No Nukes for Iran!

by dr strangelove Sat Sep 01, 2007 22:30

Until the fundamentalist filled US agrees to dismantle it's 10000 nukes and run on solar power and abide by the NPT (which Iran has done) then why should they dictate to anyone else what they should do. Furthermore, given all the threats and the fact that their neighbours are equipped with nukes, they'd be mad NOT TO have a strategy to defend themselves and develop nukes.

in an ideal world, nobody should have nukes or run nuclear power plants as humans cannot be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat, let alone safeguard nuclear facilities or nuclear waste for thousands of years. However this is not an ideal world.

yet another bit of anti iran propaganda pretending to be reasonable discourse. Please fuck off now

by Sceptic Sat Sep 01, 2007 23:50

Dr Strangelove is ignoring the reality of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US and the other declared powers are entitled to have such weapons. Iran as a party to the NPT is not. Its a classic pro proliferation mentality that says if such and such has nuclear weapons why not us? It was precisely this that the NPT was put in place to try and avoid. There are quid pro quos for a non weapons State essentially that a nuclear State won't use its weapons against a non-nuclear State. Also access to nuclear technology and know how. The NPT is imperfect but its all there is. Not every weapons State is in it. But if you are in the NPT and are seen to be developing the weapons then you leave yourself open to peaceful counter measures in the first insistence like sanctions and the threat of war if that does not succeed. The plausible theory behind the NPT is that proliferation will increase the risk of a nuclear war.

by Watcher Sun Sep 02, 2007 15:15

"are seen to be developing the weapons then you leave yourself open to peaceful counter measures in the first insistence like sanctions and the threat of war if that does not succeed."

All except Israel of course !!!

by Watcher Sun Sep 02, 2007 15:26

It's amazing the amount of attacks on Iran that keep cropping up. People are advised to access the full text. It just about falls short of calling the Iranians incompetents. Nuclear power in their hands would be like giving a loaded gun to a child is the level of proaganda used. And the ususal crap about noble and empowered people being somehow able to defend themselves from a nuclear attack or from being bullied by the treat of such an attack by a State that has nuclear weapons.

This is one example,

"Empowered people are the best defense against imperialist aggression."

Go tell that to the Palistinians.
Incidently, the correct and only honest policy is for all States to totally nuclear disarm.

by Sceptic Sun Sep 02, 2007 16:47

Watcher:

1) Israel is not in the NPT. It did not break the Treaty by developing nuclear weapons. If Iran wants to develop such weapons it should leave the NPT. What it should not do is stay in and develop the weapons stealthily.

2) Total nuclear disarmament is to be favoured as the ultimate destination but the NPT provides an interim equilibrium which is however undermined if a signatory State breaches it like Iran is doing. Also disarmament is more likely to come about from a NPT status quo than from a future heavily proliferated status.

by pat c Sun Sep 02, 2007 16:55

It is totally hypocritical of you to defend Israel whilst putting the boot into Iran. Israel is a terrorist state which occupies the territory of Syria as well as Occupied Palestine. It is outrageous that there is no condemnation by the UN of the Israeli rogue state and its possession of a nuclear arsenal which is probably larger than that of France.

Nuclear Power is not safe, this has been shown to be the case in Japan, UK, the former Soviet Union and the US (see the article above). Incompetent money grubbing capitlists will always cut corners. The same would happen in Iran.

by Sceptic Sun Sep 02, 2007 18:22

Pat C,

Israel
I’m not being hypocritical in the least. I was merely outlining the facts - namely, that Iran is in the NPT whilst Israel is not. It is not against international law for a non-signatory State to develop nuclear weapons – it is for a signatory. That is the legal position. Other things are more matters of opinion or more accurately polemic like describing Israel as a terrorist or rogue State.

Nuclear Power
“Nuclear Power is not safe” – that is a different question and there are many experts who could plausibly argue that it is indeed very safe and these are more convincing to me that arguments from people like Adi Roche who rely more on emotional types of argument. As for the greedy capitalist the record of nuclear power in the west is good. It was not “greedy capitalists” who were running the show in the Ukraine in 1986. As regards Iran and nuclear power the powers would prefer if Iran did not have nuclear energy but they are co-operating with the programme in the hope that it might avoid a weapons programme. Its an entitlement under the NPT and it all comes back to it. There are few good options with Iran.

by Watcher Sun Sep 02, 2007 19:54

" Israel is not in the NPT. It did not break the Treaty by developing nuclear weapons."

So Iran's only crime is breaking a Treaty? Israel make it their business not to go to bed at night without breaking at least one treaty or agreement. What's the big deal?

by Sceptic Sun Sep 02, 2007 20:34

I’m just laying out the legalities that inform the thinking of the international community, not opinions of mine. This is the legal framework that the US, P5, EU 3 employ when dealing with the issue. It would be a major breach of the NPT for Iran to be developing nuclear weapons – not a crime as such as crimes under international law are pretty well restricted to genocide. The problem is that this is an extremely important treaty. There can be other breaches of international law but anything affecting the NPT is in the first rank because so much depends on it and the stakes are very high. That is why Iran is being subject to sanctions.

by Watcher Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:16

" the stakes are very high."
They are for Iran.The lesson that Iran has learned in the past decade is, if you have nuclear weapons
the US and allies will not invade you. Contrary to what some people think, the Iranians are a sophisticated people who know what is in their best interests.

by Electra Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:37

All nuclear powers are in breach of the NPT. This is because it also requires those countries holding nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, Britain, France, etc.) to negotiate in good faith nuclear disarmament. This is something they have failed to do. So if everyone has in practice repudiated the NPT it's hard to see that Iran should be scapegoated whatever its real intentions (and it should be noted that Iran claims it is not producing a bomb, a claim which has not been disproved).
BTW what is the "International Community" other than the big (nuclear possessing) powers who want to retain their predominance in the means of destruction? A more honest definition might include that the 6 billion odd inhabitants of this planet who are definitely not represented on the UNSC.

by Aragon Mon Sep 03, 2007 13:33

I dont recall seeing any leftist arguments in favour of nuclear power per se in discussions about the Iran situation. What most people in the left who do not want to see a war on Iran are saying is that Iran's ambitions appear so far to be restricted to nuclear power and that it is dishonest for the US to allege otherwise when independent external observers have confirmed there is so far nothing suspicious in what they are doing. Whether nuclear power is a good thing or not is not the issue at the moment. Either way Iran should not be attacked. And the US should destroy its own arsenal and make plans to reduce its energy capabilities proprotionate to those that exists in Iran before it even opens its mouth to express an opinion about what Iran is up to.

by Socialist Mon Sep 03, 2007 17:13

The author of the story is an Iranian socialist who is opposing all US threats towards Iran. Perhaps if you read over the story again you would notice that he is opposed to nuclear power no matter where it is. He shows the dangers of nuclear power in the Ukraine, China and Japan. He wonders why socialists who think nuclear power is a bad thing in the West seem to think nuclear power in Iran is a good idea.

He carefully outlines why in addition to the usual reasons, nuclear power is extra dangerous in Iran due to the risk of earthquakes.

by Watcher Mon Sep 03, 2007 18:36

"The author of the story is an Iranian socialist who is opposing all US threats towards Iran. Perhaps if you read over the story again you would notice that he is opposed to nuclear power no matter where it is. He shows the dangers of nuclear power in the Ukraine, China and Japan. He wonders why socialists who think nuclear power is a bad thing in the West seem to think nuclear power in Iran is a good idea."

Read the headline and the trust of the post clearly defines it as pointing to Iran as somehow being more dangerous than anybody else messing around with nuclear energy/arms.

"He carefully outlines why in addition to the usual reasons, nuclear power is extra dangerous in Iran due to the risk of earthquakes."

This is tantamount to racism by again suggesting that Iran, above every other nation, can't be "trusted" with nuclear power. Strange when you consider that the only country who used this technology to date is the US, which would suggest to any neutral observer that they are the ones who by their own actions have proved that they cannot be trusted with this stuff, and yet has there been a post here lately calling on the US to disarm?

by Sceptic Mon Sep 03, 2007 20:17

ALL NUCLEAR POWERS ARE IN BREACH OF THE NPT. They are not because the Treaty has no timetable for disarmament.

INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY? Strictly speaking the definition should apply
to all or most States acting collectively and with a broad common
position on an issue. In practice the term is more elastic. However it
is often applied to the Security Council Permanent Five. Like the NPT
it's a system that might be criticised but there is a two-tier power
structure in international diplomacy. This was put in place after the
collapse of the earlier League of Nations, which had a single tier approach. It is a
question of realities not a plurality of humanity.

IRAN DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS? It is not just the US that thinks so. It
is also the EU and the IAEA (A UN agency) along with Iran's Sunni neighbours. The
latter will proliferate themselves if Iran does in fact go nuclear.

TANTAMOUNT TO RACISM? No. It is that this regime has a history of unpredictably, sponsoring terrorism, flying in the face of diplomatic conventions (eg by taking accredited diplomats hostage), threatening to wipe a neighbouring State off the map, among other things. There is also an apocalyptical strand in its theology that seems to court a nuclear Armageddon. Even if it did not share nuclear weapons technology with terrorists, the acquisition of such weapons would bring them into a very volatile region and ser off proliferation elsewhere – eg. the Gulf Cooperation States and Turkey to begin with, possibly also Egypt.

by wageslave Mon Sep 03, 2007 21:38

septic, you're talking out your ass

I'm too weary to take on the entire stream of unadulterated crap you are spouting point by point. so I'll just highlight one of them and hope others will deal with some of the rest. neo-con apologists can be really wearing!.

among all the other things you are saying, you are still implying that Iran threatened to wipe israel off the map when everyone knows now that their president never actually said that. If you can't even google that simple point before you regurrrrgle it, then how much value should we put on anything else you say? (heh! thanks iosaf)

one of the many sites who dealt with this:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

quote from site follows:
---------------------------------

The Actual Quote:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

by Watcher Tue Sep 04, 2007 08:55

"TANTAMOUNT TO RACISM? No. It is that this regime has a history of unpredictably, sponsoring terrorism, flying in the face of diplomatic conventions (eg by taking accredited diplomats hostage), threatening to wipe a neighbouring State off the map, among other things. There is also an apocalyptical strand in its theology that seems to court a nuclear Armageddon. Even if it did not share nuclear weapons technology with terrorists, the acquisition of such weapons would bring them into a very volatile region and ser off proliferation elsewhere – eg. the Gulf Cooperation States and Turkey to begin with, possibly also Egypt."

This is awfull depressing stuff not l;east because because having read it a few times I think it may not be just proaganda, Sceptic may actually believe this stuff and is relaying it on in that context. That is the power of Us/neo-con propaganda machine.

Some questions?
How many other States in the world could be said to be unpredictable? The fact is that States who feel threatened tend to fall into that category. (Japan late 1930's)So perhaps the correct thing to do is to lobby to have those doing the threatening to stop. Such as the US

How many States sponsor terrorism?
Without doubt the worst offender has been the US. Israel are not far behind, indeed Hollywood made a film recently all about it.

What States threaten to wipe their neighbours off the map?
More to the point, what States have actually tried to do precisely that? The fact is again that the US have a history of more than threatening neighbours, they have gone and done it. Iraq has been destroyed and it is estimated that it will take a full century for them to recover, if they recover at all and that is not certain. The reason that the Mid east is volitile is because of US interference. They have just signed agreements with States in the region to plough billions of dollars worth of military hardware into the area. The fact is that nobody observing what is happening would be surprised or critical of Iran for trying to develop nuclear weapons as that may be the only deterent they could have against the threat of invasion and interference.

And this classic racist nonsense is worth repeating verbatum.
"There is also an apocalyptical strand in its theology that seems to court a nuclear Armageddon."

This is the type of stuff that was used to justify injustice and exploitation down the centuries, including slavery, but it is surprising to see it appear in so called modern sophisticated times. It is the one sentence that shifts Sceptic away from being an ill informed red neck sort, lost in a John Wayne world of heroes and villians, to being a dangerous proagandist who is part of a well orchastrated chorus cheerleading the hawks and money grabbers as they rampage through the Mid-east destroying the lives of those that live there in order to plunder their resources.The sad fact is that the west is motivated by self interest and driven by greed and is the real threat.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:53

There is some misunderstanding. I was explaining the perceptions that give rise to such opposition to an Iranian nuke. I was not passing judgment on them myself or giving any personal opinion. The opposition is based on the nature of the regime and its track record - not on the fact that the Iranians are Asians. Three other Asian States have nukes (one of the Muslim) and there is not the same opposition. Note that it is the not the US alone by any means that is opposed to the Iranian nukes. The EU is just as opposed as are the Arab neighbours of Iran. Even Russia is concerned. Bottom line is what is behind this issue is the NPT and Iranian behaviour. Certainly not racism.

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 14:49

"This is tantamount to racism by again suggesting that Iran, above every other nation, can't be "trusted" with nuclear power. "

How could it be racist for an Iranian Socialist to say that Iranian Capitalists are not to be trusted? He says that the Iranian Government cannot be trusted to implement proper monitoring standards because it is so corrupt. The author also goes to great length to criticise other governments and capitalists of other nations.

No honest/sane person would suggest it is racist for an Iranian Socialist to say that Iranian Capitalists can not be trusted.

"Strange when you consider that the only country who used this technology to date is the US"

I think you are reffering to nuclear weapons. The article is about nuclear power.

by John H. - Much ado about nothing Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:18

Watcher was replying to Sceptic not the content of what the author of the Article had written.

Read the thread before you trip over yourself to riposte otherwise your little rant about honesty becomes merely amusing if not hypocritical .

In the context of what was being posted by Sceptic, watchers points stand.

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:30

I was responding to Watchers post farther up the thread, "Dumping on Iran'

I donr think any of Watchers points stand. So think and read before you post.

by pat c Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:48

Here are extracts from some HOPI and WLU articles regarding Iran. From them you will see that they clearly oppose any US aggression towards Iran. I make no apologies for the number of articles posted here which support the struggles of Iranian workers. There will be plenty more, its known as solidarity.

No one has been prepared to use their own name attack the Iranian Trade Unionists or Socialists. But in Ireland HOPI supporters include: the WSM, ISN, Sen David Norris, Tony Gregory TD, Des Derwin - vice-president, Dublin Council of Trade Unions, Joe Moore - CWU, Prof Madeleine Leonard - QUB, Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD, Daithí McKay MLA - SF.

Anti-imperialism and Tehran
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83568

Every day the media publish unattributed briefings by US generals and Pentagon sources regarding Iran’s connections to Al Qa’eda, the Taliban and various other terror groups. Most of the media briefings contain no details of substance and many simply repeat previous accusations. However, they are undoubtedly intended to keep tensions ratcheted up, and there is no doubt that the danger of an extension of the current sanctions against Tehran and of limited military action by the US or Israel is very real.

Of course, as many commentators inside Iran have pointed out, this has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear industry (just as the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the notorious ‘45 minutes’ or Saddam Hussein’s WMD) and indeed, even if Iran stopped the enrichment of uranium tomorrow, the threat would not go away.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/681/fringe%20iran.htm

The Class Nature of the Iranian Regime
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83485

It is a paradox that probably only US Neocons can appreciate how far the Iranian regime has carried out its privatization policy. The only difference is that here they say we do it in our own Islamic way, i.e., as long as we are kept in power. The mafia like groups which have divided the national kitty among themselves are clinging to power at all costs. As the Iranian saying goes, you never get anything back from a mullah. The Shiite hierarchy is not like a military junta which may one day realize its time has passed and has to hand over to a more normal form of rule. We have already seen three waves of reforms from within the regime which have all ended up with the reformers getting a slap in the face. The logic of all reforms calls for the withdrawal of the mullahs from positions of political power. As soon as this logic becomes clear the more fundamentalists organize a new backlash. And as this gets repeated the necessity for its revolutionary overthrow is also becoming more popular. Both Khamenehii and Bush know as the storms of a new revolution are gathering strength, the "nuclear crisis" can provide them with the cover for plunging Iranian society into a state of permanent military curfew.

Making Cars in Iran: Working for Iran Khodro
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82798

As Iranian union activist Ebrahim Madadi says: Our labour union does not regard anyone who propagates and prepares for war as its friends and allies. We reject strongly any military action against our country and warn the workers against the threat of war and the need to stop such aggression.

by pat c Tue Sep 04, 2007 15:56

I just checked the front page of the Hands Off the People of Iran website. These stories are under the news links. Hardly unbalanced

Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran

Possibility of war with Iran

Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?

No Nukes for Iran! by Reza Fiyouzat

Commemoration of 1988 massacre of Political Prisoners

Workers At Iranian Sugar-Cane Plant To Go On Strike Again

Iran hangs 30 over 'US plots'

by John H. Tue Sep 04, 2007 16:04

The so-called iranian Socialist author is part of a tiny Communist movement that is scapegoating the Iranian Government off the back of growing US condemnation of Iran both through its Nuclear program and its HR record.

Support for a 'secular democracy' nevermind a communist system is tiny within Iran. That is a reality that is abundantly overlooked in all this. Self-determination it seems is only permissable when in line with what we in the west perceive as civilised and free. It ties in nicely with the demonisation process, If Iran cannot govern justly, it cannot be trusted with Nuclear Power. The double standards are breath-taking as is the hubris.

Iran has a right to pursue a legitimate Nuclear power programme. Nobody without or within has the right to deny the Iranian people that pursuit. Especially on thread bare arguements such as 'earthquakes'.
By that reckoning Japan is a totally rogue regime with scant care for humanity or the environment.

Nonsense, this is Islamo-bashing in disguise now matter how 'principled' its presented.

It is racist to suggest (by those in the west such as your goodself) that the Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology and it is Islamophobic when the same thing is suggested by Iranian Communists.

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 16:15

"The so-called iranian Socialist author is part of a tiny Communist movement that is scapegoating the Iranian Government off the back of growing US condemnation of Iran both through its Nuclear program and its HR record."

How is a Iranian Socialist scapegoating the Iranian Govt when he also criticises the US? Given that all opposition parties are banned in Iran you have no way of knowing how much support the authors group has.

"Support for a 'secular democracy' nevermind a communist system is tiny within Iran."

Where is your evidence for this?

" The double standards are breath-taking as is the hubris."

But the record of other countries with nuclear power is also criticised.

"Iran has a right to pursue a legitimate Nuclear power programme. Nobody without or within has the right to deny the Iranian people that pursuit."

But if you (as I do) oppose nuclear power in Ireland then surely the same arguments hold true in Iran. Its not the Iranian people who are choosing. Its a dictatorship.

"Especially on thread bare arguements such as 'earthquakes'.
By that reckoning Japan is a totally rogue regime with scant care for humanity or the environment."

But Iran is in an earthquake zone. Nuclear power is just as unsafe in Japan. Have you read the article? The author criticises Japan for the same reasons.

"Nonsense, this is Islamo-bashing in disguise now matter how 'principled' its presented."

Thats irrational. How could it be islamo-bashing to say Iran should not have nuclear power? Is it Shinto bashing to say Japan shouldnt?

I"t is racist to suggest (by those in the west such as your goodself) that the Iranians cannot be trusted with nuclear technology and it is Islamophobic when the same thing is suggested by Iranian Communists. "

Thats raving. Either nuclear power is bad or it isnt. If its bad and unsafe then its just as unsafe in Iran as in Ireland. To suggest that it is Islamophobic for an Iranian Socialist to oppose nuclear power in Iran suggests to me that you are not in touch with reality.

by John H. Tue Sep 04, 2007 16:27

A fascinating point to observe in all this is that a militant right wing hack called 'Sceptic' has posted several times and wants to see Iran stripped of its Nuclear program (by whatever means- including military strikes) and who does 'Socialist' attack, those attacking Sceptic.

Unbelievable. If the far left put more energy into attacking its real enemy rather than try to outdo each other maybe an attack on Iran wont be the foregone conclusion it is today.

By the way, for the record, 4% of Iranians favour a 'secular democracy' with 71% happy withthte direction the country is heading.

http://www.intermedia.org/news_and_publications/pressre....html

Washington, D.C. – 23 May 2006
Iran: New survey finds polarizing, hardening of Iranian attitudes
over nuclear program

That is reality.

by iosaf Tue Sep 04, 2007 17:11

Over the last week, I've enjoyed the hospitality of an elderly couple of English origin who fit quite stereotypically into the "ex-pat" continental retirement idyll description set. They lent me a pair of dogs & gave me a gun with a box of cartridges & pointed me in the direction of spoor, tracks & wild-life. I think wild-life is cool. & so armed and in good tail-wagging company I've spend the last week rambling around forests and mountains during the days till my thighs feel like iron and my buttocks are solid geoids of primed muscle. Cool. Of a night though there was little else to do but send word on my position through the wonders of modern GSP gadgetry and they came & picked me up & then once the sweet pair were asleep I could go through their daily delivery of ranting right wing newspapers, weekly delivery of blended scotch whisky and enjoy their satelite dish. Now of course many of you boys and girls in Erin think nothing of watching the Sky range of telly stations & I'm sure it's done as much damage to your minds as seven years of intensive non-stop physical abuse. But having lived far away from such telly and far far away from such newspapers as the Daily Mail and Telegraph for a long time - I absorbed all this Iran war noise in a slightly different way. Normally I just glance at those site once in a while & most of my media comes in Spanish language.
Many weeks ago, I expressed the opinion that I sincerely doubted Iran would be attacked in terms of invasion, and my little alerts only popped up in the weeks preceding the Turkish general election when the Turkish army was amassed on the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. I recall in that week before 23 Kurdish deputies were elected to the Turkish state parliament that I also brought attention to regular Turkish and Iranian military incursions into what is Iraqi territory where then the Turks claimed they were fought by the PKK using weapons which had originated from the USA.
Over a year ago, during the cartoon thing I joked it would be an idea to call the bluff and ask the USA to invade Iran because no way would they ever do it. Less than a year ago during the covert diplomacy efforts and prisoner swaps which saw British marines on an espionage operation exchanged for Iranians in UK custody, I again expressed the belief that no-one is going to invade Iran. No-one. Then less than a month ago, parties to these now regular threads on indymedia ireland suggested that instead of talking war war invasion & land operations what was going to happen was a USAF missile strike. Hmmmmm. from where? as in whence would these missiles come? Well if we look at the map and think in practical terms, the most likely place for such a strike would be the USS aircraft carrier in the gulf. It wouldn't be Basra palace and it wouldn't be Iraqi Kurdistan. & just in case people get swish - it wouldn't be Colorado, Area 51, the Moon Base or Shannon. It could quite possibly be that little USAF base where Bush turned up by surprise with Gates & Rice or as the last time - it could just be done by the Israeli air-force. For lets not forget that only time in history that a "nuclear target" has been hit, it was Iraq's potential done by Ilan Ramon the man who died on the Challenger space shuttle re-entry.

Anyway - the impression I got from reading the right wing jingoist press of the UK and watching US satelite telly (Fox) and juggling that with the new english language Al Jazeera whilst still trying to keep up with my usual news reading & media watching - was the British really think their influence on US policy vis a vis Iran is much greater than any they thought they had as regards Iraq. & they really don't seem to think any strike is going to come. They're not using the right build-up language. In fact from the "colonel Blimp" types of gun-ho patriots to the climate campers on the left, I get the distinct impression the Brits are in endgame on the whole disastrous and evil affair. That was the conclusion I came to in my analysis during the prisoner swap marine hostage crises . & of course the Brits avoided any "last hewey helicopters out of Basra - slan abhaile photos by giving the Iraqi insurgents even more prisoners this week...
Of course the Americans in Fox news are constantly building their case for war on Iran. I won't argue with that. Indeed it was curious to watch them last wednesday start talking about the very build-up in Iraqi Kurdistan (provinces which were under the British army) and the activities of the Iranians there. It was "out-of-time" twiddle twaddle which leads me to the instinct:- I still don't think they'll do it. in short - don't credit Fox news with the same opinion forming power it had 7 or even 4 years ago. A lot of water has gone under the bridge not to mention blood.

But I'd hate to be caught out on that & look back & not think I didn't say No war on Iran!

by Sceptic Tue Sep 04, 2007 17:32

"'SCEPTIC' HAS POSTED SEVERAL TIMES AND WANTS TO SEE IRAN STRIPPED OF ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM (BY WHATEVER MEANS- INCLUDING MILITARY STRIKES"

This conclusion cannot be drawn from my comments. Iran is legally entitled to pursue a nuclear POWER programme under the NPT. As it is on of the countries in the world that least needs nuclear power there are grave suspicions about its motives for this. As regards the Iranian nuclear WEAPONS programme I was merely giving the background to this issue – in response to some not very well informed comments. The international pressure at present is targeted as the nuclear weapons programme and comprises of peaceful methods – diplomacy and sanctions. These are designed to AVOID the risk of war over the issue.

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 17:59

"and who does 'Socialist' attack, those attacking Sceptic.

No. I criticise those who are attacking the author of this article. I am not in agreement with Skeptic.

"By the way, for the record, 4% of Iranians favour a 'secular democracy' with 71% happy withthte direction the country is heading. Washington, D.C. – 23 May 2006 Iran: New survey finds polarizing, hardening of Iranian attitudes "

That survey was carried out in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship it takes a very brave person to tell a stranger that you are unhappy with the government. If such a survey was carried out in North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Burma I would also query its accuracy.

I think the masses of protesting workers and students tell the real story about how popular the Iranian Government is.

by Watcher Tue Sep 04, 2007 18:36

"There is some misunderstanding. I was explaining the perceptions that give rise to such opposition to an Iranian nuke. I was not passing judgment on them myself or giving any personal opinion."

Sorry Sceptic but your intention is clearly to excuse the repeatedly singling out of Iran in these targeted calls for someone, somhow to stop Iran, and Iran alone, from accessing nuclear power. Read the headline of the thread. NO NUKES FOR IRAN. No other country is mentioned.

" The opposition is based on the nature of the regime and its track record - not on the fact that the Iranians are Asians."

This is poppycock and really is grasping for straws. The regime that is presently in the Whitehouse is the scarriest and is proven to be most dangerous regime in the world. We should have posts every day calling on that regime to disarm.

"Three other Asian States have nukes (one of the Muslim) and there is not the same opposition."

The reason is simple, once a country obtains nuclear capacity there is little can be done. Threats of an attack and other bullying fades for obvious reasons.

"Note that it is the not the US alone by any means that is opposed to the Iranian nukes. The EU is just as opposed as are the Arab neighbours of Iran. Even Russia is concerned."

Of course countries with nuclear weapons don't want any more members of the club. If Iran becomes a nuclear power that is one less country that that can be bullied.

"Bottom line is what is behind this issue is the NPT and Iranian behaviour. Certainly not racism."

Wrong. This is an excuse, nothing more.

Socialist asks,

"How could it be racist for an Iranian Socialist to say that Iranian Capitalists are not to be trusted?"

In the final analysis, is it honest to say that anybody can be trusted with nuclear power? The point here is that when Iran is singled out and discribed as untrustworthy, this is racist, it cannot be anything else because it is simply not true to state that Iran is more likely than any orther nation to use these weapons. The previous comment about Iranians having an "Armageddon death wish" is just part of this comtemptable nonsense that is sprouted whenever the posters are challanged to explain themselves.

"He says that the Iranian Government cannot be trusted to implement proper monitoring standards because it is so corrupt."

This is reminiscent of the stuff that emanated from Whitehall following independence. "The Irish cannot rule themselves and they will be back with a begging bowl within a few years." This is a racist point of view.

"The author also goes to great length to criticise other governments and capitalists of other nations."

The headline only mentions Iran. It is not a general attack on nations holding nuclear weapons. It profferrs the propaganda that is coming straight out of Washington to frighten people into the belief that somehow an attack on Iran is justifiable. Any responsible Socialist would have no difficulty understanding that context and would steer well clear of these posts or instead confining any comment to a general call for nuclear disarmament.

"No honest/sane person would suggest it is racist for an Iranian Socialist to say that Iranian Capitalists can not be trusted".

Now the name calling in starting as is par for the course. For anyone to single out a nation and suggest that that nation of people alone carry a dangerous trait that is a threat to the world, is racist-no matter what the nationality of the utterer is.

"I think you are reffering to nuclear weapons. The article is about nuclear power"

Wrong, the issue is about nuclear capability and the capacity to strike back in like manner if attacked. As stated previously, a nuclear capable Iran would move them above the US and others ability to bully them. That's what drives the current propaganda onslaught and socialists in particular have a responibility to understand what is behind these repeated postings and to ensure that the posters are called upon to fully explain their motives. As you can see from Sceptic's postings, it is not hard to out bias.

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 18:48

"This is reminiscent of the stuff that emanated from Whitehall following independence. "The Irish cannot rule themselves and they will be back with a begging bowl within a few years." This is a racist point of view."

No its not racist. This is a case of an Iranian Socialist saying that an Iranian Capitalist Government can not be trusted.

You are acting like the Whitefall flunkies you decry: you are saying that an Iranian Socialist does not have the right to question a undemocratic capitalist government in Iran.

""The author also goes to great length to criticise other governments and capitalists of other nations."
The headline only mentions Iran."

Only tabloid readers get their news from Headlines. But being an Iranian Socialist of course he is goung to focus on Iran. The article is aboutwhy nuclear power should be opposed in Iran just as it is by socialists in the west.

by Socialist Tue Sep 04, 2007 18:53

"For anyone to single out a nation and suggest that that nation of people alone carry a dangerous trait that is a threat to the world, is racist-no matter what the nationality of the utterer is."

Again I have to say it is ridiclious to suggest it is racist for an Iranian to criticise other Iranians for wanting to introduce nuclear power.

But he does not single out Iranians, he also criticises the records of other countries. If you have read the article you know this, so you are just misrepresenting it. If you havent read the article then I suggest you do so.

by Lefty Tue Sep 04, 2007 19:11

Your assertion that it is impossible for an individual to be racist against his own race exposes your complete ignorance of the subject matter and therefore your comments on it are meaningless.

by Watcher Tue Sep 04, 2007 20:09

"No its not racist. This is a case of an Iranian Socialist saying that an Iranian Capitalist Government can not be trusted."

Once again, it is racist to single out a nation and claim that that nation alone has a trait that renders it untrustworthy. This nonsense of refering to "the regime" and "the leadership" is merely attempts at deflecting the true intentions of the propagandist.

"You are acting like the Whitefall flunkies you decry: you are saying that an Iranian Socialist does not have the right to question a undemocratic capitalist government in Iran."

Firstly having read the article, I would question the authors socialism. Any Iranian socialist would be mindful of the propaganda minefield that abounds his country at present and would be aware that the eyes of the hawks are firmly fixed on his/her country and accordingly would do nothing that could be remotely interprated by the US or anyone else that he/she would welcome or could be convinced that an invasion of his/her country could be justified in the common good.

"Only tabloid readers get their news from Headlines."

They are precisely the target of the propagandists.

"But being an Iranian Socialist of course he is goung to focus on Iran. "

Not so. A poster calling for nuclear disarmament would do just that. It is utterly ridiculous and would be a total waste of time to create pressure on one country only. Nuclear disarmament will only be effective when all those that have such power, get rid of it. It is disengenuous to claim that an aticle singling out one nation is in any way a general campaign against nuclear power and particularly in the current circumstances when Bush and pals are chompimg at the bit to get a toe into Iran. (Iran is sitting on an ocean of oil.)

"The article is about why nuclear power should be opposed in Iran just as it is by socialists in the west."

The article is an attack on Iran using the frightener that nuclear power in the hands of Iran is dangerous because Iranians have some "mutual distruction" mindset and therefore the US had better ride in on it's white charger and save humanity from the Hun. I don't believe for one minute that you believe that.

by Alan Thu Sep 06, 2007 15:18

Irish Communists, socialists and republicans supported and engaged in the struggle for independence in Ireland similar to leftists in Iran supporting the overthrow of the Imperialist puppet dictatorship of the Shah.

The outcome of the Irish revolution was a ‘Republic’ ruled on and off by two slightly different conservative parties under the strong influence of the catholic church. Much the same can be said of Iran – a different church but equally fundamentalist. After supporting the Iranian revolution the left was almost totally liquidated by the new regime. In Ireland the left was extremely small and didn’t pose any treat but nevertheless was demonised by the church and the conservative controlled media to hinder its potential growth. The left in Ireland has been a consistent critic of FF, FG and Labour when in Government and the left has supported women’s liberation, gay rights, human rights, trade union struggle, against nuclear power, for secular education and the separation of church and state. I don’t ever recall socialists outside of Ireland arguing that the Left should not struggle Ireland because they were playing into the hands of British Imperialism.

Some of the above statements seem to argue (from a great distance from Iran) that Iranian socialists should abstain from these struggles, and worse still that they are playing into the hands of Imperialism by resisting the Iranian Regime. Now I remember the left was split prior to the First World War into two camps one arguing that the left should rally to the flag and defend their nation, and another that said ‘workers unite’.

I’m happy to support the demand to act in solidarity with the people of Iran in opposing the Iranian Regime and USUk Imperialist Intervention.

I can’t live with – Support the heroic Iranian regime in its struggle against Imperialism, repression of Trade Unionists, Women, Socialists, human rights, communists, gays and minority religions.

If you can live with that I hope you sleep well

by Lefty Thu Sep 06, 2007 16:04

Your analogies are poor Alan but yet another voice dictates to us how the left should behave, think etc etc.

Comparing Ireland to Iran is of course disingenuous. On the International stage we where/are a speck with no resources and feck all influence.

Iran is hugely influential in the Islamic world, it has massive resources and is essential to what the west would call a 'stable' middle east. The Americans are at present interfering internally within Iran, spending billions in a propaganda campaign that makes all if any news coming out of Iran suspect at best. American interference is resulting in a clampdown by the Mullahs. Something the Americans want as it gives cause for further demonisation propaganda. This is why serious leftists are furious with US covert operations. It sets back genuine reform within Iran, something that was happening (albeit at a snails pace) and was becoming evident in reports up until 2005.

e.g. 60% of students in Iranian Universities are woman

As well as stirring up internal agitation it is also reasonable to assume the US are infiltrating groups within Iran and sowing false information and creating an impression that Iran is ripe for regime change. There may also be a few deluded Iranians who may welcome the chaos of a US strike on Iran and foolishly believe that it could also be a further catalyst for revolution.

All ridiculous and totally devoid of the reality of the situation of Iran.

I wonder how this Alan will sleep when Iranian Infants are crushed under tons of US ordnance as they come to 'liberate' the backward uncivilised Iranians.

by Curious Thu Sep 06, 2007 16:29

'wonder how this Alan will sleep when Iranian Infants are crushed under tons of US ordnance as they come to 'liberate' the backward uncivilised Iranians.'

Alan has clearly opposed any support for US action against the Iranian State. I wonder how you sleep when striking workers are being imprisoned, political prisoners are being hanged. Do you really believe there is no genuine opposition to the undemocratic unelected* Iranian Government? Do you really believe that unions and strikes should be banned?

* There are no genuine elections in Iran. All candidates for the Majis and Presidency have to be approved by a Council of Islamic Experts. All political parties are banned.

by Lefty Thu Sep 06, 2007 16:55

"Alan has clearly opposed any support for US action against the Iranian State."

Clearly 'Alan' has done nothing of the sort. He said he would act in solidarity (that all forgiving adjective_ which means fuck all) with Iranians in opposing the Iranian Regime and US imperialism. Nice and safe and disposable.

How can he oppose that which he clearly does not understand? The Useful idiots are accumulating.

As for this rhetorical rubbish 'Do you really believe that unions and strikes should be banned?'

I suppose this goes back to an either/or argument that is manufactured in the absence of candour. I will apply your over-simplified logic to that question and say if it came down to the lives of Iranian Infants and the right of workers to Strike I have no problem with what I would choose.

by HOPI Thu Sep 06, 2007 16:58

"Your analogies are poor Alan but yet another voice dictates to us how the left should behave, think etc etc."

The Left Support The Iranian Opposition and oppose US threats against Iran. Here are some of the supporters of Hands Off the People of Iran. Why dont you try and get people on the Left to say that Iranian Socialists should not be supported? It would be a short list!

Professor Noam Chomsky - MIT
Professor Mike Davis - University of California, Irvine
Professor John Newsinger - Bath Spa University
Professor Tariq Modood - University of Bristol
Professor Sheila Rowbotham - University of Manchester
John Pilger - journalist and writer
Cllr Rania Khan - Respect, Tower Hamlets
Cllr Fozol Miah - Respect, Tower Hamlets
Cllr Oliur Rahman - Respect, Tower Hamlets
Jill Evans MEP - Plaid Cymru, Wales
Jens Holm MEP - Left Party , Sweden
Stephen Hughes MEP - Labour, NE England
Caroline Lucas MEP - Green Party, SE England
Diane Abbott MP - Labour
John McDonnell MP - Labour
Adam Price MP - Plaid Cymru
Linda Riordan MP - Labour
Senator David Norris - Seanad Éireann
Tony Gregory TD - Dáil Éireann
Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD - Dáil Éireann
Rune Lund MF - Red-Green Alliance, (Denmark)
John Dallat MLA - SDLP, deputy speaker, NI Assembly
Daithí McKay MLA - Sinn Féin
Tim Morris MHA - Green, Member of Tasmanian Parliament
Craig Murray - former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan
Cllr Chris Flood - Socialist Party, Lewisham
Ken Loach - filmmaker
Michael Mansfield QC
Irish Socialist Network
Worker Solidarity Movement

Thats just a short extract from the list of HOPI supporters. The complete list is here: http://www.hopoi.org/supporters.html

The full statement sign by the HOPI suuporters is here: http://www.hopoi.org/main.html

Here are the HOPI Campaign demands supported by the signatories:

Our campaign demands are:
No to imperialist war!
No to the theocratic regime!
The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from the Gulf region!
Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!
Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
Support for socialism, democracy and workers' control in Iran!
For a nuclear-free Middle East in a nuclear-free world!

by Curious Thu Sep 06, 2007 17:02

Thank you. You have made it clear that you uncritically support the Iranian Government. Workers going on strike for a living wage has got nothing to do with killing infants.

Funny, this debate is headed by an article written by an Iranian whio is against the use of nuclear power. Lefty doesnt think that Irish people (other than himself) should have a view on Iran, but Lefty knows better than any Iranian socialist whats right for Iran!

by HOPI Thu Sep 06, 2007 17:06

Provide the names of anyone who is prepared to openly say that the Iranian Government is right to crush trade unions. Is that too much to ask?

I guess Chomsky, Pilger, Norris Loach etc are wrong and you are right.

by Watcher Thu Sep 06, 2007 17:37

I have no doubt that those that are repeatedly named as supporters by Pat C will be very disturbed at their names been bandied about on a post which is raising genuine concerns by socialists as to why the same people keep posting anti-Iran material here. Check the last few months and count the number of times that this has occurred. All of those people named are supporters of workers rights, womens rights etc etc and challange discrimimnation and injustice everywhere, not just in Iran. Those named will also be very aware of the impact of focused criticism in this way and particularly with hawks waiting their chance to strike. Have we not had enough of this stuff Pat?
Let's talk about injustice, discrimination and oppression and lets name all countries where this occurs and confront it. Singling out Iran is counterproductive because people how would otherwise support these causes are concerned that Iran is being singled out and especially in the dangerous situation that currently obtains.

Maybe you could get one of those named to post stating that they have no concerns with this constant singling out of one country for repeated attack.

by pat c Thu Sep 06, 2007 18:21

"I have no doubt that those that are repeatedly named as supporters by Pat C will be very disturbed at their names been bandied about on a post which is raising genuine concerns by socialists as to why the same people keep posting anti-Iran material here."

You are a liar. Nothing more. Chomsky, Pilger Loach all oppose the Iranian Dictatorship. It is not anti-Iranian to criticise attacks on unions. Especially when the articles are written by Iranians.

Chomsky, Pilger and Loach put their name to a statement which opposes the Iranian Regime.

If they disagree with HOPIs statements then why do they still support HOPI? The above article is on the HOPI site front page.

You are just a liar and a pretty pathetic one at that.

Maybe you could get someone, under their own name, anyone who commands public respect, to say the Iranian regime is correct to outlaw opposition parties, ban strikes and refuse recognition to trade unions.

by Critical Thu Sep 06, 2007 18:50

I haven't seen any post here that expresses solidarity with the Iranian Government. There have been posts that have tried to discuss the Iranian problem beyond the simplistic context of support HOPOI or you are an apologist for oppression of workers and support the banning of trade Unions and the oppression of minorities. That is what is 'dishonest' here. A feeble tarring of those who raise the question that singling out Iran for criticism at such an ominous time could indeed lend US hawks a hand in their propaganda. The continuous reluctance and near hysterical refusal to except that this is even remotely possible belies any integrity with those would seek to speak for Iran and Iranians.

Condemn all oppression, everywhere, equally.

I do not see posts on this or any other thread from the distinguished individuals listed above that categorically attacks Iran or its government. They have signed a visitor petition on the HOPOI website expressing solidarity with HOPOI objectives.

Socialist from HOPOI do not post these articles on Indymedia, they are posted by Pat C in a third party capacity. Nobody from HOPOI has commented on this thread. Only those who would speak for them.

HOPOI has well sounded objectives and from its website it is clear its primary objective is to prevent an attack on Iran. It correctly identifies that such an attack would render all its other objectives useless and unachievable.

But it is within the realms of possibility that HOPOI itself can be manipulated in the West. That is a possibility that has been raised along with the appeal to caution at the sudden explosion of Anti-Iranian propaganda on the Internet. These questions are evaded by attacking those asking the questions and attempting to portray them as supporters of the Iranian government. This childish infantile reasoning belies any principle or intent of Pat C and Co. If you cannot discuss this in a reasonable manner, how can anyone take you seriously.

by pat c Thu Sep 06, 2007 18:51

Counter Punch has been lauded as a wonderful outlet by those who are so quick to take offense at any criticism of the Iranian Junta. Well guess what?

Rezas article is oublished on Counter Punch! Is Counter Punch in the pay of the CIA?

http://www.counterpunch.org/fiyouzat07232007.html

by Critical Thu Sep 06, 2007 18:55

"Is Counterpunch in the pay of the CIA?"

Absolutely not.

It is balanced, where as you are not.

by Watcher Thu Sep 06, 2007 19:16

At least we have established who is behind the posts.

"You are a liar. Nothing more. Chomsky, Pilger Loach all oppose the Iranian Dictatorship. It is not anti-Iranian to criticise attacks on unions. Especially when the articles are written by Iranians."

Aside from the name calling, the challange remains the same. Will those that you repeatedly tag to your continuous attacks on Iran post here and address the concerns of those that have witnessed this selective campaign. Will they read the previous threads and confirm that they have no problem with Iran being singling out for this treatment.

"Chomsky, Pilger and Loach put their name to a statement which opposes the Iranian Regime."

I do not question the bone fides of those you name but I am certain that they will not be happy to be part of a focused campaign singling out one country for repeated tirades. These people are oppossed to and confront injustice and repression honestly wherever it occurs and will understand that to repeatedly attack one country will ultimately undermine their effectiveness as they would be exposed to being called partisan.

"If they disagree with HOPIs statements then why do they still support HOPI? The above article is on the HOPI site front page."

Again, the article in isolation is fine. It is the constant harangue against one nation that is the problem. There is without doubt an agenda here which has little to do with confronting injustice and oppression.

"Maybe you could get someone, under their own name, anyone who commands public respect, to say the Iranian regime is correct to outlaw opposition parties, ban strikes and refuse recognition to trade unions."

You deliberately try to tar those that question your motives with being opposed to justice and freedom. To express concern that the selective confronting of oppression will undermine genuine campaigns by socialists to confront these issues wherever they exist is a genuine concern. The issue is the continued and repeated singling out of Iran. That is the concern and the concern in amplified because we all know that there is a vast propaganda campaign being waged against Iran at present behind which lies the intention to soften world opinion in preparation for an invasion on Iran that will slaughter thousands of Iranian civilians. For that reason and that reason only, I intend to question these threads every time they appear and I apologise to nobody for that.

by Anne - HOPI Thu Sep 06, 2007 23:22

Having read through this and other recent similar threads it is clear to me that Watcher and others who aim to discredit HOPI do so simply to dishonestly deflect from their own inadequate politics. Rather than deal with the issue of supporting the Iranian people, they try to paint HOPI as some kind of agent for US imperialism. This is despite the fact that supporters of our campaign argue continually that we oppose US imperialism. But you simply cannot understand how somebody who is against US imperialism is also against the Islamic state!

We are told that it is impossible that John Pilger and the many other supporters of the campaign could really have understood the implications of what they have signed up to. These poor innocents have signed up to a campaign called Hands off the People of Iran without realising that it is not a general campaign about world oppression! Shock horror! I think not actually. All of these people were contacted individually and signed up in the clear knowledge that this campaign is against any attack or intervention in Iran by imperialism and also against oppression of the people by the Iranian regime. They, unlike you, understand that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

At the moment the Iranian regime is using the US intervention to intensify the crackdown in Iran (and by the way this is not made up).There is mass defiance of the regime in Iran, despite the consequences. Women are physically attacked by the police on the streets for not wearing the full hijab, or letting their scarve slip back so their hair can be seen. They are arrested and made to sign declarations that they will never dress immodestly again. Despite this they continue to disobey and go back out their again dressed in the same way. Similarly young men show other types of social rebellion. This should not be dismissed as it is a mass social phenomen in a country where political protest is illegal.

And the Iranian regime is not anti-imperialist. It simply wants to flex its political muscles and have more of a dominant role in the middle-east. Doing a deal with the US is not out of the question. There are no principles at stake.

Meanwhile there are many hundreds of thousands of genuinely anti-imperialist opposition forces in Iran who we should be supporting. Yes the US is trying to manipulate them for its own reasons. But genuine forces are condemning the US intervention and calling for solidarity from workers and progessives outside Iran. And we in HOPI are determined to do all in our power to highlight their struggles while opposing the US.

by Watcher Fri Sep 07, 2007 08:23

Anne posts,

"Having read through this and other recent similar threads it is clear to me that Watcher and others who aim to discredit HOPI do so simply to dishonestly deflect from their own inadequate politics. "

Again a strawman. I have never mentioned HOPI in any of my posts. Read what my concerns are and address them.

"Rather than deal with the issue of supporting the Iranian people, they try to paint HOPI as some kind of agent for US imperialism.This is despite the fact that supporters of our campaign argue continually that we oppose US imperialism. But you simply cannot understand how somebody who is against US imperialism is also against the Islamic state!"

I support all people in their pursuit of freedom from oppression and injustice no matter where. You do not oppose US imperialism with the same frequency and gusto as you attack Iran on this site. Count the previous posts.

"We are told that it is impossible that John Pilger and the many other supporters of the campaign could really have understood the implications of what they have signed up to. These poor innocents have signed up to a campaign called Hands off the People of Iran without realising that it is not a general campaign about world oppression! Shock horror! I think not actually. All of these people were contacted individually and signed up in the clear knowledge that this campaign is against any attack or intervention in Iran by imperialism and also against oppression of the people by the Iranian regime. They, unlike you, understand that your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend."

This continouis use of other people's names to bolster a defence of a focused singling out of one country is dispicable. I challange you to contact John Pilger and to place before him the concerns that I express and allow him to research what has gone before here and then to post saying that he has no problem with this continuing campaign of vilification aganst Iran. These people apparently signed a petition of support for the people of Iran in good faith, not to be used as part of a focused dangerous repetitious campaign against Iran.

"At the moment the Iranian regime is using the US intervention to intensify the crackdown in Iran (and by the way this is not made up).There is mass defiance of the regime in Iran, despite the consequences. Women are physically attacked by the police on the streets for not wearing the full hijab, or letting their scarve slip back so their hair can be seen. They are arrested and made to sign declarations that they will never dress immodestly again. Despite this they continue to disobey and go back out their again dressed in the same way. Similarly young men show other types of social rebellion. This should not be dismissed as it is a mass social phenomen in a country where political protest is illegal."

How many countries in the world at present oppress citizens in this way? Get a big sheet of paper.

"And the Iranian regime is not anti-imperialist. It simply wants to flex its political muscles and have more of a dominant role in the middle-east. Doing a deal with the US is not out of the question. There are no principles at stake."

This is a point of view. Looking at what has happened in the mid east it can just as easily be asserted that Iran's behaviour is a reaction to the threat of invasion that hangs over it. They have witnessed the destruction of their neighbour Iraq at first hand and are very aware of the atrocities that the invaders have carried out. Do HOPI support the people of Iraq with the same vigour?

"Meanwhile there are many hundreds of thousands of genuinely anti-imperialist opposition forces in Iran who we should be supporting. Yes the US is trying to manipulate them for its own reasons. But genuine forces are condemning the US intervention and calling for solidarity from workers and progessives outside Iran. And we in HOPI are determined to do all in our power to highlight their struggles while opposing the US."

I won't even attempt to unravel this paragraph other than to say that the repeated singling out of Iran for attack on the site has seriously damaged HOPI and is counter-productive. Up to now I accepted HOPI at face value but they appear to me now to be an outfit that is seeking regime change in Iran and that is a profoundly dangerous objective at the present time with the neo-con hawks in the wings waiting to flex their muscles. True friends of the Iranian people would see that and would be more judicious in their actions and comment. All genuine people who have signed up to HOPI are urged to consider the position in that light.

by pat c Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:27

Watchers attempts to undermine HOPI will not work. Watcher has described the nuclear power article as racist; so he now thinks Counter Punch is publishing racist articles! Try again watcher, try again.

The Iranian Socialist opposition groups believe in regime change from within, they have always openly campaigned for that. It seems that Watcher however does not believe in Regime Change From Within. In that case I can only assume he is happy with the Iranian Regime which bans trade unions and all opposition parties.

Chomsky, Pilger, Loach and Norris all support the Iranian anti-imperialist opposition. The HOPI statement they signed up to includes the following:

We recognise that effective resistance to this war can only mean the militant defence of the struggles of the working class in Iran and of the rising social movements in that country. We want regime change - both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.

We call on all anti-capitalist forces, progressive political groups and social organisations to join activists of the Iranian left to both oppose imperialism's plans and to organise practical solidarity with the growing movement against war and repression in Iran headed by the working class, women, students and youth.

No to the theocratic regime!
Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
Support for socialism, democracy and workers' control in Iran!
For a nuclear-free Middle East in a nuclear-free world!
http://www.hopoi.org/main.html

Nothing ambigious about this. Chomsky, Pilger and Loach support Regime Change From Within in Iran.

by pat c Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:51

This thread is about Iran so Watchers demands that every oppression in the world be dealt with are just attempts to derail it.

However, I note that Watcher seems to be interested in Iraq but I havent seen any articles byhim/her on that topic. Heres a few I have posted which might be of interest.

IFC Statement on storming the headquarters of IFC in Baghdad by the US forces
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83180

US & Iraqi Troops Occupy Iraq National Library & Archives
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83829

Now the U.S. military is assassinating Iraqi peace workers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83897

On The Bloody Fighting Between the Sadr Militia and the Islamic Supreme Council Militias
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84057

and Palestine

Palestinian cameraman shot by the Israelis: "It never happened..."
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83636

Israel Kidnaps Two Brothers
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76854

by MichaelY - iawm Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:16

Hi PatC

It's not often we agree politically, dear friend, but if you're willing to listen to a slightly different argument, you, and Ann from HOPI, a're spending too much of your valuable time arguing with 'Watcher'. While some of his argumentation may be spot on [for example when he says that some people, supposedly from the Left, spend 90% of their energies attacking Hezbollah, or Hamas, or Iran or Syria rather than concentrating their fire [metaphorically speaking] on what the Empire is doing], most of his other stuff is pointless and empty of any substance.
However, the way epithets fly about, accusations of being a tool of imperialism or a tool of the mullahs cross each other, it gives idiots like the last messager space to focus on their usual paranoid anti-SWP schizophrenia.
In the days to come, the IAWM, that now has comrades from Eirigi, (ex) Cosantoiri Siochana and a number of independents working with the older cabal, along with PANA and the NGO Alliance, will announce an international Anti War Conference where speakers from Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt Palestine, the UK, the US and Irish activists will discuss unity and the way forward for the anti war movement. The final session of the Conference on Saturday October 13th will be addressed by Michael D, Dan Boyle, Ed Horgan, and Angus from SF - while it will be chaired by a member of the Raytheon 9.
If HOPI wants to have a stall during the Conference, or participate in the session entitled 'Democracy and Resistance in the Middle East', let us know

Fraternally

by pat c Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:34

Michael, thanks for the invite, I'll certainly raise it at a meeting HOPI is having in a weeks time. I appreciate the comradely tone of your intervention here.

I hope I have shown in the links in the comment above that I spend a lot of time attacking US/Israeli Imperialism as well. Watcher, whatever his political affiliations, is just a troll. He and others have attempted to derail some of my anti US Imperialism stories, so I wonder what really motivates them.

As you are aware, HOPI unambigiously supports the Iranian Anti-Imperialist Opposition. So you will see plenty of articles from us supporting workers on strike, what you wont see are any articles white-washing the Mullahs. HOPI opposes US aggression against Iran but it also supports Internal Regime Change. HOPI has always been upfront about this and it is what Chomsky, Pilger, Loach, Norris, ISN, WSM and the Tower Hamlet RESPECT Councilors have signed up to support.

Rgds

Pat

by tomeile Thu Aug 21, 2008 17:02

Fiyouzat’s argument in the above article that it is “ …..the duty of any democratically inclined person..... to stand on the side of the well being of the Iranian people and unambiguously oppose any nuclear energy development in Iran” , has dovetailed very nicely with American demands for an end to the Iranian nuclear programme .

HOPI and Reza Fiyouzat’s line is that Iran's leadership is actually secretly in cahoots with American imperialism against the Iranian “people”. As proof for this notion , Fiyouzat wrote for instance in Counterpunch recently about Zbigniew Brzezinsk’s call for engagement with Iran :

“…….Brzezinski has reiterated that the Iranian regime must be engaged with diplomatically by the U.S. and not belligerently, while talking like a bully. This stance is consistent with his pronouncement back in late 1970s that Ayatollah Khomeini was a man the U.S. could consider a strategic ally.”

Rostam Pourzal , a board member of the US branch of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran , replies to Reza Fiyouzat today in Counterpunch .
http://www.counterpunch.org/purzal08212008.html

by Watcher Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:30

The Left and Iran
By ROSTAM PURZAL
Because Iran's leadership and the U.S. power elite each include influential figures who press for dialog between the two countries, we must conclude that Iran is not in danger of a military attack. Conclusion: people of conscience should drop their opposition to a possible U.S. or Israeli attack and instead condemn imperialism's best ally in the Middle East, Iran. You may laugh, but this is the essence of Reza Fiyouzat's hawkish argument as he struggles in a recent Counterpunch article to sow antagonism towards Iran. Never mind that the former government of Iraq had diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S. and still was violently overthrown with calamitous consequences. His assessment is the familiar one that we have heard for decades from Iranian Monarchists, who swear that Washington forced out the former Shah in 1979 in order to install a pliable Islamic order in his place.
Such simplistic far left and far right analyses portray Iranians as a nation of simpletons and victims without agency. Missing from Fiyouzat's neoconservative-style rush to blame the victim is any reference to the enthusiasm of a great majority in Iran, registered in survey after opinion survey, to restore trade and diplomatic relations with the U.S. If Iran's leadership is indeed eager to welcome U.S. diplomats, investors, and tourists after nearly three decades of estrangement, it is certainly acting with the consent of the governed. With his rejection of détente, Fiyouzat in effect advocates minority rule even as he demands an expanded democracy in which Iran's left forces would have more room to organize.
What's more, Fiyouzat argues, mainstream pro-dialog groups, such as the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), are aiding a Tehran-Washington conspiracy to fool and exploit Iranians. His evidence that Iran is, behind the scenes, a partner in crime with Yankee imperialists? Why, of course, it is Iran's declared but unsuccessful attempts to attract foreign investment. That is proof enough to Fiyouzat that Iran is for sale and advocates of Iran's national rights, like CASMII, are sell-outs, even if their purpose is to help expose Western double standards. According to this sophomoric fantasy, presumably the nations of the world must all boycott the U.S. to prove their independence! Fiouzat does not explain why Iran should be the first. I suggest he personally set an example by refusing to boost the U.S. war machine with his income tax.
Apparently, journalist Seymour Hersch, who regularly warns us about ongoing U.S. efforts to destabilize Iran, is just another dupe of the Islamic Republic, and so are the other award-winning authors Reese Erlich and Stephen Kinzer, who each spoke in dozens of American cities last fall and winter against a U.S. attack on Iran. The 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement's repeated declarations of support for Iranian nuclear rights must similarly be delusional.
Ironically, contrary to Fiouzat's tired claim that Iran's leadership uses the threat of a foreign attack as a fig leaf for legitimacy, Iran's Farsi-language state broadcast monopoly downplays the possibility of U.S. or Israeli aggression. Last January, I was asked to leave a televised show on Iran's Channel Two (I was being interviewed by telephone) after I refused to agree with the host that Iran was safe from foreign attack.
Real anti-imperialists, Fiyouzat suggests with self-righteous rage, should stand by and refuse to take U.S. and Israeli threats of aggression seriously. He conveniently forgets that in 1953, Iran's communist Tudeh party hastened the overthrow of Iran's most revered anti-colonial campaigner ever, Mohammad Mossadegh, by withdrawing its support. Tudeh abandoned the prime minister because, it explained, he was too cozy with Washington. Months later the CIA overthrew Mossadegh, ostensibly for his softness on communism! The coup resulted in the executions of hundreds of Tudeh activists, social democrats, and nationalists and ushered in a quarter century of brutal dictatorship that led to the Revolution of 1978-79. The widow of one of the perished, Mossadegh's heroic foreign minister, Hussein Fatemi, returned to Iran March of this year for a meeting with Iran's President. Afterwards she told reporters that her husband would have been proud of Mr. Ahmadinejad's resistance to foreign manipulations.
The centerpiece of Fiyouzat's attempt to mobilize the progressive left against Iran is Tehran's participation in regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, too, Fiyouzat is so eager to paint Iran's decision makers as unrepresentative that he ignores overwhelming support for that policy among Iranians. He assures us that "Western powers prefer an Islamic to a secular government" and "Western imperialists cannot have it any better than the regime that exists [in Iran] now", conveniently overlooking the considerable U.S. support for secular elites against the popular Islamist resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon. Nor does Fiyouzat recognize that Iran's alliance with Christian Armenia and tense relations with the Shi'i-dominated Republic of Azerbaijan is inspired by Iran's opposition to U.S. domination in the region.
Similarly, he makes no mention of Iran's incessant demand, consistent with the wishes of almost all Iraqis, that U.S. forces leave Iraq without extracting concessions. He also fails to mention that Iran's closest international ally is Venezuela, hardly a U.S. client state. All that seems to matter to him is that the Iranian government is interested in conditional peace with Washington. Never mind that Cuba's anti-imperialist government is as anxious as Iran's to have normal trade and diplomatic relations with the U.S.
The obsession leads Fiouzat to lump defenders of Iranian sovereignty with the "realist" wing of U.S. imperialism. It matters not to him that advocates of Iran's national rights against the West's intimidation may be motivated by other than blind support for the current Iranian government. He is troubled that Iran has frustrated desperate U.S. efforts to isolate it. On the fifty-fifth anniversary of the August coup in which anti- imperialists acquiesced in the U.S. subversion of Iranian sovereignty, Fiyouzat recommends that the U.S. antiwar community do the same. Fortunately, only a tiny fraction in the U.S. antiwar movement is likely to be swayed by his short-sighted ideology.
Rostam Pourzal is a board member of the US branch of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran.