A fascinating debate on Iran

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Sun Jun 04, 2006 16:03

While the organisation of this debate, outlined above, reflects the decision of the IAWM to place the issue of 'US Warmongering on Iran' to the centre of our activity agenda over the next few months, its timing assumes a much more immediate importance as a result of the Bush administration's decision this past week to consider sitting down with the Iranian government to discuss the future.

The US and Iran have been on loggerheads since 1979 - on its part, for six years, the Bush administration has dismissed the idea of talking with Iran about its nuclear programs, and until last year gave little support to European efforts to negotiate with Iranians on their nuclear activity. Attempts by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, to foster a dialogue were rejected, and even back-channel moves failed to gain traction.

Can this be considered the biggest foreign policy shift of Bush’s Presidency? Albeit that attached to the U.S. offer, publicly articulated by Condoleezza Rice, was a stern condition: a verified suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment operations. But the offer overturned a long-standing taboo, and it came from an administration stocked with officials, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who have made little secret of their desire to overthrow the government in Tehran.

I will attempt to delve into this issue further by examining in more detail the positions of the two main actors in this saga: the US and Iran .
The link between the occupation of Iraq and Iran
I will begin by reminding the reader of Lawrence’s immortal quip:"To make war upon rebellion is messy and slow…it’s like eating soup with a knife." He was, of course, referring to the attempts of the Ottoman Empire to drown the Arab rebellion around Mecca and Medina - the Hejaz. Lawrence, who was working with the British helping the Arabs, estimated after the war that the Turks would have needed 600,000 men to pacify the Hejaz – they didn’t have anywhere near that number and they lost as a result. Today in Iraq, a similar-sized area, there are fewer than 200,000 Empire troops. Soon there will be even fewer. It seems Lawrence's central message, that guerrillas are almost impossible to defeat, is finally beginning to sink in. And this realisation is a crucial element behind the recent US shift on Iran..
After months of pressure from both sides of the political divide in Washington DC, the Bush administration on Wednesday announced that it would join Europe in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme. The secretary of state, Rice, presented the decision as proof that the United States is serious about pursuing all avenues of diplomacy before resorting to a military option. Since becoming secretary of state last year, Rice has worked assiduously to make certain that the United States does not manoeuvre itself into becoming the world's enemy No. 1, as it did on the Iraq war. But if this week's announcement indicates anything, it is that the White House has finally begun to recognise, or at least deal with, what its own policy advisers and military analysts have been privately saying for some time: there is no military option with regard to Iran. War with Iran simply doesn’t make sense! But then, how much sense did the invasion of Iran make three years ago?

It is my assertion that the Bush administration made this move at a moment of weakness. The president's public opinion ratings are among the lowest ever recorded for a modern president, and oil prices have reached record levels, in part because of the confrontation with Iran. The high price of oil, in turn, has enriched the Iranian treasury. Iran recently announced it had learned how to achieve a key aspect of enriching uranium -- sooner than expected -- raising the stakes in the confrontation. Even so, the lingering fallout from the administration's decision to attack Iraq has made it increasingly difficult to win the support for sanctions on Iran from critical nations such as Russia and China.

It is, I believe, significant to note that just over a year ago, in March 2005, Rice was saying the following: "We've made very clear that we have a lot of other problems with the Iranians. We've also made very clear that we don't intend to do anything to legitimize the Iranian regime. And so what we're looking at here is helping the Europeans in their diplomacy, not shifting policy toward Iran."

But the Iranians walked away from those talks, and the administration slowly found itself drawn into a different stance as the diplomacy unfolded. Rice needed to win over the Russians and Chinese -- and keep the Europeans in line -- so she quietly dropped the objections to the Iranian desire for nuclear power. Previously, the administration had insisted Iran had no need for nuclear power because of its vast oil and gas reserves. But to placate other nations, U.S. officials retreated from that insistence. She’s now saying: "The Iranian people believe they have a right to civil nuclear energy…..we acknowledge that right."!!

Over the past two months Bush and Rice, along with Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, have considered the question of whether the time was right for the United States to sit at the talks. Once Bush received assurances earlier this week from leaders of China, Russia and other nations that if this offer were rejected they would accept a harder line against Iran, U.S. officials decided to go forward with the plan.

Conservatives in the administration have chafed at the shifts, suggesting it shows weakness on the part of the United States because Iran apparently has been able to make significant progress in nuclear energy -- with little apparent consequence.
Rice made this new move just as it appeared the European effort was on the verge of collapsing through division and lack of leadership. The Germans, eager to strike a deal with Iran, have been the most adamant that the United States needed to join the talks.
My position on this is that whatever happens, whether as it’s most likely Iran considers and rejects the offer, the very offer of talks strengthens the fundamental U.S. policy of halting Iran’s progress and destroying its regime. Here's why.
Every significant agreement in recent history — from Cold War weapons reductions to Libya's abandonment of its nuclear program — has involved negotiations involving the United States, the world's only superpower. Talks with Iran, if they occur, might just succeed. That's a long shot, of course, but it would be the best outcome for the West and Israel The more likely outcome is that Iran either spurns talks or that talks fail. Initial reactions from Tehran on Wednesday were indeed negative; the official Iranian news agency called the U.S. offer "a propaganda move."
If the Iranians refuse to negotiate, the Bush administration will be in a stronger position to orchestrate tough punitive measures, beginning with sanctions. It could not be accused, as it was over Iraq, of not exhausting diplomatic options. To date, Bush has spurned traditional diplomacy at great cost. In the Gulf War of 1991, diplomacy persuaded allies to join in and foot most of the bill. In the current Iraq war, the go-it-alone U.S. approach has had a devastating cost in lives, money and reputation.

Let us now look at Iran in a bit more detail:

Iran is in a very favourable bargaining position

[With thanks to Reza Aslan and his essay ‘A Giant Awakes’ published in the Guardia, on Saturday June 3rd].

That's because the invasion of Iraq has completely reshaped the dynamics of the region, making Iran the new political power in the Middle East. With its two main political and religious opponents - Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - gone, Iran has firmly secured its interests in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Through its ties with Hezbollah, Iran has managed to fill the power vacuum left by Syria's abrupt withdrawal from Lebanon. At the same time, Iran has taken advantage of the cut in international funding to the Hamas-dominated Palestinian authority to make up its economic shortfall, thus gaining an even firmer foothold in the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, record oil prices and booming trade with Russia, China and India have allowed Iran to shrug off any economic pressure to give up its nuclear program.
In fact, one could argue that when it comes to the nuclear issue, Iran is holding all the cards. After all, while it is clear that for years it has been probably hiding the size and scope of its nuclear programme so as not to attract unwelcome attention, technically it has yet to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is fundamentally why there has been so much hesitation from the international community to refer Iran to the UN security council. Russia and China are not the only countries resisting calls to punish Iran. Brazil, South Korea, Japan, and other signatories of the non-proliferation treaty are rightly concerned about what effect sanctioning Iran would have on their own developing nuclear programmes.
Given the relative weakness of the US bargaining position, it is no wonder that there are some in the Bush administration - notably the vice-president, Dick Cheney - who continue to insist that a military solution to America's Iran problem is the best option available to the US. There have been a number of reports in the US recently pointing out that Pentagon funds have been diverted to Iranian oppositional groups, such as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) to ‘help’ a possible military attack by the US and Israel.
As Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker, there are even those in the US government who are convinced that a sustained bombing campaign would not only halt Iran's nuclear programme; it would, apparently, so weaken the clerical regime that Iranians would be compelled to rise up and overthrow it. Putting aside the fact that the US has neither the military resources nor the domestic support to fight a second pre-emptive war in the region (much less one directly on Iraq's borders), and ignoring, for a moment, the almost unanimous conviction among American security analysts that military strikes would delay Iran's nuclear programme by a few years at most, what Dick Cheney and other proponents of an American invasion generally fail to address in their drumbeat for war is Iran's unprecedented ability to retaliate against US interests by using its proxies in the Middle East.
Iran's military reach in the region has never extended so far. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has vowed to respond to any attack on its benefactor by launching its own missiles into Israel. In the Palestinian territories, Iran has long had a ready-made militia in the form of Islamic Jihad. Now, thanks to the tens of millions of dollars Iran is pouring into the new Palestinian Authority, Iran can also rely on Hamas to act as an extension of its military forces.
But Iran can do the most harm in Iraq, where Iran's infiltration of Shia militias, especially the ruthless and well-equipped Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, gives it the ability to attack not just American interests, but American soldiers. Indeed, Iran's influence over its neighbour is such that any hope of salvaging a stable, viable government in Iraq would vanish with the first bomb to fall upon Tehran.
Furthermore, those who imagine that bombing Iran would somehow lead to regime change are merely confirming the almost wilful ignorance displayed by the Bush administration when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike the people of Iraq, who were forced together by artificial borders and fabricated nationalities, Iranians are united by an almost exaggerated sense of nationalism that transcends all boundaries of politics or piety. Perhaps the only way to rally the Iranian people around a regime, that probably the majority of them oppose, is to rain bombs on the country. That is precisely what happened in 1980, when Hussein, spurred by the United States, launched a surprise invasion of Iran.
Despite its new found position as a potent regional power, however, Iran is even more fragmented today than it was three decades ago. The clerical regime likes to proclaim that all Iranians are unanimous in insisting on their inalienable right to pursue nuclear technology, whatever the costs. But underneath the facade of a unified Iran is a raucous debate over how best to proceed with the country's nuclear ambitions. A great many Iranians, including some powerful conservatives, are incensed with the way negotiations with Europe have broken down under the leadership of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The merchant class is up in arms at the prospect of suffering even greater international isolation. And Ahmadinejad's main opponent in the last presidential elections, the pragmatic cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has even gone so far as to publicly denounce the president for essentially destroying any hope Iran may have had to pursue its nuclear research in peace. In the meantime, the chorus of voices in Iran calling for a negotiated settlement is growing louder by the day.
But the moment the bombs start to fall on Iran, this debate would come to a halt. As happens in times of national security, political dissent would be stifled and the regime given unchecked wartime authority to do whatever it thought best to "protect" the country. Already those activists, like the Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi, who call for an end to the nuclear showdown with the west, have been labelled American stooges and possible threats to Iran's national security.
Fortunately, despite the machinations of the vice president, the Bush administration seems to be slowly coming to terms with the fact that it may have no choice but to fully engage Iran in diplomacy. And while Ahmadinejad continues to scoff at any conditions placed upon Iran by the US for direct dialogue, the truth is he has no say in the matter. It is one of the peculiar hallmarks of the Iranian government that the country's democratically elected president is responsible for virtually no foreign or domestic policy decisions. All such determinations are made solely by the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamene'i.. As these lines are being written, he is reported to have warned that energy supplies from the Gulf region would be disrupted if Iran came under attack from the United States and insisted his country would not give up the right to produce nuclear fuel. "If you make any mistake (and invade Iran), definitely shipment of energy from this region will be seriously jeopardized. You have to know this,"
Direct negotiations between the US and Iran have the potential not only to put an end to the nuclear impasse, but also to open the door for further dialogue on other issues of mutual concern, including the security situation in Iraq. No one can doubt that the last three decades of US policy toward Iran have failed to either bring down the clerical regime or make Iran more democratic. Indeed, it has done the exact opposite, so that the regime is now stronger than ever and the democratic opposition extremely weak.
Neo-conservative fantasies notwithstanding, Iran is no longer a rogue state teetering on the brink of a popular revolt. For better or worse, Iran is now a sturdy and stable political powerhouse in an increasingly volatile region. It is long past time for the Bush administration to begin treating it as such. If the US can put aside its ideological reservations and confront Iran the way it confronted the Soviet Union and China - with a policy of interdependent trade relations in the hope that economic growth will foster democratic change - it could do so much more than reign in Iran's nuclear ambitions. By forcing the country out of its isolation and giving Iranians access to the global market, the US could achieve the very regime change it has been striving for all these years
The above positions, strictly personal, may jar some of my comrades in the anti-war movement. They’re partial contributions to a debate we have initiated and, as such, reflect responses to a very volatile, and dangerous, situation. Responses/criticism are very welcome.

by Keith Sun Jun 04, 2006 19:15

As much as I loath the top terror state and would like to see them brought to heel.

But Iran doesn't have any cards to play against the US.

Remember historically US never negotiated with the Soviet Union except from a position of strength.

The only reason that the Soviet Union who occupied Eastern Europe did not swallow up the Western half was due to American military forces stationed on European soil and an arsenal of nuclear weapons which would have incinerated Soviet cities.
The result was that the Soviets could not maintain its equal position in the space race, a standing army of millions of men and arm them with high technology weaponry and still feed its people. The end of the Cold War was not negotiated. It was forced upon the Soviets who faced civil and economic collapse unless they pulled out of Afghanistan and Eastern Europe.

But I cannot see America negotiating with Iran.
The war in Iraq is going badly for Bush but if the Americans are convinced of a fictional nuclear threat from Iran then terrified Americans would be prepared to accept thousands of casualties in a conflict with Iran. "Remember 9/11" has replaced "Remember Pearl Harbour." in their consciousness.
America lost almost as many men in Korea as in Vietnam because they had already fought World War 2 in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died.
For thirty years America had forgotten what it was like to fight in protracted high death toll wars.
but now in 2006 they have already gone through three years of Iraq.
After the craziness of the invasion of Iraq an attack on Iran now seems a logical follow up.

Bush is probably calculating that his % among voters will rise and the Republicans will win the mid term elections if they hit Iran.

America has the biggest stash of nukes in the world.
They can always use them if all else fails.
Or economic sanctions to starve the people of Iran and keep them contained like the people of Cuba.
Most importantly Russia and China are no longer deadly foes. Russia is preoccupied with Chechnya while China has to keep an eye on North Korea. India and Pakistan are too busy to care.
The EU is hardly a united military power.

That leaves America completely unopposed.
Except for the international anti-war movements.
They ignored us last time and they will ignore us again.

I fear there is nothing we can do.

by Mr. T. Sun Jun 04, 2006 20:22

This looks to be an excellent event and the sort that I would very much like to see more of. I don't know how you managed to get a US ambassador to join in the debate, but the fact the US gov't is officially participating in a debate of this nature strikes me a change in policy in an of itself

I think the US has their back to the wall with Iran. I disagree with much of Keith's assessment. While the US does hold most of the cards, the one card that Iran has is oil production and the wealth that it derives from it. The oil card is a trump card, in my opinion. The likely chaos in oil markets that would result from a full scale invasion or even wide spread bombing campaign is a significant demotivator for US military action. Bush's popularity has dwindled down to nothing and it's more due to increased cost of petrol and the New Orleans disaster than because of Iraq. He can't afford to have petrol prices double as a result of another military adventure. And, perhaps more significantly, Iran's oil wealth would make sanctions pretty useless. So what other option does Bush have other than to negotiate?

Anyway, well done to IAWM on organising such a fascinating event.

by rob Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:27

Iran may have oil, but it does not have any refining ability, which makes it heavily dependent on petrol imports, also with so much of its revenue dependent on oil Iran is much more vunerable than the US.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 06, 2006 13:17

Further on my message above, it is worth noting that the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who arrived in Tehran last [ Monday ] night, had a two hour discussion with Iran's main nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani. Solana who was delivering messages from the US, Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China was to explain the 'incentives' but go no further.

The incentives package offers economic and political rewards if Tehran relinquishes domestic uranium enrichment. It also contains the implicit threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains defiant. While details of the package are still being kept under wraps, I understand it offered to help Iran in building nuclear reactors and a guaranteed supply of fuel as well as an offer to supply European Airbus aircraft for Tehran's civilian fleet. Washington, through Rice, has also sweetened the offer, originally drawn up by France, Britain and Germany, by saying it will lift some bilateral sanctions on Tehran such as a ban on Boeing passenger aircraft and related parts if Iran agrees to an enrichment freeze. Washington may also be prepared to take some "dual-use" technology off its banned list of exports to Iran. The term is used for products and material that have military as well as civilian uses.

Iranian officials have so far sent conflicting signals on the initiative, reflecting, as mentioned in my earlier post, a possible struggle within the leadership on how to react. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who insists that Tehran has a right to enrichment, said over the weekend that a breakthrough in negotiations was possible and welcomed the U.S. offer to join talks, while rejecting preconditions.

But threats by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to disrupt the world's oil supply if Tehran is punished over its nuclear program reflected Tehran's nervousness. Ali Larijani's comment, after meeting Solana was that there were "some positive aspects" in the package but that "lots needs to be clarified".

Thanks for the responses - and we need to think more and more on this.

by Joe Tue Jun 06, 2006 13:37

I endorse the sentiments behind this meeting but I can't say I understand the line up. Should the left be providing the US embassy and far-right neo-cons with a platform??? What if they just happen to be better debaters than those from the left??? Dunno, this makes me more than a bit uneasy. The Bushites and neo-cons have plenty of opportunities to spout their propaganda without the left giving them a platform.

by pat c Tue Jun 06, 2006 13:41

I have reservations as well, maybe the energy expended would be put to better use. But the SWP will do anything to gather more publicity for RBB. They reckon the debate will attract Sky, RTE, TV3.

Still, it is a debate, and theres not much point in having a debate with ourselves, so having Neo Cons present makes some sort of sense.

by MichaelY - iawm - per cap Tue Jun 06, 2006 14:11

Thanks Joe/Patc for the comments.

A couple of responses:
(i) We are confident that the anti-war side of the debate would be as articulate, as aware of the facts/arguments of the issue, as politically sensitive and approachable as anything the pro-US side can offer. We are also hoping that the anti-war movement as a whole, not just the IAWM, will be able to counter any argument(s) the prowar heads can offer. One Iranian, one American and one Irishman are an excellent combination too we believe.
(ii) As an aside, we are still to decide in the IAWM who's going to be our main contributor. It's been mentioned a number of times, but we're not the SWP! I know Richard's name is on the poster....but the meeting to decide who the final speaker would be and what would be the content of the speech is still to take place. Perhaps it's hard to de-personalise history and very energy consuming to heal bitterness and wounds....yet, wouldn't you agree Patc that the issue of US warmongering is far too important for us to sink again in inter-personal bull! I think your last sentence indicates you may agree with me.

Thanks again for the contributions.

by pat c Tue Jun 06, 2006 14:22

"As an aside, we are still to decide in the IAWM who's going to be our main contributor. It's been mentioned a number of times, but we're not the SWP! I know Richard's name is on the poster....but the meeting to decide who the final speaker would be and what would be the content of the speech is still to take place. "

Michael, do you really believe that you could stop RRB from speaking or tell him what to say?!

"....yet, wouldn't you agree Patc that the issue of US warmongering is far too important for us to sink again in inter-personal bull! I think your last sentence indicates you may agree with me."

Oh it is too important an issue. Its a pity that the SWP use the IAWM in whatever manner they please.

by Jake 'The Whistler' Stephens Tue Jun 06, 2006 14:26

A poster goes out saying that RBB will be the speaker. The event is organised by the IAWM. And you say it has yet to be decided who the IAWM speaker will be. I don't think Paddy Power will give you much odds on it being RBB.

by MichaelY - iawm per cap Tue Jun 06, 2006 14:42

Hey Jake,

Some people bet on favourites, some others on certainties and a few intelligent ones look a bit deeper and try to figure out who may have a chance albeit under longer odds. And as I said, obviously a horse-person yourself (no offence intended), you must have known PP to have it arseways. As for JC....words fail me!

by Paddy Power Tue Jun 06, 2006 16:07

We have been known to be wrong (but not often enough not to make millions). We'd just wonder why his name would go up on the poster if it hasn't been decided yet. There are rules governing declarations. Although we'd like to have a bit of a wager ourselves that if RBB is withdrawn for some unknown reason than we will pay out on all bets if JC himself in the guise of Kieran Allen is the substituted runner.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Jun 08, 2006 14:15

To confirm that the Iran debate will go ahead, as planned, on Thursday, June 15th, 19.30 sharp in the Royal Dublin Hotel. One significant change from the earlier line-out is the addition of Richard Waghorn of the Freedom Institute as the third speaker defending the US side of the argument. Each speaker will be given 7 minutes to develop their position and the Chair, Vincent Browne, may address one or two questions to each speaker in turn. When all 6 speakers have completed their arguments, the discussion will be opened to the floor. Speakers from the floor will be given 3 mins max to argue a point or ask questions from the speaker(s). For those specifically interested on the issue of the IAWM speaker, it was confirmed last night that Richard Boyd Barrett will be one of the three speakers representing anti-war views. All welcome - Sorry about the mistake - this is the correct version of the publicity poster

The correct poster

by Jake 'The Whistler' Stephens Thu Jun 08, 2006 14:20

"Some people bet on favourites, some others on certainties and a few intelligent ones look a bit deeper and try to figure out who may have a chance albeit under longer odds."

I hope as of the 'few intelligent ones' you didn't get too burned on the outcome. Using horsey parlance only of course.

by Paddy Power Thu Jun 08, 2006 14:35

.... winner alright. And there was no need for JC's intercession.

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Jun 08, 2006 14:53

Thanks lads ( I presume your gender - and if I am wrong I apologise) - thanks for the friendly and amusing comments.

There was a winner last night....don't know whether it was because of JC's "intercession" or because of some other reason...but nine of us met in the IAWM's Steering Group - three, I believe, are members of a political party, six are not but are active in a variety of campaigns, associations, Trade Unions etc.There was one member who sent apologies...exams!! It was, certainly in my estimation, a very comradely, a very democratic, a very friendly and a very productive meeting. It started on time, it finished on time, decisions were made, minutes have already been circulated, all of us took on work to do for the next week. No burnout - no hassle!
So there was a clear winner....and no need for a photo-finish. Ahead by at least three heads....and it seems Rooney's metatarsal is on the mend as well. The week ahead looks interesting! What were PP's odds on that?
Let us now revert to the issue of the debate, Iran, US warmongering and related issues. So that all of us can start hoping the wider anti-war movement can be a winner.

BTW, hope you make it to the debate!! Shall I keep a couple of seats for you because it will be probably packed!

Regards

by anon Thu Jun 08, 2006 14:58

So, Michael, is RBB not the IAWM speaker? Who so?

by anon Thu Jun 08, 2006 15:06

No change at the IAWM.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 09, 2006 14:13

Over and above the meeting in Dublin on Thursday 15th June, the IAWM will be organising a meeting on ‘US Warmongering on Iran’ in Cork 16th June, Galway 17th June and Belfast 18th June. Details of venues will be posted early next week as they become available.

One of our main speakers will be Dr. Elaheh Rostami-Povey, an Iranian, who is a lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. She is specialising on gender issues in Iran and Afghanistan. Her research interests include women¹s employment and womens NGOs in Iran as well as Afghan women in the process of conflict and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Her current research is on Afghan women¹s resistance and struggle in Afghanistan and diasporic communities, a project funded by Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC).
Elaheh’s first book ‘Women, work and Islamism: Ideology and Resistance in Iran’ was published in 1999 by Zed Books, London and New York. Oxford University Press republished the book in Pakistan in 2000. It was translated into Farsi and published in Iran in 2001 and is currently being translated in Egypt into Arabic.
Elaheh is also a member of Action Iran - a Campaign Against Military Intervention in Iran and the Stop the War Coalition, UK

A second speaker in the meetings will be John Rose. John has been an activist for many years, particularly involved in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine. He is also the author of the book 'The Myths of Zionism'.

by anon Fri Jun 09, 2006 15:16

And John Rose is also a leading member of the SWP.

Thank you.

by Emily Fri Jun 09, 2006 15:32

Povey is an Aunt Thomasina. She will not call for the overthrow of the Iranian Regime. She will say that raising womens rights is a diversion.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 09, 2006 16:04

On the issue of Iran, or Iraq, or Palestine, or related international issues be it in South America, Africa or elsewhere, I believe it is best for us Irish activists, especially those who profess an anti-war/peace+ justice stance, to listen carefully to and understand what activists from those countries have to tell us...how they perceive their situation and that of their own people. In this context, I reproduce a letter in full below to further that aim:

On Monday, April 17, 2006, Financial Times published a letter from three women professors of Iranian origin—Prof Haleh Afshar (University of York), Dr Ziba Mir-Hosseini (London Middle East Institute) and Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London).

"As three Iranian British academics, we are writing to express our grave concerns about the growing threat of war against Iran. It is essential that we do whatever is possible to prevent such a disaster. We would like to clear a number of misunderstandings about Iran. As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), Iran asserts its right under Article IV of the NPT to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The announcement last week of a nuclear breakthrough is part of this right and is intended for peaceful purposes. Iran has complied with Articles I and II of the NPT not to acquire nuclear weapons, and Article III, where it accepts full safeguards. It has signed the NPT additional protocol and has allowed intrusive inspections beyond what is required by compliance with the NPT. Numerous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have failed to provide any shred of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

Iran has repeatedly announced that it is committed to replace the course of confrontation with good-faith interaction and negotiations, as equal partner, for a peaceful solution to its nuclear issue. It has stated its commitment to non-proliferation and to the elimination of nuclear weapons, and considers nuclear weapons detrimental to its security. It has declared its readiness to abide by its obligations under the NPT and to work for the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It has invited the west and the world for cultural and technological collaboration.

Iran strongly condemned the September 11 attack and participated in overthrowing the Taliban regime in late 2001. In return, under the pressure of the neoconservatives in the US and their supporters globally, Iran has faced intimidation based on speculations about its intention of producing WMD. For the majority of Iranians in Iran and outside Iran, this hostility towards Iran is about returning Iran to a client state for the benefit of US oil corporations and denying Iran's rights to research and development for generating electricity in the future, independently. Iran is not a threat in the region or to the world as was suggested by the American Jewish Committee's full-page "statement" in the Financial Times recently. Iran is surrounded by India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel, which have nuclear weapons.

The US, UK and Israel, which perceive Iran as a threat, themselves possess WMD and refuse to commit to nuclear disarmament. Iranians believe that Israel may well use its nuclear weapons against them. They are all too aware that Israel has refused to sign the NPT and has not allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear programme. The only chance the world has of avoiding another disastrous US military adventure in the Middle East is to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy. It is essential that all voices opposed to the devastation of a new war in the Middle East speak out now. We need funds for human needs, not endless wars and conflicts.

Haleh Afshar,
University of York

Ziba Mir-Hosseini,
London Middle East Institute

Elaheh Rostami-Povey,
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London"

Now, I can name two related groups of people asking at this precise moment for "the overthrow of the Iranian regime" : One is a group around Rumsfeld and Cheney who have criticised Rice, and by extension Bush, for "being soft" on the Iranian regime because of their recent shift on their position - proposing talks! The Pentagon also announced that it had allocated "at least £ 5 million (in US dollars) to help and support Mujaheedeen - el - Halq who are fighting the Mullah regime in northern Iran. The Communist Party of Iran, on the other hand, has developed a slightly more conciliatory strategy and is talking of the 'twin enemy'.

And then - there is Emily! And her friends? And her Aunt Tomasinas!! And, one presumes, her tireless work in support of the Iranian people....

And some of the above also relate to anon whose cynical and sectarian comment about John Rose is indicative of a 'holier than thou' attitude which bedevilled and continues to hamper the Irish progressive movement...John's participation, incidentally, anon, was requested by among others the Palestine Solidarity Committee...we didn't feel we should tell them to get lost because John is a leading member of the SWP!! Now you know! Incidentally, as I don't know who hides behind the 'anon' handle, I, and I am sure all of us, would like to hear what you have to tell us about your work in support of the Palestinian people! So that we can put your perceptive comments in context!

by Emily Fri Jun 09, 2006 19:39

Michael just deal with the issues. I support the people of Iran through supporting the progressive organisations which are attempting to overthrow the Iranian Regime.

The question is who do you and the IAWM support? Do you support the Mullahs Junta or the progressive forces fighting to oust the Junta?
My stance is: Neither US Imperialism nor Iranian Islamo-fascism but international solidarity with the Iranian Resistance.

by Emily Fri Jun 09, 2006 20:07

Here is news from real Iranian Socialists. I will put a link to the full document at the end.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Manifesto of the Third Camp against US Militarism and Islamic Terrorism

The present conflict between the Western governments and the Islamic Republic of Iran can have disastrous human, political and social consequences. The terrible experience of Iraq has shown to all the catastrophes that can result from economic sanctions and a military attack. Deterioration of living conditions, economic plight, death, destruction and displacement of people, and increased repression by the Islamic regime, would be some of the immediate consequences of economic sanctions or a military attack on Iran. This policy would unleash Islamic terrorism on a regional scale and escalate it internationally.

We must stand up with all our power to the US government’s and its allies’ bullying. We must put an end to the crimes of the opposite pole, i.e. Islamic terrorism. We must help the people of Islam-stricken countries to get rid of the menace of Islamic terrorist states and forces. American militarism and Islamic terrorism have brutalised the world. Neither of them has a solution to the present crisis and its resulting problems. Rather, they are themselves the cause of this crisis and its aggravation. Civilised humanity must rise up against both these poles and the suffering that they have imposed on the world. The human and genuine solution to the problem of nuclear weapons, to Islamic terrorism and its horrific crimes against the people of the world, and to the militaristic bullying of the US and Western governments lies in the hands of us people.

Amid all this, the struggle of the people of Iran for freedom holds a prominent and critical place. For years there has been a mass social movement in Iran against the Islamic regime and for liberty and equality. The triumph of this movement over the Islamic Republic of Iran would be a decisive blow to political Islam and Islamic terrorism throughout the world. It would also be a powerful response to the US government’s political-military interventionism aimed at regime change, in the name of “exporting democracy”, and imposition of reactionary puppet regimes on other societies.

Get the rest of the Manifesto here:
http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2006/05/manifesto-of-....html

by press Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:04

This looks a really good meeting. Maybe someone from IAWM should send letters to some of the print media to highlight it, not just here at indymedia and posters.

Village, the Examiner and Daily Ireland would defo print letters highlighting the meeting I think...you can email letters now so it could be done befroe Thursday:)

The IT, indo prob would not.

But it would be a good way of getting to wider audience??

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:54

In the context of Thursday's debate, I thought the letter by the Israeli Committee for a Middle East Free from Atomic, Biological & Chemical Weapons reproduced below makes quite a lot of political sense
[P.O Box 16202 Tel Aviv 61161 Israel Tel/Fax +972-(0)3-5222869 Email: [email protected] ]

To: The Honorable Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations
Re: The Iranian threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Your Excellency ,

Iran's nuclear projects acquire an alarming significance with Iran's recent threat to withdraw its acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Middle-East is a volatile region. In the last fifty years the Middle-East had more wars than any other region in the world. If governments in this region acquire nuclear weapons the probability of a nuclear holocaust in the M-E rises sharply. A nuclear holocaust in the Middle-East will affect the entire world

Efforts to stop Iran's nuclear projects lack credibility as long as they allow other governments in this region to have such weapons.

As is well known in 1987 an Israeli court sentenced the Israeli citizen Mordechai Vanunu to 18 years imprisonment for informing the "Sunday Times" about Israel's nuclear weapons industry. The Israeli court declared Vanunu guilty of Treason, not of Libel. This amounts to an official admission that Israel has nuclear weapons. So far Iran denies that it intends to build nuclear weapons and has signed the NPT. All Israeli governments have refused to sign the NPT. Mr. Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy Prime Minister, has recently replied to Iranian threats against Israel by declaring that "Iran too can be destroyed".

We suggest that you act so that both Israel - and Iran ­ obey the NPT and put all their nuclear plants under International control. Steps taken against Iran's nuclear projects that are not applied also to Israel's nuclear projects lack credibility and are bound to appear as biased and as hypocrisy. We call upon you to declare that the UN supports a Nuclear-Free Middle-East and will act to make all governments in this region sign the NPT.
Only pressure on ALL governments in this region can prevent a nuclear holocaust.
Yours sincerely, awaiting your reply,

Gideon Spiro , Committee coordinator
On behalf of the following members of the Committee:
Akiva Orr, Yael Lotan, Dr. Yehuda Atai, Ehud Ein-Gil, Alon Marcus, Giyora Neumann.

Hoping to see all of you on Thursday evening. Thanks to the message above - letters to all the papers, emails to all the TDs have been sent....posters have been put up and leaflets distributed. The Royal Dublin Hotel room takes about 300 - come early .....Many thanks also to Anti-War Ireland for publicising the debate through its own channels.

by SP -( PC) Tue Jun 13, 2006 20:24

The comments from Michael Y of the IAWM and others above are shocking. What we have here is an attempt to dress up pro-Iranian regime ideas in a cloak of anti-imperialism. Now that the Taliban no longer control all of Afghanistan the Iranian dictatorship is probably the most reactionary and repressive regime in the world. The Mullahs have been responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of opponents since they seized power in 1979. And they don't just slaughter political opponents, there victims of torture and murder also include children and women wiped out just because of how they dress or the music they listen too.
There is NOTHING progressive about the Iranian regime. Now it has a prime minister Ahmadinejad who denies the holocaust happened and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be a real step backwards for humanity if he had his finger on the nuclear button. People on the left and socialists should argue for the overthrow of the reactionary Islamic fundamentalist state in Iran and in NO way at all should they defend it. We must oppose any attacks on Iran by the US or Israel but in doing so it should be made clear that we are defending the Iranian people not the murderous scum that enslave them.
It now seems that the SWP and their "puppets" in the IAWM are moving even further to the right because of their defence of the Iranian mullahs. Michael Y even has the audacity to speak of Muqtada Al Sadr as someone who under Iran's influence could become an opponent of the US occupation of Iraq (as opposed to being part of the US puppet government as he is now). Al Sadr's Mehdi army roam the streets of Baghdad murdering Sunnis in a systematic campaign of sectarian slaughter!
I am very glad that the SP left the IAWM so that we are not associated with this right wing crap.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 14, 2006 00:11

Welcome to the debate on Iran SP....this is the objective of our recent decision to concentrate our activities on US Warmongering on Iran. Obviously, it must have hit a chord wiith the Socialist Party periphery....or is it the centre?
The language used of course in the message is indicative of the thinking behind it....up go the SWP puppets, down comes the crap! Shocking are our ideas and the murderous scum must be opposed...profanity takes precedence over ideas....the 'socialist' way! The message reminds me some of the language used by the Stickies against the Provies and the Labour Party about twenty years back. Before Militant were thrown out from the latter. You are a proud inheritor of that tradition. Anybody we disagree with is either a scum, a puppet or, even worse, a "spy" or a traitor!

To the extent that the real issues are relevant....the IAWM does not as yet have a clear and stated position on the Iranian regime!! Individuals from the SWP and others who are not in the SWP have their own position! We are a movement and not a political party like your own! It is our intention to continue the debate on Iran starting from next Thursday - and all of us will have much to learn from our 'friends' in the SP about the nature of the Iranian regime and how to help and work with Iranian people....including with a number of Iranian refugees and asylum seekers here in Ireland who are working with us in the IAWM at the moment.

Reading your message carefully though, and with all due respect, I am of the opinion that you know very little and understand even less about what's going on in either Iran or Iraq. If I take your quote, for example ' Al Sadr's Mehdi army roam the streets of Baghdad murdering Sunnis in a systematic campaign of sectarian slaughter' - while I agree fully with you there, could you please answer the question what would happen to the Mehdi Army, and who they would attack, if the US and Israel opened an offensive against Iran that finances and support Al Sadr? And not necessarily on the basis of a supposed anti-imperialism but straight self-interest.
Don't know where you found either the word 'progressive' or drew the conclusion from my article above that I, or the rest of my comrades 'puppets' in your lingo, find the Iranian regime "progressive". Obviously you read things behind the lines, under the lines, and over your capacity to grasp politics. Especially about people you don't know.
Anyway - on the basis of your last message, the SP's decision to leave the IAWM, for whatever reason it was taken, must have saved all of us who continue to be active a lot of wasted time and energy. You continue your fantastic anti-war work and we'll continue ours.

Fraternally

M

by SP - (pc) Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:01

No need to read between the lines Michael Y. The title of this debate implies that the speakers from the IAWM will be defending the Iranian dictatorship. In your written contribution you have outlined your opinion on how this process may unfold. Yet not once do you condemn the Iranian dictatorship. You refer to its government as being democratically elected but power rests in the hands of the unelected clergy. You have nothing to say about Iran's nuclear power programme or its plans to develop nuclear weapons. This debate sets up the IAWM as a defender of Iran developing both nuclear power and weapons and as a defender of the Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. And by engaging in this debate with a representative of US Imperialism you are legitimising the Bush administrations right to have a say in the future of Iran.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:37

SP - thank you again for engaging in this debate. The tone of this second message of yours is much more 'civilised' - evidently you are amenable to suggestions - good!
I will make three main points:

(i) The title of the debate should indicate to you that the three speakers, from our side so to speak, will argue the position that it's the USA that is the main nuclear threat in the world today and not Iran.. That in no way implies that they will be defending the Iranian regime....incidentally, only one of the three is an IAWM speaker - that should have been obvious! So let us wait for the debate and see what is argued by whom.....
(ii) Your argument that by inviting pro-US speakers, and engaging in a debate with them, we somehow legitimise the Empire's right to intervene in the affairs of an independent country is somewhat spurious - in another context I would say it's disingenious. The Socialist Party's able public representatives, for example, engage with all sorts of people in debate - and quite rightly. When JH argues against the Minister of Injustice, or other PD space cadets, or Bertie, or Howard from Australia recently, that in no way provides, in my opinion, legitimacy to those elected hacks. And let me ask a question: is it implied that if one of your reps was invited to join us in the debate as a speaker, you would have refused to take part?
(iii) As to the contents of my article at the top of this thread, I stand by every word of it. Condemnations and over-the-top language do not, ordinarily, advance either a position or the understanding of those who read the stuff. Your previous message is a good example. You assert an awful lot but there is precious little reasoning and practicality behind it. I would agree fully with you that the electoral process in Iran is deeply flawed....However, I do not agree with you that Iran has nuclear weapons - they're a signatory to the NPT and neither US, nor Israel are signatories.
And to conclude, the worst case scenario if US attacks Iran is that it would unite lots of Iranians around the mullahs, for obvious reasons, and restrict seriously the political space developed by the progressive movement in Iran since the large student mobilisations of 1999. You will, if you chose to continue this debate in a balanced manner, discover that there isn't much that divide us on Iran....at least that's what I think.

by Davy Carlin Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:44

Hi Michael,

well I also disagree and I to have left the IAWM, as has, in real and active terms, every major and serious organisation, trade union, solidarity and campaign group in the North – as well as all such genuine individual activists.

Like oneself many having left the Belfast AWM of which I was a founding member, organiser and spokesperson {unfortunately, in real terms, it now consists of the SWP and a few students} due to its eventual and complete undemocratic nature amongst other things.

Indeed the last three and most recent Anti war Rallies and non violent direct actions in Belfast this year did not even see the SWP {BAWM} there, as they continue, in effect to man an Anti War {SWP stall?} and host meetings – which is of course a good thing, in that regard.

Yet in recent times we have seen the British SWP’s influence in regard to Respect, which was, in large part, why the Northern SWP tried to drive a campaign against the Blanket – which seen its absolute failure,

- {indeed I am now also to write regular again for the site as will other such activists – indeed rather than as what the SWP stated ‘more and more will leave the Blanket’ – indeed since then ‘more and more genuine activists have become involved in the Blanket due, in part, to those attacks and their highlight} –
-
- and now seeing the right ward shift on the issue of Iran within the AWM.

This shift unfortunately, I believe, with everything else accumulating, could be the final nail in the IAWM coffin.

The shift though is not surprising as the British SWP {and so the SWP and all they are working within} are moving further and further to the right. That is why much of the left are no longer there, {combined of course with the SWP undemocratic manoeuvring of recent times}

Therefore the right ward shift is not isolated to the SWP within the AWM but, in many areas, this, as so to attempt to secure the British SWP Respect line.

The SWP therefore, in very real terms, in the last two years or so, are going ever backwards, and ever shrinking in what influence they once had, indeed back to a situation of a decade or so past.

I believe they though are {because they have to} making some genuine attempts to reach out with some sort of ‘democracy and ‘accountably in recent times, but this has been driven backward -as in tandem with this, came the right ward shifts and such orders from London, due in large part to Respect.

But they will toddle along, doing simply to do, which is unfortunate as there are good activists there who are genuine.

And so in Belfast, for example, this situation has meant that the SWP has called absolutely nothing new onto the streets of Belfast in almost 2 years, as they no longer have the support and respect of the once Belfast SWP of old.

This in unfortunate, but as SP like many other activists and organisations they believe that they can no longer support or work with them.

Unfortunately it seems that the same, for many seems to be the growing case in Dublin.

Whatever the case, as stated such mobilisations and actions etc that had been seen in Belfast over the years continue - albeit without the SWP, and such also continues in Dublin without the SWP to the fore etc.

Saying that, I have said to exhaustion that the SWP need to change - re - accountability and democracy, and in some ways they have in recent time attempted that, but as stated the rightward shift has, unfortunately, continued to hammer the nail right through, in the campaigns they seek to work in,

- more especially that of the IAWM – despite what resources and speakers the British SWP can provide etc.

Finally on Anti War -the Anti war Alliance is though something that seems a good way forward - D

by MichaelY - iawm - pc Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:40

Hi Davy,

Good to see you contributing to this debate....I read carefully your comments....and I think I understand what went on...which brought us to the fragmentation and, often, bitterness that divides what is essentially a two/three hundred strong body of anti-war activists nationally.
I don't believe the Irish SWP, or their British comrades, are, at the moment, willing or indeed capable of linking to a debate about 'What happened'. However, to tell the truth, that is their monkey and one way or the other they will have to deal with the situation. They're doing what they're doing, some of it very positive and valuable work...I am saying all this, as a non-member or fellow traveller of the SWP - but a proud member of the IAWM. To all intents and purposes your excellent contribution is really addressed to the SWP and not the significant number of us who have joined the IAWM more recently - and are not "puppets" as the Socialist Party fella called us above. All this is obviously effecting us and our work - but we cannot change the history of what went on. We take cognisance of it and move on.

Which brings me to why we, the non-SWPers of the IAWM, have been putting so much emphasis on building bridges through the Anti-War Network, that, incidentally, will move some of its Plenary meetings out of Dublin very soon. No need for me to repeat what goes on in there....there is another thread dealing with that issue. All I can say is that we found working with people who were in IAWM and left, be they from Cosantoiri, or Anti War Ireland, or the Ploughshares, or the Unamanageables, or some of the anarchists extremely valuable and productive. And I suspect most of them feel the same. It is, of course, at times as we, all of us, are paying a high price for our 'parents crimes'....joke...we watch it, they watch us but it's working....
Over 350 people took part in the IAWM meetings on Guantanamo recently...this coming weekend we expect the number to top 500 nationally on Iran...we are working hard and we know we are not alone.

For whatever it's worth - accept the above as a strictly personal contribution. And looking forward to meeting you personally soon.

M

by Cork anti-war Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:57

It's not true to say that all the other activists were once in the IAWM. Some never joined.

Things are moving again, I think, and the Antiwar Network in Dublin is definitely a sign of progress - a peace process even! Well done all.

In Cork the direct actionists are getting their act together again.

Also, for those who suppport all forms of action, a Cork branch of Anti-War Ireland has just been set up. To join AWI (Cork), antiwar activists can phone Dominic Carroll at (023) 40881 or John Jefferies at (086) 3004573.

by Tony Wed Jun 14, 2006 13:30

Emily says "Povey is an Aunt Thomasina. She will not call for the overthrow of the Iranian Regime. She will say that raising womens rights is a diversion."

How wonderful to be a mind reader. Move over spoonbenders.

It's a bit rich, though, isn't it, Emily accusing Povey of being an "Aunt Thomasina". Povey lives in Britain, so by her stance against the Iraq war, and the possible Iran war, she is opposing the ruling class of the country where she lives. Emily, on the other hand, is saying just what the British, Irish, and US ruling class want to hear leftists saying.

Emily declares she supports the people of Iran by supporting (she means cheering for) the Iranian opposition. The real western left supports the Iranian people by opposing their own ruling class

We've seen all this sort of thing before, many times - for example the British fake left fulminating about the unique horrors of German militarism to justify going along with WWI, or the fake British left going on about the unique horrors of the Galtieri government, so making it easier for the British ruling class to wage war on Argentina.

Yes, by all means (and not just cheer-leading) support the Iranian opposition, but not by making the imperialists propaganda for them

by Davy Carlin Wed Jun 14, 2006 13:54

Quote -

' All this is obviously effecting us and our work - {but we cannot change the history of what went on. We take cognisance of it and move on'}.

Sound enough point, if the case

Quote -

'Which brings me to why we, the non-SWPers of the IAWM, {have been putting so much emphasis on building bridges through the Anti-War Network'

Sound as a pound-, if the case

- Quote

'will move some of its Plenary meetings out of Dublin very soon'

Will be good to see

Quote -

' And looking forward to meeting you personally soon'.

Spot on - indeed - I may be travelling to Dublin shortly to attend an event hosted by comrades in the WSM.

by Tommy Cupar Wed Jun 14, 2006 13:59

"The message reminds me some of the language used by the Stickies against the Provies and the Labour Party about twenty years back. Before Militant were thrown out from the latter. You are a proud inheritor of that tradition. Anybody we disagree with is either a scum, a puppet or, even worse, a "spy" or a traitor!"

Love them or hate them weren't the sticks right? The provies full of spies and traitors - well at least that never happened?

by anon Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:33

I don't know why MichaelY is trying to infer that all non-iawm antiwar activists (the majority!) are all ex-iawm. In reality most are not and never have been in the iawm. The iawm is a small Dublin-based group that hardly exists outside of Dublin.

by MichaelY - iawm Wed Jun 14, 2006 18:05

Hi anon,

I looked back at the messages and, to be very honest, I don't see how and from where you can draw that inference....I know that a lot of anti-war activists around the country weren't and aren't in the IAWM. The only reference I made to ex-IAWM people were in the specific case of the Anti War Network....where a number were [and left]. Still, you may be right and I may have missed that inference.
The other reality is that the Dublin based IAWM group has been working working extremely well with comrades and friends from Belfast, Tralee, Athlone, Cork and Galway....we organised meetings together and there are four such meetings on Iran taking place over the next four days. And there is a national IAWM meeting planned soon.
Hope you will be able to make tomorrow night's debate anon....

by Mark C Thu Jun 15, 2006 00:46

Will this event be recorded and available on Indymedia or some other site? I reckon a lot of people who wont' be able to get there would really like to listen in?

It'd be great if it could be streamed live.

by Davy Carlin Thu Jun 15, 2006 15:35

I have rised various points on differing posts above, including on the SWP and IAWM, but on other specifics -

It is quoted -

'will move some of its Plenary meetings out of Dublin very soon'

Is there anything pencilled in for Belfast - That is in relation to the 'Anti War Alliance?

by MichaelY - iawm Thu Jun 15, 2006 17:29

We have tried to get a couple of our friends to video the debate .....see if they turn up.

Davy, the Network has taken the decision to move its Plenaries outside of Dublin....in practice this means that the second next Plenary will not be in Dublin. There are a couple of people from Belfast who have taken part in the Network meetings so far...if we have people who would organise a Plenary, sometime late July early August I expect, lets have it as a specific proposal.

by Brian Kelly - none Thu Jun 15, 2006 18:00

Davy:

Your usual sectarian incoherence. The two most significant meetings on the war held in Belfast in recent times were the panel discussion on the Blanket's publication of racist cartoons, and the talk by the brother of a Guantanamo internee. Both were well-attended, the first involving substantial input from the Muslim community. Neither would have happened without the involvement of the SWP, but both involved large numbers of independents and people outside the party. Both, but especially the second of these meetings, were covered in the press and on television. You can only get away with the bullshit, Davy, among people who are at a distance from here. Anyone else vaguely familiar with what's going on on the ground knows you're completely full of shit. I suspect your comrades in Organise will figure that out sooner or later as well.

There are lots of reasons why the antiwar movement has stumbled internationally, and it is hard to take especially at a time when public opinion has shifted more sharply against the war(s). None of them involve the 'rightward shift of the SWP, though.' * Surely one of the bright spots in that picture is in Britain, where a multiracial, multi-ethnic party with a clear antiwar platform has served notice to New Labour.

*(But speaking of rightward shifts, are you comfortable writing for a website now endorsed by Ruth Dudley Edwards, among others? 'Protest and dissent', is it? Is she one of the 'activists' you refer to above?)

by Davy carlin Thu Jun 15, 2006 19:31

Firstly I must say that -

- it was good to see u recently putting up SWP public meeting posters recently - seeing u are not involved with the SWP and all that etc etc. –

But –

-Any hows

Firstly, not talking about 'meetings' but’ 'active support' through mobilisations etc- u actually need to read what I have actually said before u go of another of ur rants - indeed.

I Quote -

‘Indeed the last three and most recent Anti war RALLIES and non violent DIRECT ACTIONS in Belfast this year did not even see the SWP {BAWM} there,

-as they continue, in effect to man an Anti War {SWP stall?} and host MEETINGS – which is of course a good thing, in that regard'. {Indeed such 'provided speakers will of course 'pull an audience}

U Quote –

‘Anyone else vaguely familiar with what's going on the ground knows you're completely full of shit’

Chuckle chuckle, simply classic – the ‘politics just ooozzess out of u.

Indeed maybe I should be even ‘fuller of that shit, then, because it seems to work in regard to ever increasing support and solidarity amongst the wider activist Movement { indeed,and when, I did leave the SWP,there was at least one key community - solidarity, organisation and campaign, trade union, and political party activist, from all the various campaigns we then where involved in - who did not say to me - Davy thank fuck u are away from them - ur wasted there etc etc}

Indeed - .

And -

Indeed, {again} I was once told that if I left the 'BelfastSWP, that it would see 'the Belfast SWP going on to bigger and better things', and that I - ' would like the others that had left the SWP become irrelevant', as it 'was the {vanguard} party that was needed in mobilising such things and support , and 'that, individuals, Libertarians - Anarchists etc couldn't organise A booze up in a brewery'.

Such libertarian socialists - like onself, and such Orgnisations - and more - indeed have proven that wrong

Indeed In very very real terms, those statements could not be further from the truth as the last two years or so have shown and have been played out ,accounted for and recorded - on the streets of Belfast.

But on the rant part of your ‘contribution well ,Indeed, and of course ur ‘venom and sectarianism indeed makes it hard, for u to be ‘coherent, but nevertheless, one would suggest such would be a tad beneficial, if u do not wish to come across as all ranting and raving.

As for Organise! -Well we are very busy, indeed our last two calls for support and solidarity, {On Joanne Delaney and Afghan Hunger strike} where met by solid support from scores of trade union, community, and political activists onto the streets of Belfast, in acts of solidarity to our calls which seen – as stated, even in one case, by the SWP paper ‘an historic victory – in which we are proud to have played our part. And I am sure that Organise! are well aware of the SWP tactics and rants - in regards to oneself

- And so it continues -

-and on mobilisations -Indeed you should try and make it along Brian to such essential calls.

As for the SWP not going right ward and the shift within campaigns,

Well I ‘respect ur opinion but u really need to read what others {outside of the swp click and mindset} actually say – Yes those other activists - indeed the Movement !!!

On the Blanket

Well it seems 'loads of people did not leave the Blanket as u stated they would - {bad call me thinks - and I know how much that irks u so}}- indeed more actually became involved, thanks indeed in part to the SWP and the highlight of ur attacks.

And so ur and the SWP's – words fell on wiser writer’s ears in that regard

Indeed I am completely comfortable writing for the Blanket and will be writing for it very regularly - indeed only last night I had a good hour or so chat with my friend Mackers

And on that matter the Blanket is updated today and yes we are celebrating 5 years of the Blanket – Yippee.

Link - http://www.phoblacht.net/currentissue.html

BK, I have answered ur point, despite your rants – so I let u, continue to rant away on ur own – - if u so wish - as I have more interesting things to do - such as - to go and watch paint dry.

Signing – off -D.

Sigh!

by Ronan Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:17

Congrats to the organiser's and participants of last night debate on the US/ Iran nuclear issue. It was a factual, humourous and passionate evening, with a high standard of debate and interaction on both sides.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 16, 2006 16:13

It was a very good meeting – an excellent meeting - probably the largest anti-war meeting, certainly of the last two years. Almost 300 packed the place. We started at 7.45 and at 10.00 people were still there, asking questions, exchanging contacts, arguing and debating. About 50 were still at it in the bar later.
The three speakers arguing the US case, Michael McClennan from the US Embassy, Richard Delevan from the Sunday Tribune(who unfortunately had to leave early) and Richard Waghorn from the Freedom Institute were informative and eloquent in their spirited defence of US foreign policy nd why Iran has to “put in its place” or “attacked and its nuclear ability destroyed”.. While McClennan was more political and reserved in terms of what the US want to do in Iran, preferring, as he put it, the ‘diplomatic road’ Waghorn argued strongly that “Iran has to be stopped…if need be with the use of tactical nuclear weapons”! Delevan, on the other had, stressed that he was almost convinced that there will be no attack on Iran – especially as “Iran has no nuclear weapons and not likely to have any in the foreseeable future”.
Vincent Browne, chairing, was sharp and demonstrated his well-known qualities of sharp questioning and criticism towards all six speakers.
Arguing that it was the US that was the real nuclear threat, Harry Browne of DIT and Village, Richard Boyd Barrett of the IAWM and Elehah Rostami-Povey of Action –Iran, presented a very integrated picture of why the US warmongering of Iran is not only an unjust folly but a real threat to regional and world peace. Elehah’s points to the pro-US speakers that they should read a bit more about Iran and understand somewhat better what makes that society of nearly 80 million people tick was one of the highlights of the evening. It was also very significant that all three speakers focussed on the repressive and anti-popular nature of the Islamic regime, putting emphasis on the need to support the struggle for reforms and democracy of the Iranian people…the real potential victims of an attack on their country. This answered adequately some of the criticisms addressed to Elehah and the IAWM that we somehow refrained from arguing against the regime and that we supported so-called- Islamic fundamentalists
About 35 people asked questions or made points from the floor…the most striking aspects of that process was the number of American citizens living in Ireland who argued against US foreign policy, the number of Iraqi, Afghani and Iranian participants who argued against the US positions and the number of more mature activists who enjoyed the debate and contributed to it from their specific perspective. There was also a single participant, an IAWM member, who did argue that Iran was a real nuclear threat! Also noticeable was, on the one hand, the participation in the meeting of Polish, Russian, French, Spanish and Dutch comrades, as well as members of the Anti-War Network and RAR, while on the other hand, many commented on the decision of many anarchist friends not to take part. Can’t win them all I suppose.
We hope to be able to reproduce some of the contributions at a later stage. Comments welcome. Waiting for pics from PG - will post as soon as available.
Sean and Elaine we missed you last night.

by Fintan Lane - Anti-War Ireland (and Irish Socialist Network) Fri Jun 16, 2006 16:32

I arrived late at the meeting and immediately wished I could have made it for 7.30pm. An excellent meeting with a large turnout and plenty of interesting contributions from the floor.

Well done to the IAWM for organising this!

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 16, 2006 17:52

With grateful thanks to paula Geraghty - she asked me to put all of them in copyright.

The three on the right

Vincent Brown wonders

Harry tells it as he sees it

She was excellent - what a guest!

And it's now our turn

by Observer Fri Jun 16, 2006 18:07

Explain our turn? Were the other two speakers not our or does RBB only count as our? Interesting use of the language.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 16, 2006 19:08

Dear observer,

The debate on Iran gets enriched by observations and comments such as yours. Thank you. To clarify:

A pronoun, such as 'our' is a word that replaces a noun or a group of words used as a noun. Pronouns are classified in five (5) different categories. They are personal pronouns, relative pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, indefinite pronouns, and interrogative pronouns. Some pronouns can appear in more than one classification. How the pronoun is used in the sentence determines its classification. OK so far?
Some personal pronouns are called possessives because they show whose something is. They are the following pronouns: my, mine, your, yours, his, her, hers, its, our, ours, their, and theirs. [But you knew all that - no?]
So, in the example above i.e the pic caption, the pronoun 'our' relates and is linked to the word turn[to speak!]!! As per above, it replaces a group of words such as 'our side', the 'left' side' [as opposed to the right side- pls refer to Pic 1] or more generically the anti-war movement to which all three of OUR speakers last night belong.

Hope this is satisfactory.

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 16, 2006 19:58

Enjoy!

OK - you can make your point now!

Some of the debate's audience

Politics can be fun too

by Fair? Fri Jun 16, 2006 20:35

It was organised by an Anti War group,
"we" "us" etc. is used throghout
There's one picture of those "on the right"

just how fair was all this? seems like a big anti-war turnout with 3 lads there on their own...and don't say anyone could have gone along to argue with them, because well, the POSTERS state IAWM too.hmm.

I'm against imperialism and any efforts by the U.S to continue their world tour of death,just thought this was worth mentioning.Mayube another debate would be nice,you know,like a fair one?

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Jun 16, 2006 20:48

How fair was it?

Michael McClennan congratulated the organisers at the end of the debate...so did Richard Waghorne....they both said they had doubts before accepting the invitation....but the debate was fair, the Chair(s) impartial....
Yes, the audience was 95% anti-war....to be expected when 65% of Americans, the mega majority of the British people and the IAWM believes the absolute majority of our people are against the war. And it would not have been feasible to start going around the streets and trying to pick out pro-war individuals!! It was an open meeting, there was no entrance fee.....

In my opinion the debate was as fair as a political debate can be...[as a joke] I personally asked Michael and Richard Waghorne, whether they would be willing to organise a similar debate soon and invite the anti-war movement to speak!! We'll be waiting.
At the end of the day you know who has the major print and digital media on their side. Who has the money, the political power and the fire power. And the US is not exactly being fair on either the Iraqis, the Afghanis or the Iranian people. We, on our part, will do our best to retain our patience and manners while arguing our politics.

by redjade Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:00

Sicilian Notes By Richard Waghorne
'Thursday was a lot of fun. About three hundred people showed up, about two-hundred and ninety-seven of whom were not just viscerally opposed to coercive diplomacy against Iran but also unabashedly anti-American. With a unanimous audience like that an event billed as a debate can easily be a disaster, but I have to give the organizers credit. Apart from Vincent Browne who is even more of a jerk in person than in print, those running the show were genuinely interested in facilitating a good discussion, even going out of their way to make more time at the end for pro-American speakers because of the one-sidedness of the floor debate.'

http://siciliannotes.blogspot.com/2006/06/iran-debate-p....html

———

redjade note: the world must becoming to an end. Richard compliments the IAWM and reposts photos from Indymedia. Sadly, Richard no longer allows comments on his site - the give and take after the debate would have been interesting.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:15

Hi redjade,

What does one do, how does one react to such a statement?
Congratulate ourselves or start a process of serious self-criticism? Lol!
Any ideas?

by Observer Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:26

Thanks for the lesson in the English. Although I'm still not clear because RBB's pictues comes after the other two anti war speakers yet his caption says "and now its our turn" which implied to me that two of the speakers were not on 'our side', the 'left' side' or more generically the anti-war group to which you belong. But anyway thanks for the lesson. Do you do lessons in maths, gaelige or any other subjects?

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 19, 2006 14:46

Don't know what to say! Richard Waghorne, a hard liner pro-US commentator thanks the IAWM, my Observer friend thanks me for the lesson....I am speechless - I am beginning to really feel strange....I am sure some anti- this and anti-that commentator will soon enter the fray and spoil the picture.

Still - my observant friend - I stand by my answer...Harry Browne goes back and has been part of OUR side for over 20 years now and Elelah has been on the left and progressive side since before 1979.....as for RBB, he is unfortunately in the SWP (joke) but then nobody is perfect.....he is definitely on our side.

As for lessons....computers yes - Maths I know a few very numeric-savvy people. As for Gaeilge....no problem - just ask!

Best regards

by Curious Mon Jun 19, 2006 19:42

Harry Browne is definitely on our side. He is no an admirer of the IAWM though. He left it a long while ago. But you would not know that. Despite your claims to be in Ireland for over 30 years you have spent a long time on the missing list. There are those who would be suspicious of someone who goes missing for over 15 years and then suddenly reappears claiming he was here all the time.

In the interests of security Michael Y should state where he was for the missing years. He should also tell us why he tried to pretend he was in Ireland since the mid 70s. I have my doubts about someone who has a long gap in their history and who then lies about it. I am amazed that the IAWM would elevate someone with a dodgy record to its National Committee so swiftly.

Getting back to the speakers, yes Harry is on our side but RBB is not. RBB and the SWP have turned the IAWM into a sectarian shell. RBB and the SWP use the IAWM to raise RBBs profile in the hope that he might get elected in Dun Laoire. The IAWM is incapable of becoming THE Anti War Movement. If the IAWM is really serious about unity then it should drop the pretentious name for a start.

by Gogol Mon Jun 19, 2006 23:29

Michael Y uses his real name--identifiable to most activists in the anti war movements. Whether you agree with him or not he posts opinions aimed at building opposition to the war and empire.
Curious on the other hand hides behind an alias to throw innuendos around.
Curious then demands that "as a matter of security" Mickael Y gives an account of his life.
In the absence of Curious giving any account of himself, I know who I would rather trust--missing years or no.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Jun 19, 2006 23:53

Curious

You obviously missed the debate. It was great. Can you imagine nearly 300 people there? And the friends arguing the US side of the world thanking us. Unbelievebale - and certainly novel! Don't know why the recent successes of the IAWM, and my part along with a number of new comrades in it, annoys you so....Couldn't dare going there. I am sure you'll tell us soon.
For the purposes of clarity, Harry and I have been good friends and comrades since he first came to Ireland....I know well why he left the IAWM a couple of years back, along with a number of very good people, and I also know why he is capable and willing of putting the interests of the anti-war movement first. Over and above personalities. And he can talk and write for himself exceedingly well - doesn't need curious individuals like you to whine on his behalf.
Richard and I have also become, I believe, good friends....he works very hard and although we don't see eye to eye on many things, we have managed to work together quite successfully for the last 18 months. He is in the SWP and I am not...but we are both proud members of the IAW Movement. You understand the word movement?
Now, my impression of you is that you keep your brain, or what's left of it, in a tiny jar on the mantlepiece for occasional use. Your politics and your motivation in personally attacking people, while mysterious in their roots, are beginning to paint a very ugly picture. As mentioned in a number of previous comments, I stand proud of my past with no skeletons in my cupboard....and I will be judged, as all of us will, by our comrades and friends in the movement on the basis of what we say and do. Particularly if we are successful in our objectives.
Crystal clear?

by Socialist Tue Jun 20, 2006 01:37

In the report of the Cork meeting it states that Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey told the meeting: "She also pointed out that the status of women in the country [Iran] compared favourably with many Western countries, eg literacy, participation in education and skilled professions , access to contraception, life expectancy etc. However much still needs to be done....".

Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey also spoke at the Dublin meeting. Did anyone at either of these meetings repudiate this whitewash of the Iranian theocracy’s treatment of women?

The treatment of women in Iran has been described as gender aparthied. "Your wife, who is your possession, is in fact, your slave," Judiciary Chief Mohammad Yazdi, Ressalat, 15 December 1986.
The hejab, or dress code, is mandatory in all public places for all women. Women must cover their hair and body except for their face and hands and they must not use cosmetics. Punishments range from a verbal reprimand to 74 lashes with a whip to imprisonment for one month to a year. Stoning to death is a legal form of punishment for sexual misconduct. Women are banned from pursuing higher education in 91 of 169 fields of study and must be taught in segregated classrooms. A woman may work with her husband’s permission, although many occupations are forbidden to women.
Women in Iran have been stoned to death in public for "breaking" the laws laid down by velayat-e-fahiq – the absolute supremacy of the mullahs. Prison terms from three months to one year or fines and up to 74 lashes with a whip for wearing "modish outfits, such as suits and skirt without a long overcoat on top." The regulations ban any mini or short-sleeved overcoat, and the wearing of any "depraved, showy and glittery object on hats, necklaces, earring, belts, bracelets, glasses, headbands, rings, neckscarfs and ties."
Tens of thousands of women have been arrested for "mal-veiling and lewd conduct." Most of the women were wearing makeup or in the company of young males who were not related to them.
Temporary marriage, in which a man can marry a woman for a limited period of time, even one hour, in exchange for money, is permitted in Iran. Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi, a prominent religious leader supported the revival of this practice so clerical officials could have religious sanctioned sexual relationships with women. This practice is an approved form of sexual exploitation of women, and allows the regime to have an official network of prostitution.
By law hospitals are required to segregate by sex all health care services.
A law prohibits the publication of material in the media that defends women’s rights in a way that would create conflict between the genders. Advocates of women’s rights are subject to imprisonment and lashing for violations.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly stated: "The real value of a woman is measured by how much she makes the family environment for her husband and children like a paradise." In July 1997 Ayatollah Khamenei said that the idea of women’s equal participation in society was "negative, primitive and childish."
The legal age at which girls can be married is 9 years (formerly 18 years). Polygamy is legal, with men permitted to have four wives and unlimited number of temporary wives. Women are not permitted to travel or acquire a passport without their husband’s written permission. A woman is not permitted to be in the company of a man who is not her husband or a male relative. Public activities are segregated. Women are not allowed to engage in sports in which they may be seen by men; or permitted to watch men’s sports in which men’s legs are not fully covered.
An international study comparing workforce conditions for women around the world ranked Iran 108th out of 110. In urban areas women make-up only 9.5 percent of the workforce, and in rural areas the percent is 8.8 percent.
Less than two weeks ago 5,000 women protesting for basic rights were brutally attacked by the police using batons, tear-gas and pepper spray, 60 were arrested.

Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey’s remarks are a disgrace. I would like her or the SWP who have an article in the Socialist Worker which also puts forward a similar argument to that of Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey to answer these points.
Dr Elaheh Rostami-Povey stated that "the status of women in the country compared favourably with many Western countries". Can she or the SWP give one example from a Western country were similar treatment of women occurs?

Imperialist aggression towards Iran must be opposed but when you make these type of statements about the Iranian regime you are providing a cover for reactionaries like Ahmadinejad and you are consciously or unconsciously an apologist for the Iranian dictatorship and the oppression of the Iranian working class.

by another sp member - (pc) Tue Jun 20, 2006 02:25

why didn't either of you go to the meeting and point that out, or go to the meeting and put any points forward, instead of coming here and bitching about no one else doing it! You lost the use of your voice?

by Socialist Tue Jun 20, 2006 02:32

"Another SP member" you arrogantly assume that everyone in Ireland who is political must live in Dublin or Cork well some of us don't. My remarks are not bitching they are legitimate and need answering. Did you go to the meeting and if so did you speak out against these comments?

by Curious Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:26

You still have not told us where you were for your decades long abscence from Ireland. At least now you seem to drop the pretence of being in Ireland since 1975. Have you really been involved in the IAWM for 18 months? You must have kept a very low profile for 8 of those months.

Socialist makes some very good points about the treatment of women in Iran. Emily was was 100% correct, the SWPs tame Iranian was a supporter of the Mullahs and an Aunt Tomasinna.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:02

Socialist,

There were meetings on Iran in Galway and Belfast too last weekend. Pity you missed them because you seem to have quite a good knowledge about the situation there. The position of our Iranian guest, as articulated in the Dublin meeting I was at, basically focussed on the resistance of the Iranian people to the Islamic regime - with particular emphasis on the role played by Iranian women. I personally see nothing wrong, or disgraceful as you say, in Elelah stating that Iranian women are very literate, enjoy a high participation in education and skilled professions , access to contraception, and a very high life expectancy. Do you not agree that these are very positive facts - unknown or underplayed in the West? These are, as Elelah stated, the fruits of struggle against the various regimes that ruled Iran since and including the Shah and in no way contradict a number of the points you made. I have btw taken the liberty of emailing your contribution to Elelah and asked her to respond to you in Indymedia. debate on Iran is our aim and in most instances this is happening.

Our concern is that the Empire may be foolish enough to engage Iran militarily - that's why we want Irish people to know the reality of Iran and engage with the overall anti-war movement on the streets and workplaces if necessary. because, in more general political terms I think it's a pity some draw conclusions from parts of the truth, as projected by the dominant media interests or hearsay...I am talking of course of well-intentioned people like yourself.

If you are really interested to figure out Elelah 's position in greater depth you could consult some of her work:

Women, work and Islamism: Ideology and Resistance in Iran:
-published by Zed Books, London and New York, under her pen name Maryam Poya.

A full chapter in 2005, Trade Unions and Women's NGOs, diverse civil society organisations in Iran in Eade D and Leather A (eds), Development NGOs and Labour Unions, Terms of Engagement, Kumarian Press Inc. USA, pp303 ­ 320.

2004 Women in Afghanistan, Passive Victims of the Borga or active social Participants? in Afshar H and Eade D (eds), Development, Women, and War: Feminist Perspectives, A Development in Practice Reader, Oxfam GB, pp 172-187.

2004, Political ­ Social Movements. Unions and Workers Movements in Iran, in Suad Joseph et al (eds) Family, Law and Politics, Encyclopaedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, Vol. 2, Brill Publishers, Netherlands, pp 669-670

2004, Civil Society in Afghanistan, in Suad Joseph et al (eds) Family, Law and Politics, Encyclopaedia of Women and Islamic Cultures, Vol. 2, Brill Publishers, Netherlands, pp 40-41

You may also be interested to know that the iawm is discussing following up last week's debate on Iran with a sequel, probably in a couple of months, focussing more specifically on the nature of the Islamic regime.

by anon Tue Jun 20, 2006 15:42

Any more info on Bertie meeting some Iraq MPs yesterday facilitated by a washington think tank? A very very brief snippet in the Times about it.

by Emily Tue Jun 20, 2006 15:45

'I personally see nothing wrong, or disgraceful as you say, in Elelah stating that Iranian women are very literate, enjoy a high participation in education and skilled professions , access to contraception, and a very high life expectancy.'

I think its bloody disgraceful to try and pretend Iran is a wonderful place for women. Women, even girls, are forced to wear the veil, their movements are restricted. What sort a life expectancy do women who have sex outside of marriage have? Not very long. If they are caught they are stoned to death.

I am not suprised at men like Michael or male SWP members being indifferent to the suffering of women but it sickens me when female IAWM/SWP members become cheerleaders for the Iranian Islamofascists.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Jun 20, 2006 16:20

The IAWM objective in introducing the Iran debate in Dublin (and Indymedia) and organising/encouraging the subsequent 3 meetings in Cork, Galway and Belfast seems to be working well. Both in this thread and in the parallel 'Cork Alliance Against the War' thread a whole number of people are posting and arguing. Over 400 people came to the four meetings. Only good can come out of this.
Let me repeat: We triggered the debate because we are worried that the US may engage in another criminal folly and attack Iran sometime before the US half-term elections before next November. We want to have this debate unfold now so that people know why and how to organise in the streets and workplaces later against this extension of the war.
The response has been so mega that the iawm is discussing right now to follow up last week's debate on Iran with a sequel, probably in a few weeks, focussing more specifically on the nature of the Islamic regime.
In this context, while ALL contributions are welcome, it is my opinion that no interest (except the warmongers' ) is served by attacking individual guest speakers (Elelah "lies", "she's an Aunt Tomassina" - and the like)...when all participants in the debate showed remarkable restrain in not even attacking the young Richard Waghorne who argued that Iran should be obliterated by "tactical nuclear weapons". He was our guest and we thought he deserved respect - albeit for his courage to come to the lion's den. Elelah was our guest - we showed her courtesy and welcome. She deserves it for her work in the Iranian left since 1979.
Most of those who posted critical messages on this and the Cork thread were not at the meetings...that's their right! But to attack individuals by name or by organisational association, or by gender, is counter-productive. Epithets such as "disgraceful", and "Islamofascist cheerleaders" thrown at people involved in politics on a day-to-day basis show little else except poverty of thought - if not some more deep seated malaise.
I think most comrades in the anti-war and the progressive movement, and those of us who use and work with Indymedia, are far too mature to be taken in by this type of carry-on! Make your arguments as forcefully as you wish good friends - but please leave the personal and vindictive baggage home! Give it a rest!

by Emily Tue Jun 20, 2006 16:48

'But to attack individuals by name or by organisational association, or by gender, is counter-productive.'

You are so amusing. You throw insults around like confetti.

'Epithets such as "disgraceful", and "Islamofascist cheerleaders" thrown at people involved in politics on a day-to-day basis show little else except poverty of thought '

But if their acts are disgraceful (in my opinion) and if they effectively act as propagandists for an Islamist Fascist-Dictatorship by ignoring the judicial murders of women then they deserve to be called disgraceful and Islamofascist cheerleaders. Its known as telling the truth.

"- if not some more deep seated malaise.'

Tell me Michael, what deeper malaise do you think I suffer from? Is it pushy woman syndrome? You guys dont like women who fight back.

by Ursula Tue Jun 20, 2006 17:29

I am fed up with the way Michael Yo dominates the discussions on Indymedia. He has a bad attitude towards women which makes me wonder if he had a bad experience.

by anon Tue Jun 20, 2006 17:34

A suggestion for MichealY get somebody from the Irish government or a representative the government position, try and get them to state a position on which internal groups they do and don't suppport or something, don't do a Hist or a Phil by getting the wacky extremist who advocates nuking places, you can still get a varied debate without those children

by SP Wed Jun 21, 2006 01:10

Those interested in this thread may also be interested in reading the following article from the new summer edition of the Socialist Party's political journal Socialist View.

Will the Ayatollahs and Bush reach a compromise? Or...
Will the US bomb Iran? by Stephen Boyd

It can be read at www.socialistparty.net

by redjade Wed Jun 21, 2006 01:45

in this article Stephen Boyd says a couple times (in various ways): 'US imperialism doesn’t have the capacity for another pre-emptive war.'

this is simply not true.

The US has upped its Tomahawk reserves considerably since Shock and Awe and is ready to do it all over again.

The question about the upcoming US War Against Iran is: Will Bush launch a war to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity or launch a war for Regime Change?

Tomahawks alone will not cause Regime Change. And Tomahawks may not be able to reach the deep bunkers the Iranians supposedly have - which is why the US is talking about using Nukes (read Seymore Hersch).

This war will include a massive barrage of missiles, possible small nukes (small?! whats that?) and probably an attempt at assasinations of Iranian leaders - including religious ones.

This will prevent the 'need' for full scale land troop invasion of Iran.

Also, consider the possibility that all of the above is just a bluff. The US and Iran have been working together a lot over the years behind the scenes and unacknowledged by the media.

Iran helped Bush invade Afghanstan, Iran helped Bush invade Iraq, Iran helped Bush track Al Q people around the region, often offering better intel than the CIA had. Go back further and you will see ad hoc alliances of Iran with Israel and Iran even helping candidate Reagan in 1979 and 1980.

Also, Iran is currently giving the new Iraqi govt $1billion in economic and infrastructural aid - AND is wiring up parts of Iraq with an electrical grid that will be electrified by Iranian plants - which will someday be iranian nuclear plants.

Question: Why would the Pentagon and CIA planners in Washington want to lose America's best partner in the Middle East?

I'm still undecided if the US will attack Iran - I doubt that even Bush himself has been told if he will go to war yet - but the last thing I would assume is that 'US imperialism doesn’t have the capacity for another pre-emptive war.'

If there is to be a US attack on Iran it will happen before this November - First Tuesday in November is US Congressional elections - thats why there's this 'urgency' at the moment. The US State Dept itself says Iran is 10 years away from developing the Bomb. Bush will probably lose Republican majority in either the Senate or the House - or both. After that he wont be able to hood wink the next congress into BS wars again. Then again, the Dems always love to be hood winked.