Alarm That Rings A Bell

We were fed a steady diet of exaggerated claims about Iraq's supposed WMD capability. Now we are hearing similar warnings about Iran.

By Inayat Bunglawala
November 9, 2007 4:32 PM
Guardian

The news last week that the UK government was sending the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious to the Gulf next spring has raised concerns that this exercise is meant to coincide with plans for a military strike on Iran before the US president, George Bush, leaves office. The UK government insists that the deployment has been "planned for a while" and we should not read anything into their announcement.

As we continue to be spectators to the awful human impact - see Madeleine Bunting's article on Monday - of the criminally reckless decision to go to war against Iraq - could it be that the US president is really contemplating opening a new front by authorising a bombing campaign against Iran?

With Iraq, we were fed a steady diet of exaggerated claims about its supposed WMD capability.

Now with Iran, we are again hearing similar warnings that it is unacceptable that its leaders should be allowed to get their hands on a nuclear weapon which we are told - by many of the same voices that acted as cheerleaders for the war against Iraq - they are bent on acquiring.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph earlier this week, Daniel Hannan, informed us proudly that he was "the only leader writer on [the Telegraph] who argued against the Iraq war". This presumably is meant to assure us that he is one of their more rational voices.

But hold on. He then goes on to add that he is now convinced that we must take action against Iran because he is sure that "the reason the ayatollahs want the bomb is so that they can use it."

Hannan goes on to suggest several escalating steps that should be taken against Iran:

Step 1: "Proper" sanctions which would include the seizure of Iranian assets.
Step 2: "Sponsoring internal dissent."
Step 3: "Armed siege, complete with no-fly zone and targeted air strikes."

Lest we may think this is all rather mad following the ongoing catastrophe we have helped create in Iraq, Hannan warns us - apparently without the tiniest bit of awareness of any irony - that:

"Iran has never shown much respect for state sovereignty."

Clearly, having a basic knowledge of 20th century history and certain key events which may have impacted on Iranian attitudes towards the outside world such as the 1953 UK/US-led coup against the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Musaddiq, is not quite a prerequisite for being a Telegraph leader writer.

Indeed, following the recent visit of the Saudi King to the UK, the Iranian people may not be entirely remiss in concluding that the UK/US governments - and now Sarkozy's government in France too - will only be mollified if they are able to replace the current Iranian leadership with a Shah-type despot who will happily squander Iran's oil earnings by spending it on huge arms purchases from the west.

I have no idea whether the Iranians do in fact have a covert programme to acquire a nuclear weapon, but who can blame them if they now believe that acquiring such a capability is essential if they are to maintain their independence as a nation from aggressive and predatory outside powers?

Here in the UK, the government has made very clear its intention to upgrade our own Trident nuclear submarine capability at a staggering projected cost of £20bn.

A 2002 Ministry of Defence report (pdf), The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter, concluded that:

"The UK's nuclear weapons have a continuing use as a means of deterring major strategic military threats, and they have a continuing role in guaranteeing the ultimate security of the UK."

Can we really be surprised if the Iranians have also concluded likewise?

Furthermore, our own murky role in the recent history of the Middle East is becoming more apparent by the day:

As recent documents have shown, the UK government played a key role in helping Israel to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel's nuclear capability and its repeated attacks on neighbouring states has surely contributed to the desire of regional countries to also obtain the same. The latest Israeli attack was on Syria just a few weeks ago.

Do you recall hearing a single word of condemnation from either London or Washington?

Now just imagine if the reverse scenario had occurred and it had been Syria that had bombed facilities in Israel, would the very same US/UK governments have remained so mute?

Back on November 5 2002, the then Israeli premier, Ariel Sharon, told the Times that "the day the United States finishes with Iraq, it should start with Iran".

Sadly, he may yet get his wish.