Campaign Iran | 24.01.2007 18:08 | Anti-militarism
There is absolutely no proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. Inspections over the past three years have found no evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme.
Iran has been blocking inspections of its nuclear plants for years
Iran has fully complied with International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. They signed the Addition Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and over the last three years have allowed inspectors "to go anywhere and see anything". There have been over 2500 person/day inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities by the IAEA and Mohammed El Baradi has stated that there is no evidence that Iran has a weapons programme.
Iran is currently blocking IAEA inspections
After they were referred to the UN Security Council last year, Iran withdrew from the voluntary Additional Protocol. They are however still in full compliance with their international obligations and are allowing inspections. Inspectors from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspected Iran's nuclear installations in Isfahan and Natanz on 10-12th January 2007 and further inspections will take place on 2-6th February 2007. The greater the threat of military action, the more difficult inspections are likely to become.
Iran is enriching uranium
Enrichment of uranium for domestic power purposes is an inalienable right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is believed to have enriched uranium to the 3.5% level, enough for use as nuclear fuel, but it would require 90% enrichment, with 50-100 kg of it, to make a single bomb.
Inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium
In 2004 IAEA inspectors did find traces of highly enriched uranium in the plant in Natanz. In 2005 the IAEA confirmed that this highly enriched uranium was Pakistani and came to Natanz as a result of imported centrifuges.
Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons
There is a religious decree by Ayatollah Khamenei, the spiritual leader of Islamic Republic who has the final say on all crucial matters, against nuclear weapons.
The UN is convinced that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme
There is no basis for Resolution 1737 under international law and questions have been raised as to whether political pressure was exerted on the Security Council members to vote in favour of it. Without evidence that Iran has diverted its civilian nuclear activities into a weaponization programme and since she has fully cooperated with the IAEA, there were no grounds within the NPT either to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, nor to pass Resolution 1737.
The UN Security Council represents the view of the International Community
In June 2006, 56 nations signed the Baku Declaration which stated "the only way to resolve Iran's nuclear issue is to resume negotiations without any preconditions and to enhance cooperation with the involvement of all relevant parties".
The UN resolution is only about sanctions
Resolution 1737 has given Iran 60 days to stop conducting uranium enrichment. After this deadline expires the US will no doubt try and pass another Resolution involving ‘tougher measures,’ namely military intervention.
With so much gas there is no reason for Iran to want nuclear power
Iran would like to export more oil and gas. It was Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who, under President Ford, persuaded the Shah to establish a large nuclear programme to meet its energy needs and sold the first nuclear reactor to the country.
Iran is harbouring Al Qaeda and supporting terrorists
There is absolutely no evidence that the Islamic Republic, which is based on the Shiite branch of Islam, has in any way collaborated with Al Qaeda, whose Wahabi ideology is vehemently anti-Shiite. If anything, Al Qaeda is likely to be hugely strengthened by a US led attack on Iran.
Iran is supplying weapons and intelligence to Iraqi insurgents
No evidence whatsoever has been produced to link the Iranian government to Iraqi insurgents. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference in January 2007, that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq.
Iran is planning to destroy Israel
Iran does not have the military power to pose an objective threat to Israel.
President Amadinhejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”
President Amadinhejad has made no threats against Israel. It has been widely reported that he said “Israel should be wiped of the map” but the direct translation of what he actually said is “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". It is recognised that President Amadinhejad’s rhetoric against Israel is inflammatory. However a distinction must be drawn between angry rhetoric and genuine threats.
Iran may want to gain nuclear weapons in the future
Iran is surrounded by countries to the west, north and east that have nuclear weapons - the US (in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Indian Ocean), Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan, and now North Korea. But even if it did choose to go down that path, according to the CIA’s official 2005 US government report, Iran is still be at least 10 years away from being able to do build a nuclear weapon.
Iran is a threat to the stability of the region
Iran has not invaded or threatened any country in the past two and a half centuries. The only war the Iran has fought was the war imposed by Saddam’s army, which invaded Iran with the backing of the US and its allies. An attack on Iran with cause instability to the region and the world, just as the invasion and occupation of Iraq has done.
The targeting of Iran has nothing to do with oil or gas
Iran holds the world's largest supplies of oil after Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and holds more oil and gas combined than any other country on the planet. As Peak Oil rapidly approaches, the US demand to control the lion's share of what is left. Iran has also just shifted its petrodollars into a euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant.
Democracy should be installed in Iran
Iran has an active indigenous democracy movement who ultimately are the only ones who can secure a sustainable democracy. Any military assault on the country will hugely strengthen the anti-democratic political forces in Iran. The burgeoning civil society organisations in Iran would be one of the first major victims of any military attack on the country. Iranian people are wholly opposed to military action against their country.
US forces are too overstretched to take military action against Iran
A full ground invasion of Iran is highly unlikely. It would be possible, however, for the US to use their massive air power to destroy Iran’s civilian and military infrastructure. A limited ground invasion could be used to take over Khuzestan province which borders Iraq and contains 90 percent of Iran’s oil and gas reserves.
America has learned a lesson from the chaos in Iraq
The US is fearful that failure to act against Iran will allow the Iranian’s to gain too much influence in Iraq. The US is not thinking in the short-term. They are not backing out of Iraq as the redeployment of 21,500 troops to Iraq attests.
Military action against Iran would be too unpopular with the US public opinion
The deployment of an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq has shown that George Bush is willing to suffer unpopularity with his voters.