|
|
Issue 271, Friday 25 November 2011 - 29 Dhu al-Hijjah 1432 The dangerous hype about Iran’s nuclear programme The latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear programme alleges that Iran was building atomic weapons capabilties. Iran has denied the allegations. There is nothing new in the report that has not been published before by the IAEA. However, the IAEA cleverly hyped up the allegations by leaking information to the media. Interestingly, the IAEA did not, according to the Iranians, give them an advanced copy of the report and so Iran was not able to respond to the leaked allegations. The media and western politicians screamed that ‘we told you so’ and assumed the information was new and objective even though the information was based on western intelligence agencies, which has proved in the past to be unreliable. In addition, IAEA Director General (DG), Yukiya Amano, is considered by many as being pro-US. Wikileaks disclosed in 2010 at a meeting in October 2009 with Ambassador [Glyn Davies in Vienna], IAEA Director General-designate Amano “thanked the US for having supported his candidacy and took pains to emphasize his support for US strategic objectives for the Agency. Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77, which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the US court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.” The US mission in Vienna described Amano as “DG of all states, but in agreement with us.” At a press conference last week, Amano denied he was pro-US and refused to discuss the Wikileaks disclosure. Foreign Secretary, William Hague, used the report to argue that it “lays out clearly and objectively the evidence that the agency has uncovered of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons technology.” No mention was made that the “grave findings” were largely based on information fed to the agency by Western intelligence. “The assertions of recent years by Iran that its nuclear programme is wholly for peaceful purposes are completely discredited,” Hague argued. The continuous trickle of accusations and ramping up of sanctions draws parallels with the build up to the illegal Iraq war in 2003, where the “smoking gun” was determined through the US and British intelligence on Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”. Hundreds of thousands died, no weapons were found, and nothing seems to have been learned. In Iran’s case, the latest report was preceded by allegations made in a sting operation by the US of an alleged Iranian terrorist plot against the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, which has been widely discredited. No other country has been subjected to such scrutiny by the IAEA, which coincidentally started after the US realised that the balance of power in the region had been shifted in Iran’s favour by the Iraq war. No reports have ever been published by the agency about America’s 5,133 nuclear weapons or Britain’s capability, while Israel’s nuclear stockpile is immune, as unlike Iran, it is not even a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is these three countries that have orchestrated the campaign against Iran’s nuclear programme to such an extent that Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, has publicly called for an attack on Iran without any recriminations. The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. This was suspended after the Islamic Revolution in 1979 but was revived some years later. In October 2003, Iran implemented an Additional Protocol as a voluntary, confidence-building measure, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities during the course of the negotiations with France, Germany and the United Kingdom (the EU-3). However, the EU-3 dragged its feet and eventually, when Mahmood Ahmedinejad became the President in 2005, the enrichment of uranium, which Iran has a right to develop, was resumed. There are suspicions that Israel has already been involved in clandestine assassinations of Iranian scientists and infecting military computer systems. Iran, unlike Israel, has never resorted to the use of weapons of mass destruction, even when attacked with Iraqi chemical weapons developed with the aid of Western countries. Unlike Israel, Iran has never invaded any other country. The NPT allows Iran to enrich uranium up to 5 per cent for nuclear power station and to 20 per cent to treat cancer patient. It is even allowed to develop the knowledge to enrich to over 90 per cent required to develop nuclear weapons but to not proceed with any programme. Washington’s demand is that Iran terminates its enrichment process altogether, denying Iran its inalienable right to pursue civilian nuclear technology. So why is the US, aided and abetted by Israel and supported by Britain, so fixated on Iran? Iran has the world’s third largest known oil and second largest gas reserves. Could it be, as the Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) suggests, “Because it refuses to allow itself to be recolonised by the West or to allow the US to gain hegemony in the oil-rich and strategically critical Middle East?” The latest report, coming in the wake of the Arab Spring, also coincides with Israel feeling more insecure. Cynics also link the possibilities of another war not only as a distraction from the world’s ongoing economic chaos but to help arms manufacturers. Ratcheting up the speculation were the clandestine talks in Britain with Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards’ visit to Israel. According to a report in the Guardian (November 3), UK is preparing plans or “potential military action against Iran.” The UK Ministry of Defence says that if the US strikes missiles at Iran, it will get military support from the UK Coalition Government. Noble Prize winner and President of Israel, Shimon Peres, warned earlier this month that Israel was ready for a military strike against at Iran. US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, has warned that there could be a serious impact on American forces in the region and such an attack would not stop or delay Iran’s nuclear programme. His predecessor, Robert Gates, has also said it would unite Iran and deepen its resolve toward pursuing nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq and Libya, Iran has its own indigenous defence industry. Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, Paul Rogers, has no doubts about the consequences. “The near-unavoidable reality is that out of confrontation Iran will soon acquire a limited nuclear arsenal. This is because even a limited bombing of Iran will create a new dynamic where Iran is at the centre of the post-attack region; it will have several new options to impose costs on its opponents; and will go full-tilt for its own deterrent,” he said. What is telling about the issue of Iran is that the West does not seem to want to use diplomacy. It only uses the stick. Iran did suspend its uranium enrichment even though it had and has the right to enrich under the NPT; moreover, it agreed to an Additional Protocol for more intrusive access to its nuclear facilities which no other country has ever allowed to the IAEA. Religious scholars in Iran, including the Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei have said it is haram (forbidden) to use nuclear weapons as it is a weapon of mass destruction. Iran has not threatened anyone with nuclear attack. In fact, the US is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons and it has also threatened others with a nuclear attack, for example, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Iran more recently. Similarly, Israel threatened Egypt with a nuclear attack in 1973 when the latter reconquered Sinai from Israeli occupation, and also threatened Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Whilst Israel has invaded and occupied Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and has used chemical weapons in Gaza and Lebanon, Iran has not invaded any country nor occupied any sovereign nation’s land. Even if Iran does attain the capability to be able to build nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely Iran would use them for two reasons: firstly, history shows that even when Iraq used chemical weapons and it had the technology and capability to retaliate, it did not do so; secondly, it would be suicidal for it to use it against Israel which has over 300 nuclear weapons at its disposal. The West has to make the next move and offer a carrot to Iran like we always do with Israel (even though it has broken dozens of UN resolutions). To break the deadlock, it requires Obama appointing a special envoy, with former President Jimmy Carter as a possible candidate. Perhaps former Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, is also in a unique position to help mediate as he did in the last Government. The consequences of military attack on Iran would be catastrophic not only for the region but for the West too. |