Oppose the Increasing Threats Against Iran
March 5th, 2010 § 12 Comments
The following is a call to action recently released by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII).
Iran is surrounded by hostile, occupying forces.
An appeal to anti-war organizations & activists to oppose the increasing threats against Iran
Around the world, anti-war activists are preparing for major protests this spring to oppose the continuing U.S.-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a storm of developments is dramatically increasing tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In response, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) is issuing this appeal to the anti-war movements in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries to raise the demands of “No war, no sanctions, no internal interference in Iran!”
Iran is a country that hasn’t attacked a neighbor in more than 200 years. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran after the 1979 Revolution and, with support from the West, used chemical weapons against both civilians and combatants, the Islamic Republic did not retaliate in kind. And yet the U.S. government claims that Iran represents a serious threat to the Middle East region and the entire world. Without a shred of evidence, the U.S. charges that Iran’s program to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes is just a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Never mentioned is the fact that, as a signatory to the U.N.’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy is enshrined in international law. Just a few months ago, the U.N’s International Atomic Energy Chief, Mohammed ElBardai, the person responsible for monitoring compliance with that treaty, stated that “Nobody is sitting in Iran today developing nuclear weapons. Tehran doesn’t have an ongoing nuclear weapons program. But somehow, everyone in the West is talking about how Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world.” (Interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Sept. 2009) Instead, warning of world disaster if Iran should succeed in its imaginary goal of obtaining nuclear arms, Washington argues that Iran must be forcefully brought to its knees, through a combination of increasingly crippling sanctions, taking advantage of Iran’s internal divisions and preparing for a possible military attack.
Consider these recent developments:
• The U.S has been pressuring the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth and more severe round of sanctions against Iran. The only real holdout has been the People’s Republic of China, which in January held the council’s revolving presidency. On Feb. 1, however, the president’s seat passed to France, which is nearly as hostile to Iran’s nuclear program as is the U.S. (France itself, by the way, relies on nuclear power for 80 percent of its own energy needs.) The Security Council’s permanent members, including China and Russia, have never been a real barrier for the US. Not only has the council already approved three rounds of sanctions against Iran, but the Obama Administration is now talking of “bypassing” the U.N. in its latest push for sanctions. While sanctions are often promoted as an alternative to war, the world now knows that the sanctions imposed by the U.N. against Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War resulted in the deaths of up to 1.5 million Iraqis, a third of them children.
• Not content with just pressuring the U.N., the U.S. is pushing ahead with plans for more of its own unilateral sanctions. Congress is getting close to passing the Dodd-Shelby Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. Among other provisions, this bipartisan bill would “impose new sanctions on entities involved in exporting certain refined petroleum products to Iran or building Iran’s domestic refining capacity.” This provision starkly exposes the real U.S. goal: to economically cripple Iran in an attempt to so complicate life for the Iranian people that they might demand a “regime change.” In the past, the U.S. has argued that Iran doesn’t need to develop nuclear power because of its vast oil reserves, while conveniently omitting the fact that Iran doesn’t have sufficient refinery capacity to meet its energy needs through oil alone. Targeting companies and countries that sell refined petroleum products to Iran, or that help Iran expand its own refining capacity, shows that the real goal has nothing to do with countering nuclear proliferation. (The U.S. even pressures European countries not to provide Iran with the means to develop wind energy!) Those who desire hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East can tolerate no independent regional powers, whether or not they present a threat to any other country. This reality was dramatically demonstrated in 1953, when the CIA toppled Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, for the “crime” of nationalizing Iran’s oil industry.
• Meanwhile, these threats of new sanctions are being accompanied by a military build-up in the Persian Gulf region. On Jan. 31, The Wall Street Journal reported that, in recent months, the U.S. and its Persian Gulf allies have stepped up their military defenses “in response to Iranian missile tests and Tehran’s continued defiance of international efforts to curtail its nuclear program.” The moves have included “upgrades, new purchases of American-made Patriot antimissile batteries and the addition of advanced air- and missile-defense radars .…” The Journal reported that, although “some of the buildup has been going on for years … the heightened profile of the moves comes as the Obama administration has toughened its rhetoric against Tehran.”
• And, according to a Feb. 1 Reuters report, “The United States has expanded land- and sea-based missile defense systems in and around the Gulf to counter what it sees as Iran’s growing missile threat …. The deployments include expanded land-based Patriot defensive missile installations in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, as well as Navy ships with missile defense systems in and around the Mediterranean, officials said. … The chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said last month the Pentagon must have military options ready to counter Iran should Obama call for them.”
• Finally, Iran’s ongoing internal political crisis has apparently led some Western anti-war organizations and activists to be ambivalent about the need to stand against Western aggression against Iran. Regardless of how activists view Iran’s internal situation, we all must agree that outside pressure and interference must be opposed. Recognizing this, Iran’s political opposition has urged Western countries to stay out of Iran’s internal affairs. As presidential opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, has put it, “We are opposed to any types of sanctions against our nation. This is what living the Green Path means.” (Statement No. 13, Sept. 28, 2009) No truly progressive democracy activist in a country targeted by the U.S. would appeal to the U.S. for support.
The political positions taken by anti-war activists in the West can become a real factor in strategic decisions made by the U.S. government and its allies. Because of this, we are heartened to see that in the United States the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations and the ANSWER Coalition have added the demand of “No War or Sanctions Against Iran!” to their fliers promoting national anti-war protests on March 20. We call on all other coalitions, organizations and individual activists to do the same, and to further demand “No Outside Interference in Iran’s Internal Affairs! Self-determination for the Iranian People!”
Regardless of differences in our political analyses and views, these demands should be acceptable to all who struggle for peace, justice and a better world for all.
This appeal has been initiated by the
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
www.campaigniran.orgFor more information or to contact CASMII please visit: http://www.campaigniran.org
a good piece, but why no mention of Israel? As it’s the Israel lobby which is promoting an attack on Iran most aggressively, as the ‘terrorist’ groups which the US claims Iran is backing are in fact anti-Israel resistance groups, as the only state in the region with nuclear weapons is the Zionist apartheid regime, this seems like a rather massive oversight.
WE CANT EFFECTIVELY OPPOSE ANTI-IRAN AGGRESSION WITHOUT EXPOSING THE ISRAEL LOBBY
Because then they would lose the support of US ‘antiwar’ groups whose support is conditional on the non-mention of the lobby. As Mary-Kay Wilmers had said, the US left is also claimed by the lobby. I am sure CASMII is not unaware of this fact. If they are to get the signatures of Chomsky or Rabbi Lerner on their petitions (yes, that most effective check on imperial wars), they’ll have to comply with the only commandment of the US left: “thou shalt see no evil (lobby)”
If you recall only a couple of years back some prime “ideologues” in the Glasgow Anti-War movement itself denounced and tried to instigate a quasi-boycott or , at the very least , a coordinated heckling campaign when a member of CASMII was invited to articiulate the case for not having air strikes against Iran at a time when such an option was more likely than it is today.
This does mean the problem is not only within the US but is a Universal Left achilles heal phenomenon eminating from the rigid adherence to dogmatic class concept templates of two centuries back which the left apply to 21st century scenarios.
The original sin of the Left is still that they see mileage in the concept of States as a progressive tool as opposed to imperialist reality which used States as divide and conquer mechanisms , hence Picot-Sykes and the Durrand Line as well as Chad/Sudan and other devisive examples in Africa.
So has Chomsky. Finkelstein another. These people have done tremendous work in the service of justice and Palestinian rights. Nobody doubts that. Where I differ with them (and Asa’ad Abu Khalil too – see his piece on Mossad above) is in their inability to recognise the crucial role of the Israel lobby in shaping both American popular perceptions of the Middle East and Muslim world and actual policy. One reason why it’s difficult to recognise this is the justified fear that the ignorant might generally blame ‘the Jews’ for disastrous US policy in the middle east. But Mearsheimer and Walt, Phil Weiss and others who honestly address the role of the lobby are not suggesting that it’s ‘the Jews’. It isn’t the Neturei Karta, it isn’t Ilan Pappe, it isn’t the decent American Jews (always a majority) who opposed the Iraq war. It’s a slick foreign government operation disguised as a domestic lobby claiming to represent all American Jews, and that Israeli and American aims and enemies are identical. It certainly mobilises a lot of right wing American Jewish money and guilt/ fear, but it also mobilises essentially antisemitic dispensationalist Christians. It is dangerous to all of us and must be exposed. Another reason that e.g. Chomsky and Finkelstein are reluctant to realise the lobby’s importance may be their old-school marxist focus on empires and economies. culture, ethnicity, religion, nationality etc have traditionally not been given enough attention in marxist analysis. (although Chomsky knows this from his work on the media, a part of the superstructure which certainly affects the base). Chomsky talks about elites. but who are these elites. does the identity and personal beliefs of those who make the biggest individual contributions to both republican and democratic parties not count for something?
Please. Mearsheimer and Walt are very well respected scholars, but they are not middle east experts – at the time their article was published their academic important was, perhaps, slightly wanning – whether this was an attempt to vault themselves back into the international scene, i do not know. The Jewish Lobby arguement is a common one; but completely misplaced, and an ‘easy’ reply for those who are not willing to accept reality.
U.S. policy toward the Middle East will, for better or worse, continue to be shaped primarily by the will of the American majority, not the machinations of any minority, however wealthy or engaged in the political process some of its members may be. this is truth, not some sort of ‘propaganda’. during eisenhower’s administration the lobby was viewed negatively – israel was viewed as the most vibrant impediment to peace in the middle east, not arab states. much of the policy towards israel between this time and the 90′s was based on a strategic consensus and couched in the cold war. there was huge condemnation from the U.S towards the suez crisis, and threatened sanctions after the syrian water crisis. when the U.S realised there wasn’t a clear pan-arab stance (and the possibility of this being used against the soviets), the U.S gravitated towards Israel – a state that would. unlike arab leaders in cairo, damascus and bagdad, who grew closed to moscow, israel stood as a clear beacon of western orientation. a strategic ally – this cannot be stressed enough. it wasn’t till post 67 war that france stopped being israel’s main arms supplier, and the the U.S began SELLING, not giving the jewish state arms. even kennedy remained neutral towards the confict – his relationship with israel being shaped more by the fact that U.S security concerns did not lie with those of the arab states.
the relationship between the U.S and israel did change post 1967 – but this was because of the huge military achievement by israel, not anything like AIPAC. even nixon, under whom U.S assistance flourished, he thought most of the jewish community opposed him. the jewish lobby had no effect on him. remember, it was reagan that recognised the plo, and H.W. Bush that dragged shamir to the madrid peace conference. even if we take a more recent decade – the 90s. clinton’s administration, and the largest proportion of jews in his cabinet – but his era in office was defined by the oslo accords and taba negotiations. he even met arafat more times that UK prime ministers. not the behaviour of someone brainwashed by a suppose unstoppable lobby machine. it was clinton that offered unconditional sovereignty to the palestinians on the temple mount too, remember.
as organski argues, the false image of this all powerful jewish lobby survives because of its precise usefulness to that effect. those pro israel like to believe they have political clout in the U.S, capitol hill can deflect political critisim to ‘the lobby’, and arab leaders may find U.S behaviour easier to stomach if they blame the ‘lobby’. it is a useful scapegoat. this is true because the power of the ‘lobby’ has varied so much. it has no been all-encompassing – it has know more failures than successed – just look at their influence in the 78 camp david accords, and even the arm deal to saudi arabia (which AIPAC greatly opposed). but this is not to say they don’t have influence, but their ability lies in being able to channel U.S wide support rather than create it. the jewish state, and support for israel, has a huge ideological attachment for a diverse section of the U.S population – not just jewish (their population dramatically declining). israel became an ally because of shared cultural, religious, and intellectual affinities, not because of some zionst infiltration. this is not to take anything away from the likes of AIPAC – an organisation that has progressed rapidly, is well funded – but its impact has been very mixed. the important of the U.S – israel relationship is not defined by the lobby, but the lobby is defined by the relationship. this is not to say, either, that U.S policy towards israel, specifically in israel’s behaviour towards settlements, is right – it is wrong, and is a small piece in the puzzle of finding a resolution in the region. but to lay this at the feet of the jewish lobby and movement in the U.S gives it far too much credit.
please see this very good article by walter mead, a Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (the CFR, i’m afraid, cannot be counted in the mythological lobby);
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64446/walter-russell-mead/the-new-israel-and-the-old
p.s – i am neither pro arab, or pro israel; in fact, prior to a series of nights of extensive reading i was subscribing to that arguement of Mearsheimer and Walt. i was ready to point the finger at the jewish lobby. but, i’m afraid, it just doesn’t hold water. their iraq and ‘war on terror’ arguements are just as flawed, but i feel i would be wasting my breath (typing ability) to preach anything different here.
But dont you think , using your own argument , that Clinton offering Palestinians “full sovereignty” over the Temple Mount , an area the size of a college bowling field, as opposed to Full Sovereign Statehood over all territories captured in 1967 shows just how little maneouvre US policy makers and Presidents have when faced off against this alleged “non-existant” lobby operation.
where did i say it was non-existent? the ‘israel lobby’ exists and is very powerful; just like CANF, or perhaps more in tune with this conflict – the influnce of the settlers on israeli policy. my gripe is that it’s a bit short sighted and convenient to lay the blame all at the lobby. take your clinton temple mount example (which isn’t great because you’re taking putting it into it’s context) do you think that the general disposition of the USA public, the USA public as the electorate, the political clout of the christian evangelists, and the solid state – state relationship between israel and the USA (among other things) didn’t play a part?
general disposition of the USA public, the USA public as the electorate, the political clout of the christian evangelists, and the solid state – state relationship between israel and the USA (among other things) didn’t play a part?
General disposition of the public is well known, and is more accurately reflected in Mearsheimer and Walt’s views than in Walter Russel Mead’s, who basically makes a false statement. There are polls going all the way back to 1948 which show that US public is largely indifferent to the I-P conflict. To the extent that there is interest, Israel has only marginally higher support than Palestinians. This, despite the fact that the major US press and media have all but excluded the Palestinian view point. We can only guess what things will be like if the media weren’t censoring the Palestinian viewpoint.
US public as the electoral doesn’t vote on I-P. It votes on issues such as healthcare, immigration, jobs, economy, gay marriage, abortion and the like.
Christian Evangelist’s political clout is overrated, and insignificant. US was no less pro-Israel under Clinton who did not in any way rely on Christian right votes or money.
Solid state-state relationship? Give me a break. Every state department (with only two exceptions) has seen Israel as a strategic liability. So have US businesses who unsuccessfuly battled Israel first over USIFTA, later over ILSA, and today over sanctions on Iran. US businesses have lost over $80 since USIFTA was signed in 1985, not to mention the contracts they have lost, the patents and intellectual property they have had stolen.
I don’t think you know what you are talking about. And Russel Mead’s propagandistic screed is a poor basis for engaging in this important debate.
ok. please tell me; where does one start in attempting to engage this important debate? where are the balanced opinions? walter russell mead is seen as a reputable voice in international relations – but his opinion is just propagandist screed and a poor basis for discussion? does this mantle include CRF too? what about Foreign Affairs? where are the good guys providing the good basis for engaging this debate? will people like walter russell mead claim their material to be a poor basis for discussion? i cannot claim to know what i’m talking about, that is true – i’ve only begun trying to grapple with the conflict. but i can only read so much, and what i have read has been given to me, obviously to be looked at objectively, but as a solid foundation to start. it is such a polarised debate (specifically around US/israel) that it seems there is always someone that feverently disagrees; that molds facts and figures. take the FA round table debate with mearsheimer, walt, and 4 or 5 other reputable voices, either in academia or policy – even they can’t agree. it is frustrating as it is difficult to form an opinion on this – something that is so hot blooded. honestly, i am trying my best to understand but sometimes i just want to put my head in my hands and turn to something less conflictual.
where are the balanced opinions?
Don’t know about balanced ones. I can tell you where you can find accurate ones. Each one of the propositions you present is empirically verifiable.
walter russell mead is seen as a reputable voice in international relations – but his opinion is just propagandist screed and a poor basis for discussion?
‘Seen as’ — universally? ‘Seen as’ is a poor measure of a commentator’s credibility. And yes, his review of M&W was a propagandist screed because it is undermined by available evidence.
does this mantle include CRF too?
CFR is an institution, it hires all kinds of people, some decent ones, some certified propagandists. Such as Max Boot.
what about Foreign Affairs?
Ditto.
here are the good guys providing the good basis for engaging this debate?
I’d say the London Review of Books, the best publication by far in my view.
will people like walter russell mead claim their material to be a poor basis for discussion?
I am sure they won’t. Does anyone?
i cannot claim to know what i’m talking about, that is true – i’ve only begun trying to grapple with the conflict. but i can only read so much, and what i have read has been given to me, obviously to be looked at objectively, but as a solid foundation to start. it is such a polarised debate (specifically around US/israel) that it seems there is always someone that feverently disagrees; that molds facts and figures.
I think you are better off looking at the evidence they present than the conclusions they reach. They are not always congruent. The debate may be polarized, as all cases of fundamental injustice where power lies with the perpetrators are, but the facts aren’t disputed. What you make of them is ultimately a moral question, and yours may be different than mine. That doesn’t mean the facts of the conflict are in question.
take the FA round table debate with mearsheimer, walt, and 4 or 5 other reputable voices, either in academia or policy – even they can’t agree.
All three of the opponents were chosen from the Israel lobby (one a former Israeli Foreign Minister, one a neocon, and one a member of AIPAC). Were you really expecting them to agree?
honestly, i am trying my best to understand but sometimes i just want to put my head in my hands and turn to something less conflictual.
As I said, the facts are rather straightforward, only opinions differ. Why not begin with facts and try to reach your own conclusions?
Check out this book: it has the diplomatic history in the form of delcassified records from 8 different presidencies:
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/04/14/empire-and-agency/
i will take a look at that book, thank you. regarding my walter russell mead point – i actually meant wouldn’t he see opposing views registered in academia as a ‘poor basis for engaging this debate’, thus adding to the overall confusion i was trying to get at.
also, regarding what you said earlier, “There are polls going all the way back to 1948 which show that US public is largely indifferent to the I-P conflict. To the extent that there is interest, Israel has only marginally higher support than Palestinians.”, surely this, to an extent, proves otherwise;
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/support-israel-near-record-high.aspx
?
You are right, I stand corrected. It is clear that individuals are definitely more supportive of Israel. The polls that I was referring to were about US government support to Israel (specifically, who should the US back in the conflict). In 2003 73 % said the US should favor neither side. According to a 2005 ADL poll, the number had risen to 78%. Andrew Kohut, the president of Pew explained the discrepancy thus: ‘average Americans see shades of gray in the Middle East conflict, and their sympathies notwithstanding, they favor a neutral role for the United States’.
Mearsheimer and Walt address this issue on pp.108-110 in their book.