No to an Israeli attack on Iran!
Sean Matgamna's article in Solidarity 1/136 tries to explore seriously the difficult issues raised by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, the threat this potentially poses to Israel, and Israel's threats against Iran. It makes justified criticisms of much of the left. It states the basic case for working-class international solidarity against both the Iranian and Israeli regimes. It spells out the disastrous consequences that an Israeli attack on Iran would probably have. However, it does not make the necessary conclusion: that we should clearly and sharply oppose such an attack.
The AWL's 2008 conference voted to "oppose military action (whether invasion or air strikes, bombing raids etc) or economic sanctions against Iran". The same motion argued: "We characterise any realistically likely military conflict between the US and Iran as one between two imperialisms: an imperialist superpower and a regional 'sub-imperialism'. A conflict between Iran and Israel would constitute war between two sub-imperialisms, with one most likely backed by the American superpower."
What does this policy imply now?
Having hedged his argument round with reiterations that socialists should not call for or endorse an Israeli attack, Sean asks: "If the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?" He then goes on to list a number of "kitsch left" or "kitsch anti-imperialist" arguments in order to rightly dismiss them.
However, I believe the question is misposed, since the issue is not one of Israel's national survival; and that the reasons for opposing an attack on Iran are clear. Sean's failure to sharply draw the necessary conclusion is all the more peculiar because he himself, in the first paragraphs of his article, spelt out at least part of the case - but then failed to follow it through.
We should oppose an Israeli attack on Iran for the following, interconnected reasons:
1. There is, in so far as we can judge, no imminent threat to Israel. The US government itself, as Solidarity 1/136 reported, has concluded that the Islamic Republic has probably suspended its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Nor was/is Iran close to achieving its nuclear goals.
2. That conditions the nature of an Israeli attack on Iran. In the absence of an immediate threat, such an attack would be a blow struck by one imperialist contender against another in their battle for regional dominance - not a question of legitimate national defence. Socialists must oppose the military projects of both Iran and Israel; this implies opposition to an attack.
3. There is a very strong possibility of large-scale Iranian civilian deaths, particularly given that nuclear facilities are involved.
4. There is also a strong possibility of widespread carnage in the Middle East, with retaliatory attacks, suicide bombings etc, as well as other states being drawn in.
5. War between Israel and Iran would almost certainly strengthen chauvinism in both countries and the position of both regimes against working-class and democratic forces. It would allow the Iranian regime to crack down on the rising tide of working-class, student etc struggles which is the greatest hope for democracy and socialism in the Middle East, reinforcing its reactionary appeals for national unity against "Zionism". Thus an Israeli attack would undermine the very forces which we want to see defang, and ultimately overthrow, the Islamic Republic - as well as undermining corresponding forces in Israel-Palestine. The very forces, in other words, that can derail the disastrous dynamic threatening the working classes and peoples of the region.
Having spelt out why we should oppose an Israeli attack, I want to discuss what I think are the inadequacies of two alternative lines of argument I have heard/read since Sean's article was printed.
1. Pointing out that many other states, including the US and Israel, are nuclear-armed. In the first place, socialists also oppose their nuclear weapons. Secondly, and crucially, the character of the Iranian regime is such that we should be particularly alarmed at the thought of its finger on the nuclear launch button. This is a regime motivated, in part, by virulent anti-semitism dressed up as "anti-Zionist" criticism of Israel, and by an obscurantist and millenarian belief in its theocratic mission (a belief which caused it to send tens of thousands of suicide bombers over the Iraq border during the Iran-Iraq war, for instance). A nuclear weapons in its hands would pose a serious threat to Israeli national self-determination.
Yes, Israel is a capitalist, imperialist state run by bigoted reactionaries; but to simply equate the two - or claim/imply that Iran is somehow more progressive - shows how much sections of the left have lost the plot. (Incidentally, where was the outcry on the left when Israel destroyed an alleged Syrian nuclear facility last year?)
No one, as far as I know, has seriously suggested that Israel is going to drop a nuclear bomb (or any sort of bomb) on Iranian cities; even the idea that Israel might use a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran's nuclear facilities is not part of the current media coverage.* In contrast, who can doubt that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious first-strike threat to the population of Israel? Of course, some on the left are not concerned for the right of the Israelis to self-determination; this is one of the underpinnings of a pro-Iran position.
2. Simply appealing to working-class action against both sides (this is the essence, when the dramatics are stripped away, of David Broder's response to Sean). That is, clearly, the fundamental basis of an international socialist position. Nonetheless, appeals to workers' action do not automatically solve all problems of international politics - particularly in a region where the workers' movement is very weak.
The fact that we want the working class to disarm, and overthrow, both the Israeli and Iranian regimes does not eliminate the problem of the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel and other targets of its aggression in the Middle East. Independent working-class politics, the attempt to mobilise the working class as an independent force capable of determining or at least shaping events, has to be concretised into a policy capable of orienting (in so far as we can) the working class, in the region and internationally, so that it can actually challenge both/all reactionary contenders.
A number of questions follow.
Is it possible to realistically imagine a situation, not immediately but at some point in the future, in which Iran did actually develop nuclear weapons, posing (given the nature of the Iranian regime) a serious threat to Israel's self-determination as a nation? In such a scenario, would the balance of issues change? Would it become possible to isolate the issue of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities from the more general framework of Iranian-Israeli imperialist rivalry? Clearly, we would not call for or support an attack even in these circumstances, but would we continue to oppose it sharply?
Unlike some on the left, we should make clear that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would be a serious problem - including in terms of Israel's self-determination. How would we respond? More discussion of this is needed (which is the rational kernel of what Sean argues in his article). I believe that while the case for opposing Israeli military action would remain, the form and emphasis of our opposition might change - in the same way that, today, what we would oppose and condemn is an Israeli attack on Iran, not the destruction of Iran's nuclear programme.
In any case, on the basis spelt out above, the immediate conclusion is clear. Oppose an Israeli attack on Iran!
* The Weekly Worker/CPGB group seem to be straining every muscle to whip up a lynch-mob atmosphere against the AWL as having "no place" in the labour movement (see James Turley and Mark Fisher's article in Weekly Worker 732). As part of their campaign, the front page of this issue of the Weekly Worker proclaims, in front of a picture of a mushroom cloud: "AWL's Sean Matgamna: excusing an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran"; a claim repeated inside, with fantasy augmented by some dubious military/technical reasoning, by Yassamine Mather. The caption to the picture illustrating this article reads "Sean 'Nuke'em' Matgamna".
This is not only libel, but straightforward, Sun-style gutter journalism. Sean's article does not support any sort of strike on Iran, let alone a nuclear strike; it does not even discuss the possibility of a nuclear strike. Naturally, we vehemently oppose any nuclear attack by any state against any other (see here), including - let us say it just to be clear! - an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran. However, we have come to expect this sort of shameless lying from the Weekly Worker.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
"Serious exploration"
Sean's article does not "explore seriously the difficult issues raised by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons". It does not "state the basic case for working-class international solidarity against both the Iranian and Israeli regimes". In fact it includes very little reference to independent working-class politics, the state of the labour movement in Israel and Iran or what would represent a 'third camp' approach to the conflict, instead only briefly mentioning the idea that 'the answer is socialism'. But this idea has no particular connection to Sean's views as regards the immediate conflict and the questions immediately posed, and he basically ignores the Middle Eastern labour movement.
Opposing an Israeli attack on Iran is far from the natural conclusion of Sean's arguments - indeed, he explicitly says that there is no good reason to condemn it, since there is no realisable better alternative. Sacha uses pretty much the same argument when he refers to the current weakness of the Middle Eastern labour movement, as if this could be abstracted from the fact that the potential conflict/current tensions in the region contribute to chauvinism and serve to weaken the working-class camp, and that we cannot abstain from building this camp in the immediate. Judging by Sean's article and the responses to it, it is clearly far from the case that we can all agree that opposing both sides is 'the fundamental basis of an international socialist position'.
The question is: what do you mean by 'independent working-class politics'? For me this would include: (i) characterising the war as one between two rival regional powers in which socialists must refuse to take sides with either ruling class (ii) attempting, as far as is possible, to organise working-class actions including strikes to stop the war (iii) opposing Israel's nuclear proliferation as well as that of Iran (iv) rejecting the claims of both bourgeoisies to want 'national defence' as against 'foreign threats', and denouncing the hypocrisy of those who claim to be victims of external military threats (v) taking a revolutionary defeatist attitude towards both sides, for workers' action to bring down both governments and grant self-determination to all oppressed nations. This is not the same as a pacifist position which seeks 'stability' by demobilising one side or the other. Fundamentally, it would relate to what workers should do and say internationally, and not just comprise of steering a middle course between Iranian and Israeli militarism until some hypothetical future point when 'the workers' have magically become strong enough for us to side with them.
However, Sean simply does not oppose an Israeli attack on Iran, and throughout his piece characterises it as a legitimate act of 'self-defence' (taking for granted that Israeli hawks' claims that there is a massive security threat are true) and ignores the fact that Iran and Israel are vying for regional domination. Throughout he takes for granted the idea that the labour movement can and will do nothing, and makes no reference to its tasks in this crisis. The issue is posed as: which side are you on, Iran's or Israel's?
All the talk of rehashing the meanings of "give endorsement to", "has good reason to", "refuse to condemn", "neither support nor oppose", "not oppose sharply" etc. is a joke. We should use such terms to make our perspectives for the working class clear, not to cloud our personal sympathies and sentiment with a barrage of eclectic jargon. You cannot just choose to give words different meanings to what people understand by them. "Refusing to condemn" a strike against Iran may well not be the same thing as advocating it in advance: but then again, it certainly is excusing it and giving credence to the rationale for an attack before it happens.
What's your attitude?
If we were in a situation where Iran was about to acquire a nuclear bomb, what would your attitude be? Don't you think that would pose a major, imminent threat to Israeli national survival? I'm not saying that we would cease to oppose an Israeli attack; but wouldn't there be a serious issue which socialists had to deal with? Your attitude seems to be that it's a betrayal of principle to even notice there's an issue...
Sacha
Iranian workers' movement
One very important element to stress is the presence of a strong and rising workers' movement in Iran - as well as a women's movement, a strongly left-leaning student movement and movements of oppressed national minorities.
For our extensive coverage on all this, see
http://www.workersliberty.org/world/international/middle-east/iran
See also the Iranian exile campaign http://www.workers-iran.org
Iran and nukes
I'm not terribly interested in hypotheticals. Iran does not, in fact, have nukes. And if it did...so? Yet one more bourgeois state has nukes. More's the pity. Yes, Ahmedinejad engages in a lot of screeching anti-Zionist rhetoric. Big deal. Do you really think the rulers of Iran are so stupid that they'd attack Israel, even if they had nukes? Iran's destruction would soon follow. Doesn't Israel's nuclear arsenal bother you just as much, if not more? If not, why not? Because it's a bourgeois democracy? So what? You're worried about religious loonies? Religious loonies have plenty of influence in Israel -- more all the time, nowadays.
Sean M's article is shit, pure and simple; call what the Weekly Worker says about it "libel" if you wish, but any sane Marxist would read it much the same as the WW does; it is Israeli-Jewish chauvinism, pure and simple, and it has no place in an avowedly Marxist organization.
Exactly as if the Iranian
Exactly as if the Iranian ruling class would nuke Israel. Sean M's hysterical comparison between Al Qaeda and the Iranian ruling class just shows his underlying prejudices in my view. It was an article totally devoid of Marxist politics.
"Pure and simple"...
I agree pretty much entirely with what Sacha says in this article, but I think the tone of USRed's criticisms of Sean's initial piece are ridiculous.
If Sean is "pure and simple" an Israeli-Jewish chauvinist (or if he became one for the duration of the time it took him to write his article), then what's the deal with statements like "we would like to see the Israeli ruling class go on the same trip [to hell] as Ahmedinejad"? Perhaps the Marxist half of his brain was able to reclaim some space from the Zionist occupiers of the other half just as he was writing that sentence.
Criticise what Sean wrote all you like (I'm in the process of writing something myself and, as I say, I agree with all of Sacha's criticisms) but to dismiss it as "Israeli-Jewish chauvinism, pure and simple" actually obscures useful debate.
An analogy; when arguing with SWPers about Iraq, they frequently respond to the idea that Muqtada al-Sadr probably isn't such a great guy and that we should help Iraqi workers fight him by shrieking "that's what Bush and Brown say! You're just recylcing the arguments of the war-mongers!"
Patently, it's NOT what Bush and Brown say; they have no interest in helping Iraqi workers fighting Islamism and indeed are frequently engaged in bolstering Islamist forces who seek to crush Iraqi labour. By the same token, Sean is patently NOT "purely and simply" an Israeli-Jewish chauvinist. Such an argument is a rather pathetic rhetorical trick used to deflect discussion of substantial politics. "Sane Marxists" should avoid it.
The nature of the Iranian regime
Thinking about it, there is an element of truth in what Dan says about the nature of the Iranian ruling class (only an element, as we shall see).
Sean's article blurs over the distinction between different Islamist formations with formulations like "homicial religious lunatics". Now, this is an accurate enough description of the Iranian government, but it doesn't get to grips with the differences between it and eg al Qaeda. It's not just that the latter is far more extreme, though that's true. It's also that the Iranian Islamists, in addition to being religious zealots, are the dominant factions in a substantial ruling class with interests to defend and a lot to lose.
Yes, for many of the Iranian leaders, their Islamism is absolutely sincere; yes, as an ideology it has autonomy from the Iranian bourgeoisie as a whole; yes, I'm sure all of them would like to get rid of Israel if it was possible. And yes, Ahmedinejad is from a radical faction. But nonetheless, they know that if they bombed Israel, they would be wiped off the face of the earth. There will, at the very least, be strong voices within the Iranian government who would be opposed to a strike for this reason.
Where I part company with Dan is that I don't think any of this means that we should cease to vehemently oppose an Iranian bomb, or that it wouldn't pose a threat to Israeli self-determination. But the threat would most likely not be of an immediate, press-the-button existential kind. Which yet further strengthens the argument for opposing an Israeli attack.
Sacha Ismail
Out of interest (and I guess
Out of interest (and I guess this only applies to those who support Sean Ms position), would you say "on what basis can we condemn", if Iran attacked Israel to disable its nuclear weapons?
Also I put this on another thread but I think that thread is having technical differences.
People have said that the nazis showed that ruling classes will act against their material interests but I don't agree with the comparison.
Firstly the genocide and racism of the nazis had the material basis that fascism uses this to divide the working class. Also the genocide of political opponents and the Jews and other minorities also had a material basis. From the barberous view of the nazis it was cheaper to wipe people out than keep millions of people in prison camps. The ruling classes backed all this because for a long time it looked like the nazis could strengthen German imperialism. At the end of the war the ruling classes actually refused to carry Hitler's scorched earth policy.
This is all a long way from a ruling class launching a nuclear missle in the full knowledge that they'll be obliterated.
I'm not sure that "homicial religious lunatics" is a good description to describe the Iranian ruling class. Many of them are totally hypocrtical and live lavish life styles and are more than happy to go along with imperialism when it suits them.
But it seems that me and Sacha have large areas of agreement.
Pretty huge areas of
Pretty huge areas of disagreement too, Dan! I characterise Iran as an imperialist state and oppose its nuclear weapons programme; you characterise it as an oppressed semi-colony and 'defend' it!
Sacha
Sorry, I should add to my
Sorry, I should add to my last comment but one - I also part company with Dan and most of the left in actually thinking that a threat to Israeli self-determination is a problem!
Sacha
Sorry Sacha I don't want to
Sorry Sacha I don't want to taint you with too much agreement with someone from PR ;)
I would agree though that nuclear attacks aren't the answer to the zionist state of Israel!
PS Send me the contact details for the person we were talking about last night. Would be good for us all to meet up as soon as we can......