The Coming Attack on Iran. posted by Richard Seymour

What does it matter, after all, if Order is a little brutal or a little blind, when it allows us to live cheaply? - Roland Barthes.

Well, Iran is getting fuck all for its help in the occupation of Afghanistan. The indications from the US toward Iran are increasingly bellicose: air strikes either by the US or Israel which is penetrating Iran already, the manipulation of centrifugal forces in Iran, the possibility of sanctions. Why? As ever, for democracy 'n' freedom 'n' cos they've got nukes 'n' they're terrorists 'n' evildoers, 'n' they're Defying The Will Of The International Community. These charges are familiar to point of banality: Iran is accused of pursuing a weapons of mass destruction programme and of sponsoring terrorism. The latter charge has a dual propaganda value, involving as it does both a cassus belli and an explicit redemption of Bush's invasion of Iraq (it'd all be fine if it weren't for Iranian evil-doers). No proof has been offered for this, and the claim is utterly without sense since Iran is already doing nicely out of the present set-up, and will be delighted if a SCIRI-led coalition could dominate a united and pacific Iraq. But there is evidence to suggest that bombs devised by the British are being used by resistance fighters. This is not new, but the intensity and rapdity with which the accusations are being repeated, is.

China and Russia are presently blocking a US-sponsored resolution instructing Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, and one assumes that this has to do with the fact that Russia has been supplying the materials for Iran's first nuclear energy facility, while both Russia and China are major customers for Iran's oil, which Iran has threatened to withhold if there are sanctions. Russia has signed a large number of bilateral agreements with Iran, and the two countries have been cooperating militarily and economically. China and Iran developed strong relations during the 1990s, with the former supplying missile technology to the latter, often against US pressure. Their opposition will not necessarily hold. France, on the other hand, is supporting the US's statement, which is possibly a problematic stand for them to take since they have well-known economic interests in Iran, not least with Renault and Peugeot. Meanwhile, the Gulf states, who have no veto, have totally capitulated to the US agenda.

But what is the Bush administration up to? As Juan Cole points out, it is impossible to take the official justifications for the present belligerence seriously. Aside from the fact that the country's ruling Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwah against the production of nuclear weapons, we are nowhere near a stage where it could plausibly be a concern. Nuclear weapons can be produced using highly enriched uranium, or plutonium: Iran has produced reconstituted uranium, but according to the IISS, it is contaminated and unusable. To produce sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to make a bomb, Iran needs gas centrifuges, of which it has only 20% of the number required. (Report here). The IISS reckons it would take Iran at least ten years to get itself sorted out with a nuclear weapon. In familiar enough fashion, we can also refer to previous accusations coming from Iranian exile groups (then designated terrorists by the US government, since removed from the list), including - you'll enjoy this - sattelite imagery. Those accusations were immediately shot down by the IAEA. The best the IAEA can do after a year of brow-beating from the United States is say that they can't rule out the possibility that Iran might have some illicit programmes and that although the NPT has not been breached, a secondary (and entirely voluntary) agreement had been, which is something of a famished, chlorophyll-starved, caterpillar-eaten fig leaf. We also had the Iran-Al Qaeda connection for a while, but of course that was crap too. Cole asks:

If the Supreme Jurisprudent of theocratic Iran has given a fatwa against nukes, if the president of the country has renounced them and called for others to do so, if the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of a military nuclear weapons program, and if Iran is at least 10 years from having a bomb even if it is trying to get one, then why is there a diplomatic crisis around this issue between the United States and Iran in 2006?

There are a number of reasons, and oil must be prominent among them. In particular, as I mentioned, the US doesn't like Iran's ties with the PRC, (and deeply disapproves of the gas pipeline it is building with India and Pakistan). China has chronic fuel shortages, and could grow much faster and become a much more threatening counter-power to the US if it could get all the oil it needed. The oil China gets from Iran and Venezuela is essential to its build-up, and so for that reason, as well as for its own increasing reliance on Middle East oil, the issue of control over Iran's oil is crucial. Then there's the matter of Iran's hand having been strengthened by the occupation of Iraq, and the ascension of forces friendly to the Islamic Republic. This hasn't gone down well with Israel, which bears Iran a particular grudge for helping Hezbollah drive the Israelis out of Southern Lebanon. Similarly, having neutralised one local rival, they have demonstrated considerable impatience to get started on another. Essentially, the interests of the US and those of its closest ally dovetail: both deeply regret the overthrow of the pro-Western Shah, which repressed the population, had friendly relations with Israel, and allowed the US to call the shots; they would like to restore the monarchy if at all possible, and the only question is how to do it. The possibility of a cold war with Iran is being floated: in practise this means a slightly less speedy march to war. What we are most likely to see are airstrikes. I've even heard Richard Perle raising the spectre of Osirak.

The contemptuous obviousness of the lies is grating. If someone is going to lie to me, I expect creativity and circumlocution. I want wild, meandering tales about trips to the moon, shark-eating antelopes and visits from mermaids. Instead, we get the stale old fairy tale about Muslim evildoers, nuclear-armed madmen, swivel-eyed fanatics sponsoring terrorism. The hypocrisy of a state in possession of over ten thousand nuclear warheads allying with other states in possession of nuclear weapons (France, UK, Israel) to denounce a country with no nuclear weapons for allegedly desiring to do so - is that supposed to be lost on us by now? Are we not supposed to notice when Bush goes to India to cut a deal on nuclear materials in the same week that he is moaning about Iran's pursuit of the same? Are we supposed to forget that Iran is calling for a nuclear-free Middle East, while Israel won't even acknowledge its nuclear weapons facility in Dimona? No, I don't think so: I really don't think they expect most of the world to buy this shit. It's a warning to other countries, delivered with a hateful smirk, like the grin on a death's head. The warning simply says: "You're Next."

Demonstrate this Saturday.