Is Iran not complying?

Far from the media depiction, Iran is not in breach of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). As a signatory it is well within its rights to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It voluntarily signed a more intrusive Additional Protocol and suspended uranium enrichment for two years during negotiations with the EU3 as a confidence-building measure. Iran has maintained a dialogue with the IAEA and is willing to negotiate concessions over its nuclear programmes, despite the hijacking of the IAEA process by political interests.

Why did Iran restart uranium enrichment?

Iran voluntarily ceased uranium enrichment activities in order to defuse tensions at the IAEA and negotiate in good faith with the EU3. The EU3 on the other hand approached negotiations with threats and inflexibility, leading to the negotiations' collapse and Iran's decision to revert the self-imposed voluntary suspension. And contrary to Western rhetoric this was not a consequence of President Ahmadinejad's election. In fact the decision to resume the programme was made prior to the elections.

As a signatory of the NPT, Iran has the right to make sovereign decisions regarding the pursuit of nuclear energy. In a recent poll close to 80% of Iranians were against halting nuclear activities or bowing to Western demands. So Iran's nuclear stance is within international regulations and a legitimate show of self determination.

Does Iran need nuclear power?

The U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney argues that Iran has too much oil and gas to need nuclear energy. But Iran has a fast-growing population of over 70 million, 70% of which are under 30. With fossil fuels running out in the next 50 years, there is a case for Iran, like any other country, to be pursuing energy diversification policies. Nevertheless in 1976, when Iran's population was half what it is now, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arguing the opposite. Then the U.S. government was doing nuclear-deals with an Iran under the Shah, including plans for extracting plutonium from nuclear fuel and setting up 23 nuclear power stations in the country by 2000.

Is Iran developing a nuclear bomb?

A major U.S. intelligence review, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) finds Iran at least 10 years away from acquiring highly enriched uranium - the 'key ingredient for a nuclear weapon'. The CIA, other U.S. intelligence sources and the International Institute of Strategic Studies, in London, hold a similar projection. So the 'crisis' is not a crisis by any means. Under the NPT Iran has to continue cooperating with the IAEA watchdogs who could identify any attempts to divert civil nuclear energy activities towards nuclear armament.

Any attacks on Iran's nuclear program are particularly illegitimate given where they are coming from. The U.S. and Britain, who occupy Iran's immediate neighbours Iraq and Afghanistan, are both in breach of the NPT. Britain is developing a £20 billion Trident missile while the U.S. boasts 7,000 nuclear warheads. India and Pakistan are both armed to the east of Iran and neither has signed the NPT. Nor has Israel, which has never even declared its estimated 200 warheads and regularly threatens its neighbouring countries.

What about human rights and democracy?

The U.S. and now Britain, cite human rights and democracy as reasons for dealing with Iran. No one doubts that these are important issues, but they are certainly not exclusive to Iran. In fact it is the U.S. and Britain that have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan; that have propped up and funded dictatorships across the world like General Musharraf's nuclear-armed Pakistan; that continue to develop and sell weapons of mass destruction.

It is also wrong to assume that Iranian people are passive victims. There are those defending human rights as part of a broad democracy movement in Iran with women, students and workers at the forefront. Any attacks, sanctions or military intervention will be a disaster for their cause as Nobel peace prize winner and founder of the Centre for Defence of Human Rights in Iran, Shirin Ebadi, has repeatedly stressed. In fact, the threat of an attack is already strengthening conservative doctrines for 'national security'.

The U.S. was not interested in democracy in Iran in 1953, when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected Dr Mossadegh, who had nationalised Iranian oil. They were not interested when they backed the Shah's repressive military dictatorship throughout the 60's and 70's. They were also not interested when they backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war whilst secretly selling arms to Iran. And they are certainly not interested now.

Is military intervention really possible?

Given Iran's referral to the UN Security Council; given Condoleezza Rice's recent comments and request of $75 million for propaganda in Iran; given the Pentagon positioning itself for bombing raids and its recent review on a 'Long War' strategy in the Middle East; given also the probing by U.S. marines for sectarian tensions in Iran, one can only assume that U.S. manoeuvres for intervention and regime change are very much alive. Israel is also not hiding the fact that it is prepared to strike just like it did in Iraq in 1981.

As the widely predicted disaster resulting from years of sanctions and eventually the invasion and occupation of Iraq have come true, the same analysts warn of massive civil casualties as air strikes on Iran would target university research facilities, technical staff and factories in urban areas, leading to a conflict that would engulf the whole region.

Article courtesy of 'Action Iran' Info

Next >