On Sunday 22 June 1941 Germany launched operation Barbarossa (named after the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, ‘red beard’) and invaded Soviet Russia

Joseph Stalin, General Secretary of the ‘Communist’ Party and Premier (from 1941) of Soviet Russia’ did not believe, despite many Intelligence warnings that Germany would invade. It’s said he may have placed too much faith (pun intended, the USSR was nominally atheist) in the Molotov-Ribbentrop ten year non- aggression pact signed in August 1939.which also delineated specific spheres of influence.

On 1 September 1939 Germany invaded Poland. On 17 September 1939 Soviet Russia invaded eastern Poland.

On Sunday 22 June 1941 Germany launched operation Barbarossa (named after the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, ‘red beard’) and invaded Soviet Russia.

Beware deception in war.

If it worked once there’s no reason it shouldn’t work again/ The play-book used back in 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq was that Iraq had ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ This was untrue but the efforts put into persuading the American and Western populations that WMD would be used against them is now replayed with the untruth that Iran is building nuclear weapons.

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel is not) In 2015 Iran signed the The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an agreement to limit the Iranian nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and other provisions.1 The agreement was finalised in Vienna on 14 July 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)—China, France, Russia, the U.K., U.S.—plus Germany) together with the European Union. Negotiations centred around sanctions relief and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the Arak IR-40 reactor, Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Gachin Uranium Mine, Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, Isfahan Uranium Conversion Plant, Natanz Uranium Enrichment Plant, and the Parchin Military Research complex.. The United States withdrew from the pact in 2018, imposing sanctions under its maximum pressure campaign.1 The sanctions applied to all countries and companies doing business with Iran and cut it off from the international financial system, rendering the nuclear deal’s economic provisions null. The JCPOA formed part of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231.The Security Council (S.C.) enacted it on 20 July 2015 and adopted it on 18 October. It took effect on 16 January 2016 (Adoption Day). JCPOA was to remain in effect for eight years or until receipt by the S.C. of an IAEA report stating that IAEA had reached the Broader Conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remained in peaceful activities, and terminated ten years from Adoption Day. On 12 October 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would not make the certification provided for under U.S. domestic law, but stopped short of terminating the deal.’

On June 13th Israel carried out a terrorist attack on Iran including the decapitation of high ranking military officers, scientists and the Iranian chief negotiator with America.

The sixth round of negotiations between Iran and America were due to take place on Sunday 15th June.

‘On June 22, the United States launched terrorist attacks on civilian nuclear facilities in Iran. President Donald Trump, who appears to be channelling French king Louis Fourteenth

L’État, c’est moi, t he state is me, immediately claiming the adoration of his ‘subjects’’ said that Irani’s key nuclear enrichment facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” and urging Iran to pursue peace. The strikes were carried out using B-2 stealth bombers equipped with “bunker-buster” bombs, specifically the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which are designed to penetrate deeply buried targets like the Fordow facility, located nearly 300 feet beneath a mountain.’

When can we expect Trump to state, Après moi le déluge ?

‘Fordow: This uranium enrichment facility was the primary target of the U.S. strikes due to its fortified position and its role in Iran’s nuclear program. Six bunker-buster bombs were reportedly dropped on Fordow, aiming to destroy its capacity to enrich uranium to near-weapons-grade levels (up to 83.7%).

Natanz: Another major uranium enrichment site, Natanz had previously been struck by Israel earlier in the week. The U.S. reportedly used 30 Tomahawk missiles against this facility.

Isfahan: This site, which plays a role in Iran’s nuclear program, was also targeted in the U.S. strikes.’

King Trump recently dismissed the judgement of his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard’s assessment of all of the US’s Intelligence agencies that Iran was not producing nuclear weapons by responding, I don’t care what she thinks.

He also said, after the Israel attack, and Iran’s response, that he would wait for two weeks before making a decision as to whether the US would become involved by ordering the terrorist attack by the US a few days only after making this comment.

The terrorist attack of 13th June by the genocidal state of Israel was designed to get the US involved as Israel is not capable of defeating Iran by itself.

The excuse that it was all about preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons was always an excuse and designed to justify to the gullible the justification for the actions which have occurred.

Iran has stated for many years that it had no intention of ever developing nuclear weapons and that its nuclear program was solely for civilian and medical use.

Article 4 of the NPT states that, ‘Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.’

The aim of both Israel and the US have always been about bringing about regime change in Iran which would lead to a compliant vassal of the US and the Western powers in the region allowing them to exploit its resources to their own benefit. Same old capitalism in action.

Iran shares a long land border with Russia and ex Soviet states. The ‘fall’ of Iran would help facilitate economic and military attacks upon Russia, It would prevent the Russian North-South Corridor from running through Iran.

‘The Russia North-South Corridor, also known as the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC), is a multi-modal transportation network connecting India, Iran, Azerbaijan, Russia, Central Asia, and Europe. It aims to enhance trade connectivity between major cities such as Mumbai, Moscow, Tehran, Baku, Bandar Abbas, Astrakhan, and Bandar Anzali. The corridor primarily involves moving freight from India, Iran, Azerbaijan, and the Russian Federation via ship, rail, and road.

The main advantages of the North-South Corridor over other routes include reducing distances by half or more and lowering the cost of container transportation compared to sea routes. The corridor is designed to reduce the transit time for goods travelling between Moscow and Mumbai by up to 40%, compared to the traditional Suez Canal route.

Russia and Iran are collaborating on this project, which is part of the broader INSTC, aimed at linking the Russian port of Astrakhan with the Iranian ports of Bandar Abbas and Chabahar. This multi-modal corridor combines rail, road, and sea transport to facilitate the seamless movement of goods between Russia, Iran, and beyond.

The development of the North-South Corridor is crucial for both countries, as it provides an alternative to traditional trade routes that are more vulnerable to economic sanctions. The corridor includes seaports on the Persian Gulf and in the Caspian region, as well as road and rail routes.’

How is Iran likely to further respond following the American attempt to destroy civilian nuclear facilities? It could continue to rain missiles down on Israel only. It could target American military assets in the region of West Asia. It could target oil production facilities within the region or block the Straits of Hormuz and bring about a serious economic collapse across the whole world.

At this point in time it is not possible to say if any of these options will occur or perhaps something else not yet foreseen. It can be said that, barring nuclear bombs being dropped on Iran by the US it will not comply with Trump’s call for total surrender.

How long this particular conflict, and the other major conflicts in the world are continuing too, will carry on remains to be seen. It is one though which has the possibility of doing serious dangerous damage to the whole world. We can agree that a regime change is called for – a regime change that abolishes capitalism and replaces it with socialism. How much longer are we all going to allow capitalism to exploit us and to put our lives at risk in their mad pursuit of resources, profit, power and domination?

Dulce bellum inexpertis – War is sweet to those who have never experienced it.

THE BIRTH AND DEATH OF LANGUAGE (ZOOM)

 The latest date to make a booking for Summer School will be 18th July.

For information about the event, go to:

www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/summer-school-2025/

 The extracts below are from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook 2025

‘World’s nuclear arsenals being enlarged and upgraded ‘

‘Nearly all of the nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel—continued intensive nuclear modernisation programmes in 2024, upgrading existing weapons and adding newer versions.

Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12 241 warheads in January 2025, about 9614 were in military stockpiles for potential use An estimated 3912 of those warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft and the rest were in central storage. Around 2100 of the deployed warheads were kept in a state of high operational alert on ballistic missiles. Nearly all of these warheads belonged to Russia or the USA, but China may now keep some warheads on missiles during peacetime. 

Since the end of the cold war, the gradual dismantlement of retired warheads by Russia and the USA has normally outstripped the deployment of new warheads, resulting in an overall year-on-year decrease in the global inventory of nuclear weapons. This trend is likely to be reversed in the coming years, as the pace of dismantlement is slowing, while the deployment of new nuclear weapons is accelerating. 

‘The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the cold war, is coming to an end,’ said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). ‘Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements.’

Russia and the USA together possess around 90 per cent of all nuclear weapons. The sizes of their respective military stockpiles (i.e. useable warheads) seem to have stayed relatively stable in 2024 but both states are implementing extensive modernisation programmes that could increase the size and diversity of their arsenals in the future. If no new agreement is reached to cap their stockpiles, the number of warheads they deploy on strategic missiles seems likely to increase after the bilateral 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) expires in February 2026.

The USA’s comprehensive nuclear modernisation programme is progressing but in 2024 faced planning and funding challenges that could delay and significantly increase the cost of the new strategic arsenal. Moreover, the addition of new non-strategic nuclear weapons to the US arsenal will place further stress on the modernisation programme. 

Russia’s nuclear modernisation programme is also facing challenges that in 2024 included a test failure and the further delay of the new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and slower than expected upgrades of other systems. Furthermore, an increase in Russia’s non-strategic nuclear warheads predicted by the USA in 2020 has so far not materialised.

Israel—which does not publicly acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons—is also believed to be modernising its nuclear arsenal. In 2024 it conducted a test of a missile propulsion system that could be related to its Jericho family of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. Israel also appears to be upgrading its plutonium production reactor site at Dimona.

SIPRI Director Dan Smith warns about the challenges facing nuclear arms control and the prospects of a new nuclear arms race. Smith observes that ‘bilateral nuclear arms control between Russia and the USA entered crisis some years ago and is now almost over’. While New START—the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty limiting Russian and US strategic nuclear forces—remains in force until early 2026, there are no signs of negotiations to renew or replace it, or that either side wants to do so. US President Donald J. Trump insisted during his first term and has now repeated that any future deal should also include limits on China’s nuclear arsenal—something that would add a new layer of complexity to already difficult negotiations.

Smith also issues a stark warning about the risks of a new nuclear arms race: ‘The signs are that a new arms race is gearing up that carries much more risk and uncertainty than the last one.’ The rapid development and application of an array of technologies—for example in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI), cyber capabilities, space assets, missile defence and quantum—are radically redefining nuclear capabilities, deterrence and defence, and thus creating potential sources of instability. Advances in missile defence and the oceanic deployment of quantum technology could ultimately have an impact on the vulnerability of key elements of states’ nuclear arsenals. 

Furthermore, as AI and other technologies speed up decision making in crises, there is a higher risk of a nuclear conflict breaking out as a result of miscommunication, misunderstanding or technical accident.’

https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2025/nuclear-risks-grow-new-arms-race-looms-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now

Waterloo, what does the word conjure up? To fans of popular music it could be both the 1974 Eurovision Song Contest winner that set the Swedish group Abba on the road to fame and fortune. Or it could be The Kinks 1967 song Waterloo Sunset where Terry meets Julie at Waterloo Station every Friday night. The assumption that the two were based upon Terrence Stamp and Julie Christie both well known actors has been debunked. A trainspotter might have a soft spot for the London Waterloo Station opened in 1848.

The Station was opened 33 years after the battle of Waterloo, 18th June 1815, when the Seventh Coalition defeated the army of Napoleon Bonaparte. For military buffs and wargamers this represents a classical military encounter that can be replayed again and again.

Waterloo, what does the word conjure up for socialists? This extract from the Socialist Standard of June 1909 in an article repudiating the Great Men of history theory.

‘A favourite subject in debating societies is: what would be the present condition of England if Napoleon had won the battle of Waterloo, or Europe if William the Norman had lost the battle of Hastings, or of European civilisation if the Greeks had been beaten at Salames? These questions carry us into the heart of the question of genius and its effect upon social and economic conditions. Carlyle, of course, would answer: without the existence of these mighty men the history of the world must have taken different channels, their influence was incalculable. The Socialist, however, will say: it mattered little to the mass of the people, the working class, whether Napoleon won or was soundly thrashed at Waterloo. National boundaries to-day might be slightly or greatly different, but it is probable that the application of steam power to manufacture would have been the same, and this application caused a revolution more radical and permanent than any ever made by a mighty warrior. Napoleon was beaten at Waterloo, and we are surrounded by social and economic inequality and injustice. Had he won we should still be living in a capitalist state—and one need not say more than this. For the working class that great battle did not mean a higher or a lower standard of living, but, as was usual with all such conflicts, it implied: which nation shall be the paramount buccaneer? For is not capitalism making uniform the lives of the working class in all countries? As Hervé has so well put it, “There is at present no country so superior to any other that its working class should get themselves killed in its defence.”’

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-great-man-fallacy-1909.html

Gustave Herve’s comment is even more apposite today when both countries and individuals consider themselves to be ‘great’. The delusion of these entities equals that of Malvolia. Unfortunately, such delusions carry horrible consequences of all of us who are based firmly in reality.

 World Socialist Radio

Israel, the US’s rogue proxy in the Middle East with its own agenda, initiated the current war by attacking Iran with the declared aim of physically preventing it acquiring the nuclear bomb.

According to Netanyahu, Iran’s possession of the nuclear bomb would presents an existential threat to the state of Israel. The suggestion is that, if Iran had the bomb, it would use it annihilate Israel. This is just propaganda as Iran wants the bomb for the same reason as the United States, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan have it — as a deterrent against being attacked. If Iran did have the bomb it would be very foolish of it to use against Israel as Israel itself is a nuclear state.

The real reason for the war — and why the United States, Britain and the others are behind Israel in practice — is to maintain the current the balance of power in the Middle East. In relations between capitalist states ‘might is right’ and Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would increase its ‘might’ and so shift the balance in its favour. It’s this that the Western states, who currently dominate the area because it is ’s the source of much of the oil and gas they need to power their production, wish to prevent, ideally by diplomacy but Israel has forced their hand. 

To maintain their own domination of the Middle East is why the Western powers are so concerned that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. 

That’s why, then, the Israel-Iran war can legitimately be described as another war for oil. Who controls the oil, and the trade routes and pipelines to get it out, has been the stake in all the many wars in the Middle East since the end of the last World War. On the surface the issue appears to be the existence of the state of Israel, established in 1948 as a ‘Jewish homeland’ on land that been the home for generations of non-Jews. This, in itself, was bound to create resentment but it might have worked had not the United States decided to build up Israel’s military might as its proxy on the ground in the region to defend its economic interests there.  

The rulers of Iran may invoke religion as why they don’t want a Jewish state to control Jerusalem but they are well aware of the economic issues at stake. Here is what Ayatollah Khaomeinei declared on 4 October last year:

‘The insistence of the United States and its allies on ensuring the security of the usurping regime serves as a cover for their murderous policy of transforming the [Zionist] regime into a tool to seize all the resources of this region and use it [this regime] in major global conflicts. Their policy is to transform this regime into a portal for exporting energy from West Asia to the West and importing Western goods and technologies to the region, to ensure the survival of the usurping regime and the dependence of the entire region on them.’  (https://french.khamenei.ir/news/14495 translated from French).

Which capitalist states controls the economic resources of the region is of no concern to the workers and other ordinary people living there. The civilians on both sides are being killed and wounded and buildings and useful infrastructure destroyed, as happens in all wars, for an issue that is only of capitalist concern. As socialists, we once again place on record our abhorrence of capitalist war and assert that it is in the interest of workers in both Israel and Iran is to join with workers everywhere in to bring to an end the war-prone capitalist system.

The below is from the Socialist Standard September 2006

‘As we go to press, a serious and already escalating crisis can be expected to go into overdrive the instant the Iranian government, at the moment under a UN deadline to stop uranium enrichment by 31 August, tells the UN what it can do with its resolution.

Sanctions will no doubt be announced, but to what effect and with what response from Iran remains to be seen. Iran has already intimated it would spark a global oil price crisis in response to UN sanctions, and it is unclear whether China and Russia – each with vested oil interests in Iran – will go along with any sanctions. The worst-case scenario is that the US will express feigned frustration at Iran’s unwillingness to cooperate and use the rejected resolution as a chequered flag to attack Iran militarily.

It is against this backdrop that we can begin to set the present Middle East crisis in context, particularly the recent Israeli attack upon Lebanon. This latest act of Israeli aggression was not about capturing back the two Israeli soldiers kidnapped on 14 July but was rather, it would seem, about oil and the securing of other resources and about preparing for any wider conflict against Syria and Iran.

Planned in advance

There are numerous claims that the war in Lebanon had been planned in advance by Israel. Reporting from Tel Aviv for the San Francisco Chronicle (21 July), Matthew Kalman wrote: “More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations, on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail.”

Speaking to CNN, veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said: “July was a pretext for a major offensive that had been in the works for a long time. Israel’s attack was going to be a model for the attack they really want to do. They really want to go after Iran.” (Guardian, 14 August).

In bombarding Lebanon and the Gaza strip (Gaza is still being bombed) the objective was to neutralise two opponents of Israel – and the US – Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah’s fire power and missile capabilities needed to be tested. Israel was unsure of the number of rockets in the hands of Hezbollah (some said 20,000) or indeed their range. Now they know. The Israeli bombardment of key roads and bridges and passage to Syria can serve no other function than to cut of the weapons supply route to Hezbollah. By striking pre-emptively Israel seems to have planned to destroy as many Hezbollah weapons as possible in advance of any rocket attack on Israel resulting from any US-allied bombardment of Iran.

Oil and water

Widely unreported in the Western popular media and brought to a wider audience by Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian economics professor, on the Global Research website was the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline. This links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean, and was opened one day before Hezbollah’s kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers that ostensibly started the recent war in Lebanon.The BTC pipeline is anticipated to carry a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets. In attendance at the inauguration ceremony were BP’s CEO Lord Browne and senior officials from the UK and USA, along with Israel’s Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Binyamin Ben Eliezer, accompanied by a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.

The BP-dominated pipeline skirts the Russian Federation, cutting through new pro-US states Georgia and Azerbaijan, countries allied with NATO and with a standing military pact with Israel. Israel already gets 20 percent of its oil from Azeri oil fields and this new pipeline is set to increase Israeli imports from the Caspian basin. Israel is now tipped to be a key player in the East Mediterranean oil transport protection racket.

Officially, the BTC pipeline will be channelling oil to Western markets. What is not admitted, however, is that some of this oil will be redirected towards Israel via a proposed underwater pipeline from Ceyhan in Turkey to the Israeli port of Ashkelon, and from there via a pipeline system to the Red Sea. The plan not only seems to serve Israeli oil consumption needs, but also plays a part in the US’s wider game of global-politics.

Oil channelled from Ashkelon to the Red Sea will then be re-exported from the Red Sea port of Eilat to Asian markets. This will help undermine the inter-Asian energy market eventually weakening the position of Russia in Central Asia and cutting off China from Central Asia’s oil reserves. In April of this year Ankara and Tel Aviv publicised their intention to create four pipelines which would bypass Syrian and Lebanese territory. As the Jerusalem Post (11 May) reported:

”Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East.”

The scheme further envisages a pipeline to carry water to Israel from upstream Anatolian rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Not only is this plan catered for in the recently-announced military pact between Israel and Ankara, its implementation will be devastating for Syria and Iraq. The execution of this joint Israeli-Turkish venture requires that land and sea routes between the Ceyhan border, through Syria and Lebanon, and to the Lebanese-Israeli border, be militarised.

Michel Chossudovsky asks in his article ‘The war on Lebanon and the battle for oil:’

“Is this not one of the hidden objectives of the war on Lebanon? Open up a space which enables Israel to control a vast territory extending from the Lebanese border through Syria to Turkey.”

Israel is keen to play a more dominant role in the Middle East and seeks to achieve a degree of economic autonomy by becoming a key player in oil politics. Its military programme is increasingly looking like being tailored to the region’s strategic oil pipelines and by the Western oil companies commanding the pipeline passages. Of course to punch above its weight it needs outside help, hence alliances with the US and more recently with Turkey and NATO.

Chossudovsky’s oft-cited piece “Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon details the alliances and agreements which apparently underpin the war with Hezbollah.

“We are not dealing with a limited conflict between the Israeli Armed Forces and Hezbollah as conveyed by the Western media. The Lebanese War Theatre is part of a broader US military agenda, which encompasses a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean into the heartland of Central Asia. The war on Lebanon must be viewed as ‘a stage’ in this broader ‘military road map’.”

Significant, for Chossudovsky, is the Turkey-Israel alliance which involves military and intelligence sharing on Iraq, Iran and Syria, as well as joint military exercises and training.

Pepe Escobar, writing for Asia Times, stresses Israel’s water needs as partly behind the recent war in Lebanon. : “There’s also the all-important matter of the waters of the Litani River in southern Lebanon. Israel might as well prepare the terrain now for the eventual annexation of the Litani. Beyond Lebanon, Israel is mostly interested also in Syria. The motive: the all-important pipeline route from Kirkuk, in Iraqi Kurdistan, to Haifa. Enter Israel as a major player in Pipelineistan. So Israel wants to grab water (and territory) from Palestine, water (and territory) from Lebanon and oil from Iraq. This all has to do with the inevitable – the 21st-century energy wars.”( Link.)

Seeking greater independence and an enhanced role in the Middle East, the smell of profits all around, Israeli aggression now becomes more understandable.

Long war

Tel Aviv recently announced it was in for a “long war” – clearly not with Hezbollah. It has been stockpiling weapons for several years and was re-supplied throughout the war with Hezbollah by the US. On top of its arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads it has in excess of 500 bunker-busting bombs, only a few, by all accounts, used recently in Lebanon. Clearly Israel is preparing for a widening and intense conflict. Speaking of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said: “We need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come into the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us, or be confronted.”

Can this hypocritical statement be interpreted as anything other than a serious threat of violence to those Middle Eastern countries that would stand in the way of profit-hungry masters of war and their ambitions for global domination of the planet’s vital resources?

Seymour Hersh has repeatedly asserted that President Bush ordered all-out war against Iran shortly after his re-election in 2004. Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative, amongst other sources, sides with Hersh in arguing that vice-president Dick Cheney has drawn up a war plan for Iran inclusive of the possible use of nuclear weapons.

US Defence Secretary Don Rumsfeld has placed US forces on alert and Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force acknowledges: “We’re now at the point where we are essentially on alert. We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes in half a day or less.”

Dan Plesch (Guardian, 8 August) suggests President Bush has at his disposal: “200 strategic bombers (B52-B1-B2- F117A) and US Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles. One B2 bomber dropped 80,500lb bombs on separate targets in 22 seconds in a test flight. Using just half the available force, 10,000 targets could be attacked almost simultaneously. This strike power alone is sufficient to destroy all major Iranian political, military, economic and transport capabilities.”

Dangerous times

We live at a dangerous stage of human history, in which the greatest crime a country can commit is to have more than its fair share of resources in a world in which the leading superpower is seeking full-spectrum dominance. Iran’s real and unforgivable crime – leaving aside its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment programme – is to have enviable oil and gas reserves, to control access to the Persian Gulf , which is a vital oil and gas transhipment route to Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world, and to have contemplated oil deals with a serious rival for US supremacy, China. With China expected to have oil demands similar to US levels within 20 years, already consuming vast resources of coal, iron and steel, not to mention almost 70 percent of the world’s cement supplies on a single dam project, the panic button has clearly been pressed.

As Socialists we are naturally fearful as we watch events unfold; fearful for our class, our fellows throughout the world and for whom we hold no ill feelings. As always, we refuse to take sides in conflict, seeing all war as rooted in the desire to make profit, and viewing workers, wherever they are, united as one class with the same basic needs and common interest, diametrically opposed to the interests of those who would urge them to kill each other.

 Before the slaughter begins again, we once more take the opportunity to declare our heartfelt solidarity with the workers of all countries, and their true common cause. We appeal to workers to organise consciously and politically and to use the power at their disposal to head off the threatening bloodshed, and secure the space we need in order to build a world of peace and stability. As ever, we appeal to the workers of all lands to join with us in campaigning for a system of society where there are no leaders, no classes, no states or governments, no borders, no force or coercion; a world where the earth’s natural and industrial resources are commonly owned and democratically controlled and where production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the benefit of all; a world of free access to the necessaries of life. A world without waste, or want, or war.’

John Bissett

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/09/after-hezbullah-war-with-iran-2006.html

When one thought that the insane behaviour of capitalist states couldn’t get any more demented the attack on Iran by Israel shows that the madness that drive entities to follow the fundamental aggressive nature of capitalism has now reached an unthinkable level of craziness.

The position of the SPGB/World Socialist Movement regarding war has always been absolutely and unequivocally against actions which ultimately always hurt and impact the majority working class the most

This current escalation of conflict between Israel and Iran has the potential, has as the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, to drag the world to ultimate devastation.

At the very least, depending upon the response of Iran, it could cause a severe collapse in the capitalist world economy.

The peace talks between Iran and the United States were due to take place this weekend. Some think that Israel’s actions were to ensure that successful diplomacy and negotiation did not occur.

Iran has been categorised for many years by others as a rogue state. This new threat to the world as a whole means that there are other rogue nations, Israel and the United States. The United States is complicit with Israel in the ‘Pearl harbour’ of 2025

We say a plague on all your houses but whilst capitalism continues to exist then the world depends upon the sanity of the actors within its system. The recent events of the past few years and the one which took place within the last twenty four hours demonstrate that aggression toward capitalism by the majority working class, and the replacement of capitalism with socialism, is the only rational and sensible course for the world to follow.

From the March 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We’ll be watching the news headlines, or maybe there’ll be a news flash, and we’ll be informed that the RAF, along with the USAF’s long-range B-52 bombers, and the Israeli Air Force have carried out overnight bombing raids across Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, radar stations, airfields and anti-aircraft bases.

As in the case of Iraq, there will be the prior attempt at the mass manufacture of consent. Bush and Blair, and indeed any other European leaders who think they will have something to gain, will peddle the line about newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They’ll say he is another Saddam Hussein who, if Iran’s nuclear programme is not halted, will be able to lob a nuclear missile at the West in a few minutes and that Iran is supporting international terrorism, financing terrorist cells all over the world, including Al Qaeda. The case will be made that Iran is still very much a part of the axis of evil, first referred to in George W Bush’s State of the Union Address in 2002, and its people, secretly harbouring thoughts of Western-style democracy, are crying out for regime change.

Indeed, it has already started. In his January 2005 State of the Union Address, Bush said: “Iran remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.” The White House has in fact been steadily creating an anti-Iran climate in the US for some time. The Wall Street Journal (3 February) reported that “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”

Both Bush and Blair have already hinted at military intervention and Israel has previously threatened Iran. The New York Times (13 January) reported Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli Mossad, declaring that “Israeli policy makers all agree that a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out”. The Sunday Times (11 December) had already reported that Ariel Sharon had instructed Israel’s air force to get ready for a military attack against Iran by the end of March, when Israeli elections are scheduled. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, gave notice that if Sharon did not wipe out Iran’s nuclear installations, he would see the job was done if he became prime minister in March.

A year ago it was reported that Iran was anticipating an attack by the US and that it was ready for an impressionable response within 15 minutes. For over a year Iran has been mobilising recruits into citizens’ militia and has made plans to engage in the kind of “asymmetrical” warfare that has bogged down US troops in neighbouring Iraq.

Iran has sizeable oil reserves that look quite enticing and which other countries have been eyeing up for some time. The highly regarded Oil and Gas Journal reported last year that 125.8 billion barrels of oil were in Iran just waiting to be pumped out. Iran is also the number two producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Most of Iran’s crude oil is to be found in an area known as Khuzestan, bordering Iraq and the Persian Gulf and the location of Iran’s largest untapped oil fields – Yadavaran and Azadegan. There are serious profits to be had here but, tellingly, the Chinese state oil company China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation has a 50 percent stake in the vast Yadavaran field.

Russia too has a claim in Iranian oil. Three years ago Russia decided to expand its oil procuring and distribution methods by shipping Russian crude to Iran, to be refined for domestic consumption, with Iran delivering a corresponding amount of oil to Russia, thus decreasing the cost of exports via tankers loaded at Black Sea ports and making Russian oil accessible to buyers at competitive prices.

So it’s unlikely that Russia and China will agree to a UN Security Council Resolution against Iran which could justify military action if it is thought to have been breached; for they have strong vested interests in Iran which they are desperate not to jeopardise. Not that this will bother the US in the least, as both Russia and especially China are economic powers that threaten US global ambitions, so any attack on Iran, which consequently leads to the overthrow of the present regime in Tehran, upsets the long-term ambitions of China and Russia.

Iran would be no push-over. The US would not enjoy a hasty capitulation of the Tehran regime, as was the case with Baghdad, exhausted by over a decade of perpetual bombardment and sanctions. The Iranian army comprises about 350,000 active-duty soldiers and 220,000 conscripts and you can add to this 120,000 of the elite Revolutionary Guard. The country’s navy and air force total 70,000 men. Between them, the armed forces have about 2,000 tanks, 300 combat aircraft, and three submarines, hundreds of helicopters and at least a dozen Russian-made Scud missile launchers, the kind Saddam fired at Israel during the first Gulf War of 1991. Iran also has an unknown number of Shahab missiles with a range of more than 1,500 miles. With this in mind you can begin to appreciate the remarks of John Bolton, now the US ambassador to the UN, in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq: “Real men want to go to Iran”.

True, a lot of Iran’s military hardware is old, thirty years old in some cases, and no match for the state-of-the-art weaponry the US is wont to use. Nevertheless, it is still weaponry and more than capable of delivering untold damage to US forces or any other country within striking distance of its missiles perceived as being pro-US

With Iran controlling the Strait of Hormutz, oil tankers could easily be bombed as well tankers and platforms elsewhere in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And Tehran could escalate any conflict, giving the nod for Lebanese Hezbollah militant attacks on Israel, sanctioning also assaults on US interests throughout Central Asia.

Oil Bourse

This month Iran intends to launch its Oil Bourse which will facilitate the future trade of oil in the euro instead of the US dollar. According to John Pilger writing in the New Statesman (13 February) this could have far-reaching consequences:

“The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant, if not, in the long term, disastrous. At present the dollar is, on paper, a worthless currency bearing the burden of a national debt exceeding $8trn and a trade deficit of more than $600bn. The cost of the Iraq adventure alone, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could be $2trn. America’s military empire, with its wars and 700-plus bases and limitless intrigues, is funded by creditors in Asia, principally China. That oil is traded in dollars is critical in maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. What the Bush regime fears is not Iran’s nuclear ambitions but the effect of the world’s fourth-biggest oil producer and trader breaking the dollar monopoly. Will the world’s central banks then begin to shift their reserve holdings and, in effect, dump the dollar? Saddam Hussein was threatening to do the same when he was attacked.”

Likewise, Krassimir Petrov, Professor of Economics at the American University of Bulgaria, writing of the establishment of an Oil Bourse in the January edition of Energy Bulletin, said:

“In economic terms, this represents [a great threat] because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for euros to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the US dollar altogether. Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans … The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar.”

Addicted to oil

George Bush, in his January 2006 State of the Union Address made an interesting statement: “The US is addicted to oil”. That’s perhaps the truest statement Bush has ever said, but he’s mistaken if this is meant to signify that the US is going into detox and will be weaning itself off oil. At the moment there is just too much US corporate interest in the Middle East and Central Asia for the US to even think of cutting back on one barrel of oil.

Furthermore, there are dangerous competitors out there, who have an insatiable thirst for oil, so it’s important that the US has a say in who has access to the world’s oil resources. The US is not that dependent upon Middle East oil for its own domestic consumption, but is aware that one way to control its foremost economic rivals is to influence just how much oil they can have and at what price. With China a fastly growing economic, political and military power, naked aggression is a strategy the US has been and will continue to be prepared to pursue throughout the oil rich regions of the Middle East and central Asia, regardless of the cost of life and the dent to the US’s global image. The dollar needs defending, the world’s oil resources need to be controlled and military bases built. Dealing with Iran is just one move in the US game-plan to maintain its global hegemony – the real enemy is yet to be confronted.

But for now Washington will use its man at the UN, John “Real Man” Bolton, to help hype a global crisis which could consequently be used to justify attacks on Iran, with or without the blessing of the Security Council. No evidence exists as to Iranian desires to create an atomic bomb, but the country is enriching uranium – legally, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which some pro-US nuclear states have refused to sign up to. This is the excuse that is being used to whip up support another war for oil.’

John Bissett

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2022/03/real-men-want-to-go-to-iran-2006.html