An article by Stefan Simanowitz, founder and coordinator

of the Iraq Human Shield Movement who helped Reg Keys'

election campaign, from 'GreenWorld ‑ Green Party Mag'.


This article about Iran and Iraq, and the so‑called 'nuclear dispute', suggests compelling reasons for believing that the 'dispute' is just an excuse for the USA to commence bombing Iran pre‑emptively. The 'pre­emptively' epithet applies both to the notion that attack would prevent Iran pursuing malign policies ‑ as Bush & Co claim ‑ and to the advantage of acting so swiftly that public opposition and the peace movement would have no time to organize and demonstrably object.

Stefan argues that, although Iraq is now clearly in chaos and the supposed mission to "bring democracy and freedom" in tatters, a tactical advantage has resulted because the oil‑flow is accessible and Iraq can't be a significant political force whilst chaos and disunity persist. Advocates of the Iraq war proclaimed a range of benefits that would result yet only toppling Saddam was achieved; and the cause of terrorism has actually advanced! A downside to emasculating Iraqi political potency is the removal of a potential counter to increasing Iranian influence.

Bush increasingly ratchets up the hate rhetoric, branding Iran the pariah stat‑e on grounds of freedom, democracy, human rights and weapons. This is perverted logic since the USA has itself an appalling human rights record, as does ally Saudi Arabia, for example, which also represses free speech, woman's rights and democracy. The USA is the ultimate offender on every count of weapons and weapons' misuse. It looks increasingly like a quick‑fix attempt to prepare opinion for early attack, seizing the advantages of preparedness and positioning which the present US presence in the area affords. The Iraq example shows that the UN would be circumvented or ignored.

There are parallels between Iraq, which had to prove it had no weapons to avoid attack, and Iran which now has to prove it hasn't nuclear weapons' ambitions. And the logic of attacking early is that Iran would be an easier conquest before nuclear weapons than after. Stefan warns that the anti‑war movement shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security by the image of Iraq disaster'. He quotes a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."


NTH, 12 Mwb, 2006