No attack on Iran

international | anti-war / imperialism | other press

Monday October 20, 2008 11:27

by pat c

Yassamine Mather writes on the danger of a US/Israeli military strike on Iran over the next 3 months. She also criticises those on the "left" who criticise Iran but who fail to condemn US/Israeli Imperialism. Full text at link.

Over the last few weeks French president Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly suggested on at least three occasions that an Israeli attack might be imminent - and acceptable - unless Iran quits enriching uranium, and implied that in such an event the international community should turn a blind eye. In early October French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner said Israel was expected to launch a military strike on Iran before Tehran acquires a nuclear bomb.

Inside Iran, radical students and young workers are horrified by the antics of these so-called ‘socialists’. One leftwing student at Tehran University told us recently: “Clearly some of our exiled ‘comrades’ have lost their marbles if they think you can defend the social movements in Iran without mentioning the threat of war and the effects of the current sanctions. Have they learnt nothing from regime change US-style in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

Young workers in Iran who follow internal and international events with intense interest, also reject the reformist line of ex-labour activists in exile who argue that the ‘support’ given by rightwing, pro-US trade unions to Iranian workers is ‘international solidarity’. One Iran Khodro car worker told me last week: “We really don’t want this kind of support. It would be the kiss of death for us.”

There is a group of Iranian exiles that firmly opposes imperialist war, while calling for the overthrow of the Islamic regime by a revolutionary movement led by workers. Those groups that fall into the first two categories should be well aware that history will judge them as harshly as it has judged the treachery of the Fedayeen Majority, Tudeh and many international Stalinist and Trotskyist groups which supported the repressive policies of the Islamic regime in 1979 and the early 1980s.

The same applies to British groups - on the one hand, the defenders of the Islamic regime such as the Socialist Workers Party, George Galloway and his followers (they are to the right of the Tudeh and Fedayeen Majority Stalinists!); on the other hand, those like the AWL leadership who are prepared to excuse and justify a possible Zionist military intervention against Iran.

Comments (1 of 1)

Regime change is unlikely

by Vince

Mon Oct 20, 2008 13:49

The Israelis and Americans are unlikely to be interested in regime change in Iran.
Their chief concern is Iran's nuclear industry.
Three options worth considering:
(a) If Iran is indeed seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to threaten the Israeli state and American power in the Gulf, the Israelis and Americans will be concerned with destroying that capability.
(b) If Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear programs, it is in the interests of Israel and America to cripple those programs as long Iran is hostile to Israel and American power in the Gulf.
(c) If their was regime change in Iran (most unlikely since there exists no opposition powerful enough to overthrow the theocracy) and a friendly pro-Western pro-Israeli regime was established then Israel and America would have the same attitude to Iran nuclear programs as it does to Pakistani and Indian nuclear programs.

The deciding factor is that Israelis and Americans possess superior airpower. Iran has a fleet of hundreds of antiquated fighter jets which would be turned into twisted junk sprinkled over the mountains if it seriously attempted to engage a combined Israeli-American air attack on its nuclear facilities.
The Iran's possess scores of ballistic missiles but superior anti-missile technology developed since the days when Saddam fired Scuds at Tel Aviv would tackle most of those weapons in flight before they could cause serious military and civilian casualties.
The Iranians might attack shipping in Persian Gulf, but the massive US Navy presence would sent most of its vessels to the bottom.

The only edge Iran has over the Israelis and Americans is the vast size of the conscript army it could field to attack the Iraq or Kuwait.

However without air superiority, hundreds of thousands of soldiers on foot or riding aboard armoured vehicles would be sitting ducks beneath Israeli and American bombs.

The only options for Iran if wants to continue its nuclear programs:
(a) Agree to greater international inspection of its nuclear program, abandon its anti-Israeli and American propaganda, make peace with the West and recieve Western expertise and investment, that would develop its economy and introduce slow democratic reforms to avoid a seismic shock revolution that would tear the country apart.
(b) Continue to defy the Israelis and Americans, playing right into their hands, invite massive air strikes, lose their nuclear programs, distabilise domestic politics in the country and bring down the theocratic regime in a bloody disaster.

The attack on Iran could come before the end of January before Obama enters the White House as George W Bush goes out with a bang.

or

President Obama, a new man in the White House, American credibility restored, with the backing a Democratic Senate and Congress and the good will of the American people and the world could sanction the very military action that Bush would have been roundly condemned.