No Justification for War
Hands Off Iran
No sooner had the latest U.S.-British effort to justify war with Iran failed, with Iran releasing the 15 British marines involved in U.S. and British provocations, than the U.S. announced that “Iranian-made” bombs were being used against U.S. occupation troops in Iraq. Then came the headlines from Britain that the soldiers were treated “harshly,” “interrogated” and told they should admit their trespass in Iranian territory or face jail. Imagine how “harsh” this stand of the Iranians is!
Be sure to forget that the U.S. and Britain are engaged in war crimes, illegally occupying Iraq and that their ships have no business in Iraq’s waters, let alone Iran’s. Be sure to forget Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, secret CIA prisons and deaths of prisoners charged with no crime. And then there are the numerous reports by government officials of secret “black ops” teams inside Iran. And the massive show of force and war games by the U.S., including planes going into Iranian airspace, and repeated provocations by Britain, including illegally using the marines as spies. These provocations include justifying the most recent attack on Iranian sovereignty using a map the British themselves created. Craig Murray, Britain’s former Maritime Head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, stated: “The Iran-Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British government.... (it is) a fake map,” (see www.craigmurray.co.uk). While U.S. and British occupation, massacres, torture, use of radioactive bombs and many crimes against the peace are considered “civilized,” Iran’s defense of its sovereignty and defiance of U.S. dictate is branded “cruel, callous, inhumane and unacceptable.”
The people of Iran and Iraq have the right to decide their own governments and all their own affairs without interference by the U.S. or Britain. These imperialist powers have no business in the region and must get out now. All the world’s people reject any justification for aggressive war against Iran and insist Hands Off Iran! End the War Against Iraq and All Aggressive Wars!
As part of efforts to demonize Iran, President George W. Bush is again repeating the claim that they are “terrorists” or at least “arming the terrorists.” Bush is also saying it is necessary to “fight the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them on our shores.” This is an effort to terrorize Americans and to infuse them with the chauvinism of the ruling circles — that deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, destruction of whole cities, poisoning the environment, all the U.S. crimes — are legitimate because they are done abroad. According to Bush we are to accept that the rest of the world’s people are not human beings with rights and “deserve” whatever they get. Bush is also frightened by the fact that Americans, including many soldiers, are increasingly rejecting this chauvinism and taking their stand with the peoples against U.S. imperialism. As massive demonstrations here and abroad have shown: Bush is a war criminal and must be charged! We are One Humanity with One Struggle for another world, where the rights of all are guaranteed!
[TOP]
British Government Must Immediately Stop All Its Provocations Against Iran
The British government in a totally arrogant and belligerent manner is seeking to escalate and internationalize the incident in which 15 British navy personnel have been detained by the Iranian authorities. Workers’ Daily vigorously condemns the government for its provocations against Iran and demands that it end them immediately. The incident in the first place has all the hallmarks of a provocation by Britain to provide a further pretext for ratcheting up its warmongering against Iran and, with the U.S., preparing for an armed assault on that country.
The government knows full well that Iran acts to defend its sovereignty as is its right and duty, and this is not the first time it has had cause to do so against British incursions. To defend its sovereignty and its borders is the right of any country, but the British government has used a spurious furor over a difference of a kilometer or so in an area where the boundary is complicated and has been drawn by Britain itself to take a posture of moral indignation and manufacture an international incident. What are British boats doing in the Shatt al Arab waterway or the Gulf? This sea belongs to Iraq and Iran. It should be considered an illegal act of aggression even to be there. Britain and the U.S. have committed a crime against humanity of immense proportions in invading and occupying Iraq, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and annihilating the integrity of that country. The United Nations (UN) mandate under which Tony Blair claims the British service personnel were patrolling is a fig leaf to cover over naked aggression. The Prime Minister has demonstrated not only contempt for the lives of the Iraqi people, the people of Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but also for the lives and well-being of British armed forces. This has been clearly demonstrated by the stand of Military Families against the War, and by Blair’s refusal to meet even one parent of a British serviceman or woman killed in the illegal and unjust conflicts into which the government has sent them.
To take the issue to the UN Security Council is an example of how Britain and the U.S. abuse and manipulate the United Nations Organization in an attempt to use it to impose their dictate. At the same time, the British provocation has coincided with a build-up of U.S. military forces to be in a position to commit aggression against Iran. According to Russian military intelligence, the data of build-ups on Iran’s borders point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran. According to the same source, the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.
According to the Associated Press, the U.S. Navy on Tuesday, March 27 began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack maneuvers off the coast of Iran. The maneuvers bring together two strike groups of U.S. warships and more than 100 U.S. warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.
A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. The French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, officials said.
Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines. The British have also contributed by sending naval reinforcements, including HMS Cornwall, the Type 22 frigate whose personnel were involved in the incident on March 23.
Such a build-up and war exercises preceded the invasion of Iraq. There too a pretext was used, that of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to bring about “regime change,” and there too Britain tried to get UN sanction for such illegality. Pretexts to begin wars of aggression are a Hitlerite method that is well-known, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident which U.S. imperialism concocted to spark the war in Vietnam.
We call on the working class and people to firmly support the right of Iran to defend its sovereignty, as is its duty under international law. All democratic and anti-war forces must unhesitatingly condemn the British government for its provocations against Iran, for its crimes of aggression in the region. This incident makes it even more urgent to counter the warmongering and imperial program of the British state and its Labor Party administration [of Tony Blair] with resistance aimed at bringing into being an anti-war government. It is a fundamental principle of such a government that international contradictions cannot be settled by the doctrine of “might makes right,” and that the sovereignty of all be respected.
No to War on Iran!
Workers’ Daily is the online newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)[TOP]
No to Pretexts for Aggression and War
Hands Off Iran!
The Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay has commented on the Iranian capture of 15 members of a British military probe into the territorial waters of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Contrary to all logic and principles, Mr. MacKay attacked Iran, which is steadfastly protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity from both Britain and the U.S.
The Canadian Parliament has not led the people in discussing this matter. Mr. MacKay has simply made off-handed comments to the mass media. That is no way for a modern democracy to work out foreign policy. Without going into the matter in detail in Parliament and with the polity, the government has come out firmly on the side of Britain. Yet all facts and international principles and the rule of law show that Britain is the aggressor and part of an imperialist striving to impose Anglo-American rule over west Asia. Britain is engaged in criminal aggressive U.S. wars in Iraq, southwest of Iran and in Afghanistan, to the northeast.
Britain is part of a violent U.S.-led Empire-building project stretching from Korea to Afghanistan and beyond. As part of the unjust war in Iraq, Britain's large and small warships prowl the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf off the coasts of Iran, Iraq and Kuwait. Britain has admitted to violating the waters and land of Iran on numerous occasions using military probes. The U.S. and Britain are leading a campaign against Iran's legitimate use of nuclear power, voting in the United Nations Security Council for economic sanctions against Iran and even suggesting a military invasion to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction and engage in regime change, as Britain has done and continues to do under the leadership of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain has given encouragement to U.S. imperialism's constant military probes into Iran and its alarming military presence in and around the Persian Gulf. The U.S. has a huge naval armada and stations tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of military aircraft in bases in Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Afghanistan and Djibouti. It is now building more in the Czech Republic and Poland. The massive hostile U.S.-British military might surrounding Iran, which includes the Canadian military, is accompanied with a steady drumbeat of psychological warfare that invasion could commence at any time, with much of the noise for invasion orchestrated by the BBC.
In the face of relentless military provocations against the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is truly irresponsible and ridiculous for Minister MacKay to make the issue the exact location of the British gunboats while they were clearly just off the coast of Iran in disputed waters and were engaged in threatening and provocative activity.
Canadians should think about this situation carefully. Would they not be extremely nervous, upset and on guard against such an openly hostile massive military force showing up within kilometers of our shores and constantly telling the world that our nuclear power stations and research facilities must be destroyed and the Conservative/Liberal party regime must be changed through war and occupation? Just because Britain is a traditional ally of Canada and was the colonial master for centuries does not mean that Britain is right in this matter and should be supported.
This unprincipled business of "the enemy of my friend is my enemy" certainly does not apply in diplomacy. Modern statecraft is based on principles, the rule of law and the facts of each case.
One principle in dealing with Iran is that the Canadian government has no business mixing up values, way-of-life, religion, or its political and economic system into state-to-state relations. Canada has to leave out Iran's values, way-of-life, religion, or political and economic system from considerations in developing friendly international political and economic relations.
When a country starts introducing values, way-of-life, religion, or political and economic systems into international relations, in this day and age of Empire-building, such considerations inevitably lead to calls for interference in the internal affairs of others, regime change and war. This can be seen in the U.S. wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and Britain and Canada’s participation in them.
Canadians do not want other countries calling for regime change in Canada and actually mobilizing military forces to invade and occupy our country. Other countries have every right to denounce Harper's government within accepted diplomatic norms and suggest better political and economic arrangements but they do not have the right to interfere in Canada's internal affairs let alone invade and violently change Canada's regime or send bombers to destroy our nuclear facilities.
Other countries have every right to resist Canada's military if it invades and occupies other countries as it is doing in Afghanistan and is doing in other ways in Haiti and numerous other places.
Minister MacKay may think that it is natural and normal to side with Britain in this dispute with Iran but the anti-war sentiment of Canadians shows they are of a different mind. The broad opposition to imperialist war and aggression in Britain, the U.S. and worldwide also shows that humanity as a whole is seeking new arrangements that uphold the sovereignty of all nations as a principle, the resolution of disputes through peaceful means and is opposed to the double standards of the U.S., Britain and their allies. Canadians want these matters broadly discussed and a House of Commons that fulfills this duty. They want the modern principles of international relations and the rule of law upheld in Canada's international affairs. They most certainly do not want a pro-war government that seems to think that violence is the way to sort out difficulties in international relations.
TML calls on the Canadian working class and people to stand with Iran in its resistance to the constant psychological pressure and threats of invasion and war, and stand with Iran in its legitimate right to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity from attack and protect its regime from being forcibly changed by foreign imperialists.
No to Use of Force to Settle Conflicts!
Hands Off Iran!
[TOP]
Iranian Embassy Statement on
Arrest of British Marines
The Iranian Embassy in Kazakhstan issued a statement April 2 on the illegal entry of 15 British marines into Iran’s territorial waters, who were arrested by Iranian border guards. According to the statement, upon entering the Iranian waterway to the north of the Persian Gulf and violating the recognized international Iran-Iraq borderline on March 23, the British marine forces, who inspected trade ships passing by, were taken into custody by Iranian border guards.
“In defense of its right to sovereignty, to protect its borders and prevent illegal entry of foreigners into its territory, Iran had no option but to stop the British troops and arresting them.
“According to Article 30 of the International Law Commission on international responsibilities of governments, data and information registered in the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the clear confession of the arrested British servicemen to their violation of Iranian waterways, Britain’s government should respect international commitments of other countries,” it added.
Iran’s embassy in Almaty said this is not the first time that British forces have trespassed on the Iranian borders, since the occupation of Iraq by foreign troops began. Turning to a similar violation of Iran’s territorial waters by British troops in 2004, which resulted in their arrest, the statement said, “Through attempts of Iranian and British governments, the detainees were released and Britain’s embassy in Tehran signed a written commitment to respect Iran’s sovereignty and territorial waters by avoiding such illegal measures in future.” Given the statement and condemning the recent trespass, Iran’s government called on the world’s peace-loving countries and international community to condemn this illegal move and urge Britain to respect international commitments.
“Given the documents proving violation of Iran’s marine border by British troops, Iran calls on third countries and the European Union to avoid any biased approaches to interfere in the issue and let it be solved between the two sides,” it said. Stressing that this is a matter of mutual concern to the governments of Iran and Britain, it called on all countries to encourage the British government to seek bilateral ways for solving the problem.
“Iran has already warned the foreign troops in Iraq to respect its sovereignty and territory in their operations to avoid such problems,” concluded the statement.
(On April 5, 2007, Iran released all 15 marines.)
[TOP]
Brief Look at British Violations of Iranian Territory
The British media and officials launched a wave of propaganda against Iran immediately after Iranian border guards arrested British marines who had violated Iranian territorial waters on March 23. In spite of the GPS surveys monitored by Iran and offered to the British government, they insist that the British navy has not violated Iranian waters. Under the current circumstances, the U.S. officials and media have rushed to support the British officials in their insistence that they had not violated Iranian territorial waters in order to put pressure on Iran.
The British insistence on non-violation comes when both the U.S. and British military forces have violated Iranian territory on land, at sea and in the air and Iran has compiled documents to prove such trespasses. British marine Mrs. Faye Turney has acknowledged to the trespass and made an apology for it.
Let us take a brief look at violations of Iranian territory by the British armed forces:
1. British unmanned reconnaissance plane RPV violated Iranian airspace in northeastern Abadan in June 2004 and was hit by Iranian anti-aircraft guns. RPV debris is available;
2. At 11 o’clock local time on June 22, 2004, three British speed boats with eight navy personnel on board trespassed Iranian borders and were arrested by Iranian coast guards;
3. At 21:30 local time on November 1, 2006, two British Black Hawks (choppers) from Royal Navy hovered at the height of 150 meters at 47,700-17,400 coordinates on Khorramshahr map (Pole-No: new bridge) violating Iranian airspace and they entered Iraqi territory through 62,500-15,500 coordinates after 10 minutes;
4. On January 27, 2007 a British helicopter flew over mouth of Arvandrud (Arvand river) and violated Iran’s airspace and they left the area after a warning from Iranian coast guards;
5. Three British Navy boats entered Khor Mousa mouth in Iranian territorial waters on February 28, 2007.
The sixth was trespass of two British Navy boats with 15 marines on board into Iranian territorial waters at Arvandrud which led to their arrest by Iranian coast guards.
[TOP]
The following is the text of the letter handed to the British ambassador in Tehran, according to IRNA, Iran's state news agency.
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran presents its compliments to the British Embassy in Tehran and draws the attention of the latter to the following:
"According to the information received from relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, two British naval vessels manned by 15 fully equipped crews trespassed on Iran's territorial waters on 3 Farvardin 1386 (23 March 2007).
"Since similar acts had taken place in the past and prior warning had been given against the repetition of such acts, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran protests strongly against this illegal act in violating Iranian territorial waters, emphasizes the respect for the rules and principles of international law concerning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, underlines the responsibility of the British Government for the consequences of such violation, and calls for the guarantee to avoid the recurrence of such acts.
"It will be appreciated if the esteemed embassy conveys this note to the relevant authorities of its government and informs this ministry of any explanation in this regard.
"The ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the British Embassy the assurances of its highest considerations."[TOP]
No Hoods. No Electric Shocks. No Beatings. These Iranians Clearly Are a Very Uncivilized Bunch
I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this — allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black head scarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world — have the Iranians no concept of civilized behavior? For God’s sake, what’s wrong with putting a bag over her head? That’s what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads so it’s hard to breathe. Then it’s perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can’t be recognized and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn’t be able to talk at all. Of course they’d probably find it even harder to breathe — especially with a bag over their head — but at least they wouldn’t be humiliated.
And what’s all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It’s time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilized world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That’s one of the many privileges the U.S. grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.
The true mark of a civilized country is that it doesn’t rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it’s just invaded. The inmates of Guantánamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
What’s more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The U.S. military makes sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy Physical Therapy. This takes the form of exciting “stress positions”, which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It’s all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioral psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is “unhappy and stressed.”
What is so appalling is the underhanded way that the Iranians have got her “unhappy and stressed.” She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilized world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer — whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.
Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python
[TOP]
Is British-Iran Marine Incident Part of
Larger War Provocation Plan?
The Bush administration and its allies (notably Britain and Israel) have been planning to attack Iran as early as spring 2007. It is not surprising that yet another fabricated pretext is being used to set it up. Were the 15 British sailors who were captured and detained by Iran involved in a criminal espionage operation, in Iranian waters, in the process of setting up a Gulf of Tonkin style pretext for war? Or were they captured by Iranian forces in Iraqi waters (as claimed by London), as a defensive political maneuver, in response to American and British covert provocations that have been ongoing for months, and continuing to escalate?
While Western media coverage has done little beyond echo and embellish Tony Blair’s immediate shrieking and bellicose assertions (“there was no justification whatsoever, completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”), and the predictable Bush administration support for the British Prime Minister (the White House “fully backs Tony Blair and our allies in Britain”), and the impending political onslaught against Tehran, little if any analysis has been devoted to the context of what has led up to this incident.
In 2003, Tehran sent a sweeping proposal to the Bush administration (via the Swiss Embassy) for dialogue and regional cooperation. White House officials confirm that this memo was widely circulated and discussed — and rejected (top Bush administration officials profess a convenient “memory lapse”).
The American and British military-intelligence buildup towards a spring 2007 attack is a known fact. Wall Street is anticipating war. The Iran-Iraq region has been brimming with increasing Western intelligence agency activity for well over a year. George W. Bush personally ordered provocative covert operations several months ago, aimed specifically at baiting Iran into a war and a nuclear confrontation. The illegal raid of the Iranian liaison office in Irbil, Iraq, has been used as part of a larger case of cooked and false intelligence against Tehran. A number of Iranians, including high-ranking Iran Revolutionary Guard officials, have been captured by Western forces. A top Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated by the Mossad. Bush also gave a “shoot to kill” order to hunt down and kill Iranians in Iraq. Iran’s intelligence minister, Gholam Hossein Ejeli, claims that Iran has uncovered a network of 100 CIA and Mossad agents.
A multinational consensus has already been built in support of an attack on Iran, which is now militarily and politically encircled (a full-scale U.S.-British military buildup is underway). In a March 28 interview on Air America Radio, Democratic Senator Carl Levin echoed the simple-minded Bush-Blair propaganda that Iran alone is provoking a confrontation with the West, alone guilty of “brinkmanship” and “nuclear ambitions.” Levin repeated the popular assertion that President Ahmadinejad is insane, and that the U.S. Congress is “uniformly” behind stopping Iran, which is “pressuring the West” (no mention of the overwhelming pressure against Iran, by the West). Levin’s dim-witted and dangerous views are shared by Democrats and Republicans alike.
In a letter mailed to the Associated Press by the Iranian embassy in London, British sailor Faye Turney apologized for trespassing into Iranian waters. Western officials have quickly responded by claiming (without proof) that Turney’s admission was coerced, and blasting a tape of the captured sailors (showing that they are being well treated) as “unacceptable.” Meanwhile, London is rushing to provide proof that the boat crews were seized inside Iraqi waters.
It is unlikely that evidence provided by either side, or even a diplomatic exchange or settlement, will defuse the larger confrontation already underway. The incident, and the resulting political tensions, are clearly part of a larger international agenda, similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that set up the Vietnam War that the U.S. government was hell-bent to start.
If an overt act of war against Iran occurs around the marine incident [or similar incidents] is it conceivable that London will lead the charge and be joined immediately by the Bush administration and Israel? The Blair government (MI-6, MI-5, etc.) has been among the most overt “war on terrorism” aggressors in recent years. For example, on September 19, 2005, six British armored vehicles smashed into an Iraqi jail in Basra to free two undercover SAS elite special forces commandos who were engaged in a bungled espionage operation. Indeed, there are reports that a rescue operation against Iran is being contemplated.
[TOP]
UN Security Council Helps Disarm Prospective Further Victim of U.S. Aggression
Imagine that when Hitler was threatening to invade Poland, after having swallowed Czechoslovakia — with the help of the Western European powers' appeasement of Hitler at Munich in September 1938 — the League of Nations imposed an arms embargo on Poland, making it more difficult for the imminent victim to defend itself, and at the same time suggested that Poland was the villainous party. That didn't happen back in 1939, but in a regression from that notorious era of appeasement something quite analogous is happening now.
Here is the United States, still fighting a brutal war of conquest in Iraq, which it is now doing with UN Security Council approval, with open plans and threats to attack Iran and engage in "regime change," gathering aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran, already engaging in subversive and probing attacks on the prospective target, and the UN Security Council, instead of warning and threatening the aggressor warns, threatens and imposes sanctions on the prospective victim!
The way it works is that the United States stirs up a big fuss, proclaiming a serious threat to its own national security, and expressing its deep concern over another state's flaunting of Security Council resolutions or dragging its feet on some point of order such as weapons inspections — we know how devoted the United States and its Israeli client are to the rule of law!
In the Iraq case, this noise was echoed and amplified in the media, often splashed across headlines and drummed up in editorial commentary. In turn, elite opinion in the United States and Britain coalesced around the beliefs (a) that a WMD-related crisis really existed in Baghdad and (b) that it required the Security Council's special attention. Straight through March 19-20 2003, Iraq, the prospective target of a full-scale attack, decried the absurdity of this U.S.-UK noise, and filed regular communiqués with the Security Council and Secretary-General documenting the U.S.-British aerial strikes on its territory,[1] including the "spikes of activity" period from September 2002 onward.[2] The vast majority of the world's states and peoples also rejected the war propaganda — including the largely voiceless U.S. public, where in the weeks before the war, two-thirds of non-elite opinion stood firmly behind multilateral approaches to defuse the crisis, foremost of which was permitting the UN weapons inspections to take their course.[3] But then, as now, pretty much the entire world recognized the U.S.-British hijacking of the Security Council, and its strategic misdirection away from a defense of the actual target of the threats (Iraq) onto the execution of the policy of the states making those threats while playing the role of Iraq's potential victims (the U.S. and British).
So the aggression planning proceeded then and does now with the cooperation of the UN and international community. In the Iraq case, the Security Council allowed itself to be bamboozled into restarting the weapons-inspection process, accepting this as the urgent matter, rather than the war-mobilization and threat of aggression by the United States and its British ally. Although the Security Council did not vote approval of the U.S.-British attack, it helped set it up by inflating the Iraq threat and failing to confront the real threat posed by the United States and Britain. Then, within two months after "shock and awe," the Security Council voted to give the aggressor the right to stay in Iraq and manage its affairs, thereby approving a gross violation of the UN Charter after the fact.
Now, four years later, the Security Council has outdone itself. Not only has it failed to condemn the U.S. and Israeli threat to attack Iran — the threat itself a violation of the UN Charter,[4] and one made ever-more real by the U.S. invasions of neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq during this decade alone, now followed by a huge U.S. naval buildup near Iran's coast to levels not seen since the U.S. launched its war on Iraq four years ago in what the New York Times just called a "calculated show of force."[5] But even worse, the Council has aided and abetted these potential aggressors by adopting three resolutions in the past eight months under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, each of which affirms that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to international peace and security, and reserves for the Council the right to take "further appropriate measures" should Iran fail to comply — that is, should Iran not cave-in to U.S. demands on exactly the terms demanded.[6]
Since July 31, the Council has demanded that Iran "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development"[7] — despite the fact that Iran's right to engage in these activities is guaranteed under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[8] Since December 23, it has identified the existence of Iran's nuclear program with so-called "proliferation sensitive nuclear activities"[9] — despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has never shown Iran's program to be engaged in any kind of activities other than peaceful ones. Indeed, in the December 23 resolution, the Council used the phrase "proliferation sensitive nuclear activities" no fewer than eight different times to describe Iran's nuclear program, the clear — and perfectly false — allegation being that for Iran to do research on and develop its indigenous nuclear fuel capabilities places Iran in violation of its NPT commitments.
But perhaps most egregious of all, the March 24 resolution prohibits Iran from selling "any arms or related material" to other states or individuals (para. 5), and calls upon all states "to exercise vigilance and restraint" in the sale or transfer of a whole list of weapons systems to Iran, "in order to prevent a destabilizing accumulation of arms" (para. 6).[10] As the editorial voice of The Hindu immediately recognized, the first term is critical "not so much because the Islamic Republic is a major vendor of weapons even to Hamas or Hizbollah but because it gives the U.S. an excuse to intimidate or interdict all Iranian merchant shipping under the guise of 'enforcement.'"[11] Likewise with the second term, which, if history is any guide, Washington will interpret as a strict prohibition on weapons sales to Iran , thus depriving the potential victim, faced with attack by one or more nuclear powers, of the right to obtain even non-nuclear means of self defense. This of course has been a standard U.S. tactic over many years, even against puny victims — Guatemala in 1954 and Nicaragua in the 1980s, among other cases. But now the United States has succeeded in getting the Security Council to help it impede the self-defense of yet another target of aggression. In this truly Kafkaesque case, the state targeted for attack (Iran) has been declared a threat to the peace by the Security Council, at the behest of a serial aggressor openly mobilizing its forces to attack the "threat."[12]
It should be recognized that the treatment of Iran's nuclear program, and the Security Council's cooperation in this treatment, is the ultimate application of a global double standard, enforced by an aggressive superpower now able to get away with both hypocrisy and murder. Only the United States and its allies may possess nuclear weapons. They alone may threaten to use nukes. They alone may improve their nukes and delivery systems. Only client states such as Israel may remain outside the NPT indefinitely and without penalty. The United States may ignore its NPT obligation to work toward nuclear disarmament. It may even renege on its promise never to use nukes against nuke-free states that joined the NPT. But no matter. By sheer fiat-power, no other state may acquire nukes without U.S. consent. Nor as the case of Iran shows may a state engage in its "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes unless and until the United States approves.
We are in the midst of a crisis within the post-war international system, as a serial aggressor is now able to mobilize the Security Council, tasked with the maintenance of international peace and security, to declare the state that it threatens with war a menace to the peace and to help the aggressor disarm its target. This carries us beyond Munich.
Notes
A shorter, standard op-ed length version of this commentary was drafted and submitted very widely across the major U.S. print media -- and found to be 100 percent unpublishable.
1. For an extensive list of documents filed at the United Nations by the Iraqi Government over the period August 29, 2001, through March 26, 2003, see David Peterson, "No Memo Required," ZNet, July 1, 2005.
2. See David Peterson, "'Spikes of Activity,'" ZNet, July 5, 2005; and David Peterson, "British Records on the Prewar Bombing of Iraq," ZNet, July 6, 2005.
3. See Steven Kull et al., Americans on Iraq and the UN Inspections, Program on International Policy Attitudes, January 21-26, 2003.
4. See, e.g., Chapter I, Article 2: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (par. 4).
5. "USS John C. Stennis Now Operating in Persian Gulf," Navy Newsstand, March 27, 2007; "Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border," RIA Novosti, March 27, 2007; and Michael R. Gordon, "U.S. Opens Naval Exercise in Persian Gulf," New York Times, March 28, 2007.
6. See Chapter VII. -- We believe it essential to understand that for the Security Council to adopt a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter means above all that either a threat t o the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of outright aggression has occurred. Otherwise, there is no point to the Council's resort to its Chapter VII functions and powers. Regardless of what the Council's other members may believe about the import of the Iran resolutions, their assent to these resolutions grants an enormously powerful and dangerous tool of coercion to the United States .
7. Resolution 1696, July 31, 2006, par. 2.
8. See the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Preamble, and Articles I, II, and IV.
9. Resolution 1737, December 23, 2006, par. 2.
10. Resolution 1747, March 24, 2007, par. 5, par. 6.
11. "Stepping towards the precipice," Editorial, The Hindu, March 27, 2007.
12. See Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, "Hegemony and Appeasement: Setting Up the Next U.S.-Israeli Target (Iran) For Another 'Supreme International Crime,'" ZNet, January 27, 2007.
* Edward S. Herman is an economist and media analyst, co-author with Noam Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent; David Peterson is a Chicago-based researcher and journalist.[TOP]
The War on Iran
The U.S. has completed major military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf within a short distance of Iranian territorial waters. This naval deployment is meant to "send a warning to Tehran" following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposes major economic sanctions on Iran in retaliation for its non-compliance with U.S. demands regarding its uranium enrichment program.
The U.S. war games off the Iranian coastline involved the participation of two aircraft carriers, the USS John C. Stennis carrier group and the USS Eisenhower with some 10,000 navy personnel and more than 100 warplanes. The USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group, which is part of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, entered the Persian Gulf on March 27, escorted by guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (see http://www.navy.mil/).
USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) and its air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9 is said to have conducted "a dual-carrier exercise" together with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG):
"This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to 5th Fleet. This exercise demonstrates the importance the ability for both strike groups to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the Navy's commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in the region."
The war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and confrontation following the arrest by Iran of 15 British Royal Navy personnel, who were allegedly patrolling inside Iranian territorial waters.The British government, supported by media disinformation, has been using this incident, with a view to creating a situation of confrontation with Iran. The maneuvers coupled with British threats in relation to the unfolding "Iran Hostage Crisis" constitute an act of provocation on the part of the Anglo-American military alliance.
These war games in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea are the culmination of a broader process of military planning, which started in mid-2003, with the launching of Iran Theater Near Term (TIRANNT). The later contemplated various "scenarios" of U.S. military intervention directed against Iran. In early 2004, the scenarios under TIRANNT were incorporated into actual plans of aerial bombings of Iran under "Concept Plan" (CONPLAN) 8022.
In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In 2005, the U.S., Turkey and Israel in liaison with NATO were actively involved in the process of planning this military operation, with the stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems. Israel would be actively involved in the military operation. Since last August, the U.S. has conducted a number of military exercises in and around the Persian Gulf. From September through December, a major war games simulation entitled Vigilant Shield O7 was conducted. The stated enemies are Irmingham (Iran), Churya (China), Ruebek (Russia) and Nemesis (North Korea).
According to the U.S. Navy, this latest round of U.S. military maneuvers conducted in late March was on a significantly larger scale when compared to previous deployments. Press reports suggest that these maneuvers constituted the largest deployment of U.S. naval power since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Almost simultaneously, Iran was also conducting large scale naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, to the extent that both the U.S. and Iran are on a war footing.
Critical Crossroads
A recent Russian press report, quoting intelligence sources, has sounded an alarm. According to a RIA-Novosti report, quoted by the European and Israeli press (Jerusalem Post), the U.S. is planning to initiate air attacks on Iran under "Operation Bite," starting on Good Friday, April 6th, targeting both military and civilian sites, including Iran's air defense system.
"Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday. "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched. He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost." He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a "massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future." While the Russian report must be acknowledged, there is, however, no corroborating evidence, which would enable us to pinpoint the exact timeline of a military attack on Iran. Moreover, there are several important factors which suggest, from a military organizational standpoint, that unless we are dealing with a case of sheer political madness, the Pentagon is not ready to launch an attack on Iran.
Key Military Appointments
Several key military appointments were made in the course of the month of March. Of significance, Admiral William J. Fallon, was appointed Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on March 16 by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. It is unlikely that Admiral Fallon would activate a military operation directed against Iran, within a few weeks following his appointment as CENTCOM Commander.
Meanwhile, another major military appointment was implemented, which has a direct bearing on Iran war preparations. Admiral Timothy J. Keating Commander of U.S. NORTHCOM was appointed on March 26, to head U.S. Pacific Command, which includes both the 5th and the 7th fleets. The 7th Fleet Pacific Command is the largest U.S. combatant command. Keating, who takes over from Admiral Fallon is also an unbending supporter of the "war on terrorism." Pacific Command would be playing a key role in the context of a military operation directed against Iran (See http://www.pacom.mil/about/pacom.shtml). Of significance, Admiral Keating was also involved in the 2003 attack on Iraq as commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet.
While these key appointments point to a consolidation of the neo-conservative military agenda in the Middle East, they also suggest that the U.S. military would not launch a new phase of the Middle East war prior to consolidating these command appointments, particularly those at the level of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is the key operational command unit in charge of the Middle East war theater.
Admiral Fallon is fully compliant with the Bush administration's war plans in relation to Iran. He replaces Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with Rumsfeld's successor, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. While Abizaid recognized both the failures and the weaknesses of the U.S. military in Iraq, Admiral Fallon is closely aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney. He is also firmly committed to the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). CENTCOM would coordinate an attack on Iran from the Middle East war theater. Moreover, the appointment of an Admiral is indicative of a shift in emphasis of CENTCOM's functions in the war theater. The "near term" emphasis is Iran rather than Iraq, requiring the coordination of naval and air force operations in the Persian Gulf.
U.S. Naval Power in the Region
At present there are two aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf region, including the Eisenhower and the Stennis. In comparison, the deployment of naval power prior to the March 2003 blitzkrieg against Iraq was on a significantly larger scale.In the early months of 2003, there were five U.S. aircraft carriers within striking distance of Iraq plus one British aircraft carrier. In the 2003 campaign, three carrier strike groups were present in the Persian Gulf (Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk) and two other U.S. carrier groups (Roosevelt and Truman) were involved in coordinating the bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.
The USS Nimitz nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its accompanying battle group is currently on its way to the Persian Gulf., which would bring the number of aircraft carriers up to three. It is unlikely that military action would commence before a third aircraft carrier is positioned in the war theater. (Official statements, however, have indicated that the Nimitz would take over from the USS Eisenhower and that only two carrier strike groups would be present in the Persian Gulf Arabian Sea region.) Moreover, U.S. weaknesses in the Iraq war theater, Iran's capabilities to retaliate and inflict significant damage on U.S. forces inside Iraq, as well as mounting opposition to the U.S. presidency, have a direct bearing on the timing of a military operation directed against Iran.
Iran Is Politically Isolated
Iran is politically isolated. Unilateralism prevails within the corridors of the United Nations as well as within the Middle East war theater. The U.S. sponsored resolution in the United Nations Security Council received unanimous support. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution were discarded, following U.S. pressures. The text of the resolution was adopted unanimously. Neither Russia nor China, which have extensive military cooperation agreements with Iran, exercised their veto, nor did they abstain.
This UN Security Council "consensus" was reached following crucial shadow diplomacy by Washington to secure the unanimous support of the entire Council including its five permanent members plus Germany, which participated in the formulation of the draft resolution in separate consultations. The UN resolution has totally isolated Iran: China and Russia have been drawn into an alliance of stealth with the U.S.
What is crucial in the Security Council Resolution is that neither China nor Russia will intervene on Iran's side if Iran is attacked. Moreover, while Russia and China are diplomatic partners of the U.S. in the UN sponsored economic sanctions regime, they are the object of U.S. military threats as confirmed by Operation Vigilant Shield 07. The latter are war game scenarios conducted from September to December 2006, which explicitly target not only Nemesis (North Korea) and Irmingham (Iran) but also Ruebek (Russia) and Churia (China).
One would expect that separate "deals" were reached respectively with China and Russia, where certain commitments were met in bilateral discussions by Washington. Both Beijing and Moscow, which are partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in an overtly ambiguous situation of turning a blind eye to U.S. military threats, while also supporting the Iranian military in building its air and ground defense systems in the eventuality of US-NATO-Israeli attacks on Iran, which has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has supported Iran's ballistic missile technology in negotiations reached in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami. Ironically, coinciding with the UN Security Council decision in late March, the Russian press confirmed that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is actually considering an enlargement, which could consist ingranting full membership to countries in the SCO (e.g. Iran) which currently have the status of observers.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is at war with the president regarding America's Iraq war strategy, but not a word is muttered on an impending war against Iran, as if it were totally irrelevant. The threats are real, an incident could trigger a war. The war criminals in high office desperately need this war to stay in power. The U.S. Congress is unlikely to be able in a minimum way to reverse the decision to go to war with Iran, despite the fact that this would lead to a worldwide catastrophe, an escalation of the war, with an impending police state in America to support the militarization of civilian institutions.
The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
The Neoconservatives in the Bush administration are in control of key military appointments: specifically those pertaining to Central Command (USCENTCOM), U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. New military appointments have recently been implemented. The newly appointed commander of USCENTCOM, Admiral Fallon will play a key role in overseeing the military operation in the Middle East War theater.
USSTRATCOM, headed by General James E. Cartwright, with headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, would play a central decision making and coordinating role in the eventuality of a war on Iran. The administration has ordered USSTRATCOM to elaborate centralized war plans directed against Iran. CENTCOM would largely be involved in carrying out these war plans in the Middle East war theater.
It is worth recalling that in 2004, Vice-President Dick Cheney had demanded that USSTRATCOM draw up a contingency plan directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The contingency plan included a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.
USSTRATCOM is described as "a global integrator charged with the missions of full-spectrum global strike." USSTRATCOM is in charge of the coordination of command structures under global C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). "Day-to-day planning and execution [by STRATCOM] for the primary mission areas is done by five Joint Functional Component Commands or JFCCs and three other functional components:"
Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is undergoing several important organizational changes, which have a direct bearing on implementing war plans in relation to Iran. According to USSTRATCOM commander General Cartwright, USSTRATCOM is developing "new functionally aligned organizations designed to improve our operational speed and progress" (statement to the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee). "We've moved from the old triad construct of the bombers, the submarines and the (intercontinental ballistic missiles) to one that is more integrated and offers the country a broader range of activities that can deter and assure our allies."
According to Cartwright's statement, "the functional components for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; network warfare; global network operations; information operations; integrated missile defense; and combating weapons of mass destruction are at or nearing full operational capability."
In addition, STRATCOM is constructing an organizational system "that can be joint from the start, can move to combined or allied type of configuration so that we don't have to build those in a time of crisis," Cartwright said. "Having a balanced defense infrastructure underpinned by command and control and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is critical to the strategy," he said." (U.S. Strategic Command Refines, Fields New Capabilities Mar 9, 2007 -- By John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service)
[TOP]