Barbara Dersim of the German newspaper Junge Welt conducted an interview with İbrahim Alizadeh on the topics of US and Israeli attacks, various tendencies within the Kurdish opposition, and the strategy of communists in Iranian Kurdistan.

Alizadeh (born 1950, Mahabad), the first secretary of Komala – Kurdistan Organisation of the Communist Party of Iran – states: “In our view, this war has nothing to do with the interests of the Iranian people. A real alternative must arise from the people's own struggle, not through foreign intervention,” while explaining their reasons for not joining the alliance formed by Iranian Kurdish parties as “it paves the way for a rapprochement with the US and even the state of Israel in practice.”

The full interview with Alizadeh by Junge Welt is as follows:

Today, various Kurdish organisations from Iran operate under the name Komala. Could you give us some brief information about its history?

Komala was founded in 1968 as a communist organisation and operated underground against the Shah regime for almost a decade. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1979, Komala emerged openly and soon became one of the most influential and popular forces within the resistance movement in Kurdistan. At the same time, Komala’s Peshmerga units were established.

Over the years, many splits have occurred within the ranks of Komala. Today, various groups operate under this name in Kurdistan and abroad. Two of these movements no longer define themselves as socialist. They have moved away from the political line on which Komala was founded in 1968 and have essentially taken a nationalist course. “Komala – Kurdistan Organisation of the Communist Party of Iran” (Sazman-e Kordestan-e Hezb-e Komunist-e Iran), on the other hand, continues to struggle for the realisation of a socialist society.

The US and Israel have been at war with Iran for about a month. How do you assess the geopolitical interests of the powers involved?

In our view, this war has nothing to do with the interests of the Iranian people. While the Islamic Republic struggles to survive, the US is fighting to consolidate its political dominance in the Middle East and stabilise its global position. Just as Khomeini described the Iran-Iraq War as “a blessing”, the current leaders of the Islamic Republic see the war as a tool to distract public attention and increase domestic pressure.

The response of society is also contradictory and complex. A part of the population is so fed up with this regime after 47 years of oppression, poverty, and political suffocation that they would prefer the destruction brought by war over the continuation of this situation. At the same time, under current conditions – bombings, insecurity, instability – the most important issue for many families is survival, not protest.

At the same time, we are of the opinion that a military solution alone cannot determine the political fate of Iran. The attacks by the US and Israel may be effective militarily, but they will not lead to a politically desirable outcome. No bombardment alone can overthrow a government; on the contrary, it may lead to even more extremist forces coming to power.

Our position is clear: this war is a war against the people and must end as soon as possible. In the end, the fate of the Islamic Republic will be determined not by missiles, but by the people in Iran. A real alternative must arise from the people's own struggle, not through foreign intervention.

A week before the war began, five – now six – parties formed an alliance of Iranian Kurdistan political forces. These include the traditional Kurdistan Democratic Party – Iran, PJAK, which is based on the ideas of Abdullah Öcalan, and two Komala factions. Why did your organisation not join this alliance?

The reason for our non-participation in this alliance lies in fundamental differences at the level of political strategy. Firstly, this alliance primarily envisions a top-down power-sharing arrangement between parties during the transition period. We, however, believe that in the event of any power vacuum or the withdrawal of the central regime from Kurdistan, the management of affairs should be immediately transferred to institutions elected by the people – that is, institutions that emerge in the course of the struggle and revolutionary developments.

Secondly, we are of the opinion that armed political parties should surrender their weapons to the organs elected by the people. If the monopoly on violence and arms is taken away from the state, these weapons should not remain in the hands of the parties, but should be made subject to people’s organs that are democratically legitimate and accountable. Others speak of forming a joint armed force of the parties.

Thirdly, we believe that no gains in Kurdistan can be permanent without the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. For this reason, the struggle in Kurdistan must be conducted with a country-wide perspective and must rely on left-wing, secular, worker-oriented, and libertarian forces throughout Iran. However, within some forces in this alliance, there were or still are tendencies to cooperate with right-wing movements such as the monarchists or the People’s Mujahedin.

Fourthly, the alliance mentions a “joint diplomacy committee,” but does not clearly state which political line it will follow. This ambiguity paves the way for a rapprochement with the US and even the state of Israel in practice. In our view, participating in such axes is nothing more than a repetition of past defeats and deadlocks.

Fifthly, with Trump’s encouragement, at a certain time, they prepared to send forces from the Kurdistan region of Iraq under the protection umbrella of the US and Israel. We find this policy both politically wrong and militarily and practically adventurous and doomed to failure.

In your opinion, how important is the brotherhood between peoples in a country like Iran?

We see Iran as a multi-ethnic state and believe that all peoples living in Iran should have the right to self-determination. This right is a fundamental democratic principle for us. At the same time, the reality is that only in Kurdistan is there a strong movement with a broad social base. In other regions, there are parties and groups with national demands, but none of them represent a deeply rooted, broad-based movement with social support.

Well, how important a place does Komala’s work hold within the women's movement in Iran?

Our strategy for the liberation of women is based on several key principles. Firstly, the liberation of women from patriarchal oppression and religious laws cannot be considered separately from the working class's struggle for liberation from capitalist exploitation. For working women and men, the liberation of women from oppression and deprivation of rights is part of the path to the liberation of the whole of society.

Secondly, the struggle for gender equality is not just a matter for women, but for all people fighting for freedom, equality, and the overcoming of oppression and exploitation.

Thirdly, the realisation of women's demands depends on this movement gaining a mass character. For this, the active participation of millions of woman workers and labouring women in the struggle is necessary. For this reason, we give special importance to the economic independence of women, and to social and material demands.

Fourthly, the women’s movement faces the wall of oppression of the Islamic Republic at its very first step. Therefore, cooperation and joint action with other democratic movements is inevitable. At the same time, a political line must be drawn against liberal movements that want to use the women's movement only as a stepping stone to reach power.

Fifthly, in addition to their participation in general political, social, and class organisations, women should also develop their own independent, radical, and progressive structures so that the women's liberation movement becomes broader and socially more effective.

Does your party follow a strategy of revolutionary people's war?

Our strategy in Kurdistan aims for a revolutionary transformation whose driving force is the working class and labourers. According to our assessment, the objective conditions in Kurdish society – great class differences, national oppression, oppression by the central state, the deprivation of even the most basic freedoms, and a tradition of resistance and struggle spanning decades – have created the necessary conditions for a revolutionary transformation.

Komala strives to take part in every field of this struggle, to strengthen its radical and socialist orientation, and to bring it to success. The most important elements of our current strategy include the organisation of protest movements, the establishment and expansion of mass organisations – especially workers' organisations – the expansion of opportunities for open political work, the maintenance of its own defence capacity, the struggle against liberal and nationalist tendencies, and the strengthening of Komala’s role in the struggle against national oppression.

We believe that with the fragmentation of the central state's apparatus of oppression, the possibility of establishing a council-based people's power in Kurdistan will arise. Under these conditions, Komala endeavours to have its political programme for people's power in Kurdistan accepted by presenting it to the general council composed of representatives of the people of Kurdistan and to work for the immediate implementation of the programme.