Should Iran possess nuclear weapons?

[RedStarOverChina]

Ahamedinejad has recently decleared Iran a "nuclear nation". It is increasingly likely to possess nuclear weapons. What do you think? Should Iran have the right to possess them?

I think they should, simply because it is the only deterrance against an American/Isreali invasion. For those who believe a Nuclear Iran would pose a threat to other countries, know that Persia/Iran has not committed a war of aggression for hundreds of years. That's a track-record few could contend with.

[Pawn Power]

Of course not. No state should have nuclear weapons.

[FreeFocus]

Nukes shouldn't be in anyone's possession, but it would tip the geopolitical balance away from Israel quite a bit. It could be a game-changer, really.

[RedStarOverChina]

Of course not. No state should have nuclear weapons.
Sigh...

That's all good, but now, let me tell you how it works in the real world. Everyone has them, especially the aggressive ones. If Iran doesn't have it, it's in the vulnerable position of being a lameduck, potentially leading to the destruction of Iran and the death of millions. And that's not my imagination gone wild, it already happened in neighbouring Iraq.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. You can't un-invent them. Now we should think about how to deal with them, instead of chanting empty slogans about how no one should have them in the first place.

[APathToTake]

It truly is a sad day when we're discussing whether or not possessing WMD's are the way towards a more peaceful region.

I understand the arguments for it, but that doesn't make it any less sad

[Red Commissar]

If we're going to put pressure on Iran, we should also get Israel to agree to the nuclear agreements as well. Really putting pressure only one, which will be Iran inevitably, will only worsen problems.

I am not sure of what to say in this regard because anyone having nukes isn't really a good thing at all, though Iran's possession will probably have a sense of MAD between them and Israel.

[Tablo]

I said yes, but I would prefer for no one to have nukes. I think as long as Israel and the West are armed that Iran should be too.

[LeninistKing]

Iran doesn't have nuclear bombs, only nuclear-electricity, the thing is that in the mainstream capitalist media (CNN, FOX) they say that Iran has nuclear bombs, in order to push the american slaves to support a fascist war against Iran on behalf of Israel to steal its oil and wealth

.


Ahamedinejad has recently decleared Iran a "nuclear nation". It is increasingly likely to possess nuclear weapons. What do you think? Should Iran have the right to possess them?

I think they should, simply because it is the only deterrance against an American/Isreali invasion. For those who believe a Nuclear Iran would pose a threat to other countries, know that Persia/Iran has not committed a war of aggression for hundreds of years. That's a track-record few could contend with.

[LeninistKing]

Isra-hell has about 200 nuclear bombs, and Israel zionists via AIPAC are blackmailing and forcing US Military to bomb Iran. I think that if Israel wants to wage a war against Iran, it shouldnt involve US troops.

.


I said yes, but I would prefer for no one to have nukes. I think as long as Israel and the West are armed that Iran should be too.

[Tablo]

Isra-hell has about 200 nuclear bombs, and Israel zionists via AIPAC are blackmailing and forcing US Military to bomb Iran. I think that if Israel wants to wage a war against Iran, it shouldnt involve US troops.

.
I agree. No reason for the United States to get involved in the killing of any more innocent people. If Israel attacked Iran I would hope the whole of the middle east would retaliate and support the creation of Palestine.. hopefully not as an Islamic state though..

[LeninistKing]

My friend, i don't know why Israel is such a killer state like ancient Sparta. Why dont Israel become friends with Iran, Iraq, Palestine and its neighbors. I dont know why the need of so much evil and blood.

Maybe Israel authorities take amphetamines or something

.



I agree. No reason for the United States to get involved in the killing of any more innocent people. If Israel attacked Iran I would hope the whole of the middle east would retaliate and support the creation of Palestine.. hopefully not as an Islamic state though..

[Tablo]

My friend, i don't know why Israel is such a killer state like ancient Sparta. Why dont Israel become friends with Iran, Iraq, Palestine and its neighbors. I dont know why the need of so much evil and blood.

Maybe Israel authorities take amphetamines or something

.
It is probably partly due to the fact that Israel feels threatened by the Islamic states since they want its destruction.

[AK]

The US is extremely hypocritical when it comes to this issue. Coupled with it's Islamaphobia and Nationalism, it thinks that itself alone should have nukes. Anything else somehow threatens regional stability when it's America that has the fucking massive stockpile. No state should have or have access to nuclear weapons, as they are rarely used against military targets anyway and designed to destroy a massive area - that definitely doesn't sound like a military target to me, more like a city. A city of civillians.

[LeninistKing]

hmm, i think that you are wrong. What Islamic countries want is the destruction of the fascist zionist Israeli authorities and its zionist evil ideology. Not the destruction of Israel as a whole. Thats like leftists about USA. What leftists want about USA is its capitalist-imperialist destruction, not the destruction of USA. but remember that the far-right wing labels leftists as anti-americans, just like zionists label people who hate zionism as anti-semites

For more info on the truth about Israel go to http://www.ifamericansknew.org a great site which explains the history and roots of Israels terrorist-fascism in the region

.


It is probably partly due to the fact that Israel feels threatened by the Islamic states since they want its destruction.

[Tablo]

hmm, i think that you are wrong. What Islamic countries want is the destruction of the fascist zionist Israeli authorities and its zionist evil ideology. Not the destruction of Israel as a whole. Thats like leftists about USA. What leftists want about USA is its capitalist-imperialist destruction, not the destruction of USA. but remember that the far-right wing labels leftists as anti-americans, just like zionists label people who hate zionism as anti-semites

For more info on the truth about Israel go to http://www.ifamericansknew.org a great site which explains the history and roots of Israels terrorist-fascism in the region

.
I know they do not want to kill all of Israel. They just want an end to Zionism mainly. Theyy want an end to the Zionist state and a friendlier one to replace it. Israel is probably the most hostile and crazy country in the area.

[Q]

Should the reactionary regime of Iran have a weapon that is inherently anti-working class due to its power to annihilate masses of people? :rolleyes:

As for geopolitics, Israel would never allow it and would pre-emptively declare war long before Iran's capabilities are there. So yes, it would be very destabilising.

[Tablo]

Should the reactionary regime of Iran have a weapon that is inherently anti-working class due to its power to annihilate masses of people? :rolleyes:

As for geopolitics, Israel would never allow it and would pre-emptively declare war long before Iran's capabilities are there. So yes, it would be very destabilizing.
If Israel declared war on Iran wouldn't other countries back Iran up? Maybe not the Sunni countries, but certainly Shiite populations would. Israel wouldn't even have very much back up since the United States has already stretched its own resources too far. I think Israel declaring war on Iran would be a bit suicidal on their part.

[Q]

If Israel declared war on Iran wouldn't other countries back Iran up? Maybe not the Sunni countries, but certainly Shiite populations would. Israel wouldn't even have very much back up since the United States has already stretched its own resources too far. I think Israel declaring war on Iran would be a bit suicidal on their part.

Israel has a huge military weight and has nukes. No doubt they'll lose in an all out war, but that's that may very well be preferable for them to Iran getting nukes. In one way or another it'd destabilise the region even further for decades to come.

[Tablo]

Israel has a huge military weight and has nukes. No doubt they'll lose in an all out war, but that's that may very well be preferable for them to Iran getting nukes. In one way or another it'd destabilise the region even further for decades to come.
Very true. Honestly it is a nightmare of mine for Israel to use nukes. They are amongst the most likely to use them along with India and Pakistan.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think they should, simply because it is the only deterrance against an American/Isreali invasion.

No, the only real deterrance against an American/Isreali-Iran war, or any imperialist war, is class struggle.

[OldMoney]

Nuclear weapons arent going away is right, and nor should they. I dont think they should be used against any tharget here on earth, and I would hope that any nuclear state realizes that now. They are good for leverage, but thier application isnt really practical to imperialist warfar.

Iran will develop nukes as long as no one prevents them from doing it. They should have the right to arm themselves agaist the imperialism. Since however there is no real policy change between a bush or obama regime, they will prevent it if posible. They have a good chance of getting it accomlished though, there isnt as much profit in war with Iran as the oil there going to rob from Iraq.

America makes up stories of WMDs in an Islamic state as pretense to war with a contry that has something they want, but when an Islamic state with less precious resources prety much says there going to develop nuclear technologie they do nothing. They might just send a couple small yield field nukes down there, who would stop them right??

:(

[Sendo]

We already have enough nukes to burn the world 1000x over. Might as well distribute them for some deterrence.

Only after that, can anyone make a reasonable demand for reducing stockpiles. The US is the only superpower (soon China can hopefully change that), and until a workers' state is established there will be no hope of voluntary disarmament beyond a few symbolic gestures that soon get overturned.

[~Spectre]

The real answer to the question is that it's simply none of our business to decide whether they should or shouldn't.

If the people of Iran want nuclear weaponry (read, deterrent)- then that is that.

If you compare the foreign policy of Iran, with the foreign policy of Israel (300 ish nukes), and the United States (thousands of nukes), Iran comes off looking like a model of rationality.

Obviously nukes are vile things, but reality is reality. It's unfeasible to start a conventional war against a nuclear power so the end result is probably millions of lives saved.

The main deterrent Iran currently has is the fact that it bent the U.S. over a barrel when it came to Iraq. Iran could destabilize Bush's fragile trillion dollar imperial "investment". It's the reason why for years now you've had lots of tough talk (especially by the Israelis) but no REAL action.

Still, if I were an Iranian administrator, I'm not sure I could rely on that card forever...if you were surrounded by U.S. troops, and had a regional nuclear power carrying out drills in which they practice using nukes on your country- could you be sure?

[~Spectre]

No, the only real deterrance against an American/Isreali-Iran war, or any imperialist war, is class struggle.

Sure but getting invaded would sort of hurt the team we're rooting for in that class struggle, don't you agree?

[Niccolò Rossi]

If the people of Iran want nuclear weaponry (read, deterrent)- then that is that.

The wishes of the 'people of Iran' are not the concern of communists. Communists are distinguished by their class perspective.


Sure but getting invaded would sort of hurt the team we're rooting for in that class struggle, don't you agree?

But supporting the Iranian bourgeoisie's nuclear campaign is fine and dandy?

I repeat, the only force capable of stopping imperialist war, both in the immediate and historic sense, is the international working class, not bourgeois geo-political chess games.

[The Red Next Door]

No, they shouldn't have nuclear weapons, especially America shouldn't have nukes. It would cause a problem for the world. We will all end up getting killed by America, Iran, and Israel, not to mention North Korea,China, France, England, Pakistan, India, and Russia

[Outinleftfield]

I actually find it extremely unlikely that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

Why? The media's lied about this before. Remember Iraq? If you look at everything surrounding Iran both the media and the government exaggerate over everything, but the public doesn't notice because they're all too busy watching American Idol to go online and research these issues themselves.

For example, when I heard Ahmadinejad reported as saying he wanted Israel wiped off the map the first thing I thought was "was he speaking English when he said that? "wiping off the map" is an English metaphor do they really use the same one in Farsi and does it mean the same thing?" So I did some research and it turns out that he was mistranslated.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

He really said "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad" literally translates as "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

In the context of the whole speech where he compares this to the Soviet Union and to the former Iranian regime its clear he's not talking about destroying Israel physically. He's not even talking about Iran taking any action. He's talking about what he views as the inevitable end of the Israeli government.

To be fair an Iranian ministry started the mistranslation by mistake. But when they corrected it nobody in the US media reported it and people in the political establishment keep referring to it even though they must have read up on this stuff enough to know they are lying. Keep that in mind. Everytime a world leader or close advisor refers to Ahmadinejad saying he wants "wipe Israel off the face of the map" or worse "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" he's lying and he knows it. This is against the law for people in government to knowingly spread lies to start wars.

Obama is among these liars.
http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Obama-aggress-for-war-Media-echoes-lie-Iran-threatens-to-wipe-Israel-off-the-map-Citizen-action

Furthermore, Khameini, Iran's "Supreme Leader" holds the real power including total power of its nuclear energy program. He issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons in 2005.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/10/iran.iaea.1350/index.html

He is powerful but not all-powerful. The Assembly of Experts, which is lead by reformist Rafsanjani overseas the Supreme Leader and has the power to dismiss him. In an islamic theocracy violating his own fatwa, a clear act of religious hypocrisy would be a strong pretext for dismissal, because his office is considered not just political but religious. He'd probably even be charged with violating a number of religious laws and thrown in prison. Would Khameini commit political suicide just to get nuclear weapons for Iran?

To think I trusted Obama, even campaigned for him. I'm disgusted with him now. He knowingly continues to perpetuate lies instead of setting the record straight. I'm sure he's privy to this information that some quick research by your average citizen can find. He knows Iran isn't building nuclear weapons, but he wants the public to think they are anyways. He's the worst kind of fear-mongering politician. And people are distracted from this, because his most vocal critics are yelling about him "not being an American citizen" and saying other easily disproven garbage instead of complaining about the real issues. If McCain was president the truth about Iran would've already circulated among Democrats. Kucinich would have filed papers to impeach him. There would be protests. But all the Democrats think he's the liberal messiah whose going to save us from evil, so they don't question what he says. They don't look and try to find things out. They just go along with everything. It disgusts me.

Educate yourselves. Its discouraging me to see people on this site that actually believe the media and the politician's lies.

[~Spectre]

The wishes of the 'people of Iran' are not the concern of communists. Communists are distinguished by their class perspective.

Included in the people of Iran is the Iranian proletariat. It is in the best interest of Iranian workers to not get invaded by the United States.

The attitude is also a bit poor in my opinion. We push for the interests of the working class but at the same time it's a pretty standard axiom that people should be allowed to do what they want without the coercion of foreigners.




But supporting the Iranian bourgeoisie's nuclear campaign is fine and dandy?

It's realistic. All states out there are inherently organs of the bourgeoisie. That doesn't mean that we can't realistically view that the state's course of action is the lesser of two evils for the working class.

Over one million Iraqis died as a result of the U.S. led invasion. That's certainly not good for the class struggle. Let's avoid a repeat of this in Iran.

Your line here is basically a de facto support of American hegemony.



I repeat, the only force capable of stopping imperialist war, both in the immediate and historic sense, is the international working class, not bourgeois geo-political chess games.

How many nuclear armed countries have been invaded recently?

[piet11111]

having a nuclear iran would make any conventional war against it too costly to happen.
as such i would support the iranian nuclear armament program.

and it is why i would consider having nuclear weapons after a communist revolution as very desirable.

fortunately iran is set to soon receive the game changing S-300 system that would effectively rule out an air strike against its most important nuclear sites.

[~Spectre]

fortunately iran is set to soon receive the game changing S-300 system that would effectively rule out an air strike against its most important nuclear sites.


Russia (and many other states) have a vested interest in preventing US-Israeli insanity in the region. I suspect the S-300 missiles will be expedited to Iran as a means of deterrence.

[Tifosi]

I voted no

Why on earth would anyone really want them? Capitalism wants them to keep the workers down and scared. They may cost a massive amount to keep, store and up-grade but the profits will make up for that. So nukes are used by the ruling class to keep the working class down in their country but they are also used to make other country's toe the capitalist line. If the capitalist class of one country has nukes nobody will mess with them. They will be free to exploit the land and it's people knowing that nothing negative will happen to them.

I believe it is important for the working class all over the world to fight nuclear weapons. They have no benefit for anyone in the working class. No short term benefit and no long term benefit. It will be great for everyone when the nuclear winter comes about:rolleyes:

Also what is the opposition in Iran view on nuclear weapons?

[Pawn Power]

Sigh...

That's all good, but now, let me tell you how it works in the real world. Everyone has them, especially the aggressive ones. If Iran doesn't have it, it's in the vulnerable position of being a lameduck, potentially leading to the destruction of Iran and the death of millions. And that's not my imagination gone wild, it already happened in neighbouring Iraq.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. You can't un-invent them. Now we should think about how to deal with them, instead of chanting empty slogans about how no one should have them in the first place.

I don't really know what to say to people like this. Like, I understand the gist of the argument (deterrence through mutual destruction), but it doesn't seem to hold water when we are looking at the interest of actual people (as opposed to states). And it doesn't seem to help in building workers power.

The argument is that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons decreases possible nuclear action. Now, I think it makes sense to the political leadership in Iran to desire nuclear weapons-- they demonstrate their power and deter possible military action against their country (which is clearly real since there is military build up all around them in Iraq, Israel, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia).

However, the argument assumes their possession of weapons decrease the chances of war, while it could actually increase the chances of nuclear apocalypse. Which is clear not desirable to workers and people in either country.

I don't think that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a way to "deal with them" and is instead a practice of "chanting empty slogans about" how Iran should also have the ability to vaporize human beings. My argument was not that "no one should have them in the first place" which obviously we all believe, but that Iran shouldn't posses them now. If we think no one should control that sort of power the answer, if a state actor does obtain that ability, is not that all state should then have that power-- because that does not make nuclear disbarment easier for activist in either Iran or the U.S.

[piet11111]

having a nuclear arsenal would leave room to decrease the standing army.
if the USSR was not so crazy about its army their nuclear weapons would have been enough of a deterrent to cut down its army size by at least 50% and possibly opened up enough economic resources to avoid its collapse.

[Pawn Power]

having a nuclear arsenal would leave room to decrease the standing army.
if the USSR was not so crazy about its army their nuclear weapons would have been enough of a deterrent to cut down its army size by at least 50% and possibly opened up enough economic resources to avoid its collapse.

What an strange analysis. If the USSR didn't feel the need to invade Afghanistan and militarize the boarders they could have provided their citizens with some decent social services.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Nuclear weapons might be highly detrimental to the working class, but nuclear energy, which is what Iran is producing, is not detrimental to the working class people.

[which doctor]

No way should Iran have nuclear weapons, and I find it really quite disturbing that this is a minority opinion here on the so called 'revolutionary left.' Nonetheless, I'm glad people have shown their true colors and what this thread really reveals is that the real enemies to working-class emancipation aren't on the right, but on the left. In fact, in many cases, the left is the right!

First off, nation-states don't have 'rights' so I really don't see how people can justify their position on that assumption. And no reactionary, deliberately provocative regime enriches uranium only so they can build nuclear powerplants, and anyone who falls into that trap, is really naive. Iran gaining nuclear weapons does not 'stabilize' the situation in the mideast, if anything, it escalates the tensions and makes the situation even more dire, and this is partly Ahmadinejad's plan.

Since I think it needs to be said, anyone who voted 'Yes' in this poll also becomes a de facto supporter of Ahmadinejad's extremely reactionary, anti-worker, anti-semetic agenda and the quicker we expose these so called 'leftists' and the poverty of their 'anti-imperalist' politics for what they really are, the more we can focus on the actual task at hand.

[Crux]

Let us pretend to be neutral while indirectly supporting American imperialism.
Let us pretend to be "anti-imperialist" while supporting the anti-working class regime of Iran.

[Pawn Power]

Let us pretend to be neutral while indirectly supporting American imperialism.

How does nuclear weapons capabilities in Iran support a international workers movement? How does it advance the nuclear disarmament movement in the US?

I am by no means 'neutral.' However, while many verbally proclaim their commitment to resist US imperialism what are they actually doing in their everyday lives to organize people? If we are not organizing our communities against imperialism then then even the most powerful rhetoric about the 'right' of Iran to combat US aggression is merely posturing. And I still don't see how their possession of atomic weapons helps this fight.

[Pawn Power]

How does allowing imperialists to attack Iran support the international workers movement?

Who's doing that ... besides those who just talk?

The point is, nuclear arms in any States power is detrimental not only to workers but to everyone. This includes Iran.


This debate is just beyond me. Why would anyone advocate for a State who kills their own people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/nine-dead-iran-protests) to be in possession of the most destructive weopon in history?

The only possible reasoning I can conjure up is that you have a death wish, which is fine- you are allowed to now what to exist- but at least admit that is the argument.

Do we want a state that does this to protesters to have nuclear weapons?

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/aponline/150.908Polk-Awards.sff.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/16/1245143384908/Iran-protests-Iranians-re-011.jpg

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2009-06/photo_verybig_104719.jpg

[Vicarious]

I say no, here are my reasons.

Iran is a very religious country with a very religious leadership that has no liberals in its gov. (if there are liberals then they are in the "closet" and afraid of losing their job). Religious leaderships feel no need to think about their actions, and they press their beliefs on others and even threaten enemies with their "God".

[Pawn Power]

This is the problem with imperialist propaganda. It paints American and Israeli nuclear weapons as harmless little toys while nukes in the hands of "evil, murderous" states are supposedly "evil". Imperialism itself is a harmless little exercise in vanquishing those evil religious brown folk.



No, the US government produces the most violence on the planet by far. We can resist this. Iran having the capacity to vaporize human beings does not contribute to either a lessening of US power or to increase workers power.

[Outinleftfield]

As for the question should Iran possess nuclear weapons? NO, I don't think any state should produce nuclear weapons.

But anyone who actually believes the imperialist propaganda crap that Iran is manufacturing nuclear weapons hasn't done their homework.

[Crux]

How are the working class going to organize if they're attacked by imperialists? Nuclear weapons in the hands of an anti-working class regime can be a blessing in disguise by possibly preventing war.

How does allowing imperialists to attack Iran support the international workers movement?
I am not a believer in MAD. Nuclear weapons could, on the other hand, create a pre-text for war, which, as you seem to be aware, would be a fucking disaster.

[Wanted Man]

"Nuclear armed crazy mullahs"? And that's an argument in support of the "yes" option? :blink:

Speaking of options, where is the one that says, "Rather not, but they might as well; it would be rather hypocritical to strongly protest Iran having them, while staying relatively silent on the other nuclear nations. What are a bunch of lefties on a forum going to do about it? Besides, it's doubtful whether Iran really wants nukes, and even if they did, there are quite a few imaginable reasons. Surely it would not be because they happen to be 'crazy mullahs', but as a rational response to the fact that they are being threatened with war."

I guess that's a bit long for a poll option.

[Q]

mosfeld: For my post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1677050#post1677050) you neg repped me and gave the reason "you're a joke".

Do you care to elaborate your reactionary position of letting an anti-working class regime get nukes or are you remaining silent on the matter?

[Robocommie]

It would be a far far better world if nuclear weapons had never been invented, but they were, Pandora's box was opened and we have to deal with the consequences.

Beyond that, frankly, I see no reason at all for the US and Israel to have the right to nuclear weapons while Iran does not. What could be the justification for that? That Iran has involvement with terrorism and extremist groups? And that isn't true of the US and Israel? There's nothing about Ayatollah Khomeini that's any more radical and untrustworthy than Netanyahu, and the US has supplied guns and funding to more paramilitary groups than Iran ever has.

[Q]

It would be a far far better world if nuclear weapons had never been invented, but they were, Pandora's box was opened and we have to deal with the consequences.
Yes, we - the working class - have to campaign for complete disarmament.


Beyond that, frankly, I see no reason at all for the US and Israel to have the right to nuclear weapons while Iran does not. What could be the justification for that? That Iran has involvement with terrorism and extremist groups? And that isn't true of the US and Israel? There's nothing about Ayatollah Khomeini that's any more radical and untrustworthy than Netanyahu, and the US has supplied guns and funding to more paramilitary groups than Iran ever has.

You're employing a logical fallacy here, namely "two wrongs make right" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-and-common-t129704/index.html).

[RedStarOverChina]

People here are essentially denying the Iranian people the right to defend themselves against Imperialist aggression. That, to me, is even worse than supporting the Iranian state against its workers...and no one here is supporting the Iranian state against Iranian workers, mind you.

The idea that a nuclear-armed Iran will pose a threat to peace is purely media propaganda. Even Bill Clinton admits that Iran will NOT use nuclear weapons even if they come to posses them.

[Q]

People here are essentially denying the Iranian people the right to defend themselves against Imperialist aggression. That, to me, is even worse than supporting the Iranian state against its workers...and no one here is supporting the Iranian state against Iranian workers, mind you.

The idea that a nuclear-armed Iran will pose a threat to peace is purely media propaganda. Even Bill Clinton admits that Iran will NOT use nuclear weapons even if they come to posses them.

No one here stated the stance that the Iranian people have no right to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. This is a complete distortion of what is being said.

I, and quite a few others here, oppose the reactionary regime in Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons. I for one hold a dual position: against imperialist aggression and against the theocratic regime. The only force which has my unconditional support is the working class movement, now militantly defying the very existence of the regime by the way. In my opinion the Hands of the People of Iran campaign (http://www.hopoi.org/main.html) has the right position on this matter.

[Revy]

I don't support nuclear energy, and I don't support nuclear weapons. One is destructive and creates loads of toxic waste, the other could potentially cause massive devastation on a global scale, and already has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as lots of ecological damage from tests.

However, if any country has them, then it would be hypocritical to say any one country could not also have nuclear weapons. I don't think any country should possess nuclear weapons.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Of course no country should have nukes, but I say Iran should be able to possess nukes. If the US and Israel(both countries which probably kill more people than Iran. The US does for sure.) are able to have nukes then it would be hypocritical to deny Iran access to them. Once the working class overthrows the ruling capitalist classes then we can worry about getting rid of nukes as it won't happen anywhere as long as the pigs are in charge.

[Q]

Of course no country should have nukes, but I say Iran should be able to possess nukes. If the US and Israel(both countries which probably kill more people than Iran. The US does for sure.) are able to have nukes then it would be hypocritical to deny Iran access to them.
This sums up the false dichotomy over this question and the essense of this debate. Is it a question of "nation x has it, so nation y must have it too!"? I certainly think not. Besides the fact that this is a logical fallacy anyway ("two wrongs make a right" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-and-common-t129704/index.html)), it is simply not true that nations are monolithic entities. The question is all about the fight against the capitalist class and its political henchmen, both in and outside Iran. There is absolutely no reason to support Iran's reactionary regime getting nuclear weapons.


Once the working class overthrows the ruling capitalist classes then we can worry about getting rid of nukes as it won't happen anywhere as long as the pigs are in charge.
I don't see this as a post-revolution question, which I see as simply an attempt to avoid the question, but as a fight we can start in the here and now. There is no reason why the working class cannot campaign and organise to force nuclear disarmament.

[RedStarOverChina]

I, and quite a few others here, oppose the reactionary regime in Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons. I for one hold a dual position: against imperialist aggression and against the theocratic regime. The only force which has my unconditional support is the working class movement, now militantly defying the very existence of the regime by the way. In my opinion the Hands of the People of Iran campaign (http://www.hopoi.org/main.html) has the right position on this matter.
Well then, you tell me how the Iranian people are to defend themselves when America invades.

[Q]

Well then, you tell me how the Iranian people are to defend themselves when America invades.

I see a two track response to a possible invasion by the working class:
1. The Iranian working class and sections of the military organise itself into working class militia's.
2. The western working class has to respond by sabotaging the military effort, blocking military transports and possibly shut down whole economies by general strikes. We should learn from the strong and weak points of the anti-war movements of the past decade in this regard and try to go beyond mere demonstrations and protests.

What we shouldn't do however is cease our attacks on the reactionary regime as that would amount to aiding the theocratic regime and its attempts to unite the working class behinds its reactionary banner. We should always maintain an independent class position. If successful in deflecting an imperialist attack this also offers the organisational grounds for toppling the theocratic regime and instate working class power.

[RedStarOverChina]

I see a two track response to a possible invasion by the working class:
1. The Iranian working class and sections of the military organise itself into working class militia's.
2. The western working class has to respond by sabotaging the military effort, blocking military transports and possibly shut down whole economies by general strikes. We should learn from the strong and weak points of the anti-war movements of the past decade in this regard and try to go beyond mere demonstrations and protests.
Right, a tooth-and-nail total war against the American war machine, no doubt at the cost of millions Iranian lives.

So basically you think it's worth it to risk an US invasion, the devastation of Iran and the slaughtering of its people so that Iran may remain true to your conviction that "no one should have nukes".

Nice to see there are courageous Europeans like you out there, willing to fight till the last Iranian.


But for the rest of us, Fallujah remains a heart-aching reminder of the tragedies of a disproportionate war. Every effort should be made so that it doesn't happen again.

And if Nukes would make imperialists think twice about invading, then Nukes the Iranians should have.

[RedStarOverChina]

I see a two track response to a possible invasion by the working class:
1. The Iranian working class and sections of the military organise itself into working class militia's.
2. The western working class has to respond by sabotaging the military effort, blocking military transports and possibly shut down whole economies by general strikes. We should learn from the strong and weak points of the anti-war movements of the past decade in this regard and try to go beyond mere demonstrations and protests.
Right, a tooth-and-nail total war against the American war machine, no doubt at the cost of millions Iranian lives.

So basically you think it's worth it to risk an US invasion, the devastation of Iran and the slaughtering of its people so that Iran may remain true to your conviction that "no one should have nukes".

Nice to see there are courageous Europeans like you out there, willing to fight till the last Iranian.


But for the rest of us, Fallujah remains a heart-aching reminder of the tragedies of a disproportionate war. Every effort should be made so that it doesn't happen again.

And if Nukes would make imperialists think twice about laying waste to Iran, then Nukes the Iranians should have.

[Revy]

When the nukes are launched, by either side, it will be the working class that suffers the immediate attacks and the radiation effects.

This stance is not aiding imperialism. It is the only correct position on the matter. And many countries keep the option open of using nuclear weapons even without being attacked with them. Clearly, as the only time they were used, was on a country which did not possess them.

The international working class should mobilize for a nuclear-free world and a world without imperialism and capitalism. Nukes are a tool kept by the ruling class in order to one day kill millions of proletarians in another nation. Because the ruling class will have the first ticket to whatever bunker is there. If someone were taking an imperialist position, it would be saying that the US should possess and Iran should not.

edit: meant to say "for a nuclear free world" not against.

[Dimentio]

No one should possess nukes. Some should possess nukes even less than others.

Iran is one of those factions which should possess nukes less than others. But so is Israel, India and Pakistan.

I hold no illusion that there probably is going to be a regional nuclear exchange in the following decades.

[RedStarOverChina]

When the nukes are launched, by either side, it will be the working class that suffers the immediate attacks and the radiation effects.

I'll admit that I'm a bit of a realist when it comes to this. Let's put it this way, Iran is more likely to be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack when it does not have the weapon. When Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the US and Israel would be less likely to use it on Iran or any other surrounding country, for fear of retaliation. Of course, the Iranian ruling class is not as crazy as the media makes it to be. Using their nukes will be "the last mistake they'll ever make", and they know it.

Basically, checks and balances is what I'm talking about.


The international working class should mobilize against a nuclear-free world and a world without imperialism and capitalism. That goes without mention.

However, how certain are you that we'll be able to topple capitalism, confiscate and destroy the Nukes before Iran is invaded?

Moreover, how can the Iranian working class commit to overthrowing Ahamedinejad's oppressive regime, when the country is threatened with an American invasion? When faced with the choices of either becoming a second Iraq or remaining under theocratic rule, I'm quite certain most Iranians will stand behind what they currently have.

[Devrim]

The whole subject to me seems completely bizarre. Regardless of the fact that it doesn't really matter at all what a few people on an internet discussion board think about Iran's 'rights', the level of ignorance in the discussion is quite outstanding:


For those who believe a Nuclear Iran would pose a threat to other countries, know that Persia/Iran has not committed a war of aggression for hundreds of years. That's a track-record few could contend with.

I think it is true to say that the Islamic Republic has never launched a war of aggression against a foreign power. I would put this down to the balance of power more than any concrete policy though. They certainly have played their fair share in destabilising the region though, and have as aggressive a foreign policy as I think is possible for them in this period, organising coup attempts and funding armed groups in the region. Of course, we will also have to discount the 'Holy War' that Khomeini launched against the Kurds in 1979 resulting in massacres of thousands of civilians.

If we want to talk about wars with foreign states I am not sure if you want to count the 1971 invasion of Abu Musa and the Tunb Isles as a war, but certainly in the 1820 Iran launched two wars one against the Ottoman Empire and one against Russia.

Any way, it is in no way hundreds of years since Iran has launched a war of aggression.


Beyond that, frankly, I see no reason at all for the US and Israel to have the right to nuclear weapons while Iran does not. What could be the justification for that? That Iran has involvement with terrorism and extremist groups? And that isn't true of the US and Israel? There's nothing about Ayatollah Khomeini that's any more radical and untrustworthy than Netanyahu, and the US has supplied guns and funding to more paramilitary groups than Iran ever has.

I think certainly we can be quite sure that Khomeini has not told any lies in the last twenty years. In fact I think that virtually every statement made by him in the last twenty-one years should be regarded as absolutely trustworthy.

Of course these statements have been kept to a minimum owing to his death from a heart attack in 1989.

The leader of Iran is Khamenei, not Khomeini.


If Israel declared war on Iran wouldn't other countries back Iran up? Maybe not the Sunni countries, but certainly Shiite populations would. Israel wouldn't even have very much back up since the United States has already stretched its own resources too far. I think Israel declaring war on Iran would be a bit suicidal on their part.

I am not quite sure which Shite countries you are referring too. The countries where Shia are a majority are Iran, Iraq, Azerbijan, and Bahrain. Of these Iraq is occupied by the US, Azerbijan is a secular Republic, which despite recent improvements has historically had bad relations with Iran, with the Prime Minister calling for the destruction of the Iranian regime less than two decades ago, and Bahrain is a Sunni state and hardly a military power.

Devrim

[redwog]

This is a very strange debate in a sense.

The thing that everyone ruling class motherfxxker is afraid of is an organised Iranian working class controlling large oil reserves. That included both the Iranian militarists and Islamists and the US/Israel - Western capitalists.

There is a movement of sorts in Iran - it seems petite bourgeois in many respects, but there is reason to believe that it could take a more workerist character.

Iran's militarisation is not just about the practical need for defense from empire. It is also a means by which to further police its domestic working class!

Further, the USA and allies will roll into Iran, not at the moment they have nukes, but well before, under the auspices of preventing the use wmds. (fabricating the same story as Iraq but will play out differently).

I understand the Maoist position about this, but I think that it is predicated upon a lack of belief that the Iranian working class is capable of revolution and need a militarist/islamicst anti-worker dictatorship to protect them.

[piet11111]

What would you expect to happen to a country that has been taken by the revolution and caught between capitalist country's and finds itself without nuclear weapons to deter them ?

Nukes are clearly something we all want to find only in the history books but that will not happen for a very long time and because they are such horrible weapons they are the best way to force peace.
It worked for the cold war and i believe that it might have the same effect on the middle east.

Also i am curious on how you expect the iranian government to use those nukes to oppress its population.

[Robocommie]

You're employing a logical fallacy here, namely "two wrongs make right" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-and-common-t129704/index.html).

No, I'm merely operating on the assumption that nuclear weapons cannot be undone. In the same way they could not ban the crossbow in the Middle Ages, in the same way that gunpowder, once developed, was permanent, so too are intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as the science of nuclear fission. As long as both of those two things exist, then so too will nuclear weapons. It's just a fact we must live with as best we can.

With that assumption, if the US can have them, then there's no reason Iran should not have the same right. If you want, you can argue no country should have the right to possess nukes, and that's laudable, it's simply not realistic. Neither the US, France, China, Russia or Israel will rid themselves of their nukes anytime soon, and any nation without them will be at a strategic disadvantage.

[Die Rote Fahne]

No nation should possess nuclear weapons. Including the US, Pakistan, Israel, etc.

Is it hypocritical for the US and Israel to want to stop them from having nukes? Yes.

[gorillafuck]

The US has no right to meddle in Irans nuclear policy, but I'm not gonna say Iran "should have nuclear weapons".

[La Comédie Noire]

Wouldn't a worker's revolution in Iran be stronger if it had nuclear weapons to defend itself from outside forces? Of course it may be argued that a state with nuclear weapons will use them against their own people, but then you'd have to concede revolution in a lot of countries is impossible. I highly doubt it though, it takes a special kind of stupid to bomb your own cities with nuclear weapons.

[Robocommie]

I highly doubt it though, it takes a special kind of stupid to bomb your own cities with nuclear weapons.

It takes a special kind of crazy given that most nuclear weapons these days are significantly stronger than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It'd be laying to utter waste a significant portion of even one of the larger countries. And if anyone did it, the international response would be the stuff of legends.

[which doctor]

Wouldn't a worker's revolution in Iran be stronger if it had nuclear weapons to defend itself from outside forces?
There is no instance in which a workers movement would have to resort to nuclear weapons in order to defend itself.

Because of the level of destruction nuclear weapons create, they will always be anti-working class.

[the last donut of the night]

Should we even be discussing this?

Debating on which side of a capitalist conflict to take is something liberals do. Not us.

[La Comédie Noire]

There is noinstance in which a workers movement would have to resort to nuclear weapons in order to defend itself.

Because of the level of destruction nuclear weapons create, they will always be anti-working class.

Sorry, I meant deter outside forces from invading, not actually using them.

[zimmerwald1915]

On the contrary, liberals unfailingly take the side of the imperialists. It is us nutty anti-imperialists (irrespective of ideology) who always stand up against imperialism.:D
I wouldn't go putting "us" next to "anti-imperialists" if I were you. It seems to me that that title most rightfully belongs to those who actually support the working class against all bourgeois states, rather than one bourgeois state against another.

[Outinleftfield]

This is a very strange debate in a sense.

The thing that everyone ruling class motherfxxker is afraid of is an organised Iranian working class controlling large oil reserves. That included both the Iranian militarists and Islamists and the US/Israel - Western capitalists.

There is a movement of sorts in Iran - it seems petite bourgeois in many respects, but there is reason to believe that it could take a more workerist character.

Iran's militarisation is not just about the practical need for defense from empire. It is also a means by which to further police its domestic working class!

Further, the USA and allies will roll into Iran, not at the moment they have nukes, but well before, under the auspices of preventing the use wmds. (fabricating the same story as Iraq but will play out differently).

I understand the Maoist position about this, but I think that it is predicated upon a lack of belief that the Iranian working class is capable of revolution and need a militarist/islamicst anti-worker dictatorship to protect them.

You speak like this is inevitable that the USA will roll into Iran. It is NOT inevitable. If enough people are educated and if enough people will protest and even go on strike we can stop the war.

You also speak as though you buy the imperialist bullshit that Iran is building nuclear weapons even though if you actually look you realize the media and politicians are greatly exaggerating through mistranslations, omissions, and outright lies anything about Iran that might suggest they want the bomb. Why would they do that if Iran is building nuclear weapons? If they were building nuclear weapons it would be enough to just stick to the truth.

[dez]

I see a two track response to a possible invasion by the working class:
1. The Iranian working class and sections of the military organise itself into working class militia's.
2. The western working class has to respond by sabotaging the military effort, blocking military transports and possibly shut down whole economies by general strikes. We should learn from the strong and weak points of the anti-war movements of the past decade in this regard and try to go beyond mere demonstrations and protests.



I like it how you expect the iranian working class to organize itself into working class militias and consequentially fight the regime violently while the western working class is responsible for "general strikes" in response, and I like it even more considering the fact that the aggressor in this case is the west, and the responsability of the western working class on preventing those reactionary policies is even higher.

[dez]

They certainly have played their fair share in destabilising the region though, and have as aggressive a foreign policy as I think is possible for them in this period, organising coup attempts and funding armed groups in the region.


Remove american nukes now then, before anyone even considers putting pressure on Iran, because they have been doing that repeatedly over the last century.
The United States and the west in general are the largest destabilizing factor on the world, they essentially attempt to destroy political movements that get in the way of their financial interests, without mercy or delay.

[Devrim]

Remove american nukes now then,

How would you propose I did that?


before anyone even considers putting pressure on Iran, because they have been doing that repeatedly over the last century.

I don't think communist politics is about 'putting pressure on states'.


The United States and the west in general are the largest destabilizing factor on the world, they essentially attempt to destroy political movements that get in the way of their financial interests, without mercy or delay.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we should whitewash Iran.

Devrim

[Devrim]

There is no instance in which a workers movement would have to resort to nuclear weapons in order to defend itself.

Because of the level of destruction nuclear weapons create, they will always be anti-working class.

This is very true. A communist revolution would disavow the use of nuclear weapons and appeal to workers and soldiers of invading countries.

Devrim

[Mr. Canada]

I personally oppose anyone having Nuclear Weapons.

I do find it hypocritical of the West to try and deny them nukes when the West has them and refuses to get rid of them.

[zimmerwald1915]

Remove american nukes now then, before anyone even considers putting pressure on Iran, because they have been doing that repeatedly over the last century.
As long as the United States exists, it will posses nuclear weapons. The only solution, therefore, to the problem of nuclear weapons in the hands of this or any other state is to develop, as far and as broadly as possible, working-class revolution.

[dez]

As long as the United States exists, it will posses nuclear weapons. The only solution, therefore, to the problem of nuclear weapons in the hands of this or any other state is to develop, as far and as broadly as possible, working-class revolution.

Yeah, and as long as that doesnt happens its rather hypocritical to bash at iran for their nuclear program.

[zimmerwald1915]

Yeah, and as long as that doesnt happens its rather hypocritical to bash at iran for their nuclear program.
Not really. It just means we all have our work cut out for us. What IS hypocritical is preventing communists in the US from expressing opinions about what is going on in other countries from a communist perspective simply because the US working class hasn't begun a revolution.

[dez]

Not really. It just means we all have our work cut out for us. What IS hypocritical is preventing communists in the US from expressing opinions about what is going on in other countries from a communist perspective simply because the US working class hasn't begun a revolution.


The american status quo is trying to find ways to promote an incursion in iran, and one of their main cards is fearmongering concerning weapons of mass destruction (where have we heard that before? And in the case of nuclear weapons, which nation has used them in a war so far?). By bashing at iran for their nuclear programme you are fueling the american war-keynesianism complex with rhetorical ammunition and indirectly strenghtening them. Hypocrisy, right?

[zimmerwald1915]

The american status quo is trying to find ways to promote an incursion in iran, and one of their main cards is fearmongering concerning weapons of mass destruction (where have we heard that before? And in the case of nuclear weapons, which nation has used them in a war so far?). By bashing at iran for their nuclear programme you are fueling the american war-keynesianism complex with rhetorical ammunition and indirectly strenghtening them. Hypocrisy, right?
Because the "American war-keynesianism complex" takes its cues from what I say on a message board? Thank you for thinking me so very influential, but that's just not how the world works. As human beings, we are confined to one place at a time. As workers, we are restricted in our freedom of movement by our circumstances and by border controls. That does not mean that, as communists, we get to say "aw, let the rest of the world sort their problems out, I've got a revolution to ferment here". As internationalists, it is our duty to analyze capitalism as a world system, not each country on its own.

[dez]

Because the "American war-keynesianism complex" takes its cues from what I say on a message board? Thank you for thinking me so very influential, but that's just not how the world works.


Whatever your say and whoever you are are completely ignored by the status quo, they will not, at all, use the fact that some activists bash at iran on their favour.
I didn't say you will form opinion, I said that if you bash at iran you will give reactionaries rhetorical ammunition.
And that is exactly how the world works.




As human beings, we are confined to one place at a time. As workers, we are restricted in our freedom of movement by our circumstances and by border controls.


Modern communication makes international correspondence easier, though.




That does not mean that, as communists, we get to say "aw, let the rest of the world sort their problems out, I've got a revolution to ferment here". As internationalists, it is our duty to analyze capitalism as a world system, not each country on its own.

Indeed.
Let me repost what I posted earlier, with a few highlights this time:

The american status quo is trying to find ways to promote an incursion in iran, and one of their main cards is fearmongering concerning weapons of mass destruction (where have we heard that before? And in the case of nuclear weapons, which nation has used them in a war so far?). By bashing at iran for their nuclear programme you are fueling the american war-keynesianism complex with rhetorical ammunition and indirectly strenghtening them. Hypocrisy, right?

[Crux]

Sorry for the re-post, but this just felt fitting, but that's a false dilemma you got going there, Organ.

To give you an example you might understand. I oppose Israel's not-so-very-secret nuclear weapons =/= I support the regime in Iran.

[zimmerwald1915]

The american status quo is trying to find ways to promote an incursion in iran, and one of their main cards is fearmongering concerning weapons of mass destruction (where have we heard that before? And in the case of nuclear weapons, which nation has used them in a war so far?). By bashing at iran for their nuclear programme you are fueling the american war-keynesianism complex with rhetorical ammunition and indirectly strenghtening them. Hypocrisy, right?
What you are saying, in reality, is that communists living in the US cannot comment on events elsewhere in the world. Meanwhile, you claim for yourself the absolute right to preach to communists in the US about how every paragraph we write or every sentence we speak fuels US imperialism simply because we recognize that no state is a paragon of virtue and point such things out from time to time. I'm pretty sure one of us is indeed being hypocritical.

[~Spectre]

Sorry for the re-post, but this just felt fitting, but that's a false dilemma you got going there, Organ.

To give you an example you might understand. I oppose Israel's not-so-very-secret nuclear weapons =/= I support the regime in Iran.

Correct, since Iran has shown no indication of being a state that will invade Israel.

The same cannot be said of the U.S. in regards to Iran.

It's not conscious support I presume, but it's certainly the de facto result of your position.

[Crux]

No, it is not. As explained earlier I believe that the iranian regime acquiring nukes will be a motivation, not a deterrent, for US invasion.

[The Ghost of Revolutions]

I say no. I do not tust Iran at all. There government is ran by religious extremist's and have killed many leftist's in the past. They have also not been honest with parts of there nuclear program. This makes me suspcious of them. I have no problem with them having nuclear power though if that is their true intention.

[~Spectre]

No, it is not. As explained earlier I believe that the iranian regime acquiring nukes will be a motivation, not a deterrent, for US invasion.

Which is why there is no evidence that they are pursuing nukes. As for whether they SHOULD have them, saying that they shouldn't is the exact position used to justify imperial U.S. invasion. Iran needs a deterrent more than any other state, and nuclear weapons are a form of deterrence.

[bailey_187]

No bomb but the peoples bomb!

[Outinleftfield]

Not really. It just means we all have our work cut out for us. What IS hypocritical is preventing communists in the US from expressing opinions about what is going on in other countries from a communist perspective simply because the US working class hasn't begun a revolution.

But we have nuclear weapons and this country is condemning Iran for the mere possibility they might be building nuclear weapons even though Iran still denies it.

The US imperialists aren't even willing to offer to allow Iran to have nuclear power if it allows 24-7 surveillance of everything involved. This isn't about nuclear weapons.

And when you actually look at the evidence the media doesn't talk about you see how over these past few years they have exaggerated everything bad about Iran and they have ommitted anything (or played it down) that suggested Iran wasn't building nuclear weapons.

I mean the very title of that article where Ahmadinejad says Iran is a "nuclear state" makes jump to people's minds that he is saying they have nukes. Only when you read the article do you see that he means "nuclear energy state" and still denies there being a nuclear program.

The media also talks a lot about Ahmadinejad and very little about Khameini. They are trying to frame it so it looks like Ahmadinejad is the head hauncho when its actually Khameini. Why? Because it serves their agenda better. Ahmadinejad just seems crazier than Khameini. Khameini even made a fatwa against nuclear weapons years ago. Put him in the news too often and more people will make that point. It serves imperialist lies better to frame Ahmadinejad as their main leader.

It is NOT a communist perspective to uncritically believe the lies spoonfed to us by the mainstream media. We should all just take 5 minutes out of our days to google the things we hear in the mainstream media and then look at what comes up that isn't from a mainstream source. And we should all inform anyone we hear who is misinformed, tell them to look things up that we find.

Knowledge is our greatest weapon.

[Glenn Beck]

I think what's really missing from this debate is an understanding of how a powerfully asymmetric imperialist hegemony erodes the viability of struggle against capitalist regimes on both sides of the imperialist/imperialized line. I simply don't see how someone with a decent grasp of history can deny that the greater the polarization of the imperialist system the greater the level of nationalism and class collaboration in both imperialist and anti-imperialist countries.

Q's call for anti-government militias in Iran and general strikes in the West in the case of a NATO/Israel invasion of Iran is so absolutely panglossian a suggestion that it's just comical. As radical as it may sound, given the current political and economic dynamics of the world it is simply not going to happen; it won't happen until workers in various countries have less of an incentive to collaborate with nationalism due to the weakening hegemony of imperialist states and the increasing convergence of immediate experience and interests between workers of different countries.

How many times does the working class on both sides have to completely fail at showing any degree of agency in combating a brutal imperialist war before people will start concluding that maybe there are structural and objective obstacles to the development of this agency? Do people even remember the catastrophe of the movement against the Iraq war? Has anyone even bothered to theorize this failure beyond the usual convenient and self-serving hand-wringing over the state of the worker's movement and the uselessness and opportunism of the Left? How about a mention of why conditions have not spurred on the development of these brilliant alternatives we need so badly?

It's also ludicrous to assume that geopolitical considerations are irrelevant simply because the primary agency on such levels are capitalist states. Are the dynamics of such intra-bourgeois phenomena as supply chains, labor markets, and trade relations also irrelevant matters of no concern to socialist analysis and revolutionary strategy? This kind of intransigent know-nothing approach has nothing constructive to offer to anyone besides the self-satisfaction that comes with being the most strident-sounding motherfucker in the room.

[Wolf Larson]

They say it's human nature. War. Iran [religion] the US [capitalism] is not human nature. Scientists should be held accountable for colluding with the DoD. Most of them do. This is how they get funding. Nuclear weapons aren't even the be all end all weapons of mass destruction. Our social systems aren't keeping track with our technological advancement. Both religion as it is now and capitalism in it's totality need to be abolished. The Iranian people nor Americans want to give up their pious ways and or capitalism. So, in the meantime, scientists will keep working with the DoD in order to come up with more ways less and less people can kill more and more people. Soon, perhaps, within 50 to 100 years the technology to kill millions of people will be widely available [as in-accessible to non nation states] as will the people who are willing to use it. We need social progression and quick. As in within the next 25-50 years or we're doomed. Our [global] social systems need to catch up to our technological capabilities. We should be pressuring the scientific community to halt collusion with the military. A pipe dream perhaps.More reason we need socialism. Capitalism[ists] are at the root of most of the worlds problems. The religious cults don't help. Christian and Muslim. I wish people, if they wanted to be spiritual, could keep it to themselves but I can't blame Muslims for fighting US hegemony/globalization. What a mess. The world is a mess.

[Wolf Larson]

I think what's really missing from this debate is an understanding of how a powerfully asymmetric imperialist hegemony erodes the viability of struggle against capitalist regimes on both sides of the imperialist/imperialized line. I simply don't see how someone with a decent grasp of history can deny that the greater the polarization of the imperialist system the greater the level of nationalism and class collaboration in both imperialist and anti-imperialist countries.

Q's call for anti-government militias in Iran and general strikes in the West in the case of a NATO/Israel invasion of Iran is so absolutely panglossian a suggestion that it's just comical. As radical as it may sound, given the current political and economic dynamics of the world it is simply not going to happen; it won't happen until workers in various countries have less of an incentive to collaborate with nationalism due to the weakening hegemony of imperialist states and the increasing convergence of immediate experience and interests between workers of different countries.

How many times does the working class on both sides have to completely fail at showing any degree of agency in combating a brutal imperialist war before people will start concluding that maybe there are structural and objective obstacles to the development of this agency? Do people even remember the catastrophe of the movement against the Iraq war? Has anyone even bothered to theorize this failure beyond the usual convenient and self-serving hand-wringing over the state of the worker's movement and the uselessness and opportunism of the Left? How about a mention of why conditions have not spurred on the development of these brilliant alternatives we need so badly?

It's also ludicrous to assume that geopolitical considerations are irrelevant simply because the primary agency on such levels are capitalist states. Are the dynamics of such intra-bourgeois phenomena as supply chains, labor markets, and trade relations also irrelevant matters of no concern to socialist analysis and revolutionary strategy? This kind of intransigent know-nothing approach has nothing constructive to offer to anyone besides the self-satisfaction that comes with being the most strident-sounding motherfucker in the room.

Materialism=availability of cheap products=half way comfortable lives= acceptance of slavery, war and death.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Whether Iran should or shouldn't possess nuclear weapons shouldn't be considered an issue for us to decide. That's a matter of what the Iranian people feel they want and need.

[Sogdian]

I want to change my vote from Yes to No. I made a mistake. I oppose to nuclear weapons anywhere in the world and am not prepared to negotiate this principle for the sake of "regional stability" - it's a capitalist trick!

[Crux]

Whether Iran should or shouldn't possess nuclear weapons shouldn't be considered an issue for us to decide. That's a matter of what the Iranian people feel they want and need.Unfortunately under the current regime they do not have a say. And even then we still have a right to be critical, but not patronizing.

[zimmerwald1915]

Whether Iran should or shouldn't possess nuclear weapons shouldn't be considered an issue for us to decide. That's a matter of what the Iranian people feel they want and need.
"The Iranian People" isn't a monolith, and is divided into classes.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I want to change my vote from Yes to No. I made a mistake. I oppose to nuclear weapons anywhere in the world and am not prepared to negotiate this principle for the sake of "regional stability" - it's a capitalist trick!

Just because you oppose nuclear weapons doesn't mean that's what we'll get. We've got to stick to reality here & understand that nuclear energy is going nowhere soon. And so, keeping this in mind, we must start using this energy for better purposes than the development of armed weaponry. We need to start taking Iran's lead & start developing nuclear energy & use it to our own advantage to help develop cleaner energy.

I wish the poll's question was 'Should Iran possess nuclear energy?', for it allows a more diverse conversation on what the energy could be used for, because, from it seems, Iran is not developing any nuclear weapons, but rather going forth in its uranium enrichment plant to help develop cleaner energy.

[Wolf Larson]

I say no, here are my reasons.

Iran is a very religious country with a very religious leadership that has no liberals in its gov. (if there are liberals then they are in the "closet" and afraid of losing their job). Religious leaderships feel no need to think about their actions, and they press their beliefs on others and even threaten enemies with their "God".
How many liberals in Amerikkka have started wars? Maybe I should post pictures of bloody dead pulverized children and dead decapitated women Obama has killed with his bombs and drone strikes in order to appeal to your emotions as the poster below me has done? The USA is the only sick perverted immoral nation which has used nuclear weapons and we have been in a state of constant war since the end of WW2.. John Kennedy was a murderer. LBJ was a murderer. Clinton is a murderer. Obama is a murderer. The reason other nations need nukes is because Amerikkka. US hegemony is built on other nations lack of defense. If you're going to hate any nation state hate America. I also suggest you stop watching MsM media propaganda in regards to Iran. If you don't think Iran should try to build nukes throw your body into the gears and leavers of American hegemony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

[Wolf Larson]

Who's doing that ... besides those who just talk?

The point is, nuclear arms in any States power is detrimental not only to workers but to everyone. This includes Iran.


This debate is just beyond me. Why would anyone advocate for a State who kills their own people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/27/nine-dead-iran-protests) to be in possession of the most destructive weopon in history?

The only possible reasoning I can conjure up is that you have a death wish, which is fine- you are allowed to now what to exist- but at least admit that is the argument.

Do we want a state that does this to protesters to have nuclear weapons?

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/aponline/150.908Polk-Awards.sff.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/16/1245143384908/Iran-protests-Iranians-re-011.jpg

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2009-06/photo_verybig_104719.jpg
Those protesters in Iran are US capitalist agents [in a certain capacity] looking to bring capitalist globalization to Iran. Representatives of McWorld. They were not protesting for self rule under socialism they were protesting to have US style capitalism and representative capitalist democracy rule Iran. The rule of the rich- the WESTERN rich. They were/are not fighting to advance self rule under socialism they are fighting for our enemies. To help spread global capitalism.

[Crux]

Wolf Larson: The Fuck. You clearly buy into the western media presentation. How ironic. Also "advance self-rule under socialism"? If you are unaware Iran is quite a capitalist country.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by zimmerwald1915
"The Iranian People" isn't a monolith, and is divided into classes.

It should be understood that by "the people" I refer to the proletariat and its strategic allies of course.

[Wolf Larson]

Wolf Larson: The Fuck. You clearly buy into the western media presentation. How ironic. Also "advance self-rule under socialism"? If you are unaware Iran is quite a capitalist country.
I noticed you're a liberal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/lets-use-our-best-weapon-_b_36768.html




(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/lets-use-our-best-weapon-_b_36768.html)

[Wolf Larson]

And no liberal. I do not buy into any western media concerning Iran. I do not support US hegemony/imperialism. Iran is in their sights. It is you who is buying into western propaganda.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpYcmNV55NI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmJpN08Ufqg

[Wolf Larson]

For those of you saying Iran should not be allowed [by the global police USA and Israel] to attain nuclear weapons you are by default supporting war against Iran and the Iranian people. If they were building nuclear weapons it would take a multilateral strike with Israel and the US to bomb hundreds of sites within Iran. This would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iranians not to mention spark WW3 and possible nuclear war between various nations. Revolutionaries, communists, socialists and anarchists should not support military action against Iran.


The same mind frame allows liberals to support the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Liberals say we need to control Afghanistan and Pakistan so the nukes in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of "terrorists". Pfft. The nukes the US has control over. The secure nukes under US guard. CODE PINK the lame duck organization they are has also found ways to rationalize support for war on Afghanistan. Basically the Code Pink pro war thinking is: Those backwards Afghans treat their women like dirt and we must keep the evil terrorists from taking over the nukes in Pakistan. Pathetic.

[Crux]

http://patterico.com/files/2009/12/Strawman.jpg

[Wolf Larson]

http://patterico.com/files/2009/12/Strawman.jpg
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Juts what is your argument. Clarify it so I may set it on fire.

[Crux]

That your idea that the movement as a whole would be "pro-western" and "liberal" is based on reports in western media, and most likely deriding articles from apoligists for the regime abroad. Even the fact that you link such articles as you do shows this. The fact that you feel the need to invent what I and others have been saying rather then actually argue tells a lot about on how shaky ground you are.

Unlike you I have sources inside Iran. Oppositional sources.

Unlike you I have for several years campaigned side by side with exile-communists from Iran.

Unlike you I do not buy into "the regime" versus "liberals" idealist nonsense analysis of the situation in Iran.

Of course I am doing a bit of assuming here, but I think those are reasonable assumptions. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.

This thread considers some, if not all of my arguments: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=129078

Notice how the regime-apologist have not responded? Well, at least that's more dignified then the trolling you are doing now.

Oh and also, if you would even take the time to read this thread itself before starting to strawman it would be great as I have responded to why I oppose a nuclear weapons program of the Iranian regime. I do not belive in M.A.D.

[Wolf Larson]

That your idea that the movement as a whole would be "pro-western" and "liberal" is based on reports in western media, and most likely deriding articles from apoligists for the regime abroad. Even the fact that you link such articles as you do shows this. The fact that you feel the need to invent what I and others have been saying rather then actually argue tells a lot about on how shaky ground you are.

Unlike you I have sources inside Iran. Oppositional sources.

Unlike you I have for several years campaigned side by side with exile-communists from Iran.

Unlike you I do not buy into "the regime" versus "liberals" idealist nonsense analysis of the situation in Iran.

Of course I am doing a bit of assuming here, but I think those are reasonable assumptions. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.

This thread considers some, if not all of my arguments: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=129078

Notice how the regime-apologist have not responded? Well, at least that's more dignified then the trolling you are doing now.

Oh and also, if you would even take the time to read this thread itself before starting to strawman it would be great as I have responded to why I oppose a nuclear weapons program of the Iranian regime. I do not belive in M.A.D.
1. you have "sources" in Iran? If that's not an appeal to authority I'm not sure what is.

2.Unlike me you have campaigned side by side with communists from Iran? Another appeal to both authority and presumptuous enuendo.

3.Unlike me you don't buy into the regime Vs liberals idealist nonsense? More of the same. What do you think keeps the US from colonizing North Korea? Why do you think South America has been completely put under capitalist rule? I'm going to make my own slanderous presumption. You're one of the Bob Avakian drones aren't you?


Also, I'm not trolling that was just another passive aggressive ad hominem.

[Crux]

1. you have "sources" in Iran? If that's not an appeal to authority I'm not sure what is.

2.Unlike me you have campaigned side by side with communists from Iran? Another appeal to both authority and presumptuous enuendo.

3.Unlike me you don't buy into the regime Vs liberals idealist nonsense? More of the same. What do you think keeps the US from colonizing North Korea? Why do you think South America has been completely put under capitalist rule? I'm going to make my own slanderous presumption. You're one of the Bob Avakian drones aren't you?


Also, I'm not trolling that was just another passive aggressive ad hominem.




Okay let's trackback, you claim that the massive protests against the regime in Iran is somehow orchestrated by "agents imperialism". Your argument for this reads like a tautology because apparently opposing the regime automatically makes you pro imperialist. Or no? Your analysis lacks any class awareness.

What then do you think of the underground unions, the leftwing students organizations, the marxist guerilla movement in the kurdish part of iran, the otehr underground parties. All agents of the "west"? And think for a while just what is it you are defending? Certainly not the interests of the iranian workingclass, who, some people seem to forget are under the heel of the dictatorship no matter if it is the Ahmadinejad-wing or "reformist" wing that wins. That is why the protest, since long have gone far beyond the election and into a mass opposition against the regime. There has been at least one general strike, by the illgal unions, that took out 40% of the workforce, in opposition to the regime. Bussworkers in Teheran, the Haf Tape workers' the worker's in the autoindustry have all courageosly taken class action, howver the movement against the regime is not yet clearly under the leadership of the workingclass. Many activists realize this, and partuclarly the students, having a history of militancy, are making a councious effort to organize worker's.

as for my sources, here's one: http://www.socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3799

As I said in the other thread many, many articles have not been translated into english, yet.

[Crux]

A more recent article, also with an interview of a recently exiled underground unionist and socialist: http://www.socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3932

[Wolf Larson]

Okay let's trackback, you claim that the massive protests against the regime in Iran is somehow orchestrated by "agents imperialism". Your argument for this reads like a tautology because apparently opposing the regime automatically makes you pro imperialist. Or no? Your analysis lacks any class awareness.

What then do you think of the underground unions, the leftwing students organizations, the marxist guerilla movement in the kurdish part of iran, the otehr underground parties. All agents of the "west"? And think for a while just what is it you are defending? Certainly not the interests of the iranian workingclass, who, some people seem to forget are under the heel of the dictatorship no matter if it is the Ahmadinejad-wing or "reformist" wing that wins. That is why the protest, since long have gone far beyond the election and into a mass opposition against the regime. There has been at least one general strike, by the illgal unions, that took out 40% of the workforce, in opposition to the regime. Bussworkers in Teheran, the Haf Tape workers' the worker's in the autoindustry have all courageosly taken class action, howver the movement against the regime is not yet clearly under the leadership of the workingclass. Many activists realize this, and partuclarly the students, having a history of militancy, are making a councious effort to organize worker's.

as for my sources, here's one: http://www.socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3799

As I said in the other thread many, many articles have not been translated into english, yet.

I didn't give any analysis. If I had given any analysis I would have mentioned most of the protesters are petty bourgeois backing Mousavi who has criticized Ahmadinejad’s 'handouts' to the poor in the countryside. Ahmadinejad has actually gained the support of much of the poor who make up most of the population. I'm not condemning nor condoning this it's juts a fact. Mousavi himself has been responsible for repressing leftists in Iran. Killing and jailing them while cutting social programs. Mousavi represents the middle class not the poor. Deal with it. My point is, as I said, many of the poor support Ahmadinejad but we're not talking about the internal politics of Iran we're talking about the exterior threat of US invasion [war] and subsequent sociopolitical domination via economics. We're talking about keeping Iran from becoming another Iraq but a neocolonial takeover can happen without a shot being fired. This is what the US is trying to accomplish now. Don't you get it? . Mousavi has connections with western business and if put in power would do exactly what I said. Open Iran to become just another cog in the neocolonial machine. This is why I posted the article from the silly liberal who said the US should defeat Iran with capitalism. Of course Iran has a capitalistic economy but not a corporate western economy connected at the hip to US hegemony. The USA is simply using this political turmoil to get in a pro US pro western big business regime [Mousavi] but again we're not talking about that in this thread we're talking about Iran's right to self defense.

When you say Iran should not have the right to nuclear weapons you are saying US/Israel has the right to attack them in order to keep it from happening if Iran chooses to create defensive nuclear weapons. Even if they're not trying to create nuclear weapons the US will say they are as an excuse to invade occupy and dominate as happened in Iraq. Either way the American public should not be calling for war if Iran chooses to harness nuclear weapons or even using the excuse if it's not truly happening. Iran hasn't been an aggressor in the middle east or the world at large. The only aggressor is Israel and the US. Iran should have the right, especially seeing they're surrounded by US imperialist forces, to do whatever they please in order to keep themselves from being eaten up by US imperial forces. You can go ahead and call yourself a revolutionary while supporting massive imperialist bombing campaigns. I'm not going to join you. No thanks. Later, when I have the time, I'll give you an in depth analysis of both the political climate in Iran and the reasons Iran should have the right to self defense. I feel I'm wasting time with you already as your correspondence started with non stop appeals to authority and personal attacks. The end goal is a sovereign Iran, independent of US economic subjugation . An environment where the Iranian people can push for and create socialism and this will never happen with US involvement. The US is still operating from a point of containment, meaning, the cold war isn't over.

[Wolf Larson]

The Islamic opposition to globalization should not be criticized by revolutionaries.

[Crux]

I didn't give any analysis. If I had given any analysis I would have mentioned most of the protesters are petty bourgeois backing Mousavi who has criticized Ahmadinejad’s 'handouts' to the poor in the countryside.
Which of course would make you incorrect. Those protesters that still have any genuine illusions left in Mousavi do indeed come from the middle class though, but they do not compromise a majority of the movement today.


Ahmadinejad has actually gained the support of much of the poor who make up most of the population.
Pretending that Iran's electoral system have anything to do with democracy for a moment, pretty much everything point to Ahmadinejad having lost. That he has espoused some populist slogans and piece-meal reforms does not change the overall move towards even further opression and more privatizations. Again as I said before, if you were to actually read what I post, Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are just representatives of two wings of the regime.



I'm not condemning nor condoning this it's juts a fact. Mousavi himself has been responsible for repressing leftists in Iran. Killing and jailing them while cutting social programs. Mousavi represents the middle class not the poor. Deal with it.
Well, I know it might seem like a difficult concept for you, but actually reading what I say might keep you from making mistakes like these. Because you still seem to confuse your straw man for my opinion, which I have written quite clearly multiple times.


My point is, as I said, many of the poor support Ahmadinejad Even more oppose the regime as a whole given it's murderous and viciously anti-worker policies.


but we're not talking about the internal politics of Iran we're talking about the exterior threat of US invasion [war] and subsequent sociopolitical domination via economics. We're talking about keeping Iran from becoming another Iraq. Mousavi has connections with western business and if put in power would do exactly what I said. Open Iran to become just another cog in the neocolonial machine.
This is nonsense. The power you see does not lie primarily with the president but with Khaminei. Further more as you said yourself Mousavi is just another butcher. Different rhetorics, maybe less antagonistic in foreign policy, maybe more honest about Iran's market liberalizations. But suggesting he would "implement" a pro-us dictatorship begs the question how and why.


This is why I posted the article from the silly liberal who said the US should defeat Iran with capitalism. Of course Iran has a capitalistic economy but not a corporate western economy connected at the hip to US hegemony. The USA is simply using this political turmoil to get in a pro US pro western big business regime [Mousavi] but again we're not talking about that in this thread we're talking about Iran's right to self defense.
Uhm Mousavi is much more pro-iran's very own big bussiness, which has enriched the iranian elite for decades. Again it's patently absurd to claim that Mousavi is anything more then a tool of regime. A tool that has come under enormous pressure from below, mind, and not a pressure in favour of market reforms or the US, if you thought that.




When you say Iran should not have the right to nuclear weapons you are saying US/Israel has the right to attack them in order to keep it from happening if Iran chooses to create defensive nuclear weapons.
No.


Even if they're not trying to create nuclear weapons the US will say they are as an excuse to invade occupy and dominate as happened in Iraq. Either way the American public should not be calling for war if Iran chooses to harness nuclear weapons or even using the excuse if it's not truly happening. Iran hasn't been an aggressor in the middle east or the world at large. The only aggressor is Israel and the US. Iran should have the right, especially seeing they're surrounded by US imperialist forces, to do whatever they please in order to keep themselves from being eaten up by US imperial forces.You seem confused, to say the least. At first you agree that the idea of iranian nuclear weapons might very well prompt a US invasion. If you can point anywhere where I have said I would do anything but oppose such an invasion, please do. Otherwise stop claiming I do. Well making the mistakes of Tudeh of 79 (or actually worse since you have seen what this regime has done the past 30 years), might be comfortable if you do not get persecuted, imprisoned and murdered for your beliefs, as the iranian workingclass movement are. As an internationalist and a marxist I cannot grant myself that "luxury".

[Crux]

The Islamic opposition to globalization should not be criticized by revolutionaries. Pray tell what kind of "revolutionaries" are you talking about? And why should they be forced to leave all critical thinking and in favour of what...?

Islamism was traditionally the tool of US imperialism against the left. Maybe that's something you should keep in mind while praising your new friends.

[Wolf Larson]

Which of course would make you incorrect. Those protesters that still have any genuine illusions left in Mousavi do indeed come from the middle class though, but they do not compromise a majority of the movement today.


Pretending that Iran's electoral system have anything to do with democracy for a moment, pretty much everything point to Ahmadinejad having lost. That he has espoused some populist slogans and piece-meal reforms does not change the overall move towards even further opression and more privatizations. Again as I said before, if you were to actually read what I post, Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are just representatives of two wings of the regime.



Well, I know it might seem like a difficult concept for you, but actually reading what I say might keep you from making mistakes like these. Because you still seem to confuse your straw man for my opinion, which I have written quite clearly multiple times.

Even more oppose the regime as a whole given it's murderous and viciously anti-worker policies.


This is nonsense. The power you see does not lie primarily with the president but with Khaminei. Further more as you said yourself Mousavi is just another butcher. Different rhetorics, maybe less antagonistic in foreign policy, maybe more honest about Iran's market liberalizations. But suggesting he would "implement" a pro-us dictatorship begs the question how and why.


Uhm Mousavi is much more pro-iran's very own big bussiness, which has enriched the iranian elite for decades. Again it's patently absurd to claim that Mousavi is anything more then a tool of regime. A tool that has come under enormous pressure from below, mind, and not a pressure in favour of market reforms or the US, if you thought that.




No.

You seem confused, to say the least. At first you agree that the idea of iranian nuclear weapons might very well prompt a US invasion. If you can point anywhere where I have said I would do anything but oppose such an invasion, please do. Otherwise stop claiming I do. Well making the mistakes of Tudeh of 79 (or actually worse since you have seen what this regime has done the past 30 years), might be comfortable if you do not get persecuted, imprisoned and murdered for your beliefs, as the iranian workingclass movement are. As an internationalist and a marxist I cannot grant myself that "luxury".

The only confused person is you. You're trying to turn a debate concerning the question should Iran be able to attain nuclear weapons if they wish into a debate concerning the current political strife [which you've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt you do not understand at all]. Maybe you should copy/paste more articles or perhaps call your imaginary friends in Iran to help you articulate a coherent point? The point is- yes, Iran should be able to attain nuclear weapons if they so choose. They are currently surrounded by US forces and if they cannot remain sovereign there is zero chance of future socialist reform. If they're not trying to get nuclear weapons they better get some and fast or the US will be thoroughly dominating them as the US once did. I'm also in the middle of dinner and gathering work related things for the workday tomorrow but since you've decided to erroneously pump up your pseudo revolutionary ego I'll be more than happy to set you straight on this issue during my lunch tomorrow. The issue or question concerning a nuclear Iran. You say no. Why do you think Iran does not have a right to nuclear weapons? We're going to need two different threads as you seem to be more fixated on overthrowing the current regime than you are in keeping Iran's sovereignty. One thread, lets say this thread, should be dedicated to the question concerning a nuclear armed Iran and the other thread will focus on the internal political climate. They are two separate issues. Yes the current regime needs to go but the alternative is a pro US goon. If he gets in the Iranian elite will have the support of the west and any future socialist revolution will then be impossible. I'll explain all of this tomorrow. For now please tell me exactly why you don't think Iran has a right to self defense.

[Wolf Larson]

Pray tell what kind of "revolutionaries" are you talking about? And why should they be forced to leave all critical thinking and in favour of what...?

Islamism was traditionally the tool of US imperialism against the left. Maybe that's something you should keep in mind while praising your new friends.

If it weren't for them the entire middle east would be parking lots and McDonlads by now. Are you Jewish or of Israeli decent by any chance? Why are you so willing to shit on the only people who are actually fighting global capitalism? What do you think this war on terror is about?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I must post here to state my (hopefully comradely) disagreement with Q, Human Condition, and which doctor here on the basis of Class-Struggle Defencism.

I did vote Yes to nuclear weapons for Iran, but for two reasons:

1) Mutually Assured Destruction: The Soviets had nukes, but Stalin's efforts prevented Yankee jingoists from having their planned military orgasm. I should also say that Stalin himself went nuts toward the end of his life when he entertained the possibility of fighting WWIII and with nukes.

Ahmad-yadayada, for all his rhetoric, is just a figurehead. Strictly on the question of nukes, Ayatollah Khamenei is on the same sanity level is Kim Jong-Il, Leonid Brezhnev, or Yuri Andropov: use the nuke card for diplomatic concessions, but never to start a full-scale war.

2) No regime has yet used nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes, on its own population. Nuclear weapons are purely external deterrents, unlike conventional forces (especially ground troops).

Those who operate the nuclear weapons facilities themselves can be organized in general strike action during revolutionary periods. The new regime will have the nuclear trump card to wave at would-be interventionists.


The international working class should mobilize for a nuclear-free world and a world without imperialism and capitalism. Nukes are a tool kept by the ruling class in order to one day kill millions of proletarians in another nation. Because the ruling class will have the first ticket to whatever bunker is there. If someone were taking an imperialist position, it would be saying that the US should possess and Iran should not.

I agree with what you said, but that's why there is compatibility for nuclear parity and undermining state confidence within the military (Kautsky).

If inter-imperialist war occurs outside a revolutionary period, it means we failed to organize workers sufficiently in the first place.


There is no instance in which a workers movement would have to resort to nuclear weapons in order to defend itself.

Because of the level of destruction nuclear weapons create, they will always be anti-working class.

Even bunker busters aimed at bourgeois bunkers?


This is very true. A communist revolution would disavow the use of nuclear weapons and appeal to workers and soldiers of invading countries.

Devrim

Correction: Would disavow the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity and appeal to workers and soldiers of invading countries if the revolutionary period is global enough to have reached them (otherwise their demise would be tragic but necessary). I wrote about revolutionary regimes using air strikes, but such strikes would obviously be conventional.

[Wolf Larson]

I don't think that's appropriate. They're just confused social-imperialists.

I was wondering what is motivating him/her. I've had conversations with many people who drop the ball when it comes to their loyalty to their race. It happens with people from Israel a lot. Usually concerning the question of a nuclear armed Iran and other issues that may be seen as detrimental to Israel . I'm not antisemitic in the least- I asked him/her for the reason above- I'm trying to figure out what's motivating his erroneous position.

[Crux]

The only confused person is you. You're trying to turn a debate concerning the question should Iran be able to attain nuclear weapons if they wish into a debate concerning the current political strife [which you've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt you do not understand at all].
Because you were wrong about Mousavi, how the presedintial system works in Iran, Iranian society in general, Ahmadinejad, the green movement and the protest movement against the government? I see.



Maybe you should copy/past more articles or perhaps call your imaginary friends in Iran to help you articulate a coherent point? Maybe you should learn how to read and respond arguments then maybe I wouldn't think you to be a fucking tool.



The point is- yes, Iran should be able to attain nuclear weapons if they so choose. They are currently surrounded by US forces and if they cannot remain sovereign there is zero chance of future socialist reform. If they're not trying to get nuclear weapons they better get some and fast or the US will be thoroughly dominating them as the US once did. I'm also in the middle of dinner and gathering work related things for the workday tomorrow but since you've decided to erroneously pump up your pseudo revolutionary ego I'll be more than happy to set you straight on this issue during my lunch tomorrow. The issue or question concerning a nuclear Iran. You say no. Why do you think Iran does not have a right to nuclear weapons? We're going to need two different threads as you seem to be more fixated on overthrowing the current regime than you are in keeping Iran's sovereignty. One thread, lets say this thread, should be dedicated to the question concerning a nuclear armed Iran and the other thread will focus on the internal political climate. They are two separate issues. Yes the current regime needs to go but the alternative is a pro US goon. If he gets in the Iranian elite will have the support of the west and any socialist revolution will then be impossible. I'll explain all of this tomorrow. For now please tell me exactly why you don't think Iran has a right to self defense.I know your revolutionary ego must blooming by saying "oh I don't really want to act as an apologist for this regime but I have to because otherwise I would support US imperialism." That may be your two options, but they certainly are not mine, nor that of the iranian working class. As I said it is only in your own deluded mind I have defended U.S imperialism or not opposed imperialist intervention, from whatever imperialist nation, in Iran. That, incidentally is also the position of the left in Iran. Oh but being the "revolutionary" you are you'd rather see them continued to be slaughtered just to please your false dilemma. So do pray tell at what point does revolution become premisable? How "safe" must the iranian regime be? Of course I want to overthrow the regime, after all, unlike you I do not side with either of the opressors, even though you have to slander and lie about my position to make your own down right criminal capitulation seem "reasonable".

[Crux]

If it weren't for them the entire middle east would be parking lots and McDonlads by now. Are you Jewish or of Israeli decent by any chance? Why are you so willing to shit on the only people who are actually fighting global capitalism? What do you think this war on terror is about?The old friends of US imperialism backfiring. The idea that the islamist groups would be opposed to capatalism is so ludicrous that you'd think you've completly forget just who's pockets the hands these very groups were deep in during the 70's and 80's. You are familiar with the background the Taliban and Al-Qaida, I suppose? Both originating in US backed movement to fight the afghanistan left-populist USSR backed government. And back in the day Hamas was funded by Mossad to "destabilize" the PLO. Just to name some of the most prominent examples.

Are you petit-bourguise by any chance? Student? Because that's the kind of people I could see supporting such a fucking anti-working class disastorous "adventurism" as siding with islamism, openly and against the workingclass. The fact that you seem somehow to disbelieve the existence of a resistance in the iranian workingclass is incredible. But then again, you just mirror the bourguise dichtonomy, but like a very oppurtunist reformist might say that the us would need to overthrow the dictatorship in Iran for there to be able to be a fight for socialism you basically have the same approach from the opposite end. again oblivious to class and to revolutionary politics. I suppose that's why you have to straw man so much.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You're missing the bigger picture, Mayakovsky.

[Wolf Larson]

Because you were wrong about Mousavi, how the presedintial system works in Iran, Iranian society in general, Ahmadinejad, the green movement and the protest movement against the government? I see.


Maybe you should learn how to read and respond arguments then maybe I wouldn't think you to be a fucking tool.


I know your revolutionary ego must blooming by saying "oh I don't really want to act as an apologist for this regime but I have to because otherwise I would support US imperialism." That may be your two options, but they certainly are not mine, nor that of the iranian working class. As I said it is only in your own deluded mind I have defended U.S imperialism or not opposed imperialist intervention, from whatever imperialist nation, in Iran. That, incidentally is also the position of the left in Iran. Oh but being the "revolutionary" you are you'd rather see them continued to be slaughtered just to please your false dilemma. So do pray tell at what point does revolution become premisable? How "safe" must the iranian regime be? Of course I want to overthrow the regime, after all, unlike you I do not side with either of the opressors, even though you have to slander and lie about my position to make your own down right criminal capitulation seem "reasonable".

When did I explain or describe how the presidential system works in Iran? As if I'm not aware it's a theocracy under the rule of the Khamenei. Also, no, I'm not wrong about Mousavi and no I'm not supporting the current regime. My point is Iran needs a nuclear defense in order to hold onto it's sovereignty and it's sovereignty is also under threat from within. The protests in the streets are largely in support of Mousavi. If he gets into power and the old regime [Khamenei & Ahmadinejad] is expelled the west will have control of Iran. As I said, I'll explain this tomorrow. I should have been asleep 30 min ago. I'm not going to stay up all night arguing with an apologist for US hegemony. A rude one at that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I should also add to the discussion the difference between strategic and tactical nukes, since one definitely has a less anti-working class impact. Usually it's the former that's developed first for prestige reasons, then the latter once the miniaturization technology has been acquired.

[Crux]

You're missing the bigger picture, Mayakovsky.
No I simply do not believe in M.A.D. as a workeable concept or something that should be defended in the name of anti-imperialism. Wolf Larson: Unlike most of you here I believe the iranian regime's days are numbered, shit the only thing that might give them a chance to regroup, because it tears up the working class, would be an imperialist invasion.
And simply speaking, the US might sabre rattle, but being tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan it has nowehere enough resources to wage a war on the army of Iran, which is quite superior to Iraq's old army. Similarly Israel is tied up with palestine, syria and lebanon. In relaity there is no immediate threat to the regime from US or Israeli imperialism, however there is a massive potential threat from the working class (not from Mousavi who as you know even if he managed to get president would be under the Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Guardian Council and anyway represents the reformist wing of the regime not an actual opposition to it). Which side are you on?

And as I asked previously do you believe the worker's organizing illegally at the risk of their own lives to fight for socialism in Iran are a part of "US hegemony" aswell? If anything your disgusting dichtonomy between two opressors is a result of US hegemonoy and your own ignorance of marxism and the class struggle in general, prefering to support reactionary groups because they are "in", typical of the petit-bourguise. But hey who am I kidding, you might be a full blown bourguise for all I know? Your dad don't like muslims? And your race question is of course nothing more than thinly veiled racism (even further extrapolating your ignorance of class), zionism has been a bloody trap for those jews lured in by it. And if you are so interested in eugenics I guess I could confess, I am not purely nordic, I also have some sapmi blood in me. Pray tell how does that effect my politics?

[Outinleftfield]

One big problem with nuclear weapons is all it takes is one guy in the military in any country(US, China, Israel, Russia, ...) who is in a position where he is operating the weapons to go nuts and the nuke goes off.(or possibly more I don't know all the procedures, hopefully theres some kind of computer password system that requires multiple authorizations but I know the whole idea of "the president having his finger on the button isn't literal. Soldiers hired to guard them and operate them if ordered to handle that)

No leader is going to set off nukes for no reason but a disgruntled soldier might. Although given sheer numbers that's more likely for the US. Being a 'democracy'(even if we were a real democracy which w're not) doesn't protect you from psychotics. If that's not a compelling reason to dismantle all nuclear weapons in the world I don't know what is.

BUT the evidence does NOT support that Iran is building nuclear weapons. This is the wrong debate. Instead we should be focused on how best to counter US imperialist lies used to try to start a war in Iran.

[Q]

I must post here to state my (hopefully comradely) disagreement with Q, Human Condition, and which doctor here on the basis of Class-Struggle Defencism.
First of all, nukes aren't conventional weapons. Pulling a 1:1 comparison with WW1 "class struggle defencism" is a bit too simplistic.


I did vote Yes to nuclear weapons for Iran, but for two reasons:

1) Mutually Assured Destruction: The Soviets had nukes, but Stalin's efforts prevented Yankee jingoists from having their planned military orgasm. I should also say that Stalin himself went nuts toward the end of his life when he entertained the possibility of fighting WWIII and with nukes.

Ahmad-yadayada, for all his rhetoric, is just a figurehead. Strictly on the question of nukes, Ayatollah Khamenei is on the same sanity level is Kim Jong-Il, Leonid Brezhnev, or Yuri Andropov: use the nuke card for diplomatic concessions, but never to start a full-scale war.
Your second part speaks against you really. Are we to support nuclear capabilities knowing that reactionaries are waiving with their thumbs over the red button? Are we going to rely on the "sanity levels" of such people not to use them?

As for MAD, it was a necessary compromise for lack of complete disarmament in the Cold War. This should be seen as a historic failure of the working class movement, not as a viable tactic to use.


2) No regime has yet used nuclear weapons, even tactical nukes, on its own population. Nuclear weapons are purely external deterrents, unlike conventional forces (especially ground troops).
This argument has been used a few times now in this thread and I'm slightly amazed that you use it too. So, let me spell it out for you and others: our responsibility as communists is not towards this or that nation or the working class within its borders, it is extended to the whole of the working class, which is a global class. Once Iran uses nukes, the working class loses. Once the USA uses nukes, the working class loses. This isn't rocket science really and I'm sad the nationalist frame of thinking is used by so many people here.


Those who operate the nuclear weapons facilities themselves can be organized in general strike action during revolutionary periods. The new regime will have the nuclear trump card to wave at would-be interventionists.
Wave, but use? You don't seem to either understand the MAD concept or, worse, actually leave open the possibility that nukes could be used by socialist regimes. The whole point of a nuclear deterrent is its possibility that it could be used. If we are to make it clear that we would have nukes purely for its "deterrent" value, but would rule out that we would ever use them, given its anti-working class nature, it loses any deterrence.


Correction: Would disavow the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity and appeal to workers and soldiers of invading countries if the revolutionary period is global enough to have reached them (otherwise their demise would be tragic but necessary). I wrote about revolutionary regimes using air strikes, but such strikes would obviously be conventional.
So, you actually say here that it would be "tragic but necessary" to use nukes as a revolutionary regime against the working class of other nations? This is a complete reactionary position as it undermines any hope of worldrevolution completely as, like we saw in WW1, the workers movements of different nations would fall in line behind their bourgeoisie once they get hit by a "proletarian nuke".

[Devrim]

There has been at least one general strike, by the illgal unions, that took out 40% of the workforce, in opposition to the regime.
...as for my sources, here's one: http://www.socialistworld.net/z/bin/kw.cgi/show?id=3799

I would like to see a source for this. Your link doesn't go to any particular page.

Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

Ideally I don't want to see anyone building nuclear weapons, however given Iran's current geopolitcal position I wouldn't blame them for developing nuclear weapons as a deterent. It has pretty much been established (althought they vehemently deny it) that Israel possess nukes and given the aggressive nature of Israel's military and government I'd say Iran has reason to be on edge.

Add to the fact that Iran is surrounded by countries that have a large presence of US military personel. Iran has the right to defend their state from imperialist aggression, despite the nature of the ruling regime.

[Devrim]

It should be understood that by "the people" I refer to the proletariat and its strategic allies of course.

What does "its strategic allies" mean?

Devrim

[Crux]

I would like to see a source for this. Your link doesn't go to any particular page.

Devrim
http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/10/1501.html

[Devrim]

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/10/1501.html

I just skimmed through that and I can't see any reference at all to a 'general strike, which took out 40% of the workforce'.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

First of all, nukes aren't conventional weapons. Pulling a 1:1 comparison with WW1 "class struggle defencism" is a bit too simplistic.

Actually, I didn't have WWI in mind with respect to "class struggle defencism." I had more in mind 19th-century continental warfare, including a hypothetical continental war after German unification which Engels addressed (what if: WWI before the 20th-century, clearly outside a revolutionary period but already among economically imperialist powers).


Your second part speaks against you really. Are we to support nuclear capabilities knowing that reactionaries are waiving with their thumbs over the red button? Are we going to rely on the "sanity levels" of such people not to use them?

As for MAD, it was a necessary compromise for lack of complete disarmament in the Cold War. This should be seen as a historic failure of the working class movement, not as a viable tactic to use.

I should note that I responded to your disarmament thread. Disarmament "has the unintended effect of making conventional warfare more likely between the imperialist powers. There are also other non-conventional means, such as electromagnetic warfare, which will benefit from this."


This argument has been used a few times now in this thread and I'm slightly amazed that you use it too. So, let me spell it out for you and others: our responsibility as communists is not towards this or that nation or the working class within its borders, it is extended to the whole of the working class, which is a global class. Once Iran uses nukes, the working class loses. Once the USA uses nukes, the working class loses. This isn't rocket science really and I'm sad the nationalist frame of thinking is used by so many people here.

It depends on the targets of those nukes, and their radiation capabilities. Assuming everybody's not interested in all-out nuclear exchange (otherwise we're all dead), if it's out in the open battlefield (or an isolated military facility) with practically no civilians, then the weapons used here are most likely low-radiation tactical nukes.


So, you actually say here that it would be "tragic but necessary" to use nukes as a revolutionary regime against the working class of other nations? This is a complete reactionary position as it undermines any hope of world revolution completely as, like we saw in WW1, the workers movements of different nations would fall in line behind their bourgeoisie once they get hit by a "proletarian nuke".

The Bolsheviks tried to invade Poland to initiate a late insurrection in Germany, and the worker movements in both countries fell in line behind their bourgeoisie, courtesy of the SDKPiL's earlier failure and the failure of the USPD.

Again, I'm pretty sure that non-revolutionary workers can tell between a military target and a civilian target. If the retaliatory "proletarian nuke" has minimal radiation fallout and destroys only military targets, the once-not-so-revolutionary workers may have a lack of confidence in their bourgeoisie's offensive war.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If it weren't for them the entire middle east would be parking lots and McDonlads by now. Are you Jewish or of Israeli decent by any chance?
Is no-one else going to call you out on how incredibly dodgy this is? When people of Jewish descent have crap politics on the Middle East, they're just as likely to uncritically support "the resistance" as they are to support Israel.

Why are you so willing to shit on the only people who are actually fighting global capitalism?
Pro-tip: Islamist countries are also capitalist.

[Crux]

I just skimmed through that and I can't see any reference at all to a 'general strike, which took out 40% of the workforce'.

Devrim It might be in one of the articles not translated, but there was a general strike in june, as well as a general strike in the kurdish areas in july. (http://www.unpo.org/content/view/9808/115/)
Mentions the auto-workers: http://iran.whyweprotest.net/iran/1573-june-23-tues-general-strike.html

[Wolf Larson]

Is no-one else going to call you out on how incredibly dodgy this is? When people of Jewish descent have crap politics on the Middle East, they're just as likely to uncritically support "the resistance" as they are to support Israel.

Pro-tip: Islamist countries are also capitalist.

Islamic countries? You mean the US puppet regimes [Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,now Iraq, soon to be Yemen and Afghanistan etc]? Speaking of Iran- Iran is capitalistic but not connected to US imperialism and I'm not advocating the preservation of the current regime in Iran I'm advocating Iranians ability to keep western tentacles out of their nation so the current regime can be overthrown without the US/west stepping is as happened in the past- as is happening now. If the current regime is overthrown now and Moussavi takes power what do you think will happen? Why do you think the US is pushing for this to happen? Generally speaking the majority of middle eastern peoples don't want McDonaldfication- only the youth who have been brainwashed by our TV programs. The majority of youth protesting in the streets of Iran. The supporters of Moussavi are petty bourgeois. Pfft. McWorld is being pushed on them from above. What do you think the war on terror is all about? Why do you think the World Trade Center was attacked?

And yes as to your lame accusation of antisemitism- some one already asked me why I said that and you chose to ignore my reply which amounts to another silly attempt to appeal to emotion by passively trying to frame me as antisemitic in order to marginalize my larger point. In case you missed it, and you probably you didn't:"I was wondering what is motivating him/her. I've had conversations with many people who drop the ball when it comes to their loyalty to their race. It happens with people from Israel a lot. Usually concerning the question of a nuclear armed Iran and other issues that may be seen as detrimental to Israel . I'm not antisemitic in the least- I asked him/her for the reason above- I'm trying to figure out what's motivating his erroneous position."

[Wolf Larson]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/pers-f20.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/colo-j04.shtml http://politicalleft.blog-city.com/iran_the_green_movement_is_a_front_for_us_regime_c hange.htm http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/united-snakes-meddle-in-middle-east-iran-and-yemen-first-worldist-%E2%80%9Cleft%E2%80%9D-cheers/ http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/amerikkkans-reactionary-as-hell-on-the-iran-issue/

[Wolf Larson]

No I simply do not believe in M.A.D. as a workeable concept or something that should be defended in the name of anti-imperialism. Wolf Larson: Unlike most of you here I believe the iranian regime's days are numbered, shit the only thing that might give them a chance to regroup, because it tears up the working class, would be an imperialist invasion.


And the truth comes out. This thread has brought the truth out concerning many of our rather pathetic misconceptions. It's depressing to see. Just the question alone, should Iran be ALLOWED to have nuclear weapons. Allowing it or not allowing it- having the power to decide whether or not it is allowable presupposes US hegemony. Pathetic. The fact this rude supporter of US imperialism isn't even aware the so called green revolution is of US creation makes me want to vomit in my lap. No one is arguing for a capitalistic theocracy but your well deserved hatred for the current regime has blinded you to the fact this green revolution is just another US/Israeli operation to erode opposition to US imperialism. Lacking vision of the bigger picture is putting it lightly.

Overthrowing the current regime in a socialist revolution is what we need. Whats happening now is a bourgeois revolution to bring US style corporate capitalism into Iran. Overthrowing that will be next to impossible, especially when the American style propaganda machine is let loose [it already has been to an extent which fueled this current political upheaval]. Fighting to overthrow the current regime is good BUT for the love of god the only fruit to be born of the current uprising is western infiltration and domination of Iran. What do you think we are fighting against? How do you think US corporate hegemony is expanded and strengthened? Of course there are socialist revolutionaries in Iran wanting to overthrow the current regime and with good reason but that's not what this current movement is about. If you are implying so it's wishful thinking. If this current opposition wins in the end any future socialist revolution will be oppressed by the full power of western imperial capitalism. Us hegemony will be more rock solid than ever. PS. Please stop sending me private messages calling me crazy. It's childish.

[Crux]

And the truth comes out.
That I think U.S invasion is bad and would strenghten isamists? Because that what I said.


This thread has brought the truth out concerning many of our rather pathetic misconceptions.
It's good that you have some self-insight and realize this. Of course you are only a typo away from sounding like an idiot.


It's depressing to see. Just the question alone, should Iran be ALLOWED to have nuclear weapons.
So not only can't you read you also have a memory loss? Or I should have left your baldfaced apologism for the regime unanswered? And when I say that, unlike you I am not twisting any words or making shit up. It is not that you defend the right of the regime in Iran to have nuclear weapons.
But if you look back just one bit, that's not where this debate started is it?



Allowing it or not allowing it- having the power to decide whether or not it is allowable presupposes US hegemony. Pathetic.
Yes that is genuinely pathetic. So you agree then that your talk about whetever Iran should "allowed" is based on your own capitulation to imperialism in practice and rejection of any class analysis? Because really, point to where I said that the US regime should be the once to allow or not allow the Iranian regime to have nukes.



The fact this rude supporter of US imperialism isn't even aware the so called green revolution is of US creation makes me want to vomit in my lap.
Amusing because your own defense of a regime that murders worker's and left wingers is despicable and should exclude you from the left in general. But I'll be nice and say that you just don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about and, like that blog you listed, base yourself purely on western propaganda. That's the irony of your supposed anti-imperialism.


No one is arguing for a capitalistic theocracy but your well deserved hatred for the current regime has blinded you to the fact this green revolution is just another US/Israeli operation to erode opposition to US imperialism. Lacking vision of the bigger picture is putting it lightly.
And who says this is a bourgeoisie pro-western movement? Western media and the regime itself. I see the bigger picture quite clearly and the potential power of the movement in Iran would not only overthrow the regime, but would echo all over the middle east and pose and immeasurable bigger threat to imperialism than the mullahs supposed "anti-imperialism". In short, our allies must be the working class in Iran, not the regime.



Overthrowing the current regime in a socialist revolution is what we need.
Really? Because so far you seem to have not defended that idea at all. But it's good to hear you have the idea of revolution some time in a far away future while being, purposefully or not, blind to the de facto movement. The hallmark of reformism, which in this case brings you right into the arms of the reactionary regime. It's sad then, since you obviously consider yourself a socialist.


Whats happening now is a bourgeois revolution to bring US style corporate capitalism into Iran.
Only it isn't, and your "proof" otherwise base itself wholly on the Western Media and, I suppose, pro-regime sources. That you apparently have not even looked at any of the sources I have given is obvious. I have asked before and you've still refused to answer, but do you think those socialists, trade unionists, students and workers that oppose the regime are "aiding the west"? No like the bourgeois commentators your are obsessed with portraying Mousavi as a hero (of the West then) and completely blind to the movement on the ground. So as I said before in essence you hold the bourgeois position, but with a pro-regime instead of pro-western tilt.


Overthrowing that will be next to impossible, especially when the American style propaganda machine is let loose [it already has been to an extent which fueled this current political upheaval].
Well, as long as the working class does not step in decisively of course there is a risk that imperialism might kidnap the movement. But so far the view you have put forward is not consistent with what is happening on the ground in Iran, but moreso with the western media view.


Fighting to overthrow the current regime is good BUT for the love of god the only fruit to be born of the current uprising is western infiltration and domination of Iran. What do you think we are fighting against?
The owning classes? Given your question about my ethnicity I am bit worried what your answer might be. And again of course you are wrong about the movement Iran, probably because you do not understand how class works or how mass protests are created. It is impossible to create a mass protest from the outside. And again since you base yourself on propaganda both western and regime friendly you do not know what the diversity and opinions of the movement are. Actually I have adressed all of this in an earlier thread that I linked quite a while ago, but for some reason you seem chronically unable to read.


How do you think US corporate hegemony is expanded and strengthened? Of course there are socialist revolutionaries in Iran wanting to overthrow the current regime and with good reason but that's not what this current movement is about. If you are implying so it's wishful thinking. If this current opposition wins in the end any future socialist revolution will be oppressed by the full power of western imperial capitalism. Us hegemony will be more rock solid than ever. PS. Please stop sending me private messages calling me crazy. It's childish.
But again it's not about wanting this or wanting that, it's about social class. The ABC of marxism. The working class have nothing to benefit from the current regime, they have nothing to benefit from Mousavi and they have nothing to benefit from U.S. imperialism and as I said, it is on their side I stand, while you make "anti-imperialist" excuses for the regime. Your defeatism in regards to the working class and you basing yourself on western propaganda drives you, as I said, into a reactionary position. You may consider yourself a socialist, but you are obviously on the wrong side of the barricades here. And a dishonest strawanning debater, if I am being rude is because your "argumentation", sadly more often than not, has been an insult to our intelligence. It's good to see to you have improved a bit, if ever so slightly.

[Crux]

I mean just to be clear, this is your original post I reacted to: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1683533&postcount=107

You might be misguided and fed propaganda, but I still find such statements absolutly appaling given the comrades that have been assaulted, imprisoned, tortured, raped and executed at the auspice of the regime you are tacitly defending. Hence, my strong emotional reaction. Thankfully the comrades that were forced into exile here got asylum. But others have not been so lucky. With your words you are spitting in the face of those that are risking the lifes of themself and their friends and family for a cause you say you support. Again you are quite obviously just misguided and a reactionary through ignorance, not conviction, I hope.

[Revy]

Jacob,
I think that the real purpose of nukes is a deterrent against other nukes, not a deterrent against invasion. For example, North Korea, which is openly pursuing nuclear weapons, still has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, IIRC, the fifth largest. Furthermore, they have lots of anti-aircraft guns. But they pursue nuclear weapons because they don't want nukes used on them.

I see the logic in MAD but it's twisted logic. I think, ideally, if we can have a world without nuclear weapons, that should be pursued. Obviously, as I said, I am not going to treat Iran as a special case and say the US and Israel can have them but they can't. I just don't think any country should possess them, because that is the only way to make sure they will not be used in the future.

Imagine if there was an interplanetary conflict. The two worlds in conflict have "interplanetary ballistic missiles" that can destroy an entire planet. Do you think that would be a case of "defense" if one planet got attacked and decided to destroy the other planet? That might seem like a silly comparison to use, but a lot of people don't see the enormity of the crime that blowing up cities is. Does it matter what country strikes first? Millions of workers would suffer and die in the ensuing destruction.

The other thing is, that the US has a very advanced anti-ballistic missile defense system. Suppose Iran was invaded, and responded by sending nukes to key US locations, but all of these nukes were intercepted and shot down. Not only would Iran have failed, but they would have invited a nuclear retaliation on their entire people, and brought an even worse fate than invasion.

The responsibility rests on a mobilized international movement against imperialism. I don't buy the idea that the entire nuclear arms race is rooted in psychology, and not their potential use.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob,
I think that the real purpose of nukes is a deterrent against other nukes, not a deterrent against invasion. For example, North Korea, which is openly pursuing nuclear weapons, still has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, IIRC, the fifth largest. Furthermore, they have lots of anti-aircraft guns. But they pursue nuclear weapons because they don't want nukes used on them.

I think you've got a point there.


The other thing is, that the US has a very advanced anti-ballistic missile defense system. Suppose Iran was invaded, and responded by sending nukes to key US locations, but all of these nukes were intercepted and shot down. Not only would Iran have failed, but they would have invited a nuclear retaliation on their entire people, and brought an even worse fate than invasion.

The responsibility rests on a mobilized international movement against imperialism. I don't buy the idea that the entire nuclear arms race is rooted in psychology, and not their potential use.

I don't think the US ABM system is that advanced. A number of your country's missile tests failed during the past few years. It should be noted that perhaps Russia's own limited ABM system (specifically protecting Moscow) is more advanced than the "son of Star Wars" is today, since I'm sure the technology has been developed by the Russian military, and since the US military hasn't gone full speed ahead with laser weapon development.

At best, the ABM of the US can deal with less than a dozen missiles with nuclear warheads. India, for example, most likely has enough missiles to get past US ABM systems.

[Comrade Lucifer]

Ideally, nobody has nuclear weapons. I certainly don't support giving the state that sort of power. Especially when that state represents power, capital and the bourgeoisie, perpetuating their dominance - i have the US in mind, here.

I don't think "blah has them, so they/we should" is a good argument, but then i'm one of those insufferable "set an example" people.

If they did have nuclear weapons, I highly doubt they'd try and destroy Israel. They're not brain-dead! So i don't think that flies, the other way, either.

But there you go, that's just me.

[Wolf Larson]

I mean just to be clear, this is your original post I reacted to: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1683533&postcount=107

You might be misguided and fed propaganda, but I still find such statements absolutly appaling given the comrades that have been assaulted, imprisoned, tortured, raped and executed at the auspice of the regime you are tacitly defending. Hence, my strong emotional reaction. Thankfully the comrades that were forced into exile here got asylum. But others have not been so lucky. With your words you are spitting in the face of those that are risking the lifes of themself and their friends and family for a cause you say you support. Again you are quite obviously just misguided and a reactionary through ignorance, not conviction, I hope.

You're twisting my words while appealing to emotion to further your cause which is of course your own ego and you say "our" as if you represent anyone other than yourself. And yes I said "Those protesters in Iran are US capitalist agents [in a certain capacity] looking to bring capitalist globalization to Iran. Representatives of McWorld. They were not protesting for self rule under socialism they were protesting to have US style capitalism and representative capitalist democracy rule Iran. The rule of the rich- the WESTERN rich. They were/are not fighting to advance self rule under socialism they are fighting for our enemies. To help spread global capitalism." Do I need to explain what that means again? The Green Revolution is not a working class revolution. It is largely the petty bourgeois in the streets. Your simple mind is incapable of grasping what I've been saying in the posts since the one you just quoted. You've also been acting like a pompous fool sending me PM's. It is you who has taken the level of debate to that of a school yard fight between children. Stop trying to contact me outside of this thread. EDIT: I should have said MOST of the protesters.

[Crux]

You're twisting my words while appealing to emotion to further your cause which is of course your own ego and you say "our" as if you represent anyone other than yourself. And yes I said "Those protesters in Iran are US capitalist agents [in a certain capacity] looking to bring capitalist globalization to Iran. Representatives of McWorld. They were not protesting for self rule under socialism they were protesting to have US style capitalism and representative capitalist democracy rule Iran. The rule of the rich- the WESTERN rich. They were/are not fighting to advance self rule under socialism they are fighting for our enemies. To help spread global capitalism." Do I need to explain what that means again? The Green Revolution is not a working class revolution. It is largely the petty bourgeois in the streets. Your simple mind is incapable of grasping what I've been saying in the posts since the one you just quoted. You've also been acting like a pompous fool sending me PM's. It is you who has taken the level of debate to that of a school yard fight between children. Stop trying to contact me outside of this thread.Well, not to be smug but I actually am part of a movement, and, as I said before, I have talked to enough people to realize that the protest movement very quickly evolved from a "green"(ie pro-Mousavi) movement to a popular movement that has the potential to topple the regime. But I repeat myself. Beyond the wsws article that said you shouldn't be pro-Mousavi, which I agree to, never was never will be and their article on the colour revolutions in eastern europe (relevance please?) you linked Monkey Smashes Heaven who tried to score cheap political points and spout their own by stating the obvious: the U.S has an imperial interest in Iran? Really? Fascinating next you'll tell me the invasion of Iraq was not about finding WMD's at all...The thing is I doubt monkey smashes heaven has any iranian sympathisers, and with good reason, although they do tip-toe around the subject if they supprt the regime or not more focusing on scoring points against "first world"-ists.

It would be interesting if you would read any of my links though, especially that other thread I linked since htere I also listed several iranian sources.

I have not been sending you PM's. I have given you reputation, or rather deduced repution. I did send a message to your guestbook, questioning your sanity, not because your political position but because you seem unable to read or comprehend at all and keeps straw manning.

[Wolf Larson]

Well, not to be smug but I actually am part of a movement, and, as I said before, I have talked to enough people to realize that the protest movement very quickly evolved from a "green"(ie pro-Mousavi) movement to a popular movement that has the potential to topple the regime. But I repeat myself. Beyond the wsws article that said you shouldn't be pro-Mousavi, which I agree to, never was never will be and their article on the colour revolutions in eastern europe (relevance please?) you linked Monkey Smashes Heaven who tried to score cheap political points and spout their own by stating the obvious: the U.S has an imperial interest in Iran? Really? Fascinating next you'll tell me the invasion of Iraq was not about finding WMD's at all...The thing is I doubt monkey smashes heaven has any iranian sympathisers, and with good reason, although they do tip-toe around the subject if they supprt the regime or not more focusing on scoring points against "first world"-ists.

It would be interesting if you would read any of my links though, especially that other thread I linked since htere I also listed several iranian sources.

I have not been sending you PM's. I have given you reputation, or rather deduced repution. I did send a message to your guestbook, questioning your sanity, not because your political position but because you seem unable to read or comprehend at all and keeps straw manning.

I have said, in this thread, of course there are socialist revolutionaries in Iran who want to overthrow the current regime. You chose to ignore what I said after that. Do you want me to re-post it or can you show an ounce of intellectual honesty and address my actual position? I don't think your ego will allow it. I'll summarize/simplify it for you. If the current regime is toppled RIGHT NOW by this GREEN bourgeois movement western corporate capitalism will then control Iran. Any future socialist revolution will then be impossible. A future socialist revolution against an isolated state can be successful. A future socialist revolution against a capitalist state with the full backing of the US will be impossible. Use your brain.

[Crux]

I have said, in this thread, of course there are socialist revolutionaries in Iran who want to overthrow the current regime. You chose to ignore what I said after that. Do you want me to re-post it or can you show an ounce of intellectual honesty and address my actual position? I don't think your ego will allow it. I'll summarize/simplify it for you. If the current regime is toppled RIGHT NOW by this GREEN bourgeois movement western corporate capitalism will then control Iran. Any future socialist revolution will then be impossible. A future socialist revolution against an isolated state can be successful. A future socialist revolution against a capitalist state with the full backing of the US will be impossible. Use your brain.
In other words you'd agree that the most important task right now is to side with the iranian working class and do our utmost to support their further organization. In Kurdistan the movement has been armed for years, so most objective factors already exist, i. e. the ruling class is split and there is a general strong resistance to the government. You have previously implied that Ahmadinejad "won" the presedential election, because he has used populist rhethorics in the past Firstly even the iran supreme court was compelled to do a re-count, that there had been tamperingss with the result are pretty obvious. the elections are not free at all, so I don't know what significance you would draw from that?
No, apart from an imperialist war being a severe drawback, fighting in a country dominated by U.S imperialism might in some respects be an advantage, in any case dismissing it as "impossible" is absurd. Cuba anyone?

In either case the reason why the movement can't topple the regime "right now" as you obviously fear, is because the working class have not stepped to the fore yet, although they certainly are participating they are not yet leading. The students, with their bravery and self-sacrifice has led the way and as I said there are conscious attempt to link up with the workingclass. Even Mousavi realize this, making his position self-contradictory, as just as the working class is the only group, unless the regime gives concessons, that could save him, they would also be the group to completely push him aside. Again, it cannot be stressed enough, the protests pro-mousavi character have been more and more limited and the protests have been aimed at the regime directly.

[Devrim]

I just skimmed through that and I can't see any reference at all to a 'general strike, which took out 40% of the workforce'. It might be in one of the articles not translated,
If you could post the link in the original that would be fine.


...but there was a general strike in june,

As far as we are aware there was no general strike at all on 23rd June. There was talk of one, but there seemed to be very little substance behind it. Basically there was a 'buzz' created on the internet and twitter about a general strike, but it didn't actually happen apart from perhaps a little support in the 'bazaar'.


...as well as a general strike in the kurdish areas in july. (http://www.unpo.org/content/view/9808/115/)

Equally there is not much substance to this either. The PDK-I press release that you link to says this:


This year, like previous years, the markets, shopping centres and individual shops all over Iranian Kurdistan were closed.

It doesn't mention any workers actually going on strike because there weren't any. This sort of 'general strike' is actually a few shopkeepers closing there shops for a day. It is a traditional form of protest in many Middle Eastern countries, but has very little to do with the working class.


Mentions the auto-workers: http://iran.whyweprotest.net/iran/1573-june-23-tues-general-strike.html

Yes, there was a strike at Iran Khodro. This is an important factory, probably the biggest in Tehran. It employees about 30,000 workers. As well as the ½ hour protests on 28th June, which were not connected to the calls for a general strike, there has been talk of there having been a 24 hour 'strike' there. The impression that I got was that this was a 'sick-in', not an actual strike.

There is class struggle in Iran, and there have been massive struggles in recent years. To us though it seems that the working class, as a class, not just as individual workers, had very little involvement in the 'Green movement', and was unable to assert itself.

For us the 'Green movement' is not a workers' movement:


So where do the communists stand on events in Iran today? That the Green movement is a completely bourgeois movement with nothing to offer workers seems to us very clear. Also it seems that it is also losing momentum. While the initial protests brought hundreds of thousands out into the streets, the numbers today seem to be getting smaller and smaller. It seemed possible in the early days of the struggle that the working class might make impose itself on the situation. After the repression used by the police against demonstrators in Tehran, workers at the massive Khodro car factory walked out on a twenty four hour strike, not in support of either candidate in the election, but against the violence used by the state. But apart from a few statements from the bus drivers' union, this was the limit of workers' participation in the movement as workers. Yes, of course there were many workers involved in the protests, but they were there as isolated individuals, not as a collective force. In these situations, in a cross-class movement, which all of the various reports coming out of Iran from different leftist groups seem to agree that it was, without acting as a collective force, workers can only be submerged in the great mass of ‘the people', a mass that is being used by other class forces to further their own interests.

That is not to say that we side with the pseudo anti-imperialists on here who line up alongside the Iranian state. Nor is it to say that in the early days there was no possibility of the working class asserting itself.

I think that these two articles, originally from our Turkish press, present a more sober, and balanced view of the situation:

The first is from last June when events were unfolding:

Al-Jazerra has loudly proclaimed that the protests in Iran are the "biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution". Protests began in Tehran on Saturday 13th, and as the results from the election started to come out, the protests started to turn increasingly violent. Demonstrations at three Tehran universities turned violent, and protesters attacked police and revolutionary guards. The police have sealed off important sites and in turn protesters have attacked shops, government offices, police stations, police vehicles, gas stations and banks. Rumours coming out of Tehran suggest that four or more people have already died in the protests. The state has also reacted by arresting prominent ‘anti-government figures', and more importantly disrupting the internet telecommunications network, which had been used via SMS messages and websites to organise protests. Western journalists have said that ‘Tehran almost looks like a war zone already'.
...http://en.internationalism.org/node/2926

The Second from the start of January this year:


December saw a return to massive protests in Iran. The funeral of ‘dissident' cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri in Qom drew hundreds of thousands of people into the streets and by the time of Ashura widespread confrontations between protesters and the security forces were occurring across the country, resulting in 15 deaths on that day, according to Iranian state TV, and thousands of arrests in total. Reports coming out of Iran suggest that the death toll is much higher than claimed, and there have been some stories of police refusing to fire on protestors and joining protesters, as well of protestors attacking and taking over a police station. ...http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/1/iran

Devrim

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Islamic countries? You mean the US puppet regimes [Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,now Iraq, soon to be Yemen and Afghanistan etc]?
I don't even know which ones. You referred to Islamists as "the only people who are actually fighting global capitalism". So I was talking about whoever you consider to be "fighting global capitalism".

Speaking of Iran- Iran is capitalistic but not connected to US imperialism and I'm not advocating the preservation of the current regime in Iran I'm advocating Iranians ability to keep western tentacles out of their nation so the current regime can be overthrown without the US/west stepping is as happened in the past- as is happening now. If the current regime is overthrown now and Moussavi takes power what do you think will happen? Why do you think the US is pushing for this to happen?
I think capitalism will continue to exist in Iran, as it does now. If your only problem with the world today is the existence of US imperialism, and you think the rest of it's fine, then sure, support Iran. I want to get rid of the system whereby the majority of the population are forced to sell their entire lives to the bosses. Since that obviously happens in Iran, I don't really have a stake in defending the Iranian bosses against the American bosses.

Why do you think the World Trade Center was attacked?

I think it was attacked because Al-Qaeda don't like America very much. Are you a truther?

[Wolf Larson]

I don't even know which ones. You referred to Islamists as "the only people who are actually fighting global capitalism". So I was talking about whoever you consider to be "fighting global capitalism".

I think capitalism will continue to exist in Iran, as it does now. If your only problem with the world today is the existence of US imperialism, and you think the rest of it's fine, then sure, support Iran. I want to get rid of the system whereby the majority of the population are forced to sell their entire lives to the bosses. Since that obviously happens in Iran, I don't really have a stake in defending the Iranian bosses against the American bosses.

I think it was attacked because Al-Qaeda don't like America very much. Are you a truther?

Another weak attempt to marginalize what I'm saying. First I was antisemitic now I'm a truther? Look man, the WTC was attacked because a part of Islam is fighting globalization. You don't understand what the war on terror is about. I'll go ahead and assume you support US imperialism.

Anyhow, back on topic. Lets look at the Ukrainian "Orange" revolution which was also backed by the US. Are you familiar? The US has a habit of creating these color coded so called revolutions with the end goal of installing US business friendly regimes while facilitating austerity measures in the victim/host nation. Parasitic neo-colonialism 101. I suggest you do some reading. I obviously don't support Iranian capitalism. You are twisting my words and my position.

Also, if you can't see that overthrowing the current isolated Iranian regime in a future socialistic revolution would be ten fold easier than overthrowing a western backed regime then you need to do more reading than I first assumed. If this so called green revolution succeeds Iran will once again be a US colony and you can kiss any chance of socialism taking hold goodbye. You people are operating on pure emotion.

I understand the urge to denounce the current regime. I don't support the current regime but Iranian sovereignty is of strategic importance. I also understand the moral desire to not have any nuclear weapons in the world but this is the world we live in. I also understand your anarchist position concerning not supporting any state, especially a brutal theocracy but that brutal theocracy is the only thing keeping the full power of US hegemony out of town. Things would be ten times worse if this green revolution succeeds and there would be nothing the Iranian people could do about it. The green revolution = one giant corporate structural adjustment. You need to understand who Mousavi really is and who his business connections are. I've obviously been leaving it to you people to read on your own. I've learned from debating over the years nothing I say will make a difference when peoples minds are already made up. Your mind is made up. You think Iran should "not be allowed" to have nuclear weapons and you support this so called green revolution in what amounts to the American main stream liberal/conservative view point. PS. And I'm new to RevLeft but if people like you are holding "reputation" I want all of you to give me negative reputation. This thread has shown me I want nothing to do with the accepted viewpoint of RevLeft. If this is the state of mind we have no wonder our movement is pathetic. You should also understand how a sovereign Iran is important for the cause of socialism in South America http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2492

[Crux]

And if you could actually read, this wouldn't be a merry-go-round of your ignorance and straw-manning. 9/11 was not an attack against globalism. Al-qaida does not represent an liberation movement. But you seem hell bent on covering for reactionaries.

And your "back on topic" nonsense is of course as usual sketchy as fuck. But yes, let's talk about the orange revolution. Your superficial and clas ignorant analysis would have undoubtedly put you in the "pro-russian" camp and then again of course effectively opposing the working class.

When in what distant future? I mean your attempt to pin US imperialism on me or Ungovernable Farce here have been failing pretty bad so far. No one here is arguing for a U.S overthrow. No one here is, as far as I have seen defending Mousavi. We are however defending the general protest movement which has been the most massive massprotests since 1979. One must be pretty far lost in conspiracy theory land to call that a Jewish...I am sorry, US plot.

[Wolf Larson]

And if you could actually read, this wouldn't be a merry-go-round of your ignorance and straw-manning. 9/11 was not an attack against globalism. Al-qaida does not represent an liberation movement. But you seem hell bent on covering for reactionaries.

And your "back on topic" nonsense is of course as usual sketchy as fuck. But yes, let's talk about the orange revolution. Your superficial and clas ignorant analysis would have undoubtedly put you in the "pro-russian" camp and then again of course effectively opposing the working class.

When in what distant future? I mean your attempt to pin US imperialism on me or Ungovernable Farce here have been failing pretty bad so far. No one here is arguing for a U.S overthrow. No one here is, as far as I have seen defending Mousavi. We are however defending the general protest movement which has been the most massive massprotests since 1979. One must be pretty far lost in conspiracy theory land to call that a Jewish...I am sorry, US plot.

Now I'm a conspiracy theorist! Good god.

[Crux]

Well, in all fairness your evasive answers only gives us a hint.

[Frank Zapatista]

Fear shouldnt be used as a tool to try to create peace.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Another weak attempt to marginalize what I'm saying. First I was antisemitic now I'm a truther?
My apologies. Normally when people ask "why do you think the World Trade Centre was attacked?", it's because they're into 9/11 truth craziness. I didn't realise that you were just trying to make the stunningly obvious point that Islamists don't like the US very much.

Look man, the WTC was attacked because a part of Islam is fighting globalization. You don't understand what the war on terror is about. I'll go ahead and assume you support US imperialism.
I understand perfectly what 9/11 and the war on terror are about. Reactionary Islamist supporters of capitalism are fighting against reactionary American supporters of capitalism. As a communist, I don't support either capitalist faction.


Also, if you can't see that overthrowing the current isolated Iranian regime in a future socialistic revolution would be ten fold easier than overthrowing a western backed regime then you need to do more reading than I first assumed.
OK, I'll bite: direct me to this amazing comparative analysis of socialist revolutions against isolated religious regimes vs socialist revolutions in Western-backed regimes that I need to read. Or could it be that it's not that I haven't done any reading, it's that this distinction only exists in your head?

If this so called green revolution succeeds Iran will once again be a US colony and you can kiss any chance of socialism taking hold goodbye.
So a) you think socialism's likely in Iran now? b) you think socialism's impossible in any country in the US's sphere or influence? :confused:


I understand the urge to denounce the current regime. I don't support the current regime but Iranian sovereignty is of strategic importance.
Yes, it's very important to the Iranian ruling class. The working class has no country, so the only thing that's of strategic importance to us is the strength of the workers against our rulers. I think that the left of the Iranian opposition are strengthening our position, so I support them.

I also understand the moral desire to not have any nuclear weapons in the world but this is the world we live in.
Great logic. You can justify literally anything with that logic. "After all, I understand your moral desire not to have anyone exploiting anyone else's labour, but this is the world we live in, so I might as well own a factory."

I also understand your anarchist position concerning not supporting any state, especially a brutal theocracy but that brutal theocracy is the only thing keeping the full power of US hegemony out of town.
And? US hegemony is not the problem; capitalism is. That brutal theocracy is not keeping capitalism out of town, so there's no justification for supporting it.

Things would be ten times worse if this green revolution succeeds and there would be nothing the Iranian people could do about it. The green revolution = one giant corporate structural adjustment. You need to understand who Mousavi really is and who his business connections are. I've obviously been leaving it to you people to read on your own. I've learned from debating over the years nothing I say will make a difference when peoples minds are already made up. Your mind is made up. You think Iran should "not be allowed" to have nuclear weapons and you support this so called green revolution in what amounts to the American main stream liberal/conservative view point. PS. And I'm new to RevLeft but if people like you are holding "reputation" I want all of you to give me negative reputation. This thread has shown me I want nothing to do with the accepted viewpoint of RevLeft. If this is the state of mind we have no wonder our movement is pathetic. You should also understand how a sovereign Iran is important for the cause of socialism in South America http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2492
Pro-tip: Venezuela isn't socialist either. I don't care if Iranian sovereignty is important for South American state capitalism.

Now I'm a conspiracy theorist! Good god.

Generally speaking the majority of middle eastern peoples don't want McDonaldfication- only the youth who have been brainwashed by our TV programs. The majority of youth protesting in the streets of Iran. The supporters of Moussavi are petty bourgeois. Pfft. McWorld is being pushed on them from above.
So you're not a conspiracy theorist, you just think that Iranians are incapable of acting in their own self-interest (cos that's not patronising at all) and are brainwashed by American TV programs.

[Robocommie]

Looks like the comrades are pretty well split on this one, judging by the poll. Interesting.

[Crux]

While I woldn't dismiss the bolivarian revolutio as state capitalist, it's does hold a rather vacilliating position between revolution and reform. The alliance with Iran is in fact only harmful to any progress in south america s it will be progress fed with the blood of the iranian working class. I think those lft movements in latin america that has chosen to bloc with Iran is maing an enormous mistake, specifically in the realm of anti-imperialism and international solidarity. The iranian regime has no interest in revolution in latin america, and doing like Chavez has done and call the regime "revolutionary" is confused at best and a betrayal at worst. And it does not do the workingclass in any country any favours, instead it confuses the left.
I would agree with the positions put forward by IMT on the matter:
http://www.marxist.com/ahmadinejad-visits-bolivia-real-face-iranian-regime.htm

[Crux]

Looks like the comrades are pretty well split on this one, judging by the poll. Interesting.
I'm a Majority Man myself. :D Oh wait that joke is only funny in russian.

[Devrim]

Looks like the comrades are pretty well split on this one, judging by the poll. Interesting.

I think that the pole is pretty strange:


Should Iran have the right to possess nuclear weapons?
Yes, it would contribute to regional peace and stability
No, it would be detrimental to regional peace and stability

The question asks about the 'rights' of a nation state. To me it is not something that communists take a stand on. The answer then refers to whether Iran attempting to get nuclear arms will lead to greater regional instability, which in my opinion it obviously will. There isn't any relationship between the two though.

Devrim

[McCroskey]

Sigh...

That's all good, but now, let me tell you how it works in the real world. Everyone has them, especially the aggressive ones. If Iran doesn't have it, it's in the vulnerable position of being a lameduck, potentially leading to the destruction of Iran and the death of millions. And that's not my imagination gone wild, it already happened in neighbouring Iraq.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. You can't un-invent them. Now we should think about how to deal with them, instead of chanting empty slogans about how no one should have them in the first place.


Another nation managing to get nuclear weapons is another link in the chain. Any link leading to the proliferation of NW must be broken. If the trend is stopped and the chain broken, there's hope of a nuclear weapons-free world. Every new link on the nuclear chain, just makes the chain longer, stronger and more difficult to break and reverse.

The argument of nuclear weapons being a deterrent and being the "safeguard of peace" was the main argument during the arms race in the second half of the 20th century, and look where we are now.

It's a big NO.

[IslamicMarxist]

Ahamedinejad has recently decleared Iran a "nuclear nation". It is increasingly likely to possess nuclear weapons. What do you think? Should Iran have the right to possess them?

with.

In an interview with Ahmedinejad, he said by Nuclear nation, he meant to say Nuclear as in Nuclear powered. Not weapons.... But I agree. Iran is surrounded by Nuclear nations.

[Boboulas]

Well if I were threatened by war with 2 nuclear powers with records for not giving a crap about humanity I would surely deveop them as a deterrent.

[IslamicMarxist]

Who's doing that ... besides those who just talk?

The point is, nuclear arms in any States power is detrimental not only to workers but to everyone. This includes Iran.


This debate is just beyond me. Why would anyone advocate for a State who to be in possession of the most destructive weopon in history?

The only possible reasoning I can conjure up is that you have a death wish, which is fine- you are allowed to now what to exist- but at least admit that is the argument.

Do we want a state that does this to protesters to have nuclear weapons?






Wow don't feed us these damn Lies! Disguisting! You are a sheep to Capitalist PROPAGANDA. DONT YOU REALIZE THEY WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE IRAN LOOK BAD? NO THEY ONLY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAN AND LIE ABOUT COMMUNIST NATIONS? OF COURSE NOT! AFTER THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN WESTERN MEDIA BASHING THE BOLSHEVIKS! SAME Bull****!

[IslamicMarxist]

Wouldn't a worker's revolution in Iran be stronger if it had nuclear weapons to defend itself from outside forces? Of course it may be argued that a state with nuclear weapons will use them against their own people, but then you'd have to concede revolution in a lot of countries is impossible. I highly doubt it though, it takes a special kind of stupid to bomb your own cities with nuclear weapons.

You all are crazy.... I'm probably the only one here who actually WENT to Iran.. hahahahhaha you think that they will bomb their own people with nukes? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard since "Israel must defend itself because Hamas wants to Convert everyone in Israel and the world to Islam" Is it me, or are westerners really stupid these days? Those aren't protesters in Iran, they are RIOTERS. You should see what communist nations do to Rioters. If they are burning cars and shops, of course you need to police to stop them. They killed familys too! I've talked to victims of the green movement, they said the greens beat them and gave them bloody noses and eyes and such. They are all westernized thugs who do drugs and rape.

[Crux]

You all are crazy.... I'm probably the only one here who actually WENT to Iran.. hahahahhaha you think that they will bomb their own people with nukes? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard since "Israel must defend itself because Hamas wants to Convert everyone in Israel and the world to Islam" Is it me, or are westerners really stupid these days? Those aren't protesters in Iran, they are RIOTERS. You should see what communist nations do to Rioters. If they are burning cars and shops, of course you need to police to stop them. They killed familys too! I've talked to victims of the green movement, they said the greens beat them and gave them bloody noses and eyes and such. They are all westernized thugs who do drugs and rape.
Was that a paid visit to Iran perhaps, "comrade"?

[Hiratsuka]

I can't honestly say that I feel more comfortable at night knowing that a theocracy that is only partially democratic even by liberal standards may possess a nuclear warhead. Then again I don't like the idea of our own president being able to dispense the warhead.

[Hiratsuka]

AFTER THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN WESTERN MEDIA BASHING THE BOLSHEVIKS! SAME Bull****!

You must be very old, comrade.

[Wontonunist]

It would be "nice" if all states in possession of nukes could sign some agreement about their usage and property and actually stick to it, but that's not possible. Practically, in this time and day, with a Capitalist world, all states are trying to keep their heads above the water. They have to do what they have to do. Let them have the nukes if it gets them more sleep at night. Ethically, environmentally, take them away. But that's not possible at this scale.

[redSHARP]

nuclear weapons are constructs made to ensure the survival of their regimes and only strengthens then and is used directly and indirectly to oppress working class people the globe over.

speaking from a political stand point, it would keep Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China and the US from fucking with Iran.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Iran has too many theocratic nut jobs ruling their nation with at least half of the population following them like sheep... so no... but tbh, I think nukes should just be done away with and any nuclear technology should be geared towards energy production.

[Fietsketting]

Those aren't protesters in Iran, they are RIOTERS. You should see what communist nations do to Rioters. If they are burning cars and shops, of course you need to police to stop them. They killed familys too! I've talked to victims of the green movement, they said the greens beat them and gave them bloody noses and eyes and such. They are all westernized thugs who do drugs and rape.

Yes, Rioters. All of em.

SNocyz1NRjA

[IslamicMarxist]

Was that a paid visit to Iran perhaps, "comrade"?

Very funny. No. I went there for personal reasons of my own faith. I would not like to discuss why, I went there for spiritual purposes, but then again, alot of you here will judge me for that. It is my own business. "Paid Visit"? Todays capitalist-Fascist brainwashed westerners are so narrow minded.

[IslamicMarxist]

You must be very old, comrade.

I don't need to be old. There are some old newspapers around the internet of the propaganda. Even some old films. Very Funny.

[IslamicMarxist]

Yes, Rioters. All of em.



If you are a supporter of Communist partys and nations of the cold war. Same s*** are being shown. Were you alive during the color revolutions in Europe, haha, you all have forgotten. Sometimes I wonder if you should change the site to ObedientSheep.. You really believe that s***? Just because a youtube video shows Westernized Iranians preparing to riot doesn't mean it's the truth. Is that youtube video your evidence? HA! I'm sure you would love to see, the emotional youtube videos bashing Communism, which are also all propaganda.

Here are some similar propaganda techniques used by the same people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT4S6BzKFrg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysiogxqL_HM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4FgeVOabSg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2SqVXK-bao

IT'S ON YOUTUBE, SO THAT MAKES IT TRUE? FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crux]

Very funny. No. I went there for personal reasons of my own faith. I would not like to discuss why, I went there for spiritual purposes, but then again, alot of you here will judge me for that. It is my own business. "Paid Visit"? Todays capitalist-Fascist brainwashed westerners are so narrow minded.
So you turn a blind eye to the crimes of the mullahs for free? Good to know. Your attitude brings only contempt, and yes I know Iran, step down from your little pedestal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Another nation managing to get nuclear weapons is another link in the chain. Any link leading to the proliferation of NW must be broken. If the trend is stopped and the chain broken, there's hope of a nuclear weapons-free world.

Wrong. It just means that those who do have nukes get to perpetuate their hegemony.


The argument of nuclear weapons being a deterrent and being the "safeguard of peace" was the main argument during the arms race in the second half of the 20th century, and look where we are now.

You mean, not suffering under a global war, conventional or nuclear? Sounds like the best of all possible worlds as far as capitalism is concerned.

[freepalestine]

Very funny. No. I went there for personal reasons of my own faith. I would not like to discuss why, I went there for spiritual purposes, but then again, alot of you here will judge me for that. It is my own business. "Paid Visit"? Todays capitalist-Fascist brainwashed westerners are so narrow minded.what was the reaction by the khomeni govt towards leftists/communists?after their revolution?

[IslamicMarxist]

what was the reaction by the khomeni govt towards leftists/communists?after their revolution?

The reaction was not good, but that was only because of Khomeini did not want the world to look at him as a Soviet puppet, or a puppet of any Nation. There were many spies in some of those marxist groups. But I disagree with Khomeini's reaction. A KGB traitor who defected to the west said that the tudeh party was used as a proxy after the revolution to secure Iran's oil... Besides, many Marxists agree the Soviet union was not even a Communist Nation during it's last years. It resorted to capitalism, imperialism, and such. Even che agreed. And you all have not responded to my reply to Fietsketting, I would like to see one.

[Devrim]

what was the reaction by the khomeni govt towards leftists/communists?after their revolution?The reaction was not good,...

In the decade after the revolution thousands, probably tens of thousands, the majority of them socialists were executed.

I'd say "not good".

Devrim

[BenM]

Absolutley not, no country should possess nuculear weapons, ever. It's unfair that so many innocent people have to die just becuase two gonverments have a conflict with eachother.

[Crux]

Its nice to hear the usual morons claiming that Iran possessing nuclear weapons will lead to war, while the imperialist countries have hundreds of nuclear weapons. Why doesn't the imperialist countries possessing nuclear weapons lead to "nuclear war"?:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Ah, your usual false dilemmas. I suppose you believe in "terror balance" as well? Further more, it's re-assuring that you assuem israel or India wouldn't use nukes. Troll.

[KC]

Iran isn't threatened by any "imperialist" states where nuclear weapons would be beneficial. Iran currently holds a very prestigious position in the region, in large part due to the US intervention in the region (primarily removing the Ba'ath government in Iraq), and so to claim that Iran needs nuclear weapons as a defense against imperialist intervention is downright silly.

Hell, the US government has even been forced to be very sensitive (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/11/world/la-fg-iran-sanctions-20100611) to their relations with Iran because of how much power they now old in the region. They're walking on eggshells and they know it.

So the answer is a resounding no.

[IslamicMarxist]

In the decade after the revolution thousands, probably tens of thousands, the majority of them socialists were executed.

I'd say "not good".

Devrim

Well many people were killed after the Bolshevik revolution too.. Including socialists, supporters of Alexander Kerensky and such... It would be helpful if you give me a link to these tens of thousands killed. Because it is probably from a Westernized website. I respect westerners, but I do not respect ignorance.

[Crux]

Well many people were killed after the Bolshevik revolution too.. Including socialists, supporters of Alexander Kerensky and such... It would be helpful if you give me a link to these tens of thousands killed. Because it is probably from a Westernized website. I respect westerners, but I do not respect ignorance.
Funny, because pretty much all my first hand sources are communist iranian exiles. Maybe you should drop the "western" nonsense.

[IslamicMarxist]

Funny, because pretty much all my first hand sources are communist iranian exiles. Maybe you should drop the "western" nonsense.

Well of course they are going to be biased against their Government. I would too if I was exiled. But that doesn't mean it's the truth.

[XxKrebsxX]

I don't trust a theocratic regime who brutally oppresses its own people with nuclear weapons. Especially one that calls for the destruction of a nation with 6 million people.

[IslamicMarxist]

I don't trust a theocratic regime who brutally oppresses its own people with nuclear weapons. Especially one that calls for the destruction of a nation with 6 million people.

Ok listen up you sheep. Ahmadinejad said that Zionism must be wiped off the pages of history. I CAN UNDERSTAND SOME PERSIAN TOO. Those translations from fox news are LIES. He never said he wanted to wipe ISRAEL off the map. And he NEVER said he wanted to destroy the nation, he said the Zionist regime must go just as the South AFRICAN APARTHIED system did.

[XxKrebsxX]

Ok listen up you sheep. Ahmadinejad said that Zionism must be wiped off the pages of history. I CAN UNDERSTAND SOME PERSIAN TOO. Those translations from fox news are LIES. He never said he wanted to wipe ISRAEL off the map. And he NEVER said he wanted to destroy the nation, he said the Zionist regime must go just as the South AFRICAN APARTHIED system did.

I'm a sheep because I don't agree with a theocratic regime armed with nuclear weapons?

[IslamicMarxist]

I'm a sheep because I don't agree with a theocratic regime armed with nuclear weapons?

Nope your a sheep for believing the bullshit that the media tells you about "Israel".

[IslamicMarxist]

Iran wants to destroy a nation along with 6 million people

-XxKrebsxX, the average Genius westerner.

[XxKrebsxX]

Nope your a sheep for believing the bullshit that the media tells you about "Israel".

Ok, fine. I'll concede this point to you. I don't speak Persian so I have to relay on third parties to understand what was said. Regardless of this fact, I don't trust any theocratic regime with a weapon that could potentially kill millions.

One day the ayatollah could go berserk with his missile and claim it as a divine order. I don't necessarily trust religious nutjobs.

[IslamicMarxist]

Ok, fine. I'll concede this point to you. I don't speak Persian so I have to relay on third parties to understand what was said. Regardless of this fact, I don't trust any theocratic region with a weapon that could potentially kill millions.

One day the ayatollah could go berserk with his missile and claim it as a divine order. I don't necessarily trust religious nutjobs.

Well again, you just found out that you were wrong about Iran wanting to destroy a nation with 6 million, so How do you know your wrong about the Ayatollah wanting to nuke anyone?

Again your wrong. Khameini has said, many, many, many, many times that the Nuclear Bomb is Haram(forbidden) and he issued a Fatwa in 2005 declaring the Nuke against God and Humanity. If you are worried about anyone using nukes, worry about America, a nation that continues to threaten to use it.

Iran even said something very appropriate, this may not be the EXACT quote from the president, but it is what he said from what I remember: "We don't need Nukes, Nukes are a weapon of the stone age, They are against our religion, and I guarantee you the first Nation to use one will fall the next day."

Iran doesn't want Nukes. It doesn't need them either. Any nation to use a Nuclear bomb, will be attacked by almost every other Nation, Or at least a world war Three will erupt. Besides, Iran is useless offensively. Iran will fail if it tries to attack a Nation, just like any other force. But Iran will surely succeed if it is attacked. That is a FACT.

[IslamicMarxist]

Ok, fine. I'll concede this point to you. I don't speak Persian so I have to relay on third parties to understand what was said. Regardless of this fact, I don't trust any theocratic regime with a weapon that could potentially kill millions.

One day the ayatollah could go berserk with his missile and claim it as a divine order. I don't necessarily trust religious nutjobs.

Besides, Iran doesn't care if you trust them or not, if they wanted nukes they can get them easily. They don't, and they don't care if you trust them, it's not like you can do anything to stop them anyway.

[Shinigami]

Is it me, or are westerners really stupid these days?


Todays capitalist-Fascist brainwashed westerners are so narrow minded.


I respect westerners, but I do not respect ignorance.

What's your definition of respect?

[IslamicMarxist]

What's your definition of respect?

I said todays "Capitalist-Fascist" Westerners. Meaning the ones who believe everything they see in the Media. No they probably aren't Fascist, but they are indeed capitalist supporters. By Westerners, I mean the guys who run the west, the Media, the Corporations, the Government, ect. ect.

[durhamleft]

no, but nor should anyone else

[IslamicMarxist]

What's your definition of respect?

I do not respect any form of ignorance. I don't respect all westerners. When I said "I respect westerners" I mean the fact that they are just people, not there Ideals. I do not respect the way most of them think when they try to judge eastern nations they have only seen in their media.

[Starport]

Well again, you just found out that you were wrong about Iran wanting to destroy a nation with 6 million, so How do you know your wrong about the Ayatollah wanting to nuke anyone?

Again your wrong. Khameini has said, many, many, many, many times that the Nuclear Bomb is Haram(forbidden) and he issued a Fatwa in 2005 declaring the Nuke against God and Humanity. If you are worried about anyone using nukes, worry about America, a nation that continues to threaten to use it.

Iran even said something very appropriate, this may not be the EXACT quote from the president, but it is what he said from what I remember: "We don't need Nukes, Nukes are a weapon of the stone age, They are against our religion, and I guarantee you the first Nation to use one will fall the next day."

Iran doesn't want Nukes. It doesn't need them either. Any nation to use a Nuclear bomb, will be attacked by almost every other Nation, Or at least a world war Three will erupt. Besides, Iran is useless offensively. Iran will fail if it tries to attack a Nation, just like any other force. But Iran will surely succeed if it is attacked. That is a FACT.

Thanks for your demonstration of rational discipline against subjective, irrational bigoted nonsense.

[XxKrebsxX]

Well again, you just found out that you were wrong about Iran wanting to destroy a nation with 6 million, so How do you know your wrong about the Ayatollah wanting to nuke anyone?

Again your wrong. Khameini has said, many, many, many, many times that the Nuclear Bomb is Haram(forbidden) and he issued a Fatwa in 2005 declaring the Nuke against God and Humanity. If you are worried about anyone using nukes, worry about America, a nation that continues to threaten to use it.

Iran even said something very appropriate, this may not be the EXACT quote from the president, but it is what he said from what I remember: "We don't need Nukes, Nukes are a weapon of the stone age, They are against our religion, and I guarantee you the first Nation to use one will fall the next day."

Iran doesn't want Nukes. It doesn't need them either. Any nation to use a Nuclear bomb, will be attacked by almost every other Nation, Or at least a world war Three will erupt. Besides, Iran is useless offensively. Iran will fail if it tries to attack a Nation, just like any other force. But Iran will surely succeed if it is attacked. That is a FACT.

You're throwing around quotes regarding a totalitarian religious regime that brutally oppresses its people. But considering your signature and your disdain for anything western I do not really care about your opinion as it is completely biased against anything I will say to you because I am an "EVIL WESTERNER!"

You're insanely fanatical about your precious Islamic dictatorships aren't you?

[IslamicMarxist]

You're throwing around quotes regarding a totalitarian religious regime that brutally oppresses its people. But considering your signature and your disdain for anything western I do not really care about your opinion as it is completely biased against anything I will say to you because I am an "EVIL WESTERNER!"

You're insanely fanatical about your precious Islamic dictatorships aren't you?

Now when did I say that? Western culture is becoming all messed up, not because it is "Non Muslim" because of how it demonstrates that only the rich, the beautiful, can succeed. How the Poor are made on this earth to serve the rich, how doing drugs is Ok, how it is not a bad thing for high school girls to get pregnant. I am aware Leftists are combating such Capitalist propaganda, but you on the other hand aren't doing such a great job. You are not an evil westerner, just a narrow minded one, one that will believe anything one with high authority or a wealthy man would tell you. It is your responsibility as a westerner to educate your peers, I'm not trying to tell you to teach them Islam, or to convert them, or any of those lies the Capitalist Media tells you. Educate them on what's right and wrong. Save this world from abandoning all of the morals that kept it still going. I live in the UK, so this is my responsibility too. I will not be "bias" against anything you say as long as you provide simple things such as logic, and you need to open your mind, think in the sense that everyone in the world all have different views, and are all human. The world is not in black and white.

[Crux]

Well of course they are going to be biased against their Government. I would too if I was exiled. But that doesn't mean it's the truth.
Exiles with contacts in Iran. With an agent of the regime present here I will not say anything more about that. I suggest this user gets restricted.

[NGNM85]

I think it would be a good idea to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Although, just as a stepping stone to a world without nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly offered to permanantly suspend development of nuclear weapons in response to some very reasonable garuntees that they won't be subject to a preemptive strike. Washington has consistently rebuffed these offers. I have no doubt this could easily be solved diplomatically, but I'm skeptical about that happening anytime soon.