1. Introduction

The so-called Global War on Terror has been a spectacular failure – not just the deepening chaos in Iraq, but resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the extension of US operations to Somalia, and now – in particular - the increasingly dangerous rhetoric, and military build-up, towards Iran. An attack on Iran would be a humanitarian, ecological and strategic disaster. It would also be entirely counter-productive . The Oxford Research Group recently published a report that made it clear that air strikes would be unlikely to destroy all the centrifuges Iran is using to enrich uranium. What it would be likely to do, however, is to trigger a walkout by Iran from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the departure of UN inspectors. It’s also likely to accelerate Tehran ’s development of a nuclear bomb , strengthening the hand of Iranian hardliners, uniting the Iranian population behind a bomb, and almost certainly triggering an underground crash programme to build a small number of warheads as quickly as possible. Right now in Iran , there are different opinions about the government’s strategy. In the event of an attack, you would have a united people and a united scientific community. As a strategy to stop Iran developing a nuclear capability, it is bound to completely backfire – as well as triggering major regional – and possibly global – turmoil and conflict. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that an attack on Iran would have “catastrophic consequences”, and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power. But just because it would be irresponsible, irrational, intolerable, illegal, immoral – and downright madness – it doesn’t mean that Bush and Blair won’t try to do it.

2. Escalating Rhetoric

Because we’ve been here before. It’s all horribly familiar.

• Once again we have unsubstantiated reports of the development of WMD, the dodgy dossiers, and the cynical use of UN resolutions and accompanying sanctions ,
• Once again we have the racheting up of war hysteria, and the threat of “preventive” military strikes .
• Once again we have the fabrication of a web of deceit and lies, and the demonisation of a whole nation
• Once again we have the collusion of Bush and Blair over securing oil and gas supplies.

But amid the escalating rhetoric, let’s recall a few key facts: Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has every legal right to nuclear power, and to a full nuclear fuel cycle. While there are some issues around full transparency, Iran ’s current nuclear programme, including uranium enrichment, is certainly undesirable – but is perfectly legal. There is currently no evidence that they plan nuclear weapons. So let’s be very clear. There certainly is a dangerous, unmonitored and provocative nuclear arsenal in the Middle East . But right now it doesn’t belong to Iran . It belongs to Israel , and it is Israel that should be condemned.

3. Trident

In fact, Iran itself doesn’t possess a single nuclear weapon, nor has it threatened to build one. The CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017 at the earliest. And unlike Israel or the US , Iran has abided by the rules of the non-proliferation treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and it has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington . But let’s remember that the non-proliferation treaty is made up of two pledges. Those states which do not have nuclear weapons pledge not to acquire them, but those which do have them equally pledge to start a serious process of disarmament. So what moral authority can this government possibly have to lecture Iran or anyone else about not developing nuclear weapons when it refuses to begin the process of disarmament itself? Why should Iran not be allowed to use the same justifications for acquiring nuclear weapons as the UK government has put forward in its own White Paper for maintaining ours? Because while the White Paper talks of Britain needing nuclear weapons as an insurance against a possible future threat to our security well into the future , the threat to Iran’s security today is already very real. Iran, in contrast to the UK, is surrounded by hostile forces, in a region riven by conflict. The US has a policy of regime change, and the capability to reign down thousands of munitions on Iran every day from 11 neighbouring states, 2 battle carrier groups, and a formidable arsenal based on Britain ’s airbase at Diego Garcia. Iran also faces a hostile nuclear-armed Israel , and the unstable nuclear power of Pakistan is its neighbour. And while we may think Britain ’s nuclear arsenal poses no threat to Iran , it certainly gives them geo-political justification. And indeed some within Iran in any case do see Britain as a threat , given our involvement in the invasion of Iraq and our support for the US . To many, British Trident submarines are seen as closely related the US Trident fleet, an important back-up to our conventional intervention capabilities. And in spite of the fact that there is no threat facing us, we still have 48 warheads on patrol at all times, and then try to claim it’s a minimum. And that’s why we say, loud and clear, that not only is the replacement of Trident is illegal and immoral, it is also one of the most significant drivers of nuclear proliferation worldwide. And that’s why we say that last week’s decision to replace Trident, together with the threat of first use, made by Geoff Hoon, makes Britain one of the greatest rogue states in the world.

4. Renewables

But while Iran has every legal right to nuclear power, and a full nuclear fuel cycle, we would ask Iran to consider its interests, not just its rights . Iran continues to insist that its nuclear programme is peaceful and solely designed to contribute to its energy production. As campaigners against nuclear weapons and nuclear power both in the West and anywhere else in the world, I believe it is legitimate for us to ask Iranians to recognise that nuclear power is dangerous not only because it enables governments to quickly develop nuclear weapons, but also because it threatens to destroy the delicate ecology of the Persian Gulf by accident and by pollution, it is expensive and inefficient, and it leaves a deadly legacy for generations to come. In contrast Iran has abundant potential for renewable energy, for reducing its exponential growth in energy consumption by tackling extraordinarily high levels of waste and inefficiency, and by investments in energy savings. Iran could lead the world in the 21 st century technologies of solar and wind energy, and not get stuck in the 20 th century nuclear power rut we are in. I believe that by offering to support Iran in leapfrogging over these damaging technologies and into the technologies of the 21 st century, we could make a genuine contribution to peace in the region . We could start by challenging the widespread assumption in the West that just because Iran has the world’s second largest oil and gas reserves, it has no concerns for energy security into the future. Energy consumption in Iran has increased dramatically in recent years, and its oil and gas reserves are increasingly being exported to raise the foreign currency needed to help fuel its economic growth. While Iran ’s population has nearly doubled over the last 2 decades to 68 million, the country’s total energy consumption has quadrupled and electricity production has increased more than 6-fold. Iran ’s most recent Five Year Economic Development Plan includes a commitment to an 8% economic growth rate. It sees itself becoming a regional economic powerhouse in the near future. But this simply won’t be possible under the current energy mix without substantial investment in the energy infrastructure and a dramatic change in energy sources. Even with considerable investment, oil and gas production alone will be insufficient to meet this demand. Thirty years ago Iran ’s oil production was about 5-8 million barrels per day (with 5 million being exported). Today the average daily production is 3.9 million barrels per day (with 2.6 million being exported). Yet Iran ’s energy consumption 30 years ago was well below one quarter of what it is today, and its population was less than half. The official position of Iran ’s government itself is that: • Iran will become a net importer of crude oil and some of its by-products if energy continues to be used in the present form • Domestic use of local fossil fuel would dramatically affect Iran ’s foreign exchange earning from exports of crude oil and natural gas • Increased reliance on fossil fuels will have a serious environmental impact • And in conclusion – Iran needs to diversify its energy sources. Well, if that’s what the Iranian government itself is saying, then that’s something we can effectively engage with. Iran ’s varied geography is well suited to a diverse and extensive use of renewable energy sources: hydro and geothermal in the northern and western areas, wind in the eastern and southern plains, and solar energy in the central and southern areas. Just to take one example: the potential for solar electricity generation in Iran is virtually limitless . Its deserts occupy a quarter of its total land area. It’s been estimated that if just 1% of that desert area were covered by Solar Photo Voltaic Collectors, the energy obtained would be five times more than the current annual electricity consumption in Iran . With sufficient political backing and investment, renewable energies present an enormous opportunity for Iran . If the West’s strategy were to support the relevant technology transfer for the development of renewables, it would have the potential not only to defuse the current “nuclear” crisis, but also to offer an important sustainable self-sufficiency for Iranian electricity generation.

5. Conclusion

Tragically, however, it seems that the US and UK is simply not interested in constructive proposals. Instead, as Seymour Hirsch disclosed in the New Yorker last year, American bombers have already started “flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions”, and a naval build-up in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. Indeed, evidence suggests that the US army, navy air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent the last 4 years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom.” The whole of Iran is now less than an hour’s flying time from some US base or carrier. But we need to understand that it’s not just Iran that is threatened by such manoeuvres, but the whole Muslim world. The perception is clearly that it is predominantly Christian countries armed with nuclear weapons, threatening the vanguard country challenging the Christian elite. Nothing else will be more effective in creating the new crusades and dividing the world’s peoples. It’s clear that our political leaders completely fail to understand the growing anger against the West’s imperialism and hypocrisy. Bush and Blair claim that we are hated because of our “freedoms”. Do they really think that it has nothing to do with the massacres at Fallujah, or the obscenities that took place in Abu Ghraib, or that continue today at Guantanamo Bay ? Do they really believe it is not because of the systematic, ongoing subjugation and humiliation of the Palestinian people, day in and day out? Do they really not think that it’s a result of applying the most outrageous double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to which countries are allowed to have nuclear technology and which are not? Yes, there may well be an Arc of Extremism – but, from the perspective of those in the Muslim world, it appears to go from the White House in Washington to Downing St in London . And so this People’s Assembly demands that justice and the promotion of all people’s human rights, be brought back to Western foreign policy. We demand that parliament refuses to allow our own government to support any attack on Iran We demand that, instead, parliament takes steps to ensure that the UK itself comes into compliance with international law – and the NPT in particular; That diplomatic means of resolving the crisis are stepped up – and that they include serious consideration of the role that sustainable technology transfer can play.

ENDS