22nd December 2005

We are getting dangerously closer to Iran being the new Iraq. The Iranian President's comments about wiping Israel off the map are inexcusable even if they have been standard rhetoric since the Islamic revolution of 1979 and part of shoring up his support (i). However equally inexcusable is our double-standard response.

The Citizen has highlighted the issue of Iranian nuclear-weapons development. At least Iran is fully compliant with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel won't sign up to the NPT or allow inspections. Even Britain is failing it's own obligations under the NPT. We cannot have one law for us and another for others (ii). Britain should be joining Gulf Arab leaders in calling for a nuclear-free Middle East and meeting our own NPT obligations.

Iran have just offered the US a key role in building their reactors. However many like the former UN Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, predict that none of it will be enough to satisfy the US and Israel, who they say are looking for an excuse to attack (iii).

A key issue here is once again oil. Britain's role in Iran since 1933 has largely centred on how best to control the oil (iv) and it is Iran's threat to the US economy by moving to trade petrol in euros rather than dollars that is crucial now. Such a move has the potential to cause an economic crisis in the US and helps to explain why the US is so determined to remove the leaders of countries like Iran, Iraq and Venezuela (v).

The Iraq war has been a complete disaster with the loss of over 100,000 lives and increased terrorism. We must not start another war.

Martin Whiteside,
Stroud Distrct Green party


Notes:

(i) The attitude of the Iranian government is difficult to decipher, not least because of the complex power politics around the formation of the cabinet of conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The comments about Israel by Ahmadinejad were part of local political shoring up manoeuvres in the face of the impending UN Security Council's condemnation of Iran's supposed intentions to build a nuclear bomb. In response, Ahmadinejad sacked his ambassador to London and announced a trade embargo of British goods, busily adopting the tactics of Saddam: when under threat, pose as the defender of Palestine and lambast the Israeli state. Ahmadinejad was a student of Khomeini and hopes to revitalise the decaying Islamic revolution. Despite the continued grip on power by Khomeini supporters, a large part of Iran's youthful population is far more hostile to fundamentalism than before. If the UK and US wait a while longer, there could be an Islamic democracy in the region. But that's the problem: any alternative to Westernised corporate democracy must be avoided and an excuse for war quickly found.

(ii) The overthrow of Saddam Hussein may well have been the factor that pushed the Iranian government into taking a strategic decision to further develop it's nuclear programme. Iranians insist that their programme is peaceful, but like others they may have decided to take out their own insurance policy. Israel is beefing up its own security after the perceived Iranian threat. The Iraq war may have set off a new nuclear arms race.

An Israeli news report has suggested that Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran could be “only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb”. A careful reading of his statement doesn't support that, but the impression was given in the Israeli media that this was the real state of affairs. Binyamin Netanyahu has also called for Israel to take “bold and courageous action” against Iran, this being a clearly understood euphemism for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. This comment, and the first Jerusalem Post article, was followed by a senior Israeli general smilingly responding to a question on CNN about how far Israel would go to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons: "2,000 kilometres".

It has also transpired this month under information gained under the Freedom of Information Act that Britain helped Israel obtain its nuclear bomb 40 years ago by selling it 20 tonnes of 'heavy water'.

(iii) Read Paul Rogers at:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/iran_israel_3106.jsp

(iv) The UK and US have clubbed together to mould political events in Iran to their strategic needs. Back in 1933, the government of the Iranian King (Shah) guaranteed British control over Iranian oil for 60 years. Leading a movement against this, Mohammed Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister in 1951 and quickly started to enforce an Oil Nationalisation Act. Not best pleased at potentially losing their grip on the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the CIA and MI6 agreed to support the Shah and help him dismiss the Prime Minster and his nationalist cabinet. Shortly after, massive rioting erupted in support of the Prime Minister and the Shah legged it to Italy. But three days later the spooks weighed in and a tank attack on Mossadegh’s home was organised. Within a few hours Mossadegh and his top cabinet leaders surrendered. The Shah promptly flew back to Iran and ruled the country with an iron fist for another 29 years, toeing the Western line and leaving the oil multinationals in charge of Iran’s black gold.

(v) Iraq started to trade oil in euros in 1999. Four years later Iran did the same and may soon be joined by others. Such a move would mean consuming nations having to swap some of their dollars for euros to be able to buy or sell oil, leading to a freefall in the value of the dollar. The US economy is already in poor shape and is only propped up by rabid consumption. The US is the most debt-ridden nation on earth - owing $3,500,000,000,000 to various creditors. China, meanwhile, holds the second largest reserves of dollars in the world which means they could wreak havoc on the US economy by selling. Similar tactics against currencies have been well used as an economic weapon by the US, not just against upstart third world countries but also against the UK during the Suez Crisis in 1956.