![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Back in January, the New Yorker magazine reported stepped up and covert activity of the Bush administration in preparing for a war on Iran. In the April 17 2006 issue of the New Yorker magazine, reporter Seymour Hersh revealed that troops are already in Iran and military leaders have plans for using bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapons on Iran, especially the town of Natanz where Iran has a nuclear facility.
On April 12th, a chorus of imperialists--the British, French, Amerikans and Russians--rained on Iran's parade concerning its just-announced achievement of being able to produce enriched uranium. Enriched uranium is necessary for the production of nuclear weapons.
Just prior to the announcement, Bu$h apparently responding to Hersh and the British Foreign Minister, who called the U.$. military plans "nuts," said that the emphasis is on diplomatic means of change.
Meanwhile, bourgeois reporter Hersh reported that U.$. combat troops are already inside Iran preparing lists of targets and looking for potential allies for a war. (1) The State Department is also undertaking covert activities.
Lagging far behind Hersh are the alleged communist and pseudo-feminist organizations and individuals on the dole of the State Department. Prior to March 8, there was only one communist organization warning the pseudo-feminist movement not to get involved in singling out Iran this year--MIM. We warned that International Wimmin's Day was going to be a target of the warmongers and we have proved right. Only morons need the original pay stubs from the State Department to the bribed in academia and the various movements. Maoists act according to the concept of "principal contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations," and we do not get caught up backing imperialist war drives, even if we do not know all the covert details.
Temporarily backtracking like Bush is not good enough for the anti-war movement. We oppose the U.$. agitation among wimmin and minority nationalities in Iran and we also oppose anti-Islamic chauvinists. Those opponents of MIM on this score are not really opposing militarism and imperialism.
The backward are now saying this is only planning. That's correct in a certain regard--planning by building public opinion.(2) It's incorrect in that military operatives are already in Iran.
Richard Perle is at it again. He predicted also in 2005 that European diplomacy would run out of time. That's right: he was building public opinion for war back in 2005. (3)
In the bourgeois world, it is inevitable that each country will have nuclear weapons-- richer and larger countries sooner. Even some imperialist analysts have said it does not stop Iran from building nuclear weapons if the united $tates bombs select facilities. In the lovely capitalist world, northern Korea may take a hint and sell a nuclear weapon to Iran out of the great profiteering spirit sweeping the planet and lectured to Koreans so long. The capitalists should learn about "supply and demand" in their own stupid economic theories. War in regard to the inevitable in the capitalist world is a dangerous and retrograde waste.
Globally, there are those who have fought against the anti-Iran tide. An organization often appearing confused, dogmatic and lost in time and place called the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) put forward a February statement against Iran war plans:
We support Iran in its struggle against U.S. aggression. As a Third Power Iran is fighting the U.S. imperialism, and we admire that.We condemn the passive role of revisionists and the reactionaries which is helping to axe the Thrid Power. The heroic people of Iran are fighting against imperialism, and we support them wholeheartedly.(4)
Another Indian Internet organization with sympathies to Western Trotskyism back in February put forward that Iran was the new flashpoint for U.$. war.(5) Anywhere that there is concern about specifically anti-Islamic chauvinism, the genuinely anti-militarist forces have beat back the u.$. imperialist war drive. When the comrades of India had Bush come visit and offer Indian national pride bribery for a vote against Iran, the comrades made no concession. Unfortunately, there were those in the united $tates and elsewhere who sought to trade Bush support for war on Iran in exchange for abortion "choice."
Notes:
1. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
2. Hersh responded to Bush's phony peace blitz this way:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254
See also the Washington Post article by Peter Baker et. al.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060409/REPOSITORY/604090394/1013/48HOURS
3. http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2004/sp20040204-secdef0922.html has discussion
of nuke-'em guy Bill Schneider by Senator McCain; Schneider was one of the neo-conservatives
who signed the letter to Clinton asking for a war on Iraq, "the Project for a New American Century."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Defense_Science_Board has a nice list of the
people on his science board.
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/05/nuclear-talks-doomed-says-ex-us-deputy.html
is a fan site for Richard Perle
For an April 12th prediction from a former Clinton official predicting more war on Iran,
see http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1614582.htm
4. www.cpiml.lxhost.org/statements/2006/q1/040206.htm;
5. http://www.peoplesmarch.com/archives/2006/Feb2k6/Iran.htm