Add new comment

Submitted by AWL on Fri, 26/09/2008 - 10:04


Whether or not Israel will act without US approval is something we still can't know. In fact, the article on the front page of today's Guardian speculates that Israel might go ahead anyway and quotes Olmert's spokesman saying *last night* that "all options must remain on the table".

Isn't the article rather a blow to those who claim, a la the CPGB/Yassamine Mather, that Israel would be acting as a catspaw for a US imperialism eager for war with Iran? After all, it seems that even *Bush* opposes a strike.

Looking around the PR site quickly, it seems that they don't state their position forthrightly. The nearest I could find is

1. This report of the HOPI founding conference, which implies support for Iran's "right" to nuclear weapons, but is unclear
(I also seem to recall the CPGB report of the conference describing PR as taking a similar position, but can't find it.)

2. This article from 2005, before the split with WP, but which they have reprinted on their site without comment/with implied endorsement:
"The right of Iran to defend itself, including by the possession of a nuclear bomb, must be defended."

Maybe they are starting to change their position: if so, good. But the reality is that their comrades have stated their support for the "right" of Iran to have nuclear weapons in numerous meetings and conversations.


This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.