Uponnothing.co.uk

Iran has been a common topic here at Uponnothing, being covered every now and again since May 13th. Since the very beginning discussion has focused on how the Bush administration and the Blair circle have created the atmosphere for some kind of ‘pre-emptive’ strike against another threat of weapons of mass destruction. The agenda has been promoted through general ignorance in reporting through mainstream media outlets, and hyped in the wake of the London bombings.

Some - most notably Antiwar.com - have tried to redress the balance and unravel the lies and half-truths that are seemingly leading to another war, a war on a far greater scale than the current Iraq conflict. However, the war in Iran seems to be drawing closer, with Bush giving his clearest hints yet that he is expecting force to be used:

In all these instances we want diplomacy to work and so we are working feverishly on the diplomatic route and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know I’m sceptical.

Of course, this kind of statement is very familiar to those now dissecting the build-up to the Iraq war, didn’t we hear way back in 2002/2003 how hard Bush and Blair were trying to pursue the diplomatic course - only to discover later that this was a complete lie, and the policy of war had already been decided. As ever lessons are never learnt by those responsible for future policies, simply because they have no desire to learn them. Instead the few dissenting voices are marginalised, and considered apologists for terrorists, or undemocratic states - something that is so easily done by the right-wing press regarding Iran.

Rather than question the Iranian pursuit of Nuclear power (the UN have today rejected claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons), or their legal right to enrich uranium for generating power, the popular press seem more concerned with labelling the leadership in Iran as undemocratic extremists. Whilst at the same time they declare the population as half-terrorists - wanting to bomb us ‘civilised’ folks, and half-victims - wanting us ‘civilised’ folks to rescue them with some good old-fashioned Western ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’. Now, it cannot be disputed that Iran has a culture very different to ours,they have internal human rights issues regarding dissidents, and they enforce a very strict interpretation of Islam, but, none of these factors are any of our god damn business. They did elect their leader, and did so largely as a big F-you to Bush’s attempts to have his preferred candidate elected, anyway, how they run their country is up to them. I find it difficult to beleive that we would listen to Iran if they started to criticise the human rights issues in America, or the neo-con extremists in the White house, or the repression of dissidents through the Patriot Act.

The pursuit of the war in Iran seems to be largely driven by Bush at the moment, with Blair remaining fairly quiet on the subject. Germany - one member of the ‘EU three’ (France being the third) negotiating on the subject - has openly criticised Bush’s stance on the matter, something that naturally New Labour would never dream of doing. However, such criticism from Germany is ignoring the fact that they are part of the hypocritical negotiations taking place in the first place. Very few people seem to discuss the fact that the West is discussing options for strikes against a country simply because they may be pursuing uranium enrichment that could open the possibility of creating a nuclear weapon in around 10 years. Now, the desire to harness the power of the atom to generate energy is perfectly legal, and is based on the non-proliferation treaty, which was concluded in 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970.

The NPT acknowledged that five states had conducted nuclear weapon tests by January 1, 1967 (Britain, China, France, the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia), defining them as nuclear weapon states, with particular obligations under Article I not to transfer nuclear weapons or assist others to acquire them and under Article VI to pursue nuclear disarmament.

Now, basically the treaty was signed so that those nuclear powers could legally ensure that their powers as nuclear states would not be challenged or diminished by other states gaining access to nuclear weapons, and the legitimacy of the states that already had weapons was falsely solidified. The irony of nuclear states being responsible for stopping other states from having access to nuclear weapons seems to be little commented on with regards to Iran, instead we assume we have the right to the bomb, whereas those strange darkies over in Iran cannot be trusted with it.

Now, if people want to be worried about who can be trusted with Nuclear weapons then perhaps they should also cast an evil eye at the White house, where a war-mongering president with the IQ of a teabag draws up plans on nuking Iran, surrounded by sychophantic, power-hungry neo-cons. Not to mention that America - those peace-loving invaders of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc - have the dubious honour of being the first - and currently only - nation to have used Nuclear bombs against an enemy. Well, we say enemy, but i’m not really sure the 60,000 or so Japanese civilians killed in one blast can really be described as enemies, but that’s another question, and one that Americans rarely ask themselves.

Furthermore, the non-proliferation treaty has not stopped numerous nations getting hold of the magic bomb, and some of them have been developed with tacit agreement from the US and UK. The desire for countries to get nuclear weapons is easy to understand, it is the only way in which they can defend themselves from the aggression of the nuclear states - in particular America and the UK. Would NATO have plowed into Yugoslavia (causing, not preventing an humanitarian disaster) if Yugoslavia had nuclear weapons? Would Bush and Blair have concocted a series of lies to illegally invade Iraq, if Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons?

The answer is of course, no, not a chance in hell. Just look at how we treat those countries that we don’t like, but who have managed to develop Nuclear weapons - such as North Korea, i’m sure Bush and friends would love a ‘regime change’, ‘freedom’ trip into North Korea, but not if it means they might get nuked in return. The threat of war in Iran does not nullify their desire to get nuclear weapons, but makes it all the more neccesary for Iran to secure it’s borders against American invasion. For America to threaten war so cheaply actually serves to justify Iranian fears over American intentions, showing the ignorance of Bush, and making a mockery of his bullshit speeches of how he tries to avoid war through ‘diplomacy’. Bush’s idea of diplomacy is announcing an attack before it takes place.

I am not justifying Iran pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, however, I also refuse to justify the maintenance and expansion of current nuclear arsenals by those already classed as nuclear states. The nuclear states declare outrage at Iran having any desire to develop nuclear energy, in case they might create a bomb, yet we have no such moral outrage at the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the US or UK, being added to at massive expense to the taxpayer.

Again, it is one rule for them, and no rules for us; and you can be certain our leader’s will strike Iran to keep it that way.