening their religious beliefs, giving them an opportunity to demonstrate the material benefits that revolution can bring the people.

Conclusion

This summary only goes up to mid-October and more contributions to the debate have been received since then. Also, the situation in the Middle East has developed in significant ways. The essential question remains the same however. Should Maoists join and try to lead a pole of resistance to imperialism that may include reactionaries? Or should they strive to create a third pole that includes neither Islamic reactionaries nor the imperialists? Who is the main enemy of the ‘Third Pole’ in Iraq? Also, who would the main enemy of this third pole be in a situation like an aggression against Iran, the Islamic reactionary government or US attackers?

Please send your comments on this issue.