Iran: Nuclear row raises fears internationally

What we think

Iran: Nuclear row raises fears internationally

Crisis shows Western powers’ hypocrisy

THE WESTERN governments’ hue and cry over Iran’s decision to restart
nuclear research has produced mixed responses around the world. Amongst
the millions who oppose, and have campaigned against, nuclear weapons
there is growing fear that the nuclear arms race is accelerating.

In recent years, India and Pakistan have joined the ranks of
countries admitting that they have nuclear weapons. In other countries,
like Japan, there are discussions in some ruling circles about whether
they should acquire a nuclear arsenal because their neighbours have
them.

But the Western governments’ position is utterly hypocritical. Iran
has not been proven to be breaking the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). But one thing is clear; none of the ‘old’ nuclear powers –
Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – have even thought about
implementing the pledge to work towards nuclear disarmament, which they
made when they signed the NPT.

Currently, New Labour is planning a multi-billion pound replacement
for Britain’s ageing submarine-based Trident nuclear missile system.
Days before last year’s election, Tony Blair said, "I think that it is
best that Britain retains an independent nuclear deterrent".

New Labour apologists will argue that the difference is that Iran is
not as ‘democratic’ as Britain. Socialists, of course, oppose the
autocratic Iranian regime. But at least it has not yet followed Bush and
Blair’s example of invading and wrecking another country on the basis of
Bush and Blair’s "big lie" of supposed weapons of mass destruction held
by the Saddam regime.

As far as the US government is concerned, no comment at all is made
about Israel’s secret nuclear armoury. Bush’s administration agreed,
last year, to co-operation on civilian nuclear research with India, even
though India never signed the NPT and, in 1998, carried out a series of
nuclear weapons tests. But the difference in attitude towards India and
Iran is because Bush regards India as a possible key ally against China
in the region.

Nuclear weapon

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has used foreign policy
statements as a way of diverting attention from the failure of his
administration to improve living standards.

There seems to be little doubt that a majority of Iranians support
developing nuclear weapons. They see themselves threatened by the US,
with its hundreds of thousands of military personnel in the region, and
they have nuclear-armed, US allies on their borders, like Pakistan, or
nearby, as in the case of Israel.

The Western powers have used some of Ahmadinejad’s statements,
particularly his denial of the Holocaust and threats to Israel’s
existence, to hide their real motives for the recent attacks on Iran.
The complete failure of the Bush and Blair plan for Iraq has resulted in
Iran’s allies gaining effective control of Iraq’s south with its large
oilfield, alongside a decisive say in Iraq’s future.

This is not the goal for which Bush and Blair invaded Iraq and the
situation threatens pro-Western regimes throughout the Middle East.
Therefore, Bush and Blair want to try at least to hem in and constrict
Iran. But there are limits to what they can do. Any action against Iran,
including trade sanctions, risks provoking upheavals through the Middle
East and, given that Iran is the world’s fourth biggest oil exporter, to
the international oil market.

While a full-scale invasion is ruled out, a repeat of an attack along
the lines of Israel’s 1981 strike against Iraq’s nuclear research centre
at Osirak cannot be ruled out. At that time, Margaret Thatcher and US
President Ronald Reagan criticised Israel, but then they were supporting
Saddam’s war against Iran and today things are different.

While opposing nuclear weapons, socialists give no trust whatsoever
to any imperialist leaders or any actions they propose. There can be no
support at all to those hypocritical liars Bush and Blair. It is
unlikely that Blair will take a gamble and make another crude "45
minute" warning, but other propaganda tricks cannot be ruled out.

Socialists will explain the truth of the situation and argue for a
socialist alternative. We call for an alternative based upon working
people leading movements that break with imperialism and capitalism,
defending the right to self-determination of nations, and for a
socialist society where science and technology are developed to improve
rather than destroy life.