US to declare Iranian Guards "terrorists"

[ComradeR]

US turns heat up on Iran

If the United States designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist" organisation, the question will be whether it is an extension of its current efforts to isolate Iran economically or a step towards military action.

According to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press, the Bush administration is moving towards such a designation. It would probably cover the Revolutionary Guards as a whole though there have been discussions about limiting it to the so-called Quds (Jerusalem) Force that the US accuses of helping to arm Shia militias in Iraq.

Although Iran itself is labelled a "state sponsor of terrorism" by the US State Department, this would be the first time that a national military force had been described as a "terrorist" group.

Financial squeeze

The aim would be to squeeze the international operations of the Guards' many commercial activities. Among these are roles in managing Tehran's airport and underground transport systems.

Two UN Security Council resolutions, in December and March, sought to target Iranian trade in material and equipment connected with its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and also named three aviation companies run by the Revolutionary Guards as well as seven of its officers.

This new American order would widen that. It would add to the pressure on US allies and business partners to restrict their dealings with Iran.

The US will also continue to try to get a further Security Council resolution tightening and extending sanctions on Iran. Discussions are expected to be taken up in New York in September but China, for one, has been reluctant to go too far.

The US Treasury Under-Secretary Stuart Levey, in charge of an economic counter-terrorism unit, has been touring Europe this summer asking governments and business, especially banks, to cut Iran off.

Nicholas Burns, Under-Secretary at the Department of State told a Senate committee earlier this year: "We have used our influence to convince leading European banks to stop all lending to Iran. We have convinced European governments and Japan to begin reducing export credits."

However, this pressure has clearly not been enough. Iran is still defying the Security Council demand for it to suspend uranium enrichment to allow talks about its future nuclear plans to be discussed.

In the meantime, the drumbeat of American accusations against Iran for allegedly interfering in Iraq is growing. President George W Bush said at a news conference last week: "The American people should be concerned about Iran. They should be concerned about Iran's activity in Iraq, and they ought to be concerned about Iran's activity around the world."

The unanswered question is whether the new American move would be another step on a path to a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. There have been reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney does not want such an attack ruled out. Others suggest that the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice prefers toughening up the diplomatic approach, which is why she is supporting this "terrorist" designation.

Role

The Revolutionary Guard Corps (known as the Pasdaran) was formed after the Iranian revolution in 1979 and then took a major role during the war launched against Iran by Saddam Hussein, during which it developed the concept of the human-wave attack.

It forms a significant but separate part of the Iranian armed forces, with internal security and border protection duties (its forces captured the 15 British sailors and marines in the Gulf earlier this year). But it also operates Iran's ballistic missiles and is believed to have a role in the nuclear field as well.

The US and Israel accuse it of arming Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the Shias in Iraq.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was once a member, so a move against the Guards as a whole would also be seen as a move against him.

It would also highlight differences about Iran between the US and two of its allies in the region - the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which maintain close ties to Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6947616.stm
What do you think, could this be an indication that the US is preparing to attack Iran? I don't know if the imperialists could really be that stupid, but then again...

[Political_Chucky]

You beat me to the article. It seems like the media might finally be trying to AVOID war rather then provoking it. But I really don't know anything about this group.

[Hit The North]

More cant from the ****s in the White House.

The Revolutionary Guard is a legitimate part of the Iranian State. The attempt to reclassify it as terrorist is pathetic.

[partizan604]

According to this article it looks like USA is trying to cut Iran off diplomatically from Europe. it is clear that Irans economy is very dependable from European banks. but it's very hard right now to determine will the US military action in Iran follow or not.
They are using directed propoganda now - and it's directed to European countries. Cause Europe is afraid of terrorists too.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 16, 2007 02:02 pm
More cant from the ****s in the White House.

The Revolutionary Guard is a legitimate part of the Iranian State. The attempt to reclassify it as terrorist is pathetic.
while I agree with your message, I cant stand the word "****"

but with that said we ARE looking at a potential world war 3.
I may not agree with the Iranian government's oppression of womyn but damn, they have some courage standing against the USA.

[RedCommieBear]

Iran Responds (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHOS62529920070816)

Radio Netherlands (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/iran070816) offers an analysis of it.


Originally posted by Radio Netherlands
but it's very hard right now to determine will the US military action in Iran follow or not.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I just don't think the U.S. could pull it off. With opposition to the current war at 63 percent (source) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/polls/main537739.shtml), and Bush's approval ratings stuck at 30%, I don't think the American people will be apt to charging into another one.

[RedHal]

The pentagon is working 24/7 coming up with a way to manipulate the American ppl to march along with thier invasion of Iran. Given the disaster of the Iraq war, it will be difficult, but give them a few years, cheap gas and a rediculous reason, and Americans will be chanting USA USA Support our Troops again. The sooner Iran developes a nuke, the safer the world.

[Tatarin]

One thing got my eyes in the first article: "Iran's international affairs". Huh? Maybe economically, but they make it sound like Iran has spies and cells in just about every country, ready to take over the world.

[Goatse]

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I just don't think the U.S. could pull it off. With opposition to the current war at 63 percent (source), and Bush's approval ratings stuck at 30%, I don't think the American people will be apt to charging into another one.

Also the Iranian military is very powerful, it wouldn't be a pushover like Iraq was. And considering how stretched the US military is, and also the fact that Iran is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined - its area is about four times that of Iraq - it wouldn't exactly be easy to police the territory.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:47 am

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I just don't think the U.S. could pull it off. With opposition to the current war at 63 percent (source), and Bush's approval ratings stuck at 30%, I don't think the American people will be apt to charging into another one.

Also the Iranian military is very powerful, it wouldn't be a pushover like Iraq was. And considering how stretched the US military is, and also the fact that Iran is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined - its area is about four times that of Iraq - it wouldn't exactly be easy to police the territory.
You forget that if they actually go ahead and attack Iran it won't by done the same way as Iraq. One scenario is that they bomb Iran and use Iran's retaliation as an excuse to reinstate the draft, and given that they will undoubtably use the media to spin the retaliation in such a way to drum up fear that they will be able to justify it. Or they may use a coalition force of Saudis, Israelis, etc. with US troops merely being a "support force".

[capstop]

The US ruling class are tooling-up their ‘Muslim’ and ’Jewish’ women oppressing allies in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt with (nearly top of the range) armaments against their ‘Muslim’ women oppressing enemies in Iran. The point here is:
The cultural background of the ‘enemy’ or ‘friend’ of imperialism is totally and completely irrelevant to the main event, which is the US imperialist attempt to kick its way out of its ECONOMIC CRISIS.

Communists do not have to “support” what we regard as backward cultural traditions ever, but the main enemy of the international working class and rural masses everywhere, is US and European imperialism. Our survival and development requires us to “march separately strike together” internationaly!

[spartan]

actually our main enemy is supporting people trying to stop the advancement of capitalism. there will be no global socialist revolution if capitalism is not allowed to get to a stage where the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution are a reality.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:59 pm
actually our main enemy is supporting people trying to stop the advancement of capitalism. there will be no global socialist revolution if capitalism is not allowed to get to a stage where the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution are a reality.
the conditions for revolution in the west wont be getting much better as the means of production are dismanteld and send abroad because production is cheaper there.

if we want to be left with a viable revolution we need to take measures to prevent the flight of capital.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 03:59 pm
actually our main enemy is supporting people trying to stop the advancement of capitalism. there will be no global socialist revolution if capitalism is not allowed to get to a stage where the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution are a reality.
And? How is invading Iran going to advance the development of capitalism towards revolution?

I suppose you're going to claim Iran is "feudal" or some such nonsense. But actually, the 1979 revolution was followed by....dividing the landlord's land among the peasants. There's a maxium landholding size under Iranian law. Funny kind of "feudalism"! In reality, the Iranian regime is just as capitalist as the U.S. regime.

(Of course, I'm not crediting that land reform to the theocratic regime. They did it under pressure from below....millions of working people participated in overthrowing the shah and had expectations for progressive change. It took years for the regime to consolidate power and during that time they had to make some concessions to workers and peasants.)

More generally, world capitalism has been sufficiently developed for revolution for some time - in some ways overripe. The big problems are political - class consciousness, organization, etc.

You certainly don't help solve those problems by proclaiming that we have to wait for the economic conditions to develop more. In fact, the logical conclusion from that would be class collaboration, backing the bosses in the name of helping them develop capitalism!

When what's needed is for workers to organize and fight the bosses, to gain experience in struggle, develop class consciousness and solidarity....

[Goatse]

Originally posted by ComradeR+August 17, 2007 12:18 pm--> (ComradeR @ August 17, 2007 12:18 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 10:47 am

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I just don't think the U.S. could pull it off. With opposition to the current war at 63 percent (source), and Bush's approval ratings stuck at 30%, I don't think the American people will be apt to charging into another one.

Also the Iranian military is very powerful, it wouldn't be a pushover like Iraq was. And considering how stretched the US military is, and also the fact that Iran is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined - its area is about four times that of Iraq - it wouldn't exactly be easy to police the territory.
You forget that if they actually go ahead and attack Iran it won't by done the same way as Iraq. One scenario is that they bomb Iran and use Iran's retaliation as an excuse to reinstate the draft, and given that they will undoubtably use the media to spin the retaliation in such a way to drum up fear that they will be able to justify it. Or they may use a coalition force of Saudis, Israelis, etc. with US troops merely being a "support force". [/b]
Well, reinstating the draft itself would piss people off anyway, and the time it would take to train drafted troops and ship them to Iran, surely US positions in Iraq would have been overrun? And even if the US used a coalition of Israelis and Saudis, it would still mean the US was launching into another war when they hadn't even cleaned up their mess from the last one. I doubt US citizens would as readily accept it, especially if the war was dragged out, or required reinstating the draft.

[capstop]

spartan,August 17, 2007 09:59 pm] actually our main enemy is supporting people trying to stop the advancement of capitalism. there will be no global socialist revolution if capitalism is not allowed to get to a stage where the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution are a reality.You can go ahead and enjoy yourself telling that to the working classes internationally if you like, and see how many of them will be diverted into a tedious academic debate about ‘historical determinism’ while they are scavenging for a living and dogging the boots bombs and bullets “advancement” of capitalist degeneration.

[Goatse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowsar

Surely the US would be cautious sending its navy within range of these? Imagine the morale loss if an aircraft carrier was sunk. That's not happened since World War 2, if I recall correctly.

Also, if you combine all the Iranian military branches, they have roughly 1,000,000 ready troops, and about 11,000,000 paramilitary which theoretically could be raised at any time.

EDIT: And Iran is a fiercely nationalist country. The resistance would be motivated by religion, patrotism and hatred of the West, and would be huge.

[ComradeR]

Well, reinstating the draft itself would piss people off anyway, and the time it would take to train drafted troops and ship them to Iran, surely US positions in Iraq would have been overrun?
You underestimate the arrogance of US commanders, the ease of which they won the first Gulf war and initial invasion of Iraq isn't lost on them. I have no doubt they truly believe that with the forces they have on the ground already plus their available air forces that they can hold the Iranians until a large enough force can be gathered for an invasion.

And even if the US used a coalition of Israelis and Saudis, it would still mean the US was launching into another war when they hadn't even cleaned up their mess from the last one.
You really think this matters to them? They're already trying to link the ongoing war in Iraq to Iran.

I doubt US citizens would as readily accept it, especially if the war was dragged out, or required reinstating the draft.
I don't know, they're ability to spin something in the media like a Iranian retaliation in order to whip up a frenzy of fear and "patriotism" under which they can do just about anything they want cannot be underestimated.

Surely the US would be cautious sending its navy within range of these? Imagine the morale loss if an aircraft carrier was sunk. That's not happened since World War 2, if I recall correctly.
You never know, heavy losses from an Iranian retaliation could be just the thing they want in order to whip fear and "patriotism" in the US by spinning it in the media.

EDIT: And Iran is a fiercely nationalist country. The resistance would be motivated by religion, patrotism and hatred of the West, and would be huge.
Again you think this matters to the US imperialists?

[spartan]

how can we have a revolution now the world is not ready. america is losing all its power and credibility and most nations are now looking towards the next three big capitalist superpowers of brazil,china and india. the fact is we still have another big century of capitalism. but this will be its last for things will get to a point where conditions are so good they can only get worse the the necessary conditions for revolution will be a reality.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:58 am

Well, reinstating the draft itself would piss people off anyway, and the time it would take to train drafted troops and ship them to Iran, surely US positions in Iraq would have been overrun?
You underestimate the arrogance of US commanders, the ease of which they won the first Gulf war and initial invasion of Iraq isn't lost on them. I have no doubt they truly believe that with the forces they have on the ground already plus their available air forces that they can hold the Iranians until a large enough force can be gathered for an invasion.

And even if the US used a coalition of Israelis and Saudis, it would still mean the US was launching into another war when they hadn't even cleaned up their mess from the last one.
You really think this matters to them? They're already trying to link the ongoing war in Iraq to Iran.

I doubt US citizens would as readily accept it, especially if the war was dragged out, or required reinstating the draft.
I don't know, they're ability to spin something in the media like a Iranian retaliation in order to whip up a frenzy of fear and "patriotism" under which they can do just about anything they want cannot be underestimated.

Surely the US would be cautious sending its navy within range of these? Imagine the morale loss if an aircraft carrier was sunk. That's not happened since World War 2, if I recall correctly.
You never know, heavy losses from an Iranian retaliation could be just the thing they want in order to whip fear and "patriotism" in the US by spinning it in the media.

EDIT: And Iran is a fiercely nationalist country. The resistance would be motivated by religion, patrotism and hatred of the West, and would be huge.
Again you think this matters to the US imperialists?
All good points but I agree with you, the US commanders wouldn't care about that and would believe they could win. I meant the US public would get a lot more pissed off about it than the Iraq war. Losses would be devastating.

[capstop]

how can we have a revolution now the world is not ready. america is losing all its power and credibility and most nations are now looking towards the next three big capitalist superpowers of brazil,china and india. the fact is we still have another big century of capitalism. but this will be its last for things will get to a point where conditions are so good they can only get worse the the necessary conditions for revolution will be a reality.

You might be right. Can you flesh out your idea with some evidence that might convince everyone struggling under this chaos now, that their resistance is pointless or at least doomed to failure in the short to medium term. Why do you say “another big century of capitalism.”? Why not fifty years or two centuries ?

[spartan]

peoples resistance is doomed to faliure now because even if america is defeated brazil,china and india will take americas place quicker than they are already. most empires have their big century. britain had the nineteenth century america had the twentieth century and china will have the twenty first century. after that hopefully the revolution will bring utopia.

[capstop]

peoples resistance is doomed to faliure now because even if america is defeated brazil,china and india will take americas place quicker than they are already. most empires have their big century. britain had the nineteenth century america had the twentieth century and china will have the twenty first century. after that hopefully the revolution will bring utopia.

Why should Brazil, India, United Arabia, or United Africa not all have their turns after China and then back to Europe again etc, etc. That would keep capitalism going indefinably according to this ‘theory’.

[spartan]

maybe capitalism has a lot more fuel in its tank i hope not. this never ending theory reminds me of something i fought of long ago. what i fought of was that yes maybe just maybe capitalism is never ending. i mean look at the ancient world the greek treading/colonial empire the roman empire. these were not feudalist empires but ancient versions of capitalism. feudalism did not arrive until the crisis of the third century in the roman empire. after that feudalism took hold for a thousand years until the renaissance reintroduced capitalism. perhaps the british empire was the modern version of the ancient greek empire and america the modern version of rome? perhaps after this it will be feudalism not socialism. marx often said feudalism-capitalism-communism but the fact is he forgot that capitalism came before feudalism as well as after.

[capstop]

maybe capitalism has a lot more fuel in its tank i hope not. this never ending theory reminds me of something i fought of long ago. what i fought of was that yes maybe just maybe capitalism is never ending. i mean look at the ancient world the greek treading/colonial empire the roman empire. these were not feudalist empires but ancient versions of capitalism. feudalism did not arrive until the crisis of the third century in the roman empire. after that feudalism took hold for a thousand years until the renaissance reintroduced capitalism. perhaps the british empire was the modern version of the ancient greek empire and america the modern version of rome? perhaps after this it will be feudalism not socialism. marx often said feudalism-capitalism-communism but the fact is he forgot that capitalism came before feudalism as well as after.


So what do you think we should do about the growing US imperialist threat to Iran and others, now?

[spartan]

nothing what does iran offer us. the us is unknowingly helping capitalism advance to stage where a socialist revolution wont be a possibility but a necessity. supporting iran will only force us to wait a lot longer for this process.

[RevSouth]

I don't think they will invave Iran. It would make China and Russia very unhappy, more importantly China. China holds huge sway over the United States economy, both in the trade surplus they have with the United States, and how much of the U.S. dollar they hold in Treasury Bonds, if they wanted to they could send inflation here in the U.S. sky high. And China now more than ever before needs ties to the Middle East for oil, so letting the U.S. have a go at one of their allies in the region would not sit well with them.

[capstop]

nothing what does iran offer us. the us is unknowingly helping capitalism advance to stage where a socialist revolution wont be a possibility but a necessity. supporting iran will only force us to wait a lot longer for this process.

But this particular war dance around Iran together with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are part and parcel of the degeneration of US imperialism. You seem to be very much focused on ’nations’ rather than classes.

[spartan]

do you think the us cares about nations. no it only cares about money and oil but believe it or not this isnt a bad thing for the us could do wonders with irans resources. the us are unknowingly eliminating a future problem for us socialists if they decide to do something desicive. the iranians are just being selfish and anyone who supports them is puting the future revolution in jeopardy. remember we must support capitalism's advance so the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution exist. supporting iran will hold us back.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:02 pm
do you think the us cares about nations. no it only cares about money and oil but believe it or not this isnt a bad thing for the us could do wonders with irans resources. the us are unknowingly eliminating a future problem for us socialists if they decide to do something desicive. the iranians are just being selfish and anyone who supports them is puting the future revolution in jeopardy. remember we must support capitalism's advance so the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution exist. supporting iran will hold us back.
The fuck, dude? While the Iranian government is not exactly one I respect, a U.S. puppet government wouldn't be either. And how would the United States stealing Iran's resources be any better for a workers revolution? Capitalism is plenty advanced in Iran, enough so, a U.S. invasion would change nothing. Iran is being selfish? Give me a fucking break. Your understanding of Marxist thought is flawed.

The other thing I was saying is, it doesn't matter if the U.S. cares, China can hurt the U.S. economy. On demand. They hold a huge stake in it. If China doesn't want the U.S. to do something, they won't, unless they want to risk huge repercussions.

[capstop]

do you think the us cares about nations. no it only cares about money and oil but believe it or not this isnt a bad thing for the us could do wonders with irans resources. the us are unknowingly eliminating a future problem for us socialists if they decide to do something desicive. the iranians are just being selfish and anyone who supports them is puting the future revolution in jeopardy. remember we must support capitalism's advance so the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution exist. supporting iran will hold us back.

I think you don’t have the slightest interest in communist revolution now or at ay time.

[spartan]

iran are the bad guys what is their reason for being so threatning all of a sudden. and at least if the us owned irans resources we wouldnt have to worry about it being selfishly held back. the fact is when the revolution comes it will be alot easier getting oil if one country owned it all this has nothing to do with marxist thought.

[spartan]

oh believe me my intrest is in seeing the revolution succeed. but it wont if capitalism is held back from getting to its most ultimate stage where it can only get worse thus creating the necessary conditions for revolution.

[capstop]

iran are the bad guys what is their reason for being so threatning all of a sudden. and at least if the us owned irans resources we wouldnt have to worry about it being selfishly held back. the fact is when the revolution comes it will be alot easier getting oil if one country owned it all this has nothing to do with marxist thought.

oh believe me my intrest is in seeing the revolution succeed. but it wont if capitalism is held back from getting to its most ultimate stage where it can only get worse thus creating the necessary conditions for revolution.

This is a classic case of idealism and reactionary idealism at that. You should run for president of your one big country. In your dreams you would be sure to get elected.

[spartan]

if you believe capitalism is on its last legs then you are sadly wrong. just look around you the next stage is just starting.

[capstop]

if you believe capitalism is on its last legs then you are sadly wrong. just look around you the next stage is just starting.

I guess your won’t be persuaded then, so I hope you and capitalism will be very happy together. See y.

[spartan]

everyone in every capitalist state whether they like it or not is with capitalism. we all give our contributions which enable us to live. look all im saying is is that a revolution now would be way to early considering whats happening in the world today. we would be crushed easily for the necessary conditions for revolution dont yet exist nor do we have a truely global support or army or weapons.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:59 pm
actually our main enemy is supporting people trying to stop the advancement of capitalism. there will be no global socialist revolution if capitalism is not allowed to get to a stage where the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution are a reality.
Wow another Talmudist (dogmatic) Marxist who reads Marx like a bible without understanding Dilactecal Materialism>

Lets face it fedualism is pretty much dead what we have now is Imperalism the highest stage of Capitalism< Capitalists mostly invading other Capitalist countries to increase their means of production> Someone has already posted that Iran is already a Capitalist country>

Resistance against Imperalism will in reality help bring about the material conditions for a revolution much faster then waiting for socialism to fall from the sky> America being boged down in another overly expensive war that it can"t win can do great damage to it"s economy and because of America"s imperalist status it has at the moment< its economic fall will affect the whole world increasing the material conditions that are necessary for revolution>

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:14 pm
iran are the bad guys what is their reason for being so threatning all of a sudden. and at least if the us owned irans resources we wouldnt have to worry about it being selfishly held back. the fact is when the revolution comes it will be alot easier getting oil if one country owned it all this has nothing to do with marxist thought.
You&#39;re correct there, comrade. Nothing you&#39;ve yet written on this subject has anything to do with Marxism.

[bezdomni]

Maybe I&#39;m a bit naive, but I just don&#39;t think the U.S. could pull it off. With opposition to the current war at 63 percent (source), and Bush&#39;s approval ratings stuck at 30%, I don&#39;t think the American people will be apt to charging into another one.

That actually gives them more reason to go to war with Iran.


Iraq Quagmire Creates More—Not Less—Need to Attack Iran

The invasion of Iraq was designed—in part—to pave the way for weakening, and perhaps toppling, Iran’s government. And as things have gone, instead, it has weakened the U.S. hand and strengthened Iran’s in important ways.

For one, it removed one of Iran’s main enemies in Saddam Hussein (after another of Iran’s adversaries, the Taliban in Afghanistan, was also driven from power by the U.S.). The U.S. has been forced to rely on Iraq’s pro-Iranian Shia parties to try to rule and stabilize the country.

Overall, the U.S.’s quagmire in Iraq has weakened U.S. influence, fueled the spread of Islamist trends, and bolstered Iran’s regional influence.

All this has made the situation in the Middle East even more unacceptable to the U.S. imperialists, and the Bush regime has resolved on a course to become even more aggressive in reversing all this—with the escalation of the war in Iraq and now the serious threats against Iran. And meanwhile, the Democrats have proved incapable and unwilling to stop Bush’s troop “surge” to Iraq and have mounted no significant opposition at all—and in some cases significant support—to the real threats to launch a U.S. attack against Iran (other than to call for Congressional approval for any military action).

The Democrats’ paralysis and the looming horror of an escalation against Iran highlight the urgency of broadening and deepening opposition to the war in Iraq and any attack on Iran. Such an attack, which would reportedly include hundreds of targets and could include tactical nuclear weapons, would lead to thousands and thousands of casualties, perhaps many more. And it could well strengthen the grip of the Islamic theocrats now in power in Iran. This would further accelerate the very negative dyanamic in which the assaults on the region fuel the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, while the reactionary program of the fundamentalists causes many in this country to either support Bush or be passive in the face of U.S. aggression and war crimes. A very different program and vision, neither McWorld/McCrusade nor Jihad, is urgently called for. And an essential element of that is driving out the Bush regime and repudiating its entire agenda and opposing now its war moves against Iran .

So, since the U.S. war in Iraq has in fact lessened its influence in the middle east...it is necessary for the U.S. to attack Iran to dominate the region.

Also, if the U.S. takes control of Iran...it will control well over 50% of the worlds known oil reserves. That could yield some very serious problems.

U.S. Threats Against Iran - The Logic of Imperialist Escalation. (Revolution #82, March 18, 2007). (http://revcom.us/a/082/iran-en.html)

[capstop]

Wow another Talmudist (dogmatic) Marxist who reads Marx like a bible without understanding Dilactecal Materialism>
You recon he reads Marx?


Lets face it fedualism is pretty much dead what we have now is Imperalism the highest stage of Capitalism< Capitalists mostly invading other Capitalist countries to increase their means of production> Someone has already posted that Iran is already a Capitalist country>
Isn’t it more the case that capitalists “invade” in order to destroy rival surplus capital?


Resistance against Imperalism will in reality help bring about the material conditions for a revolution much faster then waiting for socialism to fall from the sky> America being boged down in another overly expensive war that it can"t win can do great damage to it"s economy and because of America"s imperalist status it has at the moment< its economic fall will affect the whole world increasing the material conditions that are necessary for revolution>

Spot on&#33;

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:14 am
iran are the bad guys what is their reason for being so threatning all of a sudden. and at least if the us owned irans resources we wouldnt have to worry about it being selfishly held back. the fact is when the revolution comes it will be alot easier getting oil if one country owned it all this has nothing to do with marxist thought.
First of all, the Iranian government are the so called "bad guys". The civilian population actively oppose it.

Secondly, they&#39;re feeling "threatened" because the government is very unpopular with the people, and using fear tactics such as police repression and provoking the US government will sway the people into their arms.

Finally, you&#39;re direly wrong on the oil bit. If the US invaded Iraq supposedly for oil, then why are the gas prices higher than in the beginning of the war? American oil and gas companies are glad that we haven&#39;t imported any significant portion of Iraq&#39;s oil, to keep their prices high, forcing people to pay exploitative prices. The US doesn&#39;t want one ounce of oil from Iran either. If they did happen to invade Iran, not just tactically strike their Nuclear reactors, it would be because they began importing to the US and drive the prices down on US companies.

[capstop]

Finally, you&#39;re direly wrong on the oil bit. If the US invaded Iraq supposedly for oil, then why are the gas prices higher than in the beginning of the war? American oil and gas companies are glad that we haven&#39;t imported any significant portion of Iraq&#39;s oil, to keep their prices high, forcing people to pay exploitative prices. The US doesn&#39;t want one ounce of oil from Iran either. If they did happen to invade Iran, not just tactically strike their Nuclear reactors, it would be because they began importing to the US and drive the prices down on US companies.
Exactly, US imperialism is “invading” to destroy rival capital. Iran now, Germany France, China, and even Britain next. Rational thinking doesn’t come in to it. Only the destruction matters now for them. Its war&#33;

[spartan]

you all seem to think america is the biggest problem. the fact is if america is defeated china will simply take its place. their cannot be a revolution until capitalism is at the stage where things are so good they can only get worse thus creating the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution. where we are in the world right now capitalism is no where near that stage for if the worlds current biggest capitalist superpower america is defeated the chinese will simply take their place giving us a new century of more capitalism. wake up to reality&#33;

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:40 pm
you all seem to think america is the biggest problem. the fact is if america is defeated china will simply take its place. their cannot be a revolution until capitalism is at the stage where things are so good they can only get worse thus creating the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution. where we are in the world right now capitalism is no where near that stage for if the worlds current biggest capitalist superpower america is defeated the chinese will simply take their place giving us a new century of more capitalism. wake up to reality&#33;
Rolling on the floor, laughing.

Who would defeat America? Militarily or otherwise?

OH NOES THE PROLES TOOK OVER AMERICA AND THE WORLD&#33;

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:40 am
you all seem to think america is the biggest problem. the fact is if america is defeated china will simply take its place. their cannot be a revolution until capitalism is at the stage where things are so good they can only get worse thus creating the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution. where we are in the world right now capitalism is no where near that stage for if the worlds current biggest capitalist superpower america is defeated the chinese will simply take their place giving us a new century of more capitalism. wake up to reality&#33;
yes china would probably take over america&#39;s status as leading capitalist nation.
but they would not be able to do jack about a hypothetical revolution in the united states and/or western europe.

waiting for a global revolution is a recipe for postponing revolution forever.
marx was right to say that revolution will happen in the advanced capitalist first and as almost all our comrades already know is that the rot is already setting in here.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:40 am
you all seem to think america is the biggest problem. the fact is if america is defeated china will simply take its place. their cannot be a revolution until capitalism is at the stage where things are so good they can only get worse thus creating the necessary conditions for a socialist revolution. where we are in the world right now capitalism is no where near that stage for if the worlds current biggest capitalist superpower america is defeated the chinese will simply take their place giving us a new century of more capitalism. wake up to reality&#33;
It"s you that needs to wake up to reality> Because of Globalisation and the worlds dependence on the American dollar< America"s economic downfull would lead to a world_wide economic downful and another Great Depression on a scale never witnessed before>

[ComradeR]

All good points but I agree with you, the US commanders wouldn&#39;t care about that and would believe they could win. I meant the US public would get a lot more pissed off about it than the Iraq war. Losses would be devastating.
Agreed comrade, but again the imperialists ability to whip up a frenzy of fear and "patriotism" by spinning something like a Iranian retaliation and the losses caused by it in the media cannot be underestimated.

I don&#39;t think they will invave Iran. It would make China and Russia very unhappy, more importantly China. China holds huge sway over the United States economy, both in the trade surplus they have with the United States, and how much of the U.S. dollar they hold in Treasury Bonds, if they wanted to they could send inflation here in the U.S. sky high. And China now more than ever before needs ties to the Middle East for oil, so letting the U.S. have a go at one of their allies in the region would not sit well with them.
But this may be the very reason they would attack Iran, to gain control of the Iran&#39;s critical oil supplies which China more and more desperately needs. This would give the US a trump card over China. It may be a risk they are willing to take in order to keep China in check.