Volume 7, No. 2, February. 2006

Iran is important to the US. That is why it had its puppet, the Shah of Iran, placed there for decades. Not only does it have huge oil and gas deposits, one of the largest in the world, but it has enormous geo-political significance. It has two major borders with the trouble-spots of Iraq and Afghanistan and also shares borders with Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey. In addition virtually all of West Asia’s oil passes through the Gulf and Iran’s strategic position overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Gulf with the Indian Ocean, gives it the capacity to choke off tanker traffic for the whole region if it is attacked.

According to the Oil and Gas Journal Iran has the second largest oil deposits at 126 billion barrels (after Saudi Arabia) and also huge gas deposits. According to the same journal it has 940 trillion cubic feet of gas, (surpassed in the entire world only by Russia’s 1,680 cubic feet) so that the combined energy resources of Iran are roughly equal to that of Saudi Arabia. In addition, together with Russia, it has joint rights of the large deposits in the Caspian Sea. Also, unlike Saudi Arabia, its production is relatively low, and so its role in the world energy markets is very prominent and growing. The US corporations want desperately to get hold of this market but cannot because US law forbids them to do business with Iran. Iran has thus diversified its oil interests, particularly developing close relations with China and Russia. China has bought large oil rights in some of Iran’s oil fields.

It is within this framework that the US seeks to get hold of the Iran pie but direct aggression is not that easy due to the confines of numerous geopolitical factors. But before coming to this let us trace the nuclear issue vis-avis Iran.

The Iranian nuclear programme was a gift of the US to the Shah after the coup in 1957. For over two decades the US provided Iran not only technical assistance but also its first nuclear reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium. Iran was then not asked for any guarantees. In the mid-1970s the US approved 8 nuclear reactors. Then the Islamic revolt threw out the Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. Immediately in 1980 the US instigated Saddam to attack Iran and the war lasted for eight years costing the two countries 10 lakh lives. But the new Islamic government signed the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty).

The NPT not only allows, in its section 4, that non-weaponising states have every right to develop all aspects of nuclear technology necessary for peaceful purposes; it goes further in section 6, to enjoin upon countries that have such technologies to actively provide such technologies to the non-weaponising states who have signed the treaty. And it is this legal right that the US (and later the EU-3) are opposing in Iran to prevent it from having its own enrichment (of uranium) facilities. In fact, at the last NPT Review Conference, the US tried its utmost to rewrite the clause to reduce the right to enrichment. But it was unsuccessful. Enriched uranium that is used to generate electricity can be used in weapons when refined to higher degrees of purity.

The uranium fuel cycle consists of mining uranium ore and processing it into uranium oxide (yellow cake). The yellow cake is converted into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) gas and then into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which is enriched to varying degrees of purity.

Ever since 9/11 the US has put Iran on the hit-list as one of the countries dubbed the axis-of-evil. Like with Iraq it is claiming that it has WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and that it should stop its enrichment facilities. The standoff with the US over its nuclear programme prompted Iran to begin negotiations with Germany, France and Britain in 2004 — the so-called EU-3.

The discussions acquired urgency after it came to light that Iran had not reported the existence of a key underground facility to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The uranium enrichment at Natanz, which is a violation of the NPT by Iran, was revealed by Iranian exiles to the West. Subsequently, Iran signed the additional protocol to the NPT, under which the IAEA could make surprise checks of any of its real or suspected nuclear facilities. In Nov.2004 Iran suspended work related enrichment at all its facilities, including Esfahan and Natanz, which were subsequently sealed by the IAEA.

Even after one year of discussions with the EU-3 there were no real steps forward to Iran’s own steps for confidence building measures. Iran had hoped for mediation from the EU in the face of the US’s tough stance. Iran pressed for an accord, solicited the EU’s proposals, and set a deadline. Instead of the EU’s proposals, it received a letter of July 29th 04 which shattered all hopes. As a consequence Iran notified the IAEA that it would resume uraniumn conversion activities in Isfahan but would not go for enrichment. Finally the EU3’s proposals came on Aug.8th. Entitled "framework for a Long-Term Agreement", they comprised assurances on security, economic cooperation, drug-trafficking, terrorism, etc. But the core lay in Iran abandoning its "fuel cycle activities……". It added "we do not believe that Iran has any operational need to engage in fissile material activities of its own". In fact, even over one month before the Sept vote the US under secretary of state, Nicholas Burns, revealed on Sept. 8th that India cooperated with the IAEA on August 11th when the Board adopted a resolution expressing "serious concern" at Iran’s action and urged it to "re-establish full suspension of all enrichment related activities".

Because of this hostile approach of the West, the new government that was voted to power in Iran, on Aug.8th of last year, re-started work on its Esfahan facility, which essentially converts uranium into feedstock for enrichment at Nantz. By this step they have begun uranium conversion but the fact is that enrichment work can be done only at Nantz, where the status quo exists. The revival of the Esfahan facility has also been done under safeguards. Work only began after IAEA monitors had positioned cameras inside the facility. Yet the US is vehemently opposed to any nuclear programme in Iran and has kept open the military option unless it completely stops it nuclear enrichment programme.

In the Sept resolution, the 35-member IAEA Board passed a resolution calling on Iran to stop enrichment work at Esfahan. The statement said that "outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme have yet to be resolved, and that IAEA is not yet in a position to conclude that there are no nuclear materials or activities in Iran". The resolution stopped short of referring Tehran to the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions on it. The new regime in Iran openly replied to the US-EU threats and said that it would continue with its enrichment programme as allowed by the NPT. In fact in November 05 it even publicly declined Russia’s offer to move the final stage of uranium enrichment to Russian territory. In a show of defiance the Iranian parlaiament has backed a move to begin a uranium enrichment programme and end surprise inspections by the UN if Tehran’s case is referred to the UN Security Council.

In his inaugural address the new President said that they will resist foreign coercion, but are open to negotiations.

Ever since the Iraq-Iran war Iran asserts much influence on the Shia population of Iraq — on whom the US depend to counter the mainly Sunni insurgency. Ayatollah Khomeini himself supervised the creation of their umbrella organisation in Iraq — the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The military wing of the SCIRI, the Badr Brigade, was founded, armed and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. When the US launched its war on Iraq in 1991 Iran ordered SCIRI and others to collaborate with the US. In the North the Iranian regime in their struggle with Saddam patronized Jalal Talabani, leader of the larger Kurdish party in Iraq, so as to win the cooperation of the Iranian Kurds and to undermine Saddam’s hold over the Kurdish part of Iraq. In this game too they were on the same side as the US.

But when the US invaded Iraq this time and expected the support of the SCIRI, with whom they had been collaborating since the past decade, they failed to get it. But they did render immense service to the US by forbidding their followers from joining the insurgency that soon began and in then neutralizing Moqtada himself, the only formidable Shia leader who wanted to fight the occupiers (his father was one of the founders of SCIRI).

Once the US had captured Baghdad and the leaders of SCIRI had been brought in, Iran concentrated on getting the personnel of their outfits like the Badr Brigade, to occupy all the positions in the state machinery. So it has come about that the US and Iranian regime has been working in tandem in Iraq, notwithstanding their contradictions. US clients which were independent of Iran were forced to rely more and more on the clerics as the Sunni insurgency grew. And even Chalabi, its star client and great hope at one point, simply defected to the Iranians and re-emerged as a prominent figure in the new dispensation as well. So, in Iraq, with a rising insurgency, the US is forced to rely on the good offices of the Iranians to keep the Shia population on leash. This helps the Iran regime maintain its bargaining position with respect to the Bush administration’s aggressive intentions against it.

The Iranian government has utilsed this US helplessness to make deep inroads into the Iraqi economy and government. Iran has offered to refine Iraqi oil for the world market and offered finance to build more refineries. Iraq has no extensive port facilities at present; Iranian ports are being used for deliveries of goods; Iran is thus taking over the transit trade that used to go through Syria and Jordan. It is offering finance and investment in a whole range of infrastructural construction in southern Iraq, from hotels to roads to airports to electricity grids. Iran is training Iraqi personnel in various branches of government, including the police and army and judiciary, as well as technical personnel for the private sector. In short, Iran is fast occupying many of the places where the US corporations had hoped to be. The US would be most unhappy of this role of Iran in Iraq, but can do nothing about it for the time-being.

In Afghanistan too Iran has a large border and has close influence on the war-lords in parts of West Afghanistan. Their support too is vital for the sustenance of the puppet Karzai government in the face of the growing influence of the Taliban. Recently the Americans have established a major military base in West Afghanistan — a region where the Indian Army (Border Road Org) has been quietly building a road.

Besides this geo-political importance of Iran, the Iran regime has been using its oil and gas wealth to build deep relations with other powers, particularly China. It already provides some 14% of China’s energy requirements and the huge deals it has been signing and proposing for the future would make Iran a strategic ally of China. Given China’s growing clout in world affairs; this China link will act as an important counterbalance to western pressure.

Besides the Russian imperialists have always been cultivating Iran, as they did Iraq, due to their over two decade-long anti-west positions. With Russia’s new found assertion in world affairs in recent years it has begun to play an important role in Iran. In Dec 05 Russia raised its stakes in Iran by agreeing to sell Tehran advanced air defence missile systems — the highly sophisticated 30 TOR-m1 missiles for $1 billion. It is Iran’s biggest defence deal in recent years. In addition talks are on with Iran to also sell it long-range Air defence systems and the T-90S tanks. Earlier Russia had build a nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr, which is to become operational this year. All this has been taking place inspite of strong protests from the US and Israel. Of course, Russia has also sought to play a double-dealing role also demanding that Iran stop its uranium enrichment programme, offering instead to take it up for them in Russian soil. (This scheme was supported by the West).

Finally, Iran has ambitious plans to construct in Tehran an oil bourse which would use a Euro-denominated inter-national oil-trading mechanism to begin competing with the two main bourses, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), both dominated by the US multinationals and both involved in dollar-denominated oil trade, thus making the dollar virtually the world currency for oil trade. Since the spring of 2003 Iran has required payments in euros for its European and Asian exports. One must not forget that one of Saddam’s major ‘crimes’ was that he started asking for payment for Iraqi oil in euros instead of dollars.

Thus Iran has important strategic significance in the present-day world and it is not going to be that easy for the US to launch a military offensive, particularly as long as it continues to bogged down in Iraq. Ofcourse, it is seeking destabalisation methods through its infiltration of Kurds and Azeri minorities in the North. It has cultivated other groups for subversion as well, like seasoned fighters of the MeK — the Mujahideen-e-Khalq is a dissident Islamic faction of Iranians promoted by Saddam and now under protection and command of the US. On the eastern flank, a vast territory inhabited by Baluch people is divided between Iran and Pakistan. The US is said to have military bases and extensive covert military operations in this region. Besides there is a virtual US military encirclement of Iran from Saudi Arabia and other clients in the Gulf on the one hand, and on the other, the newly acquired military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq and some of the Caspian littoral states. All this is supplemented by the military power and the anti-Iran designs of Israel. Finally, the US is cultivating a large cross-section of the elite Iranians abroad particularly those from the monarchy who have extensive links with secret subversive groups in Iran. In fact the CIA had floated the Coalition for Democracy in Iran to bring together all dissidents abroad to restore the Shah’s son to the throne.

So, the stakes in Iran are high. The US has to move more cautiously but its hegemonistic and imperialist ambitions often push it to rash acts.

The Sept 24th resolution of the IAEA stated "Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement….. constitute non-compliance in the context of Article XII C of the Agency’s Statute…. and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran’s programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes has given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council….. for the maintenance of international peace and security". The resolution has urged Iran to institute further transparency measures, re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related activity, and reconsider the construction of heavy-water-moderated reactors. Further, in full violation of the sovereignty of Iran, the EU-3 has proposed a package to create an expert body to help Iran identify and appropriate research reactor and how best to achieve it.

All the NAM (Non-aligned Movement) members on the IAEA Board abstained from voting including South Africa, Mexico, Algeria, Sri Lanka and Brazil. So also Russia and China abstained. Only Venezuela voted against the resolution. India’s vote was crucial for the US as it broke the NAM consensus on the issue and helped the US/EU-3 get a slim majority. The essence of the resolution was to seek to refer Iran to the Security Council at an unspecified date on mere suspicion of trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran’s position until recently had the support of the entire 116-member NAM. India’s volt-face on Iran totally reversed the government’s earlier stand that the Iranian issue should be discussed within the framework of the IAEA. Even Pakistan, which has the special status of a "non-NATO ally" of the US, abstained in the IAEA vote — such was the level of servility of the Indian rulers to the US/EU combine. India was one of the 22 to vote in favour of referral. In doing so it joined Ecuador, Ghana, Peru and Singapore in backing the yes-vote.

No doubt India’s vote came in the light of the India-US nuclear deal of July 19th. It is clear from statements made by top US officials since then that it was at the dictates of the US that the Indians voted. Frontline reported (Nov.18th) that the chief architect of US foreign policy, Lantos, had stated: "I would not like to see a set of developments with respect to India whereby we agree to undertake a tremendous range of path-breaking measures to accommodate India while India blithely pursues what it sees should be its goal and policy vis-à-vis Iran. And if our Indian friends are interested in receiving all the benefits of US support we have every right to expect India will reciprocate ….I am particularly concerned over recent remarks by the Indian Foreign Minister that India will not support the US drive to refer Iran’s nuclear weapons issue to the Security Council….. New Delhi must understand how important it is to the US initiatives to counter the nuclear threat from Iran. That includes supporting our efforts to refer Iran’s 18-years of violation of the NPT to the UN Security Council. Anything less than full support will imperil the expansion of nuclear and security cooperation with New Delhi."

Soon after this the Volcker report was released implicating the foreign minister. Though all politicians are neck-deep in corruption and Natwar Singh and his lumpen son is no exception, the report was used by the US lobby to get rid of him. All countries ignored that report as a US concoction, but not the servile Indian rulers. Of course all the 135 companies that have been mentioned have been conveniently ignored. In fact one of the major beneficiaries was Reliance, but no action is taken on the Ambanis. Also the foreign secretary, Shyam Saran, is an outright parrot of the US and has promptly stated in New Delhi that "India was against the proliferation of nuclear weapons; there is no ambiguity in India’s stand".

Besides the oil pipe line deal between India, Iran and Pakistan, India and Iran have already signed a $21 billion 25-year deal for an annual supply of 5 million tones of LNG to India from 2009 onwards. Iran reacted negatively after the India vote and threatened to cancel the deal. Though the US is strongly opposed to these deals with Iran, Russia and China are very much for pushing it through.

Besides international pressure there are strong business lobbies in India who have much to gain from the huge deals with Iran. So a concerted campaign were taken by political parties, like CPM, SP, etc, for retracting India’s position at the next meeting of the IAEA scheduled for end November. Also it came to be known that the decision to vote for the US-EU3 proposal was taken by a small clique around the PMO (Prime minister’s Office), with the Indian ambassador to the US, Ronen Sen, and Shyam Saran playing pivotal roles in the vote. Much of the powerful bureaucracy was not in favour of breaking the Iran deal.

Finally, in end November the US-EU did not push for any vote at the IAEA Board meeting and the EU3 have once again begun negotiations with Iran. But, till date both sides are taking a tough stand. With the victory of the radical Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian elections, Iran is in no mood to capitulate to the combined US-EU pressure.

Iran is a new and key flashpoint in the imperialist scheme of things. As mentioned above many aspects of geo-political influence are involved together with its huge oil and gas resources. The Indian ruling classes and business lobbies are being pulled in two directions, while overall bending to the US tune a section of the compradors are in favour of continuing the oil and gas deals with Iran.

No country has the right to dictate to another, what it should produce and what it should not. Least of all the US has the fight to dictate on nuclear weapons when it is armed to the teeth with them. Notwithstanding the NPT itself allows Iran to enrich uranium, even otherwise any country has the right to do so to defend themselves, particularly Iran, which is being openly threatened by the US. The Indian rulers are not only outright stooges of the US but totally hypocritical when they themselves are producing nuclear weapons and have even refused to sign the NPT. These two-timing agents need to be rebuffed by all countries as this pro-imperialist attitude towards Iran has also been reflected in other fora. The people of India must stand by the Iranian people for the full defence of the sovereign rights against the imperialist onslaught.

<Top>