The Government Must Stop All its Provocations against Iran Immediately

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Government Must Stop All its Provocations against Iran Immediately

A Brief Look at British Violations of Iranian Territory

Full Text Letter of Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry to British Embassy in Tehran

Resist the War Drive against Iran

Stepping towards the Precipice

Britain and the Shatt al-Arab

Reject All Justifications - No War Against Iran

Who Is Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

The British government in a totally arrogant and belligerent manner is seeking to escalate and internationalise the incident in which 15 British navy personnel have been detained by the Iranian authorities. WDIE vigorously condemns the government for its provocations against Iran and demands that it ends them immediately. The incident in the first place has all the hallmarks of a provocation by Britain to provide a further pretext for ratcheting up its warmongering against Iran and, with the US, preparing for an armed assault on that country.

The government knows full well that Iran acts to defend its sovereignty as it its right and duty, and this is not the first time it has had cause to do so against British incursions. To defend its sovereignty and its borders is the right of any country, but the British government has used a spurious furore over a difference of a kilometre or so in an area where the boundary is complicated and has been drawn by Britain itself to take a posture of moral indignation and manufacture an international incident. What are British boats doing in the Shatt al Arab waterway or the Gulf? This sea belongs to Iraq and Iran. It should be considered an illegal act of aggression even to be there. Britain and the US have committed a crime against humanity of immense proportions in invading and occupying Iraq, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and annihilating the integrity of that country. The UN mandate under which Tony Blair claims the British service personnel were patrolling is a figleaf to cover over naked aggression. The Prime Minister has demonstrated not only contempt for the lives of the Iraqi people, the people of Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but also for the lives and well-being of British armed forces. This has been clearly demonstrated by the stand of Military Families against the War, and by Blair’s refusal to meet even one parent of a British serviceman or woman killed in the illegal and unjust conflicts into which the government has sent them.

To take the issue to the UN Security Council is an example of how Britain and the US abuse and manipulate the United Nations Organisation in an attempt to use it to impose their dictate. At the same time, the British provocation has coincided with a build-up of US military forces to be in a position to commit aggression against Iran. According to Russian military intelligence, the data of build-ups on Iran’s borders point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran. According to the same source, the US naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The US is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

According to the Associated Press, the US Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by a pair of aircraft carriers and backed by warplanes flying simulated attack manoeuvres off the coast of Iran. The manoeuvres bring together two strike groups of US warships and more than 100 US warplanes to conduct simulated air warfare in the crowded Gulf shipping lanes.

A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. The French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the US manoeuvres, officials said.

Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 US personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines.

The British have also contributed by sending naval reinforcements, including HMS Cornwall, the Type 22 frigate whose personnel were involved in the incident on March 23.

Such a build-up and war exercises preceded the invasion of Iraq. There too a pretext was used, that of WMD, to bring about "regime change", and there too Britain tried to get UN sanction for such illegality. Pretexts to begin wars of aggression are a Hitlerite method that is well-known, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident which US imperialism concocted to spark the war in Vietnam.

We call on the working class and people to firmly support the right of Iran to defend its sovereignty, as is its duty under international law. All democratic and anti-war forces must unhesitatingly condemn the British government for its provocations against Iran, for its crimes of aggression in the region. This incident makes it even more urgent to counter the warmongering and imperial programme of the British state and its Labour administration with resistance aimed at bringing into being an anti-war government. It is a fundamental principle of such a government that international contradictions cannot be settled by the doctrine of "might makes right", and that the sovereignty of all be respected.

No War on Iran!

End All Provocations Now!

No Troops on Foreign Soil!

Defend the Sovereignty of Iran!

(source: IRNA, March 28, 2007)

The British media and officials have launched a wave of propaganda campaign against Iran immediately after Iranian border guards arrested British marines who had violated Iranian territorial waters on March 23.

Regardless of the GPS surveys monitored by Iran and offered to the British government, they insist that the British navy has not violated Iranian waters.

Under the current circumstances, the US officials and media have rushed to support the British officials in their insistence that they had not violated Iranian territorial waters in order to put pressure on Iran.

The British insistence on non-violation comes when both the US and UK military forces have violated Iranian territory on land, at sea and in the air and Iran has compiled documents to prove such trespasses.

British marine Mrs Faye Turney has acknowledged to the trespass and made an apology for it.

Let's have a brief look at violations of Iranian territory by the British armed forces:
1. British unmanned reconnaissance plane RPV violated Iranian airspace in northeastern Abadan in June 2004 and was hit by Iranian anti-aircraft guns. RPV debris is available;
2. At 11 o'clock local time on June 22, 2004, three British speed boats with eight navy personnel on board trespassed Iranian borders and were arrested by Iranian coast guards;
3. At 21:30 local time on November 1, 2006, two British Black Hawks (choppers) from Royal Navy hovered at the height of 150 meters at 47,700-17,400 coordinates on Khorramshahr map (Pole-No: new bridge) violating Iranian airspace and they entered Iraqi territory through 62,500-15,500 coordinates after 10 minutes;
4. On January 27, 2007 a British helicopter flew over mouth of Arvandrud (Arvand river) and violated Iran's airspace and they left the area after a warning from Iranian coast guards;
5. Three British Navy boats entered Khor Mousa mouth in Iranian territorial waters on February 28, 2007.

The sixth was trespass of two British Navy boats with 15 marines on board into Iranian territorial waters at Arvandrud which led to their arrest by Iranian coast guards.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The following is the text of the letter handed to the British ambassador in Tehran, according to IRNA, Iran's state news agency.

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran presents its compliments to the British Embassy in Tehran and draws the attention of the latter to the following:

"According to the information received from relevant authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, two British naval vessels manned by 15 fully equipped crews trespassed on Iran's territorial waters on 3 Farvardin 1386 (23 March 2007).

"Since similar acts had taken place in the past and prior warning had been given against the repetition of such acts, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran protests strongly against this illegal act in violating Iranian territorial waters, emphasizes the respect for the rules and principles of international law concerning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, underlines the responsibility of the British Government for the consequences of such violation, and calls for the guarantee to avoid the recurrence of such acts.

"It will be appreciated if the esteemed embassy conveys this note to the relevant authorities of its government and informs this ministry of any explanation in this regard.

"The ministry of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the British Embassy the assurances of its highest considerations."

George Galloway, Socialist Worker, March 28, 2007

The capture by Iranian forces of 15 British sailors in the Gulf brought shrill, bellicose headlines last weekend and calls for retribution.

The anti-war movement has done a superb job in winning a clear majority against the war and occupation in Iraq.

But no one should believe that because the case against the "war on terror" is so overwhelming then no British government can garner support for another military misadventure.

The capture of the British sailors has all the hallmarks of the kind of incident that has been used in the past as a reason either for war or for escalating confrontation.

In 1949 the British gunboat HMS Amethyst was fired on in the Yangtze river in China. There was much outrage in Britain at Mao’s People’s Liberation Army, which was on the verge of taking power, for shooting at the ship. There was little questioning of what a British ship was doing on a Chinese river.

Whether or not the British sailors were in Iranian waters is disputed. But what is not in dispute is that Britain has joined the US in pouring warships into the Gulf while pressuring and threatening Iran.

Reliable US sources have reported that special forces are already operating in Iran. The Stop the War Coalition has rightly argued that the occupation of Iraq threatens to generate a wider regional war.

The commander of the ship HMS Cornwall unwittingly captured the mentality of imperial occupation when he said the sailors had been captured in "our waters". He meant the waters belonging under international law and treaty to the Republic of Iraq.

In addition to the immediate argument that this incident is not worth yet more bloodshed and war, it is vital to challenge this imperialist delusion.

Part of that is simply asking the obvious question: imagine if Iran occupied France, had scores of warships in the Channel, was reported to have commandos operating in the home counties, and was pushing for sanctions against Britain – how would public opinion, the media and the British government react?

What makes anyone think Iran is any different?

Secondly, as propagandists try to gloss the "war on terror" in fake humanitarianism, more and more people need to shout out the single greatest lesson of the anti-war movement.

It is not the business of Western governments and the corporations that back them, steeped in the blood and sweat of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, to bring "order" to the "savages".

It is the business of those of us who live in those imperialist states to do all in our power to stop their militarism and to act in solidarity with those around the globe fighting for a better world.

Everywhere you go this week, make sure people are asking: what on earth are British gunboats doing in Iraqi or Iranian waters in a place called the Arabian or Persian Gulf thousands of miles from home?

It is up to all of us to oppose the war drive against Iran. Can you start a discussion at work or college, arrange a Stop the War meeting, get a letter into your local paper, petition on the streets?

And as the People’s Assembly in London agreed last week, if there is an attack on Iran, we will need civil disobedience in every community, walkouts in every school, protests and strikes in every workplace.

If George Bush bombs Iran, we should bring this country to a standstill.

The Hindu, March 27, 2007

In adopting a second sanctions resolution on Saturday, the United Nations Security Council has given a push to the Anglo-American project of gradually escalating the crisis over Iran's civil nuclear programme till open confrontation and the recourse to military means become a fait accompli. As in December 2006, Washington's tactic of asking for drastic punitive measures and then allowing other members of the UNSC to water those measures down to something more palatable worked like a charm. The Bush administration began the exercise of drafting UNSC Resolution 1747 by pushing for a blanket travel ban on Iranian officials and an embargo on all export credits and arms sales. What it got in the end may be much less than that, but it is still very substantial. Iran has been banned from exporting arms, a prohibition that is important not so much because the Islamic Republic is a major vendor of weapons even to Hamas or Hezbollah but because it gives the US an excuse to intimidate or interdict all Iranian merchant shipping under the guise of "enforcement". Similarly, the targeting of Bank Sepah is a major new provocation that is intended to sow panic in the bazari establishment and Iranian middle class.

If Washington is hoping to use sanctions in order to exacerbate divisions within the Iranian establishment, it is barking up the wrong tree. Iran's polity is fractious and contested but all factions are likely to close ranks around the government on the question of the right to pursue a civilian uranium enrichment programme. The Iranian side has indicated a willingness to be flexible on the question of a temporary suspension of its enrichment programme. But it rightly insists that suspension cannot be made a precondition for the resumption of dialogue, least of all a suspension that the U.S. says must be maintained for the lifetime of the dialogue. By stretching the talks process out indefinitely, Washington hopes to turn Iran's "temporary" suspension into something more or less permanent. In any event, the Bush administration's real goal in Iran is not even suspension of enrichment but the overthrow of the Islamic Republic through the gradual strangulation of its economy. Failing that is the option of air strikes and war. Regrettably, countries like Russia, China, France and Germany which know where things are headed have once again seen it fit to appease this drive to conflict. The irony is that each believes it is moderating Washington's agenda whereas it is actually Washington that is getting its script enacted.

From an article in Indymedia UK, March 24, 2007

And now, yet again, British troops are pawns for British political intrigue over a little river many thousands of miles away and which we have no right or duty to administer, and which historically, we should be ashamed to even comment upon. I'd bet none of those fifteen service personnel have any idea of the history of British Machiavellian machinations in the area. Now given this border is so volatile, maybe there is an argument to have a neutral international force policing it. Which ever countries were to contribute to that, the British should never be there for reasons that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has heard of Lord Curzon or has witnessed in their own lifetime the continuing "playing the Iraqis and Iranians against each other" for our gain. First the British impose a border down the middle, then they support the Shah’s claims to the entire river, then they support Saddam’s claim to the entire river. The UN once tried to mediate but was rebuffed by the British, now the UN says it isn't their concern but for the two countries involved in territorial disputes to decide. That is cowardly perhaps but it certainly isn't any concern of the British to impose an arbitrary border upon countries half the world away, and there should be no UK troops there. They signed up to be part of Royal Navy, and so part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Persian Gulf is not part of the North Atlantic.

Voice of Revolution, publication of US Marxist-Leninist Organisation, March 23, 2007

Like a gangster seeking revenge, President George W Bush has been gunning for Iran for some time. He has already put in place the military forces needed to attack, including troops, battleships and bombers with tactical nuclear weapons. Now there is the potential pretext – the reported seizing of British troops by Iran as it defends its sovereignty.

Let no one be fooled. The Iraq war is illegal, the occupation is illegal, the presence of US ships and troops is illegal – all are crimes against humanity and peace. The US and Britain have no business in Iraq, no business boarding merchant ships, no business in the area. In addition, the US has repeatedly acted to provoke the Iranians by using the disputed waters of the Shatt al-Arab waterway as the area for boarding ships. The US is looking for an excuse and is notorious for creating them, as they did with Iraq, with Vietnam, and other aggressive wars. The potential for the US to use this incident as a justification for attacking Iran is great. Americans must be vigilant and firm: No War Against Iran! All US Troops Home Now!

Whatever justification the US attempts, it cannot hide the fact that war against Iran would be another US crime of aggression. With or without nuclear weapons, Iran is not threatening the US and has the right to determine its own affairs. And unlike the US, it is not planning any attacks, it is not occupying any foreign countries, it is not threatening to use nuclear weapons. At present, it has none.

What Iran is doing is defending its sovereignty. What Iran is doing is rejecting US domination and dictate. What Iran is doing is defending resistance in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere. It has every right to do so and should be applauded for doing so because these actions stand against US crimes and aggression and thus serve the cause of peace.

In threatening Iran, the US is also challenging the other big powers, particularly Russia. Using the issue of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme as an excuse, the US is organizing to build bases in the Czech Republic and Poland – supposedly to install a missile defence system to "protect" against Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons. The bases would move the US forces much closer to Russia while also positioning their forces for increased attacks in the Middle East and Asia more generally. It is also a means to strengthen their hand against the European Union, as the bases would be outside of any EU control.

Russia has expressed its opposition to the bases and the shields, and so has Germany. But Russia also recently agreed to hold off on sending reactor fuel – enriched uranium – to Iran for use in its nuclear energy plant, being built in cooperation with Russia. The plant is not a target of UN sanctions now under discussion by the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. So why the delay? If the power plant were to be bombed with the fuel present, it could cause a nuclear disaster creating greater international impact. Without it, that likely would not be the case. Is a deal being struck with Russia to allow the US to bomb Iran to weaken it and then withdraw? Has Bush made the same arrangement with top Congressional Democrats, who removed language from the war bill just passed that forbid aggression against Iran without Congressional approval?

The peoples in the Czech Republic and Poland are standing opposed to the bases and demanding their right to decide the matter in referendums. The peoples of the US and the world are opposed to any attack on Iran and demanding that all US troops be brought home now. Whatever deal may be worked out, let there be no hesitation in denouncing US aggression and rejecting the crime of war against Iran. Let us stand together with the Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians and Lebanese, all the peoples in supporting resistance and demanding:

All US Troops Home Now!

Christopher Jon Bjerknes, March 30, 2007

The Islamic Republic of Iran cannot lawfully be punished for exercising its due rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which states, in the relevant part,

"Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples, [***] Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources,

[***]

ARTICLE IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world." – TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

However, the United States of America is expressly barred from the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by the Charter of the United Nations, which states in the relevant part,

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." – Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4.

America is illegally threatening Iran with an American Naval presence in The Persian Gulf, American calls for "regime change" in Iran, American plans and actions to attack the political independence of Iran, and the American threat that "all options are on the table" indicating that the US will use military force against Iran if Iran does not comply with unlawful American demands that it cease enriching uranium and desist from developing nuclear technology to enrich uranium. The standards used in determining that these American actions do indeed constitute illegal threats must be broad, given that the criminals issuing such threats will naturally seek to avoid prosecution for their crimes and will be inclined to use guarded language, which, however, is nevertheless likely to be seen as a threat. It must also be taken into consideration when judging the nature of these unlawful threats, that the US has made similar threats in the past and carried through with them with forceful and devastating aggression, thereby leaving no doubt as to the threats contained in such statements and ultimatums.

It can hardly be said that America is attempting "to make every effort to avert the danger of [a nuclear] war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples," given that America refuses to negotiate with Iran without first making impossible preconditions, preconditions which demand compliance with unlawful American demands, and which impossible preconditions subvert the proposed purposes of the negotiations themselves, preconditions which achieve the results sought by one party (the Americans) in advance of negotiations, while concurrently violating the rights asserted by the opposing party (the Iranians) which are the subject of the proposed negotiations.

It is clear from the American refusal to engage in normal, responsible and effective diplomacy, that America does not desire a negotiated settlement of the dispute, but instead desires a pretext to aggressively attack Iran. This contention is further bolstered by substantial evidence that controlling elements of the American Government have been planning an attack on Iran for decades in order to secure the interests of the Nation of Israel. Neo-Conservatives have openly stated that their goal is not "to safeguard the security of peoples," but rather to promote instability and chaos in the predominantly Islamic nations of the Middle East.

They have openly called for war on Iran, and their open calls for war on Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon have been heeded by the Israeli and American Governments, governments which are today calling for an aggressive American war against Iran. Given this demonstrable and well known history, America's actions must be reasonably interpreted as illegal threats against Iran, and it is America, and Israel with Israel's illegal nuclear weapons arsenal and illegal threats and use of force against its neighbours and Iran, which are violating the spirit and the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and not Iran.

Another issue to be considered is the proliferation of "depleted uranium" munitions to Israel by the United States. A broad interpretation of the Treaty would deem the transfer of these weapons as a violation of the Treaty. Even a rigidly narrow interpretation of the Treaty would forbid the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons from the United States to Israel.