Will you shut down Press TV already? »« Forget religion, it’s the army that sets moral standards?!

It’s not rocket science: you can be against war on Iran and also the regime and its nuclear bomb!

Sections of the far-Right in the Israeli government and US administration as well as some western states have started threatening war on Iran over the nuclear issue. The Islamic regime has in turn threatened back. War or any Israeli government military action will only benefit the most reactionary elements in the west and Israel on the one hand and Islamism on the other. It’s the populations at large which will lose – from the people of Iran to those in Israel, Palestine and Syria amongst others.

In addition to the tragic human costs of any such action, it will militarise the political climate and adversely effect the struggles and revolution of the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the people of Syria against Asad, and the Israeli people’s movement for social justice.

Threats of war also encourage the nationalist-Islamic right-wing opposition in Iran and elsewhere. In this midst there are those that date to defend the Islamic regime of Iran under the guise of being anti-war.

Threats of war must be condemned as must any attempt to defend the regime.

It’s not rocket science. You can condemn nuclear weapons, including those of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and war on Iran at the same time and instead side with the people of Iran in their demand to overthrow the regime – not via war and sanctions or regime change from above – but with their own hands and their own revolution.

The overthrow of the regime is not only a precondition for a free and equal society but also a precondition for the end of war and the nuclear bomb.

The Worker-communist Party of Iran has issued a press release on this in Persian, which you can read here.

Comments

  1. unbound says

    Unfortunately, your argument includes nuance and depth. This is not something that sits well with those that are trying to push the war agenda (and most conservative “principles” for that matter).

    Having a father that is locked into the extreme conservative viewpoint, he truly believes that the world should be approached with a black and white attitude (he has literally stated this several times now). Iran is the enemy; therefore, any and all measures are to be used to destroy the enemy. And anyone demonstrating that attitude will immediately have his vote.

    I agree that it isn’t rocket science, but it is still thoughtful on your part. And that is something many of these conservatives are not interested in hearing.

  2. Billy says

    You must be blind to the actions of the Iranian government.
    they consider lying to the world to be perfectly acceptable in their religious beliefs.

    Do you think that the world would participate in “humanitarian efforts” to support an uprising? Chances are we would as Iran much like Lybia and unlike Syria is spelled with a capitol “OIL”

  3. lordshipmayhem says

    How do we handle a situation where we have a leadership of a country that seems hell-bent on going to war with us?

    Thinking people in Europe were against war with Germany in 1938. Thinking people in the United States were against war with Japan in 1940. Thinking people in Russia were against war with France in 1811. None of those thinking people were given a choice by those aggressors. In between the two World Wars, peace groups arose who were convinced that if you weren’t willing to go to war against someone else, that “someone else” couldn’t go to war with you. China, Manchuria, Finland, Poland, the Netherlands and Norway quickly put paid to that idea.

    I like to think of myself as a thinking person. I do not want war with Iran – I don’t want a war with anyone, frankly. But I think we can safely predict that the Iranian Government, at war with its own people and striking out against perceived enemies throughout the region, wants war and is willing to wage war.

    As the history of the Swiss shows, if you want peace, prepare for war.

    • Snapp says

      In terms of aggression, how do you think Israel compares to Iran? Which one has nuclear weapons? Which one has spent the past half century invading neighbouring countries and occupying land? I’m sure Iran would have done the same if it enjoyed the same support Israel has, but this isn’t an issue of handling a single rogue state. I don’t think it’s so morally clear cut as to be comparable to democracy against fascism in Europe. Iran isn’t the only country we should be worried about, we have another (perhaps more serious) contender when it comes to ‘striking out’ in the region.

    • Draken says

      Yes, because Iran has over the past thirty years invaded a total of… err, let me count… a whopping total of zero countries. The first Gulf War was started by Iraq.

      If they indeed managed to build a nuclear device and deploy it by sundawn, they know damn well that Iran as we know it would be reduced to ashes by the combined forces of the NATO and just about any other non-shia neighbour before sunset.

      Have you learned nothing from Iraq? How can you be so thick as to compare a half-developed country in 2011 with Germany or Japan in 1940? For heaven’s sake, come to your senses.

      • noastronomer says

        “If they indeed managed to build a nuclear device and deploy it by sundawn, they know damn well that Iran as we know it would be reduced to ashes…”

        Which is the interesting part. They know they can’t use a weapon so why try for one? Just for the prestige?

        And in fact the same goes for North Korea.

  4. says

    I humbly submit that this is not an “either-or” scenario. There are other options aside from waiting for political change or declaring full out war. Surgical strikes, while acts of war themselves, are not comparable, for example, to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
    An example of a third option is “Operation Opera” of 1981 in which the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq was destroyed by an Israeli task force of F-15′s and F-16′s.
    Political change originating from the masses is what we should strive for, but if there is an immediate danger of Iran going nuke, then surgical strikes may have to suffice in lieu of better options.
    It’s best for the “civilized” (and I use the term loosely) world not to paint themselves into a corner as far as options.

    • noastronomer says

      For a number of reasons surgical strikes/Operation Opera are simply not a realistic option to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. The program is too well distributed and the international political scene is completely different to 1981. Any conceivable strike would leave most of the infrastructure in place*, but now inhabited with a inflamed population. Closure of the Straits of Hormuz & massive retaliation by Hezbollah would be a virtual certainty. Is Israel ready to re-occupy Lebanon? Is the US ready to occupy Iran?

      In short there’s very minimal gain to be had from a strike and the risks are incalculable. A strike might even allow Iran to justifiably declare a nuclear weapons program.

      Although I do believe that Iran IS researching nuclear weapons it does occur to me that Iran may not actually be doing so. But is pretending to do so, because it pisses us, and the Israelis, off. The subtle pretense of a nuclear weapon program could be a useful diplomatic, and domestic, tool without the messy problems associated with actually having a weapon.

      Mike.

      * Also remember that the Israeli strike on Osirak was timed to occur before the reactor had been loaded with fuel. Bushehr has been fueled already and cannot be considered a target.

      • says

        “The program is too well distributed and the international political scene is completely different to 1981.”
        As you correctly point out, the political scene is quite different today, although that does not in and of itself logically support the argument that surgical strikes won’t work. You’ve just stated that things are different. I would submit that our military capabilities are also quite different. Hitting multiple well distributed targets is not outside the scope of our current capabilities.

        “Also remember that the Israeli strike on Osirak was timed to occur before the reactor had been loaded with fuel. Bushehr has been fueled already and cannot be considered a target.”
        You make a valid and very important point there. However,that does not mean that other facilities and key personnel cannot be targeted.

        “Closure of the Straits of Hormuz & massive retaliation by Hezbollah would be a virtual certainty.”
        The first response is more probable than the latter, in my opinion.

        Overall, you make a solid argument against surgical strikes, but I still strongly beleive that they should remain on the table as an option.

  5. Snapp says

    Been hearing some worrying developments with the situation. The US is moving away from diplomacy, and Israel is sharpening its axes:

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011114635741836.html

    I’m no expert on international politics, and I don’t fully understand the situation. That said, from the limited amount that’s visible, I wouldn’t be surprised if we did see military action happening in the near future. Israel has a history of aggression, Iran is in the grip of fervent radicals, and the USA abandons ethical consideration when it wants to secure influence. Now the nuclear issue is coming to a head.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply