| His troops are still dying in Iraq, but Bush already has his eyes on another war in the Gulf, against another oil-rich state. And Jack Straw is already starting to line up the British government behind him... |
First Iraq, then Iran? The propaganda machine warms up again
WORKERS, MAR 2005 ISSUE
Not content with the continuing death toll on its soldiers in Iraq, the US is rattling its sabres in the direction of Iran. The US government alleges that Iran is not offering full access and cooperation to nuclear inspectors. Bush says that Iran is stonewalling. Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly said that Iran is giving its inspectors full access. For example, it reported in September 2004 that Iran has let inspectors into every site to which they have sought access.
The US government claims that Iran is using its nuclear facilities to produce nuclear weapons, but this is not proven. The IAEA's Director-General Mohamed El-Baradei concluded from all its inspections, "Iran has no nuclear weapons program." He then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear weapons programme, but I personally don't rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons programme in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives. There is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to build nuclear weapons."
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw echoes the US government, "It is a difficult issue for everybody because you have a country there in which there has been an unquestioned breach of its international obligations under the non-proliferation treaty." There has not been such a breach. The Non-Proliferation Treaty allows countries to get nuclear enrichment technology and to enrich uranium to the level needed to produce nuclear energy.
But even if Iran had a nuclear weapons programme, or indeed nuclear weapons, this would not be a legitimate cause for war in international law. The USA, Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan have all had programmes to develop nuclear weapons and all now have nuclear weapons, but that does not justify an attack on any of them. Iran, even if it developed nuclear weapons, would do what most other nuclear powers do, keep the weapons to deter aggression by other countries.
Armed and ready in the Gulf: US Hornet aircraft on the flight deck aboard the carrier USS Harry S. Truman , which is providing close air support and conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions over Iraq from its station in the Persian Gulf
Covert operations
Iran has never attacked another country. It was the subject of a covert US-British operation in 1953, and a failed US armed operation in 1980, both of which violated its territorial frontiers. Also in 1980, the Iraqi government, with US and British support, attacked Iran and waged war against it for eight years. Iran has not been implicated in any act of terror against a Western country since 1996.
In sum, Iran is not a threat. It is not about to attack anybody. There is no reason to attack Iran. But there are threats to attack Iran. Who is responsible, and why? In November 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called on the US and British governments to attack Iran once they are finished with Iraq. The Israeli defence minister said in November 2003, "In no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession." The head of Israel's intelligence service said that nuclear weapons in Iran were the greatest threat to Israel since 1948.
In August 2004, Condoleeza Rice declined to comment when asked if the US government would support an Israeli attack on Iran. On 8 September 2004, Sharon said that the international community had not done enough to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons and warned that Israel would take its own measures to defend itself. That same month, the US government sold Israel 500 bunker-busting BLU-109 bombs and 2,500 one-tonne bombs.
Bush claims he now has a mandate to democratise the Middle East and has not ruled out attacking Iran. On 20 January, Vice President Dick Cheney called Iran one of the biggest threats to world peace and warned Iran that the US government would not tolerate their ambitions to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.
He said, "You look around the world at potential trouble spots and Iran is right at the top of the list. One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if in fact the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, that the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward." Cheney did not warn Israel against acting as he outlined.
No Security Council Resolution has authorised the threat or use of force against Iran. Any attack on Iran would be illegal, a breach of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force. Article 2 (4) states, "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any member or state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
After his January talks with Rice, Jack Straw welcomed Bush's inaugural address in which Bush declared America's global mission to be the spread of democracy to the darkest corners of the world. Straw added, "I expressed support for what President Bush had said. After all, what he was saying was endorsing the very eloquent central tenets of the UN charter — democracy." Actually, the Charter is about preventing the scourge of war by respecting every nation's right to sovereignty and self-determination, the basic principle of international law.
Aggression
Conspiracies to commit wars of aggression have a pattern. First, deny that war is on the agenda. For example, before attacking Iraq, Blair said that his approach was the best, indeed the only, way of avoiding war; Colin Powell denied that Iraq was in US sights and Rice said, "We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this."
Now Straw says that Britain would not join in any attack on Iran, and Rice said on 4 February that the question of attacking Iran is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. We have diplomatic means to do this.
As a second feature of the conspiracy, never rule war out as a possibility, to be threatened, publicised and war-gamed. For example, Javier Solana, the EU's foreign minister, says that the EU's military force should be used alongside the USA against any state to stop WMD proliferation. This suggests approval of the illegal attack on Iraq and prepares the ground for a future illegal attack on Iran involving the EU.
Third, constantly assert that the targeted country is run by an outlaw regime that deserves punishment. For example, Bush described Iraq and Iran as parts of the axis of evil in his 2002 State of the Union address, and now claims that Iran is a threat to world peace.
Fourth, refuse genuine negotiations, demand that the targeted country obeys unilateral orders, and trash all those — the UN, the IAEA, the French — who may be calling for negotiations. Bush ordered Iraq to reveal its non-existent WMD and is now ordering Iran to stop developing its nuclear facilities, saying that the USA will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Fifth, when the targeted country refuses to submit, accuse it of refusing all negotiations, claim that it understands no language but force, and prepare to attack.
All parts of the conspiracy to make war on Iran are in place. Remaining silent will allow the war junkies, headed by Bush and Blair, to continue feeding their habit — at our expense.
