Fri 30th March 8pm Cassidy’s Hotel Parnell Square East Dublin - Public Meeting - Iran and Syria

30/03/2012 - 20:00
30/03/2012 - 22:00

Irish Anti-War Movement - Public Meeting:

'Solidarity with The People of Syria & Iran -

Guest speakers to include;

Simon Assaf
Dr. Abbas Edalet

Plus live link-up with Shirin Shafaie.

All are very welcome to attend. plus Facebook & #Twitter




There is real imminent danger of another war in the Middle East. The US and Britain are attempting to engineer a regime change in Syria while crippling sanctions have been imposed on Iran and its scientists have been executed as a prelude to war.

The Irish Anti-war Movement (IAWM) supports the right of the peoples in the countries of the Middle East to determine their own future but we are critical of any attempt by western powers to intervene there. As we have seen in Libya, the regime change veiled as ‘humanitarian intervention’ has cost at least 30,000 lives and reports from NGO’s tell of continued reprisals and torture. Military intervention only brings more deaths, division and misery.

Syria: between revolution and imperialism

Jamie Allinson - Socialist Review

Both those who call for intervention and those who condemn the revolution in Syria are wrong. Jamie Allinson argues that Syrians can liberate themselves

On 23 February the self-appointed "Friends of Syria" met in Tunis to demand, in the words of Barack Obama, that "the international community...send a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition". Given that this group includes the US, UK and France, who have never rallied anyone to demand Israel's withdrawal from occupied Syrian territory, and Saudi Arabia, whose troops have enforced a bloody terror against the Bahraini revolution, Syrian activists might think that with friends like these they don't need enemies. But where is the Syrian uprising to go, apparently trapped between a regime determined to bring the country down around it and imperialist projects to deflect the revolution?


The question of foreign intervention divides both the Syrian opposition and the left in the region and beyond. In the face of the regime's brutal response to the uprising, which has seen 6,000 people killed and tens of thousands injured or imprisoned, some in the Syrian opposition and in besieged cities such as Homs have come to see foreign intervention as a shortcut to the ousting of Assad. The opposition is not homogeneous, however. There are three main organised elements to it: the Syrian National Council (SNC), the Local Coordinating Committees (LCC) and the "Free Syrian Army" (FSA).




Can the Syrian Revolution Succeed - Simon Assaf - 1st March 2012

Syria’s crisis is leading us to unlikely bedfellows

David Cameron and William Hague are at risk of over-simplifying a dangerous and complex situation

18 Feb 2012

When two car bombings killed nearly 50 people in the heart of the Syrian capital of Damascus just before Christmas, we in the West were quick to challenge claims made on state TV that the atrocities had been carried out by al-Qaeda. We were inclined to award more credibility to the Syrian rebels, who denied that the terror group was involved at all, and insisted that the attacks had been cynically staged by the government, perhaps as a bid for international sympathy.

However, all doubt ended last week when James Clapper, director of US national intelligence, informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Damascus bombings “had all the earmarks of an al-Qaeda attack”. Mr Clapper added that “we believe al-Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria”. So, it’s official. Al-Qaeda is acknowledged as an ally of Britain and America in our desire to overturn the Syrian government.

Think about it. Ten years ago, in the wake of the destruction of the Twin Towers, we invaded Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda. Now the world’s most notorious terror organisation wants to join a new “coalition of the willing” in Syria (not just al-Qaeda: yesterday the Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir staged a march through west London in support of their Syrian brothers and the establishment of the Khilafah state).

Groundhog Day war on Iran: here we go again by John Rees

The heart of Jonathan Freedland’s argument against the Stop the War Coalition in his recent Guardian article is that every case for military intervention must be taken on its own merits. It follows that it may be right to attack Iran and Syria when it was not right to attack Iraq.

Freedland argues the mistake of the anti-war movement is to think that ‘Because that's how it was with it will be true of Iran, Syria or any future conflict. And so the peace movement ends up fighting the last war – specifically, the Iraq war... We need to see again what we understood well before Iraq: that every case is different.’

Ever since I read this I’ve been envious of Freedland’s state of mind.

How wonderful it would be, I’m thinking, to wake up in the morning and confront the world as if it were born anew that very day. No event from the past impinges on our knowledge of the present. History is not our guide since it may all go differently today. It’s a kind of perpetually optimistic Groundhog Day.

But, as has long been recognised, those who forget history are doomed to repeat its errors. And Freedland himself, far from treating Iran and Syria as different from Iraq, exactly repeats the pro-war arguments from the Iraq era.

Freedland suggests that the anti-war movement is not, like him, ‘appalled at the sight of the world doing nothing as children and their parents are killed and maimed by Bashar al-Assad's troops’. Substitute ‘Saddam Hussein’ and the ‘Kurds of Iraq’ or ‘the Taliban’ and the ‘Women in Afghanistan’ and you have a precise reproduction of the moral blackmail that the neo-cons practiced in the run up to the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Syndicate content