This article first appeared in the October 2006 issue of Socialism and Liberation magazine.
On Aug. 31, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohammed el-Baradei issued a report to the IAEA Board of Governors and the U.N. Security Council. The report contained the obvious truth that Iran had not halted activities related to uranium enrichment.
But another part of the report received far less coverage in the corporate media. Inspections “have not uncovered any
|
On Aug. 22—the exact deadline it had originally committed to—Iran officially responded to the so-called “incentives” package that European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana delivered in June. The Iranian response could have served as the basis for serious negotiations. “If the Europeans pay proper attention to positive and clear signals included in Iran’s response, the case will be solved through negotiation and without tension,” said the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hamid Reza Asefi.
U.N. Security Council preempts negotiations
But the prevailing mood in Washington has not been for negotiations. The U.N. Security Council, under intense pressure from the U.S. government, concluded that the Iranian response was “not timely enough.”
On July 31, only three weeks before Iran’s scheduled response, the Security Council passed Resolution 1696. The resolution set Aug. 31 as the deadline for Iran to halt all activities related to uranium enrichment, including research, or face possible sanctions.
The Security Council action came at the end of a nearly four-year process during which the imperialist countries known as the EU3—Britain, Germany and France—have been pressuring Iran to end its nuclear program.
Details of the original package and the Iranian response have not been made public, but the broad outlines of the two sides’ positions are well known.
The United States spearheads the “international community”—the veto holders in the Security Council, mainly imperialist powers—in accusing Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It cites as evidence Iran’s failure to promptly report its previous nuclear activities to the IAEA.
Yet, the IAEA itself reported, “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities … were related to a nuclear weapons program.”
The stated objective of the U.N. Security Council is to halt the development of Iran’s progress in uranium enrichment, an important phase in nuclear technology.
Unlike this international, gated community of imperialists, the nations of the underdeveloped world have taken a far more sympathetic approach to Iran. In late May, a ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement—which includes over 100 states—defended Iran’s right to develop its peaceful nuclear program. Much of the oppressed world views the pressures on Iran as another example of the major capitalist powers stifling independent technological progress.
The E.U. package offers Iran negotiations with the participation of the United States. But the precondition for the negotiations is for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment activities—precisely what is to be negotiated. Iran’s refusal to meet this precondition is frequently used as evidence of its refusal to negotiate.
Iran has declared again and again that it is only interested in developing nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons.
In the words of Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad-Javad Zarif, “To demonstrate the peaceful nature of its program, Iran submitted its nuclear facilities to an unprecedented inspection by the IAEA in the preceding years, which enabled the agency to organize the most robust inspection it has ever carried out. It included more than 2,000 inspector-days of scrutiny in the past three years.”
Iran has asked clarifying questions regarding the package, including the willingness of the Security Council to recognize explicitly Iran’s inalienable right to nuclear development. Iran’s response to the E.U. package again expresses its eagerness to negotiate on all issues involved without preconditions, including uranium enrichment.
Washington leads charge
Predictably, hours after the Iranian response, the U.S. government accused Iran of failing to meet its obligations. Eager to prevent the possibility of negotiations, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton stated that the United States was already working on a resolution that it will introduce to the Security Council shortly after the Aug. 31 deadline. The resolution, Bolton claims, will call for sanctions against Iran, starting with a travel ban on Iranian authorities and a freezing of assets.
According to the Aug. 26 Los Angeles Times, Bolton indicated that the United States will pursue an “independent” coalition for penalizing and sanctioning Iran. Bolton said, “You don’t need Security Council authority to impose sanctions.”
The United States is mindful of the possibility that Russia and China might not go along with the U.S. plan to circumvent real negotiations and to rush into sanctioning Iran.
Bolton reveals how the U.S. government actually sees the “multilateral” approach. To the extent that the United States can use the cover of the U.N. Security Council to advance its objective of “regime change” in Iran, a diplomatic, multilateral approach is, of course, desirable. If and when this “international community” ceases to serve that purpose, or “becomes irrelevant,” then the United States will act unilaterally.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1696 is unfair and baseless from the standpoint of international law. Iran is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The other nuclear-armed countries in the region—Israel, Pakistan and India—have refused to sign that treaty, with no threats or consequences.
Originally signed in 1968, the NPT entitles its signatories to the peaceful development of nuclear energy and obligates nuclear-armed nations to dismantle their nuclear weapons and provide technical assistance to non-nuclear nations.
The United States, Britain and France—the first to whip up the hysteria over Iran’s nuclear technology development—have no intention of dismantling their enormous arsenals of nuclear weapons.
A ‘new Middle East’ without independence
U.S. threats of direct military intervention and the possibility of sanctions against Iran have no more to do with nuclear arms in Iran than the invasion of Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction. Washington’s strategy in the Middle East has long consisted of bringing down independent states and breaking down mass resistance, like in Palestine and Lebanon.
Sanctions and wars, in addition to diplomatic maneuvers, are all at the service of this strategy. When 12 years of genocidal sanctions against Iraq failed to bring about the desired “regime change,” invasion became the best imperialist option.
The imperialist dream is what Condoleezza Rice recently termed the “new Middle East”—a region where no
|
With the majority of Arab governments beholden to Washington or in shambles, the two states that now stand in the way of the “new Middle East” are Syria and Iran. This is the essence of the conflict. The nuclear issue only serves as a convenient pretext for the imperialists.
The imperialists refuse to negotiate with the Iranian regime on equal terms. Following the 1979 revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran went outside the bounds deemed permissible by the imperialist powers for oppressed nations. It has made great strides in industry and agriculture and pursued an independent economic path. As a result, Iran has become a significant force in the region and a source of support for mass struggle against U.S.-Israeli occupation and aggression.
Why Iran stands up
Given the array of forces lined up against it and the possibility of a devastating U.S. military attack, it would be understandable for Iran to bow to imperialist pressure and abandon its pursuit of nuclear technology for the sake of self-preservation. According to this view, whatever gains that could be made from nuclear technology are more than offset by the devastation that would result from sanctions and war.
The Iranian leadership is keenly aware, however, that the abandonment of their nuclear program would not put an end to the relentless drive for “regime change.” At best, it would only force the White House to find a different pretext.
In the buildup for the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration used a multitude of pretexts, from Iraq’s supposed development of weapons of mass destruction to its alleged connections to the Sept. 11 attacks to Saddam Hussein’s repression of Iraqi Kurds.
Similarly, the Bush administration has opened various propaganda fronts against Iran. Besides the nuclear question, there is Iran’s support for “terrorism”—meaning the liberation forces in the Middle East. Since the defeat of the Israeli military in Lebanon, U.S. officials have repeatedly targeted Iran for its support of Hezbollah. “The responsibility for this [Israeli invasion of Lebanon] lies with Hezbollah,” Bush claimed. “Responsibility lies also with Hezbollah’s state sponsors, Iran and Syria.”
Unable to squelch Iraqi resistance and unwilling to admit its widespread support within the Iraqi population, the Bush administration has pulled out the bogey man of the “foreign agitator.” According to U.S. Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero, “Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of these Shia extremist groups.”
The irony is, of course, that the foreign agitator interfering in Iraq is the United States military.
Yet another pretext that the United States government routinely employs is the defense of ethnic and religious minorities. This was the main justification used for attacking Yugoslavia. The population of Iran—which is majority Persian—also has Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Arabs and others. Alongside the majority Shia Muslim population, there are Sunni Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews.
Any spontaneous eruption of ethnic conflicts could provide a suitable pretext for imperialist intervention in “defense” of the minorities. Of course, these ethnic conflicts could also be orchestrated if necessary. Last year, Iranian officials accused British and U.S. officials and agent provocateurs of backing the riots and bombings in the oil-rich, majority Arab province of Khuzestan.
Iran prepares resistance
Instead of surrendering their nuclear program in order to watch “regime change” pursued under a different pretext, the Islamic Republic of Iran has decided to prepare for a possible U.S.-Israeli attack. On Aug. 19, Iran launched a series of war games to last through September and possibly into October. The military exercises, called Zolfaqar, are conducted in border provinces and regions with strategic importance in case of an attack.
According to Iran’s Brig. Gen. Kiumars Heydari, the “main objective of this exercise is to adopt new tactics and use new equipment able to cope with possible threats.” Responding to a question on the necessity of the operation, Heydari responded that Iran has “been vigilant to what has happened in the world.”
Recently, Iran has made a concerted effort to strengthen ties with other states in the crosshairs of imperialism. In addition to Syria, its regional ally, Iran has expanded its economic and political ties with Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Belarus.
During a visit to Iran in late July, President Hugo Chávez was presented with the High Medal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad explained, “Mr. Chávez is very close to Iran due to his revolutionary standpoints and also the two countries of Iran and Venezuela have various common points on regional and global issues.”
If sanctions are imposed against Iran, it will be as a tactic for regime change. But the failure of the imperialists and their lackeys to defeat mass resistance in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon is every day making the “new Middle East” seem more like a fantastic dream. The masses will never bow to their own subjugation and will firmly resist any attempt to recolonize the sovereign state of Iran.
They deserve the support of the global anti-war movement, especially in the United States.
