An urgent appeal to people everywhere!

For some time, now, the US/UK leadership has had plans to attack Iran as part of their overall strategy of extending their control over the Middle East and, ultimately, the world. It looks like this attack may now be about to happen. The launching of the Iranian Euro spot-market in oil on the 20^th March may well be a factor in precipitating this aggression. The consequences of such an attack are incalculable but it could certainly bring about a wider, even global war. There are also strong indications that the US/UK plan to use nuclear weapons.

It is true that a Russian compromise – Iran’s nuclear fuel to be processed in Russia – is still possible, but there is no diplomatic solution to this crisis from the US/UK point of view: they merely intend to use diplomacy to trigger war, as they did in the period preceding the invasion of Iraq. If “the diplomatic process” fails to provide a pretext for war, they may seek to provide another through setting up a provocation of some kind, for example, a terrorist attack attributed to Iran.

It’s up to us!

Clearly, it is absolutely necessary to oppose this escalation of the war but there is no point in waiting for official peace movements to do the work. They have already failed miserably by not warning us about or opposing energetically these monstrous plans for a greater war: now it is up to us.

What we can do.

1) We must do everything we can to inform ourselves and then to inform others. Hours spent researching on the internet are not wasted as long as the information is passed on to others. Create E-mail lists and spread the word far and wide.

2) The internet is a great tool – but it is not enough! You must also engage with others directly. Talk to family, friends and colleagues. Take to the streets, set up a stall, hold rallies, pickets, demonstrations etc. Organise discussions, committees, public meetings etc. Organise educationals, seminars, conferences, boycotts of products of aggressor countries etc.

3) Use the internet and all other media to publicize your activities- whatever you are doing let others know. Provide reports and photos. Contact newspapers, political parties, prominent individuals, representatives, celebrities and so on. In this way small events, even involving only one or two people, can have resonance throughout the world.

From small beginnings a thousand tributaries can come together to form a global peace movement. It is important to realize that only a tiny group of warmongers are behind these war plans and that we have allies everywhere throughout the whole of society and throughout the world.

Now more than ever peace is necessary and for the first time in human history it is also possible. At stake is the future of us all but let us think most of all of the new generations: we must pass on a peaceful world and viable eco-system to them.

Let’s work together now to make this future possible.

We are about to set up a website: www.defendiran.org which hopefully will serve as one point of reference for our movement.

Please translate and circulate this message.

Colin Buchanan,

Glasgow, Scotland, 12^th February

Contact: handsoffiran@hotmail.com

Does the SSP look bovvered?

The SSP, the last refuge of the far-left in Scotland , have addressed the pressing issue of the impending attack on Iran.( Socialist Voice 19th January)

Though lagging far behind the “vanguard” in the shape The Daily Mirror and The Big Issue, its still good to see the revolutionaries getting round to an issue which one could be forgiven, on past record, for thinking lies outside their remit which is focused on the issues which affect “ the day-to-day lives of ordinary working class men and women” and, therefore, presumably doesn’t include global war.

( As a brief aside, the Gill Hubbard, SSP luminary, canvassed the house of an ex-SSP friend of mine who fortunately she failed to recognize. He put it to her that the impending Iran crisis was a much greater source of anxiety to him than prescription charges, to which la Hubbard reply icily,” Well, you won’t be voting for us then”).

The typical SSP articles on issues relating to issues concerning the war don’t actually present any clear unequivocal ideas, but rather procede through suggestion and insinuation; just like the rest of the media, in fact. To get to the sense it is necessary to read between the lines. I reproduce the article below with my own commentaries and finish with a “translation” and conclusion.

Iran’s nuclear plans fuel rumours of third Gulf war

This includes one sensational and disturbing revelation viz. the possibility of a third Gulf War. This of course should on the front page but here is relegated to the status of the secondary focus of this sentence. The subject of the sentence is “Iran’s nuclear plans” whose existence is “fuelling” this terrible possibility of war launched by as yet unknown forces.So, the SSP seem have completely taken onboard the “bourgeois” viewpoint that this whole crisis is due to something Iran has done rather than the long-standing plans of the neo-cons.

“The clumsy bullying of Iran, by the US and its uncritical junior partner the UK, to abandon its plans for nuclear power has seriously backfired.”

This tells us that US/UK are threatening Iran in order to prevent it form developing a nuclear programme. This, of course, is the pretext given by the War Party but, of course, there is ample evidence that their real motivation goes way beyond that. Iran has been named part of the “Axis of Evil”. Is a nuclear programme sufficient indication of “evil” in the minds of the neo-cons? Evidently not, since there are many nations with nuclear programmes which have not been so categorized by Bush & co. Still, for the moment, the SSP is prepared to take the views of the “class enemy” at face value.In addition, one would have thought that the Marxists, ever eager to unmask underlying economic factors, would have leapt at the chance of highlighting the fast approaching launch of the Iranian Euro oil spot-market; but no.

"clumsy bullying"

Is bullying OK if its not clumsy? Are US/UK criminal here or merely criminally inept?

"has seriously backfired"

Something criminal or incompetent was afoot but has now "backfired". Does the SSP know something that no one else does?- I would have thought that they are only just getting into their stride with the bullying and that far from "backfiring" they're on an easy run with no opposition from anyone, least of all the global "anti-war movement" Maybe the War Party's high standards have led them to drop the bullying campaign because their clumsiness has been exposed but, I have to say, clumsiness didn't seem to bother them in the propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq invasion.

"Even Iranian opponents of their country's regime support its right to nuclear power"

This is how it has backfired: because of their clumsiness or clumsy bullying, the Iranian people have rallied round their own government in favour of their own legal right to develop nuclear power.Note that the Iranian government is a regime and therefore by implication, illegitimate whereas the Blair regime would be referred to as the Blair government: that's because Britain is a democracy.

"Hardly surprising given the Iraq disaster. Imperialist meddling has never been so unpopular"

The invasion 0f Iraq was a disaster. Therefore, imperialist intervention is unpopular. If the US/UK had succesfully subjugated and pacified Iraq, then presumably everyone would be queueing up for the same treatment. Oh, the sheer ineptitude! An other missed opportunity.

"All this notwithstanding, military action against the sovereign state has not been ruled out by either Republicans or Democrats and Jack Straw continues to wag a threatening finger and look stern"

There is clear evidence that US/UK has plans for nuclear strikes against Iran, but, of course, they are not saying this openly, concealing their intentions behind the pretence of diplomatic action with the proviso that they may be forced into military action, all else failing. The SSP is quite happy to take this bit of duplicity on the part of their "class enemies" at face value failing to see that the "diplomatic process" is meant to fail.

"In truth, however, there is little the US/UK can do."

They can, and quite possibly will, bomb Iran into the middle-ages but the SSP chooses to reassure us:" everything is OK- don't bother mobilising against another monstrous crime"

"Economic sanctions are an option but given that Iran is the world's fourth biggest oil producer at a time of soaring fuel prices, experts predict such a move would raise still further, from $60 a barrel to as much as $120 with catastrophic consequences for the industrial economies of the Europe and the US."

The sanctions stuff is just part of the diplomatic game, a cover for war preparations. The SSP is happy to take the whole thing on face value: they say that's what its about so that must be true! They wouldn't be lying to us, would they? Surely not George and Tony!

" Nor are the prospects for military action much brighter"

Nothing could be darker for the people of Iran and , indeed, the whole of humanity than the attack which could well be imminent. Does the SSP look bovvered?

"Quagmire"

"The quagmire of Iraq has effectively marginalised any forces in Iran who at one time believed invasion might open up the path to regime change"

So, if they had won a quick victory in Iraq they could have gone on to invade Iran bringing about regime change with the support of oppositional movements.
Does the SSP support these oppositional movements which would be the beneficiaries of a US/UK invasion and would, of course, subordinate the interests of Iran to US/UK imperialism? This would be exactly the position of the neo-cons and one can read innumerable articles to this effect on neo-con websites such as centerforsecuritypolicy.org

" More immediately, any sabre-rattling by the British risks increased attacks on UK troops deployed in Southern Iraq, where militias supported by Iran are active"

But they shouldn't do it because it would endanger British troops in Iraq. Well, that is one reason for not doing it, but certainly not the first one I'd cite.

"The fragility of the British position there was highlighted in Basra last September when tanks were deployed to rescue two SAS men captured by militias."

Two SAS men were caught red-handed carrying out a black-op but once again the official version is good enough for our pefectly domesticated revolutionaries.

"In the ensuing riots, a British Warrior tank was set ablaze and horrific pictures of burning soldiers flashed around the world"

Sometimes the natives get restless.

"Now, large parts of the British occupied zone are now no-go areas and British ministers avoid visits for fear of being caught on cameras with soldiers who have lost limbs or eyes or serious spinal injuries, even brain damage."

We're losing - I wouldn't disagree with that.

"Soldiers have been told not to talk to the media about any of this."


Yes, there has been a total news blackout from the start.

"The news that self-styled New Labour hardman, John Reid is now to visit wounded troops prompts the question- what is he up to?
Sure, he's trying to counter mounting criticism, by soldiesr's relatives and friends, of the government's callous attiotude to wounded personnel."

There is immense discontent within the armed forces; witness the recent leader in The Guardian about the formation of an army union. This discontent certainly involves the issues cited but we can safely assume it goes well beyond these to the whole notion of War without End, the fact that Reid and his gang offer no end in sight and, on the contrary, are sending large numbers of British troops to Afghanistan in what can only be a move to open an eastern front against Iran.

"Victims"
But "Dr" Reid will be adopting his best bedside manner for the cameras, not the victims of his government's war.
Again why?"

By the way, shouldn't that be "regime" rather than "government"- or does the SSP find this gang of quasi-fascist war criminals more legitimate than the Iranian government. Yes, British soldiers are victims of the Blair wars but they are hardly the only or the main ones. Our regime fears that they may have had enough and won't be up for further sacrifices on behalf of Blair's gung-ho gang.

"Chillingly, because the Blair government may be trying to soften the public's resistance to war, either because the furnace of Iraq is about to get even hotter or they fancy another one, this time Iran."

“may be trying”. Surely an understatement! We are witnessing an unprecedented campaign of vilification against a sovereign government and preparation for war at home, including the destabilization of all potential oppositional forces, including the SSP, Respect and the Lib-Dems.

Translation: The SSP takes at face value the mainstream view of the current crisis and apparently regrets that US/UK military action has undermined prospects for" regime change". They seem to be unaware that both the current diplomatic process and the neo-cons professed desire to spread democracy are merely covers for longstanding plans to balkanize and subjugate the Middle East. They are aware that this war and its escalation poses a threat to British forces in the area but seem unaware of the wider dimension of the crisis. The article is underpinned by a vague condescension towards the Iranian "regime" which presumably compares unfavourably with our own blessed democracy which never threatened anyone, is free from human rights abuses and in which the same people haven't taken control over virtually all the media, political parties and institutions.

All on all, this confirms what many of have already observed, namely that this is not a burning issue for the SSP and that it shows a remarkable complacency regarding the danger to world peace and to our own liberties posed by the Blair and his sinister, warmonger gang. After spending a year pretending Iran wasn't a target they now admit that it is: but it is not front page news and this article is hardly a call to action

The Grand Chess Game

Today( Sunday 5^th) has seen the beating of war drums raised to a new crescendo. Senator John McCain made the following remarkably bellicose statement:

“ There is only one thing worse than military action; that is a nuclear armed Iran”. In the context this amounts to saying “ we will use nuclear weapons rather than allow the possibility of Iran even having them”

This is disturbing, but fully compatible with the now firmly established principles of “ full spectrum dominance” and pre-emptive aggression which now inform US foreign policy.

For his part Rumsfeld came out with this piece of hysterical fantasy

“They seek to take over government from North Africa into Southeast Asia and to re-establish a Caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent. They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist empire”

I wonder where they got that idea from.

Iran, as they say, remained defiant.

“ We are not seeking a military confrontation, but if that happens we will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout history.”

One could be forgiven for thinking that war is imminent and who would dare say otherwise. But is diplomacy in fact really finished?

The media obviously seem to think so after yesterday’s vote at the IAEA and after Iran’s apparent cessation of co-operation. The key to understanding the situation is the attitude of Russia.

Many people seem to have picked up the idea that Russia, as well as China, have simply caved in to US/UK demands and are deserting Iran. That is a misconception that has to be immediately corrected: there is absolutely no chance of Russia or China abandoning their absolutely crucial alliance with Iran. What is happening is something a bit more complicated- something more like, well….a grand chess game, to coin Brezizinski’s perhaps unfortunate metaphor for the struggle for power and resources in Eurasia. (Who, after all, would expect to win at chess against the Russians?)

That there is more play in this situation than meets the eye, is evident from the Russian view of yesterday’s events. As RIA novosti put it

“ The IAEA Board of Governors has adapted a resolution Saturday to inform( my italics) the UN Security Council on the Iran issue”

Not even the hint of the possibility of sanctions. At the same time the Russian ambassador to Tajikstan reaffirmed

“ his countries full support for Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme”

A Russian emmissary, Kislyak, visiting Tehran, said that he had conveyed Russia's "friendly advice to Iranian colleagues: to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency."

None of this conveys much sense of a rift between the two countries whereby Russia is setting up in ally for destruction by the US airforce. Significantly, after appearing to rule this option out yesterday, Tehran now says it will hold further talks on Russia’s proposal to enrich uiranium on its own soil( for the background to this possible agreement see Thierry Meyssan’s invaluable article translated on this blog)

That Russia had something up their sleeve was clear already by Wednesday. As Reuters put it.

“Delaying action until March would allow time for Russia and Iran to work on details of Moscow’s offer to purify uranium for Tehran - a joint venture aimed at preventing diversion of nuclear fuel to bomb-making.”

In other words, after appearing to tow the US/UK line on Monday and Wednesday and leaving Iran facing the option of total surrender or the wrath of the UNSC, it became clear that sufficient concessions had been extracted to allow still for a negotiated solution to the crisis. Surely, this was good news!

Not, alas, for the US/UK coalition. They had already set the juggernaut in motion and were prepared to sweep all before them in a drive for war mascarading as a diplomatic process: the goal of the process being war, the diplomacy providing the trigger in a rerun of what we saw before the Iraq invasion.. The point is that even US/UK, inveterate warmongers though they are, need a trigger, some kind of justification for another genocidal (or suicidal) adventure. The Russians may well have played a deft gambit or rather a variant of the Reti opening, which allows the opponent to occupy the centre of the board in an illusory show of strength. The subtlety about this play is that by posing as an honest broker and even a friend of the US, Russia is avoiding putting itself in the firing line and the demonisation which is a necessary prelude to being targeted by the the empire. Thus the US will find itself unprepared when suddenly the Russia- China – Iran alliance gels around the Russian uranium purification proposals. As a bonus, in Europe the atlanticist faction has taken, or been given, the reins and are naturally running with the Americans. They could be in for a fall.

What then has been the response of the US/UK coalition to the sudden realization that, despite their advance formation their position is crucially flawed. Could they adjust their strategy and, if so, to what?

By Thursday ominous noises were emanating from the office of John Negroponte, not the Director of Central Intelligence but the new supremo, the National Director of Intelligence, to the effect that

“the terror network’s core elements are making preparations for terror strikes against America and other targets”

Not to be outdone, the BBC announced that Lord Carlyle, no less, had condescended to view documents purporting to establish that similar attacks would occur over here. Note that this not the usual wolf-cry from one of Tony’s dodgy , masonic police friends but a Lord of the Realm and therefore, one would be led to suppose, a man of unimpeachable integrity( in contrast to Blair’s impeachable lack of integrity).

So, a big effort was being made hit the write buttons, to elicit the due Pavlovian responses from the respective transatlantic communities by parading two archetypes of their respective cultures viz. the cowboy and the squire. The message was being made more absorbable: there will be another terrorist attack.

To whom would such an attack be attributable?

I don’t really see why I should be obliged to answer this question. I’m sure most of you could have a stab at it. But, guesswork apart, those of you who have seen the trailers to this particular film should have no doubt. In their heart of hearts the directors must have known all along that it would come to this so we’ve had some pretty remarkable footage on show for some time. That Scottish daily Express deadline comes to mind “ Maniac plots WWIII”( a reference to Ahmadinejad). Then there were Frank Gaffney’s Jules Verne like fantasies about Iran attacking the US with EMP’s( electro-magnetic pulses for the uninitiated). And, of course, the Times on how Iran was behind the London bombings.

But are they really desperate enough to find a pretext to attack Iran that they would be prepared to do what they always do i.e. arrange for them to attack us first. It does look like it; terrorism is the only way to deal with the diplomatic threat which could stop them from attacking Iran before Iran sets up its Euro spot market. That’s set for 20^th March. Time is running out for the Americans. Time is running out for all of us. If we allow dark forces to synthesize a pretext for war we risk sinking into a mire from which we may never emerge.

This is my translation of an article written in French by Thierry Meyssan(http://www.voltairenet.org/article134908.html)

The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis

The confrontation between the big powers over Iran continues with antagonisms hidden from view. Since December 2002, the USA has accused Iran of seeking nuclear arms in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)

.

The seizure of Iran by the USA would mean them taking control of both the East bank of the Gulf and the Southern Caspian, including their reserves of oil and gas estimated to be the second largest in the world. Already the US have military control of part of the Caspian basin and of a corridor enabling them to link this area with the Indian Ocean( Afghanistan and Pakistan). They have also taken control of the key areas of the Gulf( Saudi Arabia and Iraq). At the end of this operation, Washington should have complete control over the world’s main hydrocarbon production and reserves. It will control the world economy without the need to share power.

At the present stage in the conflict, the big powers are divided with regard to US strategy goals. The UK, France and Germany are convinced that Iran has a nuclear arms programme. They base this on briefing by the US intelligence services who have shown them secret documents asserting that Tehran is working on a Green Salt Project aimed at developing a missile system with nuclear warheads. On the other hand, Russia, China and India consider Iran’s programme to be purely civilian in nature. They base themselves on the Fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeiny, decreeing that the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons is contrary to Islamic teaching.

Objectively, the NPT’s distinction between between legitimate civilian and prohibited military programmes is no longer pertinent given the techniques now available. Civilian know-how and facilities can easily be adapted to military use. A rigorous reading of NPT would lead to the prohibition of nuclear programmes for all states, whereas a more lax interpretation would open the door to generalized proliferation. Without dealing with this question it is impossible to resolve the Iranian case, and it is precisely this grey area which the US is exploiting in order to lead the way to war.

There is, however, perhaps one means of clarifying the situation . A special method of enriching uranium, not yet completely developed, would, once again, allow a clear distinction between civilian and military usage. Russia is endeavouring to perfect this method and proposes that it be used not only for Iran’s benefit but for that of the international community as a whole. This is expected to be one of the three major proposals which President Putin will put forward at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, this summer.

The feasibility of this project remains to be demonstrated. Russia would produce nuclear fuel on its own territory in factories constructed in partnership with the state in question under the control of the International Atomic Energy Authority(IAEA). Detailed procedures still have to be worked out to guarantee the interests of all the protagonists. If this project were to be fully realized international relations as a whole would be turned completely upside down. Russia, as the guarantor of energy provision throughout the world would eclipse the authority of the USA which today satisfies their own energy needs at the expense of the rest of the world.

Iran has made of its nuclear programme a symbol of its independance with regard to Anglo-Saxon colonialism from which it has suffered so much. Contrary to an idea put about for some time now in the atlanticist press, this ambition is not the reserve of a particular faction within Iran but is shared throughout Iranian society. In addition, if the Islamic Republic has abandoned its dream of expansion dating from the Khomeiny revolution, nowadays, it intends to play a leading role in the rejuvenated non-aligned movement.. It also intends to share its demands regarding nuclear power with other countries and reaffirm the right to a peaceful nuclear programme, not just for itself, but for everyone.

Far from being concerned exclusively with Iran, the present diplomatic game will impact on the international balance of power and the intention of the USA, reaffirmed yesterday in the State of the Union Address, to take on unilateral global leadership.

Throughout 2004 and 2005 the various powers have been making increasingly complicated moves. A European Troika was meant to play the role of honest broker between the USA and Iran; they demanded a halt in Iran’s nuclear programme and then leant decisively towards the American camp. Iran, after accepting a two and a half year moratorium on its nuclear research, resumed them on the 10^th January 2006, considering that they had waited long enough as a sign of good will without any serious response form the Europeans. The Russian position had become completely opaque, the foreign minister giving to understand that he shared the point of view of the Europeans until being put in his place by Putin who reaffirmed his commitment to a peaceful solution. Finally, a series of diplomatic missions have enabled Russia, China and Iran to develop a common strategy.

The whole question was given a kick-start when Britain organsied, on 30th January, a « private ministerial dinner » bringing together the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the USA and China.. In the course of this meeting, Jack straw, British foreign minister proposed that the IAEA refer the question to the Security Council, the first step on the way to war. His Russian and Chinese opposite numbers emphasized that such a decision would have no basis in international law. Confident in the viability of their uranium enrichment project, the Russian Federation wished simply to play for time, the time necessary to put together an agreement with Iran i.e. one or two months according to the experts. The dinner was concluded by setting out a timetable which each side presented as a victory: the IAEA Council of Governors will not be able to refer Iran to the UN Security council next week because it lacks the power to do so, but will demand of the UNSC that it be given the powers to do so at a future date.

This compromise allows the Americans and Europeans to maintain the pressure and the Russians and Chinese to gain time. Working out who came out best depends on whether you consider the glass half-full or half-empty.

In practice, assuming that the Security Council gives the Council of Governors the requisite powers, the latter can only put them into effect at their next meeting on 9th March.

The Iranians make play of resenting this horse trading as a betrayal by their friends the Russians. But, it is quite possible that they have obtained a written guarantee from the Russians that they will veto any vote by the Security council authorizing war.

Whatever the case may be, the Iranians are appealing to their partners in the non-aligned movement for help. President Ahmadinejad received a phone call of support from Thabo Mbeki( South Africa, who had produced nuclear during the apartheid era, along with Israel, later renounced them). Indonesia has repeatedly called for peace, whilst Venezuela and Malaysia are soon to receive the Iranian president.

At the same time, Iran is preparing « a world without Israel and the USA ». Tehran is optimistic about putting in place an oil spot market which doesn’t accept dollars. This is already working at an experimental stage. If no nation has officially announced its participation, many are encouraging participation through private companies acting as intermediaries. Now, the dollar is an overvalued currency whose value is maintained essentially by its role as a petro-currency. Such a spot market, once really up and running, would provoke a collapse of the dollar, comparable to hat of 1939, even if its transactions only amounted to a tenth of the world turnover. US power would be undermined by the falling dollar and, in time, Israel would also find itself bankrupt

Washington is then obliged to apply all its force to ensure that the major world powers break with Tehran. Short of war, the US must at least succeed in imposing economic isolation on Iran. Paradoxically, neither option seems possible. The US and Tsahal can hardly bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, since these are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians. Attacking Iran would imply declaring war against Russia. Furthermore, even if strikes were possible, Iran would not neglect to strike back at Israel with the devastating Thor-1 missiles sold to them by the Russians. The Shiites would make life even harder for the occupation forces in Iraq. If the US choose to use an economic blockade of Iran, this could easily be bypassed through Iran’s special relationship with China. Meanwhile, Iran would deny the West part of its oil supply, bringing about a rise in prices of 300% per barrel and a huge economic crisis.

Quite clearly, the outcome of this confrontation depends on the ability of each protagonist to impose his own timetable on events. Meanwhile, the Bush administration stubbornly drives towards a confrontation which it lacks the means to carry through successfully and in which it risks loosing its authority.