|
Avoiding a War with Iran
By Mike Whitney
01/18/06 "ICH" -- --
The march to war with Iran is continuing apace despite
skyrocketing gold prices, a jittery oil market, and the
unrelenting chaos in nearby Iraq.
Are we surprised?
The control of Middle East oil has always been a central part of
the neocon strategy for global domination. That won’t change.
The toppling of Iran’s theocratic regime would consolidate
dwindling resources under the stars and stripes and guarantee
continued supremacy of US financial institutions, American
energy giants, and the faltering greenback. Additionally, it
would defang a potential rival to an emergent Israel, which sees
itself as the prevailing power in the region.
Game; set; match!
There have been many signs that war is imminent, perhaps, none
as convincing as the unexpected announcement last year that both
General Electric and Halliburton were picking up stakes and
leaving Iran.
Is Halliburton normally that squeamish about ethical issues
related to trading with nations boycotted by the US?
The recess appointment of mad-hatter John Bolton as ambassador
to the UN was another indication that Washington was on the
warpath. The fiery Bolton was “back-doored” into his position
against the strong dissent of Democratic senators for one reason
alone; to bully the Security Council into another preemptive
war. He hasn’t disappointed.
Just yesterday, Bolton lashed out in one of his familiar tirades
saying, “This will be a test for the Council, and appropriately
so, because the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic
missile delivery systems threatens their region and threatens
the world as a whole.”
Whoa!
No one except Bolton and his neocon friends in the hard-right
think-tanks have made such unsupportable allegations. Could it
be that the whole nuclear weapons issue is just a convenient
pretext for war?
Could it be (as the Downing Street Memo avers) that the “facts
and intelligence are being fixed around the policy”?
Condoleezza Rice has added her voice to the chorus of right-wing
pundits and politicos who want to expand the war in the Middle
East. Just yesterday she said, “We’ve got to finally demonstrate
to Iran that it can’t with impunity just cast aside the just
demands of the international community.” Then she added
ominously, “(The president) always keeps all his options open.”
The “demands of the international community” never factor in to
the decision making process at the Bush White House; nor do the
facts. As yet, there’s no concrete proof that Iran is in
violation of its treaty requirements under the terms of the NPT
(Nonproliferation Treaty). The case before the IAEA is a feeble
rehashing of breaches that date back more than 2 years. Since
then, Iran has been under the strictest inspection regimen ever
devised by the watchdog agency.
The results have shown no evidence that Iran has a nuclear
weapons program; as IAEA Chief Mohamed ElBaradei said, “We don’t
see a clear and present danger”.
This is bad news for the war-mongers.
Given the sketchiness of the allegations, it’s looking
increasingly uncertain that the case will go beyond the IAEA to
the UN Security Council. However, one should never underestimate
the persuasive powers of the Bush diplomatic team.
Presently, the US, Britain and Israel are pushing hard to have
the case referred to the UN-5, (the 5 permanent members of the
Security Council) but Russia and China are understandably
reluctant. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was unwilling
to even discuss sanctions on Iran saying, “Sanctions are not the
best way to solve international problems”; dismissing the
suggestion as “putting the cart before the horse.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Kong Quan was equally hesitant to
support any move that would bring Iran before the Council
saying, “We think the most urgent thing for all the parties now
is to still keep patient and make the utmost efforts to resume
the negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran”.
Never the less, the Bush administration believes it can garner
the necessary votes to bring Iran before the Security Council
and, perhaps, win support for punitive action.
The European allies remain deeply skeptical. After all, Europe
and China depend heavily on Iranian oil and natural gas. (China
imports 17% of its oil from Iran) So, any major disruption of
supplies or closing down of the Straights of Hormuz would have a
catastrophic effect on their economies.
In a worrisome article in the Christian Science Monitor, “On
Iran, the West looks for a Plan” reporter Howard LaFranchi
notes, “For some experts the time is ripe to prepare the world
economy for living without Iranian oil—by developing pipelines
in the oil-rich Gulf region to circumvent Iran-dominated
transport routes”….”countries should take steps now to ease the
burden of future moves”.
“If you’re not prepared to do this”, says Henry Sokolski,
executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education
Center of Washington, “you’re not going to do very much.”
“Living without Iranian oil”?!?
This shows us how grave the situation really is, and how the
administration and Israel may be willing to disrupt the global
economy and sent oil prices shooting through the ceiling to
achieve there mutual objectives.
Still, there’s the nettlesome problem of whether Iran is guilty
of the breaches in the NPT for which it stands accused. It could
be that the administration is simply wrong as it was about Iraq.
It’s also worth considering that the mere existence of WMD
cannot be considered a legitimate rationale for aggression; a
point that now seems to be an article of faith among liberals
and conservatives alike. The possession of WMD neither proves
“intention” nor “imminent threat”. If the production of WMD
legitimized preemptive action, than the United States would be a
justifiable target for every other nation in the world.
In Iran’s case, we have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program
or of non-compliance. Rather, we have the Bush administration
asking its allies to deprive Iran of its “inalienable rights”
under the NPT; to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
Nuclear weapons expert Gordon Prather points out the flaws in
the administration’s position when he repeats the comments of
Iran’s Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi in his recent article
“What Noncompliance?”
Kharrazi says:
“The ‘inalienable right’ of states to develop nuclear technology
for peaceful purposes emanates from the universally accepted
proposition that scientific and technological achievements are
the common heritage of mankind…. It is unacceptable that ‘some’
intend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an
exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the
pretext of ‘nonproliferation’. This attitude is in clear
violation of the letter and spirit of the treaty and destroys
the fundamental balance which exists between the rights and
obligations in the treaty.”
“Scientific …achievements are the common heritage of mankind.”
Amen.
Neither the United States nor the world community has the right
to deprive Iran of the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
The United Nations should be looking for ways to strengthen the
existing treaty and avert an impending war.
As Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov opined, “Our common goal is
to ensure the viability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
If we all strive for this main goal, we will be able to find a
collective approach to solving this issue.”
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
