Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/view/2865/1/152/

US Imperialism and the Iran Nuclear Crisis

By Anil Biswas

Archives - Dates and Topics

2006 – online

March – April 2006

Feb. 27 – Mar. 5 click here for related stories: Middle East

2-28-06, 8:27 am

“I consider Iran, Iraq, and North Korea to comprise an axis of evil.” -- George Bush, US President, January 2002

“Iran shall never bow under any threat from US imperialism and Western European hegemonism, come what may.” -- Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei, Supreme leader of the Islamic revolution of Iran, February 2006

AT the height of the campaign of murder and mayhem against Iraq in 2002, US president Bush noted that the Middle East was in the ‘process of being cleared of anarchy.’ Today, with millions of Iraqi military and civilian personnel dead, with complete chaos reigning over the entire country, with world opinion, even in the countries of the developed world, becoming severely antithetical to US-led imperialist aggression and hegemonism, Bush’s lament is that the US has not been able to extract the rich underground fossil fuel of Iraq fast enough to quickly replenish the depleting petroleum reservoirs around the US. Energy is power in the 21st century and Bush and his brigade of imperialists are keen to ensure that the old mercantilist principle of ‘beggar thy neighbour’ is made fully functional as a means of clamping down a hegemonistic, uni-polar control on the world of today.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

As is well enough known, Iran under the autocrat Reza Shah Pehlavi, the leader of a military coup in 1921, was a darling of the imperialists led by the US. Reza Shah made himself the king of Iran in 1926, and perhaps his only folie de grandeur was to align himself with Hitler and Mussolini in 1941-45. Under intense pressure from Stalin, the US was forced to withdraw its patronage from Reza Shah, who was toppled in a counter-coup, and his son , Mohammad Reza Pehlavi was installed in his place.

The son remained deeply loyal to the US and its brigade of imperialistas, and with active help from the US, toppled Iran’s nationalist leader and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq. Mossadeq had brought the enmity of the US on his head when he dared to nationalise Iran’s oil industry and oil resources. Following the coup against Mossadeq, the Iranian ruler and the ruling classes had to depend heavily on the secret police, the SAVAK to run the administration.

The Islamic revolution of Iran, led and engineered by a band of ultra-conservative ulama or clerics who interpret the Shariyat and headed by the Islamic fundamentalist, Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini changed things barely and after a token anti-US wave (marked by the hostage crisis of 1979), the dependence and cooperation (albeit covertly) with the US, continued unabated.

IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR

Things were brought to a head when the US administration under the ultra-conservative US president Ronald Reagan, busy planting ‘democracy’(read) terror in Latin America and Central America, sold millions of dollars worth of small- and large-calibre weapons to the Iranian Islamists during 1985-87. The illegal funds thus siphoned off Iran were then used to sponsor the murderous squads of armed goons, called the Contras in Nicaragua, to oppose and oust the popular and elected Frente Sandinista government led by the Marxist Daniel Ortega and his band of dedicated revolutionaries of the FSLN. The exposure of the deal greatly embarrassed the US and in a murderous plan to punish Iran whom the US suspected of having leaked the deal to the world, in 1988, an Iranian Airbus was ‘mistakenly’ shot down, by the US destroyer USS Vincennes with loss of all 290 lives on board.

However, while the Islamists’ continued their vociferous opposition to the US, on the sly relations between the US imperialists and the ruling classes of Iran continued to be warm. The subsequent Iranian on Iraq, for territorial aggression and occupation of the oil fields, enabled the US and the western allies to play a dual game. On the one hand, overt support to Iran was stopped, including a part of the arms supply; on the other hand, help was simultaneously extended to ensure Iraq playing a subservient role to the US imperialist interests in the days to come. That the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein later rebuffed US pressure and thus invited the US aggression for capture of Iraq’s oil resources, is another story.

By 1989, with Akbar Rafsanjani’s ascendency to the Presidency, Iran and the US sufficiently recovered faith in each other for the US administration, still still coveting Iran’s oil fields, and eager to assure Iran of its sponsorship, released the $567 million worth of Iranian assets frozen in the US. While the subsequent neutrality of Iran in the aggression on Iraq in 1990, was the pay back, it was finely balanced by Iran’s willingness in the same year, to resume diplomatic relations with Iraq, snapped during the Iran-Iraq war.

GUNNING FOR IRAN

Already failing to make the expected headway in its ‘backyard,' Latin America, this act touched a raw nerve in the US imperialist plans and ambitions. With its ire now concentrated against the Middle East, began the campaign against 'Islamic terrorism’ and in 1995, on the excuse of Iranian 'worldwide sponsorship of Islamic terrorists’, and ‘jeopardising the US-sponsored ‘peace process’ in the Middle East, the US proceeded to clamp down oil and trade embargoes on Iran.

However, another and far more serious charge, and one that went on to snowball to the present imbroglio over Iran, was that Iran possessed, or was in the act ofpossessing nuclear weapons. Iran vehemently denied every charge and countered by saying that under International Law, later confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran had every right to develop nuclear power for peaceful, developmental purposes. This is a contention that Iran holds up to today.

The Iranian elections of 2002, with Mohammad Khatami winning a second term with 77% of the votes cast, made Bush’s US realise that with a popular president in office, pressurising Iran would not be as easy as it would otherwise have been. The fact that Khatami went on to build excellent relationships with Russia, China, and most Latin American and Middle Eastern oil-producing countries, except perhaps Iraq and Kuwait, proved gall-and-wormwood to Bush and his lackeys in the European Union. So came the ‘axis of evil’ statement.

IAEA STEPS IN

It was in September 2003, that the UN watchdog agency, the IAEA, started to make unfriendly noises about Iran’s ‘nuclear programme.’ Egged on and indeed led by US bureaucrats with a rigid anti-Iran and anti-Islam outlook, the IAEA, from being an UN agency, slowly shifted into being an agent of US imperialism designs in the Middle East. With no political opposition to curb the tide of US hegemonism, the IAEA bent over backwards, trying to live up to the expectations of Bush and his brigade. The fresh IAEA drive to ‘hunt the non-existent needle in the non-existent haystack,’ was a direct replica of the never-ending search for the never-existing weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) in Iraq both before and after the genocidal US aggression and occupation of that country.

When the evil designs of the US on Iran, indeed on any and all oil-rich middle eastern nations, began to fructify and assume concrete shape, the IAEA, in December 2002, suddenly started to give out statements that Iran was running a programme “to develop a nuclear arsenal for purposes of aggression and threat.” It was also claimed, quite without any factual basis, that Iran would “use the nuclear threat to bolster its world-wide sponsorship of Islamic fundamentalists, encouraging them to go in for a planned programme of mayhem and anarchy.” The Russian construction of a nuclear reactor in Iran in the township of Bushehr, also came in for a heavy dose of US criticism, which Russia simply chose to ignore, and the construction work continued.

With the US now quite infuriated, that the IAEA was quite earnest in its US-machinated drive to harass Iran into submission became clear when in January 2003, the IAEA Director-General Mohammad El Baradei (of Egypt) known for his pro-US and anti-Iran stand), suddenly cut short a ‘fact-finding mission’ in Iran with the peremptory and malicious announcement, that Iran in fact had chosen to go in for a nuclear arms programme using the heavy water plant at Arak and the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, based on the finding of micro traces of enriched uranium.

‘ENRICHED’ LIE CAMPAIGN

Traces of enriched uranium are hardly any signpost for a possible nuclear arms programme, as any scientific opinion will bear out. Yet, it was just that, the finding of micro traces of enriched uranium at Natanz and at Arak, which prompted the IAEA to threateningly announce that Iran ‘was hiding nuclear facilities illegally, and therefore should sign additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).’ Under pressure, and starved of energy, and desperate to utilise nuclear power sources to meet its energy needs, a cornered Iran agreed to sign all the Additional Protocols to the NPT asked for.

This was not enough for the US and the three leading European Union powers (or EU 3), Britain, France, and Germany. They put concerted pressure on Iran to open its portals for “deep probes by IAEA inspectors.” Even as the inspector raj was continuing with impunity in Iran, the US and the EU 3 declared, on their own, that Iran had “flouted all international norms as it was suspected to be in the process of production of enriched uranium via uranium hexafluorixine. This expressed suspicion was enough for the IAEA to chime in with a strongly worded resolution asking Iran to cooperate.

The so-called crisis was kept brewing. Throughout the summer of 2003, the US continued its campaign of ‘giving a dog a bad name before killing it.’A PR blitz was put out at the behest of the Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA, concentrating around the bogey of Iran’s role in the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It was stated that Iran was building a nuclear capability to ‘bombard the US mainland with missiles in the coming days.’ The visit by the Cuban foreign minister, Felipe Rocque to Iran was used to pour withering scorn by a US spokesperson of “the drawing together in times of desperation of two evil forces.”

The following year saw the US and the EU 3 trying to force Iran to buckle under and virtually surrender its sovereign rights to the IAEA inspectors, determined this time to make a strong case, even if the evidence was missing, for clamping sanctions on Iran for its ‘nuclear crime.’ There was to be no repetition of the Hans Blix faux pas over Iraq, when a strong opinion emanated from the inspectors’ report that Iraq had no WMD at ALL.

PURSUING THEIR GOAL

The outlook of the US and of the EU 3 was succinctly summarised in the arrogance contained in the statement of the US representative on the IAEA, wherein it was stated that it devolved on Iran to “gain the confidence of the international community” and prove to the world that “it had no desire to go on with its weaponisation of the nuclear programmes.” No proof was even hinted at for this very serious charge. Then the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, claimed that Iran “has breached the protocol for nuclear proliferation.” Again, no proof.

ROLE OF FIVE SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

The reaction of the five permanent members of the Security Council needs to be seen in the perspective of the unfolding international situation.

The United States, fearful that if Iran were allowed to go without pressure on the sensitive point of alleged nuclear arms programme, it would not be possible to exert an additional load on this oil-rich country to open her natural reserves to the US and to the MNC’s based in, and sponsored by, the European nations. From the very beginning 18 years ago, when the US woke up to the fact of Iran and Iraq possessing nuclear weapons programmes, the Washington consensus has been in favour of referring matters to the Security Council where its writ rules. Further, the US administration has never ever ruled out the possibility of the use of force in order to make Iran to fall in line with US designs in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Britain as part of the EU 3, has consistently supported the US threat to take Iran to the Security Council. It has also been quite clear about its support for the US move for economic sanctions. On the use of force, it has maintained a tactful silence to date.

As a major exporter of goods and services to Iran, Germany has always utilised its position to make threats and talk of economic sanctions being imposed. The German export of goods to Iran stood at $4.43 billion in 2004, and at $4 billion in 2005. Expressing ‘disappointment’ over Iran’s ‘attitude of non-cooperation,’ Germany has spoken quite clearly about the need to “pull up a refractory Iran over the issue of nuclear proliferation.”

France too has been a consistent supporter of the US-Britain-Germany trio over Iran. It has spoken about the ‘need to impose economic sanctions’ to make Iran see the light of the day, and soon. A recent speech by Jacques Chirac defends the French nuclear weapons and says that these weapons ‘could be used to counter terrorist attacks.’ Chirac went on to say that, France was never willing to witness Iran developing its own nuclear programme.

RUSSIA, CHINA, AND IRAN

Russia is a vital player in the political-economic scenario of the Middle East. In September 2005, Russia stood away from the EU 3 at the IAEA and said that it would have no truck with the resolution that would put Iran on the dock over ‘violation of NPT commitments for having hidden away its enrichment of uranium programme.’ Russia has offered a deal to Iran under which the fuel for Iran’s nuclear reactors would be produced in Russia with a degree of involvement of Iran; Russia also guaranteed to provide the nuclear fuel for the reactor it has built at Bushehr. Russia does not want a confrontation with Iran. It also stands opposed to use of force at any level and at any point of time now.

China abstained from the September vote in IAEA, like Russia. It has shown concern over the development of the confrontation over Iran’s nuclear programme but it would never go in for sanctions. China is clearly reluctant to see any UN measures that would prevent access to Iran’s oil and natural gas resources. China has already signed an agreement with Iran in 2004 to buy oil and natural gas for fifteen years and has been engaged in the development of Iranian oil fields since July 1999.

Beijing is of the firm opinion that multi-lateral negotiations must be utilised to end the imbroglio over Iran. China’s obvious interests lie in the field of energy: Iran has started to supply no less than 15% of China’s oil requirements. President Hu Jintao of China has already made a statement that China would not support or take part in any punitive action against Iran, whether US-led, or UN-engineered, or both. The reactions of these powers in the wake of the fateful developments taking place at the IAEA headquarters in February 2006 tend to posit the differential approach between the western European ‘democracies,’ on the one hand and China and Russian on the other hand. But first let us briefly summarise the prologue to the fateful decision of the IAEA, guided by the EU 3, and US to tighten the thumbscrew on Iran over the nuclear issue.

By the summer of 2005, Iran was understandably getting fatigued and impatient at the slow pace of negotiations of IAEA over the ‘probe’ to find the ‘reality behind the Iranian ‘nuclear programme.’ The strong nationalist President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared in September of 2005 that an energy-strapped Iran, planning for the future would dearly like to renew its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes and asked the IAEA to withdraw the temporary freeze of the nuclear programme.

When there was no response from the IAEA, despite prodding from Russia and China, Teheran declared that it must revive the nuclear plant at Isfahan and Natanz before the plant became non-functional. The Iranian leadership, Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted repeatedly that the IAEA should really be fair and allow Iran to carry out its peaceful nuclear programme aimed at production of energy and without any tangent on weaponisation of the nuclear power. There was stony silence from the IAEA while the inspector raj continued to harass the Iranian government. There was talk that Iran must allow ‘individuals to be interviewed’ to find out if there was truth behind the rumour that a massive secrecy shrouded the weaponisation programme behind a charade of ‘peaceful development of nuclear energy.’ The last straw came when the IAEA insisted that Iran ‘fully open out its nuclear plants for inspection.’ There had been no progress made on the negotiation front.

President Ahmadinejad finally and in exasperation declared on September 23, 2005 that Iran would soon resume uranium conversion at the Isfahan plant and again iterated that the programme was for peaceful purposes. IAEA has been waiting for this turn of events to present itself. It promptly declared that Iran was in violation of the NPT and calls for measures to pull up Iran at the Security Council. Both China and Russia abstained from voting at the IAEA session where this resolution was mooted, and subsequently passed. India was one of the countries that sided with the US-sponsored resolution.

Iran now desperate in its realisation that the entire production process of all the nuclear plants in the country would by default shut down permanently causing hazards of extreme kind, chose to boldly declare that it would re-open a few nuclear plants and resume production, especially at Natanz and ask the Russians to complete the installation and make online the plant at Bushehr.

(To be continued)

From People's Democracy