In the topsy-turvy world of imperialist politics, any country resisting potential aggression is seen as a threat to peace. But those who say "doing nothing is not an option" about Iran have got it completely wrong...
There is an option in dealing with Iran – leave it alone
WORKERS, JAN 2008 ISSUE
What do we do about Iran? The question is so often posed, along with the fatuous "doing nothing is not an option", that it has become almost impossible to suggest that in fact doing nothing is the only sensible plan.
From the American primaries to the UN security council to our own political pygmies it is accepted beyond question that Iran, like Iraq before, is a threat to peace in the region when in fact the peace has been disturbed by the aggressive acts of the US and Britain. Since the fall of the Shah, Iran has been involved in one war, one of defence, which nobody denies was started by Saddam.
In the past ten years alone the Labour government has been involved in five wars, two of which are ongoing, and reaffirmed its commitment to a Trident replacement, in our capable hands of course simply an innocuous deterrent. The unashamedly interventionist US is armed to the teeth with both nuclear and conventional weapons, but both governments point the finger at others. Like the imperialists of yesteryear Labour and its neocon counterparts in Washington believe they alone must shoulder the white man's burden of civilizing and bringing peace by means of war. They really believe that it is their right and duty to sort out benighted Johnny foreigner with his strange customs and religions and introduce the benefits of Walmart and Halliburton.
Nothing could be more likely to entrench the regimes they find so odious and make them more likely to assert their right to self-determination.
Iran continues to develop its nuclear power programme, begun in 1974 during the reign of the Shah with American blessing. At that time the Stanford Research Institute estimated a requirement of 20,000 MW by 1996. The present programme aims to deliver a mere 7,000 MW by 2025, fifty years after the start of development, hardly a mad rush to war.
Imam Square, Isfahan, central Iran Throughout its development Iran, a signatory to the international non-proliferation treaty, has cooperated fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency and allowed spot checks on its sites. In November 2004 the IAEA reported that it had not found any evidence of concealed weapons development and that all material had been accounted for.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA (the body responsible for ensuring compliance with international agreements on nuclear development) complains that his task of ensuring peaceful use is hampered by calls for action against Iran.
He says, "Imagine what a regime would feel if they hear that force will be used against them, in addition to being called names, in addition to talk about regime change. Even if they were not going to develop nuclear weapons today, this would be a sure recipe for them to go down that route and try to accelerate a programme to develop a nuclear weapon to defend themselves. The nuclear issue is the tip of the iceberg, it masks a lot of grievances, security, competition for power in the middle East, economic issues...There are a lot of other issues that need to be resolved."
At the sharp end
Despite being the man at the sharp end of the issue ElBaradei's words carry little weight in the White House since his persistent failure to come up with evidence of Saddam's nuclear programme on the eve of war. But as a man who visits Iran and talks regularly to the Iranian officials involved his views should be taken very seriously as the question of Iranian nuclear ambitions can only be seen in the context of a Middle Eastern political situation which is the legacy of Bush and Blair.
Before the war Saddam was the self-appointed leader in the region, built up by the USA as public enemy number one and as such automatically popular with Arab nationalist opinion. For all this he was impotent and safely contained by sanctions and military encirclement. His army was broken and his was the only country in the world which could not control its own airspace.
Iran and Iraq had fought themselves to a standstill so there was a balance of power and apart from occasional bouts of populist anti-Zionist, anti-American posturing there was no clear leading power and very little opportunity for armed religious or nationalist groups to threaten government power.
Now, thanks to the meddling of British and American governments the region is in turmoil and it is clear that when we leave as one day we must a power vacuum will exist which Iran is best placed to fill.
Naturally as a neighbouring state Iran has interests in influencing the political makeup of Iraq and by removing effective government the invasion has presented a golden opportunity. American bellicosity has bolstered the popularity of President Ahmadinejad, who knows that the US and Britain – the two most active imperialist powers – are in no position to mount an invasion, having spent all their political, moral and military capital in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Blair has gone and Bush's days are numbered, leaving the legacy of their disastrous foreign policies. The Iranian government has drawn the lesson from Iraq that the best insurance against invasion is strength and self determination. Tony Blair was right when he said appeasement doesn't work against aggression.
Saddam consistently appeased the warmongers until his country was weak enough to invade with ease. He allowed foreign powers to overfly his own airspace and shoot down his jets at will. Foreign powers controlled his oil exports and how the resultant revenues were spent. On the eve of war he publicly destroyed defensive missiles to which the invasion force objected.
North Korea, another member of the "Axis of Evil", has by contrast been left alone precisely because of the belief that it might have nuclear weapons. In the words of ElBaradei, quoted in the Financial Times in February, "You cannot bomb knowledge. If you do [bomb] you put the [Iranians] in high gear for developing a nuclear weapon. We know that if you jolt a country's pride, all the factions, right, left and centre will get together and try to accelerate a programme to develop a nuclear weapon to defend themselves."