|
--
| Socialist
Party USA: Statements |
-
Statement on Iran
by
the SPUSA International
Commission - August, 2008
A military attack on Iran is a real
possibility. George Bush, in the waning days of his Administration, may
launch an attack on Iran, or Israel, with the US blessing, may launch
such an attack on its own. Another scenario is that this administration
may ratchet up the pressures on Iran, leaving it to the next
administration, either Obama or McCain, to initiate a military attack
and occupation. In any case, the Socialist Party opposes the use of
military force or economic sanctions to deal with the problems
involving Iran.
From a socialist point of view, Iran represents a profound tragedy.
Iran (known as Persia until 1935) is home to what an historian has
termed "one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with
historical and urban settlements dating back to 4000 BC". US
involvement with Iran begins in a serious way in 1951, after the
elected Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, nationalized Iran's oil
reserves. (This was an enormously popular move with the Iranian
public). Britain then invited the US to join it in overthrowing the
elected government of Mossadegh and installing Shah Mohammad Reza
Pahlavi. And this happened in 1953, one of the "successes"
of which the CIA has been so proud. (Mossadegh was arrested and held in
house arrest until his death some years later).
The reign of the Shah was brutal, his secret police, SAVAK, trained
with the aid of the CIA, crushed dissent. The Ayatollah Khomeini,
supreme religious leader in Iran, was sent into exile. With the
British/CIA plot that overthrew the elected government, there was an
end of any hope for a secular and democratic movement. The Iranian
Revolution, also known as the Islamic Revolution, began in 1978, with
demonstrations that increased in fury until the Shah fled in January of
1979. With the return of the Ayatollah from exile, Iran became, by an
overwhelming popular vote, an "Islamic Republic" in December of that
year, with Khomeini the Supreme Leader of the country.
This is a very short, condensed history of an extremely turbulent
period, brought on by the US/British effort to control the oil reserves
of Iran. There was a deep hatred of the US, and a fervent desire to
"export" the Islamic revolution to other countries. It was during this
period, compounding the dismal history of US foreign policy, that Iraq,
with the blessing of the US, attacked Iran. (Donald Rumsfeld met with
Saddam in Baghdad in December of 1983, shaking hands, and confirming US
support for Iraq and its military attack. This was more than verbal
support. The U.S. navy shelled Iran from the Strait of Hormuz and shot
down an Irani passenger plane, killing more than 200 civilians.) It is
reliably estimated that at least a half million Iraqi and a half
million Iranian youths lost their lives during this eight year war.
The Ayatollah crushed the left opposition in Iran, which had actively
participated in the coalition that overthrew the shah. Iran remains an
Islamic Republic, with final political power resting in the hands of
the Shia Clergy. The Iranian regime has consistently pursued
reactionary policies that have sought to silence every form of popular
protest, while instituting policies that confine women to a subservient
status.
President Ahmadinejad, who acts as a spokesperson for this theocratic
regime, has made several statements that alarmed Israel and offended
public opinion in the West. He has questioned the Holocaust and
referred to the State of Israel as "a stinking corpse". Nevertheless,
he has not, at any time, said Iran would attack Israel. (Israel and US
neo-conservatives have relied on inaccurate translations of
Ahmadinejad's statements - what Ahmadinejad has said is that the
present State of Israel will collapse, not so different from US hopes
that the Soviet Union would
collapse. Certainly Iran is deeply hostile to Israel, but it has never
threatened a military attack on it).
Iranian statements need to be seen within the context of the history of
the past fifty years. Iran was not involved in World War II, and it has
suffered deeply from Western interventions after that war. However,
this in no way excuses these comments and the Socialist Party condemns
them.
However what has alarmed the West has not been the insensitive and
offensive language of Ahmedinejad, but the fear the Iran might gain
nuclear weapons. And this question needs to be looked at quite soberly,
since no rational person wants to see more nuclear powers. Iran has
said it is not seeking nuclear weapons, but only nuclear power
(something which we deplore but which it has every international right
to develop).
But assuming that Iran does secretly plan to develop nuclear weapons
some time in the future, why is this more disturbing than the fact that
Israel has an estimated 150 nuclear weapons? Iran would not be the
first nuclear power in the Middle East, but the second. Under what
logic is the US willing to go to war to prevent Iran from gaining such
weapons, but not prepared to act against Israel? The record of the two
countries is significant - Israel has launched pre-emptive air strikes
in the past on Iraq and Syria, and (depending on whose version of the
history you accept) launched at least one major war (the 1956 attack on
Egypt, in alliance with Great Britain and France). Iran, on the
contrary, has not attacked any of its neighbors within living memory.
While the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is one factor driving
U.S, policy, it is far from the only one. Islamic fundamentalism
represents an ideological threat to U.S. control of the Middle East.
Furthermore, U.S. based oil corporations, in particular Exxon-Mobil,
covet Iran's huge oil reserves. The United States is seeking to control
a key strategic and financial asset, Middle Eastern oil reserves, and
an attack on, followed by the occupation of, Iran would be one further
step in making this extension of the empire a reality.
The Socialist Party believes in the need to create a nuclear free
Middle East, with serious, thorough international inspections of every
country in the area. If Israel would agree to this, it would be a major
step toward ending the rush of the Arab and Islamic states to secure
weapons of mass destruction. The race to gain such weapons was an
inevitable effort by other powers in the Middle East to feel more
secure against Israel.
An attack on Iran by either the US or Israel would have extremely
serious consequences, including a sharp increase in the price of oil.
(In fact, it is that economic reality that provides some hope that the
US or Israeli
will not attack.) Iran possesses a fairly advanced military machine,
and would be able to strike deep within Israel, and also to intervene
more directly in Iraq.
One of the ironies of the Bush policy of invading Iraq was that it
created a vast political vacuum into which Iranian influence has moved.
The Iraq War weakened Iraq, and left Iran as the strongest single
influence in Iraq (many of the current Iraqi political leaders were in
exile in Iran during Saddam's regime).
As democratic socialists, hope to see a secular, progressive and
democratic government in Iran, and support all such movements within
Iran and elsewhere in the region. At the same time, the U.S. government
and its allies need to accept the fact that Iran is emerging as a major
power in the area, and diplomatic rather than military approaches must
be supported. The Socialist Party absolutely opposes every effort to
build up a war hysteria against Iran, as we opposed the attack on Iraq.
If the criminal actions of the US invasion of Iraq prove nothing else,
it is that the military approach to Middle Eastern conflicts must be
resisted.
|
-
-
|
