Recent reports, from a variety of well-connected sources in the US and internationally, point to the real possibility of a US attack against Iran. This comes as no surprise since Iran has always been the centrepiece of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy. Moreover, while ostensibly pursuing “diplomatic” channels, the US has always kept the military option openly on the table.
The pretext for the recent escalation in tensions is Iran’s nuclear technology and its Uranium enrichment program. Washington has warned that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran because it fears that Iran will use its nuclear technology for military purposes.
But Iran’s nuclear technology, as I will argue in this article, is merely a smokescreen behind which lies the Bush administration’s real intentions. To understand the situation, we need to have a broader perspective that goes beyond the current Iran-US standoff and looks at the region as a whole and the ambitions of George Bush and his gang of thugs in the White House.
First, however, let’s deal with the issue of Iran’s nuclear technology.
Contrary to media reports, which simply relay US State Department disinformation as facts, Iran has not violated its obligations under the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Like any other signatory to NPT, Iran has the right to develop and employ nuclear technology for civilian use. The Iranian government has stated, time and again, that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and has given the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) intrusive access to its nuclear sites. As the physicist Gordon Prather has put it, “after two years of goanywhere, see-anything inspections, [IAEA] has found no indication that any special nuclear materials or activities involving them are being—or have been—used in furtherance of military purpose.”
Even if Iran were to begin developing nuclear arms, most analysts believe that it is at least about 10 years away from reaching that goal. Referring to the consensus estimates of the US intelligence agencies, the Washington Post recently reported that “Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredients for a nuclear weapon”.
The warlords in the White House, however, have never been stopped by mere facts. They continue to insist, as Rumsfeld had put it prior to the invasion of Iraq, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and that Iran’s intention is to develop nuclear weapons.
US ENERGY GOALS
It is hard to ignore the obvious similarities between Washington’s claim now about Iran and that used before the invasion of Iraq regarding its supposed weapons of mass destruction which UN inspectors could not find anywhere. The parallels with Iraq do not end here, however. The US administration has also charged Iran with supporting international terrorism and having ties to Al- Qaeda. In other words, the White House is recycling all the same lies it used in the lead up to its invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As with Iraq, US objectives in Iran have nothing to do with any potential threat posed by Iran either to its neighbours or the US. On the contrary, the only credible threat in the region comes from the US which has a bloody history of wars of aggression around the globe in the interest of its corporations, most recently in Afghanistan and Iran. So, why is the US government so focused on this region?
The policy of the Bush administration has been to use the unparalleled military superiority of the US to dominate the globe and thwart potential competitors (particularly EU and China) by wresting control of the global carbon fuel deposits. Aside from the political leverage that such control affords the US vis-à-vis its competitors and adversaries, there are also tremendous profits to be made. This is why the first major act of the Bush administration in office, and Cheney’s first assignment as the US Vice President, was to pull together the major players in the energy sector in the US to develop a concrete action plan.
As I have argued in the pages of this magazine, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11. The 9/11 attacks were used by the Bush administration to build support for its wars for control of the key centres of global carbon fuel deposits. Afghanistan was an important (and economical) pipeline route for moving the significant oil deposits of Central Asian countries to ports in Pakistan for global distribution. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was about taking control of one of the richest oil deposits in the world.
Since the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, US policy-makers have re-oriented their approach to the Middle East and its oil and gas supplies. Instead of depending on strong but ultimately unstable regimes, like that of the Shah, they have determined that they need to control the region directly. The Carter doctrine was basically the articulation of this new approach. Since then, it has been the primary function of Centcom (US Central Command) to protect US oil interests in that part of the world.
Those who see the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and now possibly Iran, as actions by the imperial guardian to merely force “rogue” nations into compliance with international norms fail to understand the importance of energy resources and the agenda of the neoconservatives in the White House. Given the existence of numerous “rogue” nations around the world, why are they so fascinated with the “rogue” forces in this part of the globe? Why would their policy, long before September 11, focus so heavily on the Middle East as a priority area (I refer here not only to the Project for a New American Century report of 2000 but also its precursor, the 1992 Defence Policy Guidance)? Why would the opening shots of the New World Order, immediately after the collapse of USSR, be fired over the oil fields of Iraq? There is certainly something to be said about the enforcement of rules governing the global economy in favour of the imperialist nations of the North, resulting in systematic transfer of wealth and resources from the working classes of the South to the capitalists of the global north. But, at least in the case of the Middle East, that analysis needs to be augmented with considerations pertaining to energy deposits.
DOLLARS OR EUROS?
Another dimension to the conflict in the region is whether the global trade in oil and gas will continue to be denominated in dollars or change to Euros. One of Saddam Hussein’s cardinal sins prior to his overthrow was to demand payment for oil exports in Euros instead of dollars. The control of the revenues generated by oil (petro-dollars), and the fact that all importing nations need to maintain substantial amounts of dollar reserves for their petroleum purchase, has been critical to the US’s financial dominance of the globe. It has also allowed it to operate as no other nation can by virtue of its dollar dominance. This is how the US can run such balance of trade and current account deficits without major repercussions for its economy. This is another reason the US will have to act against Iran. Starting this year, Iran will open its Euro-based oil stock market (Bourse). This will remove one of the key impediments to global trading of oil and gas in Euros, opening the door not only for Iran to sell its oil for Euros, but also for many other countries to do the same. The US will not simply stand by and watch this happen.
A MILITARY STRIKE?
Given all this, how likely is the threat of a military strike against Iran? Not very likely, at least in the short run.
There are significant divisions within the American ruling class and the capitalist class globally. Within the US, an influential group oppose a military strike against Iran. There are several reasons for this. First, they argue, quite rightly, that there is no such a thing as a limited military strike against a few suspected nuclear facilities. Any attack must also take out Iran’s missile launching capabilities, its numerous air bases (military and commercial) and fighter planes, its communication networks and key government buildings in addition to suspected nuclear facilities. Many of Iran’s nuclear development sites are 12-15 feet under concrete re-enforced ground. To effectively destroy these sites, the US will have to use its nuclear weapons. Not only will this cause the immediate death of tens of thousands of people, but the resultant radioactive dust will have a devastating effect on countries as far as India and China.
Also, contrary to the fanciful expectations of the neo-cons, the more sophisticated elements within US establishment dismiss the idea that a series of US strikes against Iran will lead to the down fall of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with a pro-US government. Indeed, one of the biggest problems for the US is that there is no viable pro-US force in Iran to compete for power. Consequently, ruling class opponents of Bush’s plans argue that the US needs to acknowledge the failure of its 25 year sanctions policy and, instead, begin a process of limited reengagement with Iran. This policy will give US corporations access to Iranian markets and resources and, in the long run, put the US in a better position to press Iran to comply with its demands. There will also be a period of time in which the US can redevelop internal allies and military intelligence should it need to consider a military engagement.
Globally, there is very little appetite for another US led invasion while the fiasco in Iraq continues. Even the British dogs don’t seem all that keen to follow their masters into Iran. The rest of the European Union insists on finding a negotiated solution, and Russia, increasingly uncomfortable with US actions in the region, has firmly stated its opposition to a US military attack against Iran.
But, perhaps most importantly, Iran is a significantly more powerful nation than Iraq was after a decade of crippling US sanctions. As well, Iran has considerable influence on the Shiite majority in Iraq, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and factions in Afghanistan. An attack on Iran could result in what is described as asymmetrical retaliation by its supporters in these areas. This could spell disaster for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, draw in Israel into a wider regional conflict, and lead to either a major human catastrophe if the US and Israel employ their nuclear weapons, or revolt and revolutions against US puppets in the region. Globally, a major hike in the price of oil, as a result of either an attack on Iran or Iranian disruption to flow of oil in the Persian Gulf, will send the global economy into a potentially severe recession. The outcome of an attack on Iran, whichever way viewed, is disastrous. In short, the military option is extremely risky.
On the other hand, unless Iran is brought into the US orbit of influence, the Bush administration’s plans to dominate the global capitalist system through control of energy resources will be severely curtailed. Iran has already signed major oil and gas treaties with China, India and Pakistan and is exploring a closer working relationship with Russia to supply Western Europe with natural gas. There are also agreements for oil swapping between Iran and some of the Caspian region nations. These types of deals and arrangements and Iran’s Eurobased stock exchange leave the US with little option but to exercise its ultimate trump card. So, while the possibility of a military attack is limited by its significant hazards, it cannot be completely ruled out, especially while Bush and his gang of war criminals are in charge.
Hamid Sodeifi is a member of the Toronto branch of the New Socialist Group.
