Countdown to attack on Iran has started

As talks open in Turkey over Iran’s nuclear programme, there is increasing evidence that a countdown to an attack on the Islamic republic by Israel and the United States has begun behind the smokescreen of face-to-face meetings.

The negotiations between Iran, the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, seem designed to fail because there’s nothing on offer. A military strike in the autumn, on the eve of the American presidential election, is now openly being discussed in military circles.

A scenario similar to the one that proceeded the 2003 invasion of Iraq is unfolding. International law is being manipulated to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran, even though there is no evidence that the country represents an imminent threat to either Israel or the US.

Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University in the US, claims that Iran says it wants to “to push the Israelis into the sea and that they are constructing nuclear weapons. That's enough for me to say that cannot be allowed. If the U.S. or Israel takes the initiative to block that action, it can hardly be said to be violating international law. It can only be preserving international law for future generations."

Other experts take a totally opposite view. But they can be easily ignored. After all, the Foreign Office’s most senior lawyer quit on the eve of the Iraq war after she submitted that it would an illegal act of aggression.

In fact, there is no evidence that Iran is actually building a nuclear bomb. Even the Central Intelligence Agency and Mossad admit that. But just as in 2003, over the fabled but non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”, the facts are either being ignored or simply distorted.

Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since July 2009, which is responsible for verifying Iran’s nuclear programme, stands accused of pro-Western bias and of “over-reliance on unverified intelligence and of sidelining sceptics”. IAEA reports have becoming increasingly hostile, leading one former weapons inspector to comment:

“What we learned back in 2002 and 2003, when we were in the run-up to the war, was that peer review was very important, and that the analysis should not be left to a small group of people. So what have we learned since then? Absolutely nothing. Just like [former US vice-president] Dick Cheney, Amano is relying on a very small group of people and those opinions are not being checked."

President Obama is being driven by the powerful Zionist lobby to support an attack by Israel or face losing key votes in the November election. On the other hand, there is no appetite among American voters for another war. In a recent poll, only 20% strongly favoured an attack that could lead to an Iraq-type conflict.

Ultimately, the intention of Washington and its allies is to create conditions for what they hope will be regime change in Tehran. They know that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in itself would be meaningless because they are buried deep below ground. Instead, they hope a military attack would lead to the downfall of the Iranian theocracy and its replacement by a pro-Western “democracy”.

Yet leading figures in the Iranian opposition feature in a video showing activists and intellectuals speaking out against an attack. They say it would strengthen the hand of the regime, which has brutally cracked down on its opponents.

Sadeq Zibakalam, who teaches at with Tehran University , says: "A military strike will not help the democracy and reformist movement at all because it will cause militarisation of the country. The military, the revolutionary guards and radical elements will increase their power."

None of this is of concern to the major powers. Just as in Iraq, the long-term “prize” is the opening up of markets to global corporations and investment banks who are struggling in the capitalist recession. With Iran far better armed than Iraq was, the potential for miscalculation leading to international war is immense.

The campaign to stop an attack on Iran should begin now. Regime change should begin at home.

Paul Feldman
Communications editor

'No' to war on Iran

With evidence accumulating that Iran is not actually building a nuclear weapon, the sanctions and oil embargo imposed by the United States and Europe looks increasingly like the provocation that it is.

Behind the rhetoric, all sorts of interests are involved, political and economic, many of them connected to divisions emerging in the wake of a global recession that worsens by the day.

America, for example, does not used oil imported from Iran but the rising economic power of China does. So Washington will undoubtedly use the embargo to exert pressure on Beijing amidst a brewing trade and currency war.

President Obama is seeking re-election with the country’s cities, towns and rural communities enduring mass unemployment, homelessness, food stamps and poverty. Talking tough against Tehran is a useful diversion while brushing up Obama’s image as a man prepared to use the country’s military muscle.

Throw in the wild card of a weak Israeli government (which has fallen out with Obama) facing waves of social discontent and looking for any excuse to attack Iran, the danger signs are there. A miscalculation by either side could easily lead a full-scale war.

What you won’t find widely reported is the fact that intelligence and military agencies in the US and Israel don’t believe that Iran has made a decision to build a nuclear weapon.

Ray McGovern, retired CIA analyst and co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, says: “In recent days, that judgment has been expressed by high-profile figures in the defence establishments of the two countries – U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak.” He gives chapter and verse to back up his case. It is also a view shared by the Institute for Science and International Security.

But McGovern is concerned that the New York Times, which misled the world in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, is playing a similar role: “In this up-is-down world, America’s newspaper of record won’t even report accurately what Israel (or the CIA) thinks on this important issue, if that goes against the alarmist conventional wisdom that the neocons favour.”

He adds: “If Iran is not working on building a nuclear bomb, then the threats of pre-emptive war are not only unjustified, they could be exactly the motivation for Iran to decide that it does need a nuclear bomb to protect itself and its people.”

There is rhetoric on both sides. Iran doesn’t have the military capability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, as it has threatened. Its navy is made up of a handful of small ships and would be obliterated within minutes of a confrontation with the American fleet on standby in the region.

The Islamic government is facing real economic difficulties as a result of the sanctions already in force. Unemployment and inflation have soared in recent months, while the currency, the Iranian rial, has lost 40% of its value against the US dollar within a year.
A huge black market is dominated by the Revolutionary Guards, who used wanton violence in the crackdown on street protests over the last couple of years.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear weapons in the shape of China, India, Pakistan and the American fleet. And, of course, Israel. The hypocrisy in the official denials that the Israelis have an arsenal of nuclear weapons is overwhelming. If all this was about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, where are the sanctions against Israel?

Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, is undoubtedly behind the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists over the past year. And prime minister Netanyahu doesn’t give a fig for Obama’s re-election prospects and could defy Washington with a pre-emptive strike this year.

In the end, the Iranians have a right to defend themselves. If nuclear weapons are a deterrent, and Israel has them, it is natural Iran should want one. The Iranian regime is reactionary and oppressive but is not an imperialist power. That’s why we have to say, no any attack on Iran by the US, Israel, Britain and France.

Paul Feldman
Communications editor