5-10-06, 8:57 am

What is at stake in the US-Iran nuclear crisis? Muddy rhetoric and media reports have not helped clarify the situation. Saber-rattling and swirling reports about a possible US or Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, plans for the use of nuclear 'bunker busters' by the US in any military attack, a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran and so on have obscured the underlying issue. Nevertheless, the current nuclear standoff is only a symptom of a greater struggle for control and dominance of the greater Middle East and Central Asian region.

In a recent New Yorker article Seymour Hersh exposed the possibility of a US nuclear (or other) strike on Iran. Despite immediate denials by the Bush and Blair regimes, it became clear that the US military had drawn up a number of military scenarios regarding a possible attack on Iran. Some of these plans included the use of nuclear 'bunker busters,' officially known as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), at alleged clandestine nuclear facilities buried deep within the ground at various sites in Iran. Other plans include the possibility that Israel may unilaterally attack Iranian nuclear facilities in a manner similar to its illegal attack on Iran in the early eighties.

Iran has insisted on its right to enrich uranium and continue other aspects of its nuclear program 'for peaceful purposes' in accordance with its treaty rights and obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA recently determined that there is no evidence that Iran has developed a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The United States has demanded that Iran, regardless of its compliance with the NPT, immediately suspend its uranium enrichment activities and open up its entire nuclear program for unrestricted, intrusive access to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Bush administration has made it clear during these past few months that 'all options' including sanctions and unilateral military assaults 'remain on the table' in its dealings with Iran. Iran, for its part, has threatened retaliation for any military attack, including the withholding of oil supplies to the international market.

The aims of current US policy in the Middle East and beyond can be deciphered from the Bush administration’s National Security Strategy, which, in turn, is based on the much-publicized report of the Project for the New American Century. Key elements of this strategy include: (1) The prevention of the rise of any power in the world that can challenge the military and economic might of the US and threaten its global interests; and (2) The elimination or transformation of existing treaties and laws that bind the actions of the US within globally-accepted restrictions. One can see the fingerprints of this policy all over the current crisis over Iran. One of the consequences, unintended or otherwise, of the US bombing campaign in Afghanistan and its occupation of Iraq, has been the rise of Iranian influence in the region. The fall of the Taliban immediately cemented Iranian influence in western Afghanistan, and the dominance of the Shiite factions in Iraq has solidified Iran’s role in the future of that occupied state. The Bush regime sees the growing influence of Iran in the region, coupled with its oil reserves and civilian nuclear program, as a threat to its interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The nuclear standoff has also provided the Bush regime with an excellent opportunity to dismantle the NPT in favor of a more unilateral approach that promotes its interests. The recent US-India deal on the sharing of nuclear technologies and weapons systems is a gross violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, which prohibits their proliferation. India’s refusal to sign onto the NPT and its open development of nuclear weapons has been ignored by the Bush administration in its attempts to promote India as a strategic ally against the growing dominance of China in the region. In contrast, Iran has been portrayed as a 'rogue state' that cannot be trusted despite its compliance with the NPT thus far. Overall, the US seeks to divert attention away from its own Treaty obligations which call for complete disarmament by the declared nuclear states, focusing instead on using its existing arsenal and newly developed weaponry, such as the 'bunker buster,' to threaten countries that it views as challenging its global hegemony.

Given the grave and dangerous context of the current nuclear flashpoint in US-Iran relations, it is essential that the Peace movement call upon Congress 'to oppose military action against Iran, uphold the law, support diplomatic solutions to any crisis, and put an end to U.S. nuclear hypocrisy.' As demanded by United for Peace and Justice, the 'United States should also demonstrate leadership by fulfilling its own disarmament obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This will require the United States to stop blocking negotiations on abolition and to take meaningful steps towards the elimination of its vast and sophisticated nuclear arsenal.' Call or write your Senators and Representatives today. Call the United Nations and demand that it not cave in to threats of unilateral military actions from the United States.



--Prasad Venugopal is science editor of Political Affairs and is a member of the steering committee of United for Peace and Justice.