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