Our duty to Iran's working class

international | anti-war / imperialism | other press

Friday March 16, 2012 18:30

by Yassamine Mather - Hands Off the People of Iran

Yassamine Mather delivers a wide ranging speech in Manchester. She covers the increasing threats of war, the need for principled solidarity, the US intervention in Balochistan province and the misery caused by sanctions. Full text at link.

It seems such a long time that there have been threats of military action against Iran without them being followed through that some people may have become a bit blasé. It is a bit like the boy who cried wolf too many times perhaps. However, the reality is that his time the threats are very serious.

The reasons why there are serious threats now have very little to do with the Iranian nuclear programme. Most people agree that the Iranian government exaggerates the stage it has reached and the west also exaggerates this - in regard to uranium enrichment, for example - both for their own reasons. I am not dismissing the nuclear issue altogether, but I do not think it is the reason why we are facing these serious threats.

Yassamine Mather

There are other reasons. First and foremost there is the world economic crisis and the fact that the United States is in economic decline. It is feeling the pressure of both the crisis and the partial erosion of its hegemonic position - not to the extent that its hegemony is threatened by some competitor seeking to take over that role, of course. Because of that it cannot tolerate states like Iran - despite the fact that it follows every neoliberal instruction dictated by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and so on. The problem is that politically Iran is not playing the game that the hegemonic power wants it to play. For that reason it has to be taught a lesson. ...

And in many ways it seems the war has already started because the majority of the people are suffering from the severity of the sanctions. These are not sanctions like those applied against South Africa. They are really affecting ordinary people in their day-to-day lives.

The effects are both psychological and material. For a few years there have been shortages of surgical equipment, of medication, of certain types of spare parts for cars and planes and so on. If your car needs a spare part and the part is on the US list of equipment which could potentially be ‘used for nuclear arms acquisition’, you will just have to write off your car. Alternatively people have attempted to make their own spare parts - and the state has attempted to do the same thing for aircraft - which has made things extremely unsafe. There have been serious accidents, with people endangering their own lives and their surroundings, as they try to work round the sanctions in various ways.

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

the pattern spreads

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party

Sun Mar 18, 2012 08:35

To Hell or to Gaza goes global...here its the ditch or the emigrant queue..yet again...and Paddy, the fighting Irish, hops to it...sure its part of what we are..the Gardai going RUC in Shellmullet and Dame St..minding the warplanes at Eirebase 1 Shannon as they prepare for WMD Mk II..

2016 should see the Windsors on the stand at the GPO reviewing our troops as the head down the ramp to NATO's resource wars for The Firm.

Ireland, brief a nation, be a province once again.

American public opposes Israel striking Iran: poll

by John

Sun Mar 18, 2012 20:34

Interesting poll. The zionists don't have so much support in the US.

American public opposes Israel striking Iran: poll

Only one in four Americans favors Israel conducting a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, finds a new University of Maryland poll. Nearly seven in ten (69 percent) favor the United States and other major powers continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran, a position supported by majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (79 percent) and Independents (67 percent).

Consistent with this emphasis on a diplomatic approach, three in four Americans say that the United States should primarily act through the U.N. Security Council rather than by itself in dealing with the problem of Iran's nuclear program.

The University of Maryland Sadat Chair for Peace and Development and PIPA, the University of Maryland-affiliated Program on International Policy Attitudes, conducted the study. The polling project was directed by Steven Kull, PIPA director, and Shibley Telhami, UMD Anwar Sadat Professor.
The poll of 727 Americans has a margin of error of +/-4.5% and was fielded between March 3 and 7 by Knowledge Networks.

The most popular position is for the United States to take a neutral stance, which is supported by 49 percent. This figure includes 27 percent who would also favor active efforts to end the hostilities and 22 percent who think the United States should simply not get involved.

I hope I'm wrong..

Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:50

..but my read is that Obambi is playing the election year shuffle and keeping his liberal anti-war base, or what he can salvage of it, on board.

I'd say he's told Bibi hold the horsemen till he's back in the driving seat and he'll do the necessary then. Or he may be just playing the reluctant warrior and, just as he let the Brits and Sarko lead the Libya gig, leave Bibi the star role..

Either way the PNAC agenda has not slowed down on his watch...and the internal police-state is galloping ahead to contain any '60's type groundswell.

As for the American public, I think they will get the same consideration as the Palestinian public. AIPAC controls both sides of both houses of congress(witness the crescendo of standing ovations Bibi gets when he visits)and a large slice of the media(just as they seem to have our own in thrall).

I'd be only too happy to have that analysis deconstructed. But check the double-speak, forked-tongue treatment of armed and Nato-supported rebellions as 'civilian protesters'.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Our duty to Iran's working class

Comments (3 of 3)