A reply to Comrade Callinicos

So a leading member of the Socialist Worker's Party, mainstay of the Stop the War Coalition and Respect has finally come up with a statement on the vexed question of whether there will be an escalation of the war with an attack on either Iran of Syria.

In a way it is odd the we are having a controversy at all about this issue and that so many leftists vehemently insist that this attack will not happen or studiously avoid reference to the possibility. One would have thought that preparing to prevent the worst would be most people's choice in a world where those who brought us Falluja, Abu Graib and Guantanamo are still in power and shouting from the rooftops their intention to continue in the same vein in their pursuit of war without end. But, anyway, what light can Callinicos's article shed on the SWP's thinking on this issue?

It has to be said that an unforgivable error underlies Callinicos's article from the start; he takes at face value the neo-cons programme of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Does he really think it is this which drives them? Would regime change really bring governments sympathetic to the US when even their puppet government in Iraq is beginning to be troublesome? All the indications are that the neocons intend " to redraw the map of the Middle East" destroying, not reforming, states like Iraq, Syria and Iran; fragmenting them into weak and manageable vassal states.

Starting from this false premise Callinicos then assesses likely US actions on the respective possibilities of regime change in Syria and Iran almost as if he was planning one of his own revolutions.

" a combination of external pressure- sanctions, threats of military action", he advises with regard to Syria, " might be sufficient to destabilise the regime"

That's one taken care of: what about the prospects for regime change in Iran?

Here , even though " many people see Ahmadinejad as a creature of the clerical establishment" Callinicos correctly points out that he has a firm base of support in the the country and concludes that " you would have to be a very stupid neo-con to want to invade Iran"

You would have to be a very stupid antiwar activist to ignore repeated statements from the neocons indicating that that is exactly what they want to do.

So Callinicos doesn't look too bothered about all this and there I go, silly old me, getting myself in a tizzy about all this World War III stuff- I really am cutting a pathetic and isolated figure these days.

However , he does make one important proviso. They won't attack Iran- "unless, of course, things get so bad for Bush that another Middle East war comes to be seen like a way out." But , wait a minute, isn't everyone saying just that!- that things really are getting desperate in Iraq. People like General William Odom, Sir Michael Rose, Tim Collins and Simon Jenkins amongst many others. I would have thought there was enough there to bring Callinicos's proviso into play and for a realization that we all have to prepare to stop this terrifying possibility of a greater war. Or is it just that Callinicos wants to hedge his bets retaining some credibility if an attack does come?

So will Callinicos's piece convince SWPers that their passivity in the face of clear and present danger is justified?I hope not! What would ol' Tony Cliffe have made of this dithering bit of sophistry? Come on you Swoppies!- remember how you came out heads held high as Cliffe exhorted you to be "the defiant ones". The moment for revolution is here and its not in Iran or Syria. Now is the moment to expunge the warmongers from the body politic in this country. After all, wasn't that exactly what Lenin did in Russia in 1917?