Jump to content

Views on military action against Iran: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Arab League: Fix header
Joehoe665 (talk | contribs)
Line 231: Line 231:
* [[War of aggression]]
* [[War of aggression]]
* [[Support for war against Iran]]
* [[Support for war against Iran]]
* [[1953 Iranian coup d'état]]


==External links==
==External links==

Revision as of 19:07, 29 September 2007

Organized opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States (US) is known to have started during 2005-2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Joseph Cirincione and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that American concerns over the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to advocate against potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several organizations and individuals, including the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, and the Arab League, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran.

Reports of a potential military attack on Iran

Opposition to a would-be military attack on Iran followed several claims that the United States and/or Israel might carry out such an attack on Iran, in relation to claims that Iran may try to produce nuclear weapons. Some analysts say that Iran's potential production of nuclear weapons is the real reason for a would-be attack, while others say that it is an excuse for an attack. Noam Chomsky claims that the real reason for a would-be attack would be to "control Middle East energy resources", in particular oil.[1] and physicist Jorge Hirsch claims that the real reason is that the US wishes to demonstrate its intent and capability to "use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries".[2]. Starting in 2005, these analysts, including Seymour Hersh[3], former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, Scott Ritter[4], Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace[5], Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, Stephen Zunes[6] claimed that the United States planned a military attack against Iran. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer[7], physicist Jorge E. Hirsch[8] [9], Michel Chossudovsky[10], and Seymour M. Hersh [11] claimed that the attack could be expected to use nuclear weapons, in line with the US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations which was revised in March 2005.

In early April 2007, Michael T. Klare claimed that references to Iran by US president George W. Bush in major televised speeches on January 10, January 23 and February 14, 2007 establish that Bush "has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies". Klare claims that in these speeches in particular, Bush has developed a casus belli in order to prepare public opinion for an attack, focussed on three reasons: claims that Iran supports attacks on US troops in Iraq, claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, and claims that Iran could become a dominant power in the region and destabilise pro-US governments in Israel, Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.[12]

Public opinion

Opposition to an attack

A Reuters/Zogby opinion poll taken in the United States and published on September 28, 2006 found a large majority (70 percent of those polled) opposing an attack on Iran if it were to involve a land attack by only US soldiers. Small minorities supported a land attack (26 percent) or an air attack against military targets (9 percent). A relative majority (47 percent) was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran and a minority was in favour (42 percent).[13] A compilation of polls regarding the opinion of US adults about an attack Iran also suggested majority opposition to an attack on Iran among US adults during 2006 and early 2007, for questions where no leading information was supplied to those polled: a CBS February 2007 poll indicated about 10-20% of US citizens supported a USA attack on Iran at the time of taking the poll between June 2006 and early February 2007; a CNN poll on January 19-21, 2007 indicated 70% opposition to an attack on Iran; a Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 indicated about 76% opposition to a land attack and 54% opposition to an air attack. [14]

Polls with leading information, such as a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll taken June 24-27, 2006, asking "If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?", mostly gave minority opposition to an attack on Iran. This Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave minority (about 40 percent) opposition to an attack A Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 with the leading information "if that country [Iran] continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons" gave a large majority (76 percent) opposed to an a land attack and a small majority (54 percent) opposed to an air attack, conditional on the claim in the leading information.[14]

Support for an attack

Main article: Support for war against Iran.

A majority (56 percent) in a poll conducted in the USA during September 22-25, 2006 was in favour of a joint US-European attack on Iran. [15]

Conditional support for an attack

In a TNS survey conducted in March 2007 among 17,443 people in 27 European Union member states, a majority of 52% agreed with the statement "We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action". A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.[16]

Individuals

Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer and then a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, who is an active opponent to the Iraq War, has made several strong public statements opposing war against Iran, such as: "The alleged Iranian threat espoused by Bush is based on fear, and arises from a combination of ignorance and ideological inflexibility." and referred to what he called "numerous unconfirmed reports that the United States has already begun covert military operations inside Iran, including overflights by drones and recruitment and training of MEK, Kurdish and Azeri guerrillas."[17]

Organizations

Grassroots and non-governmental organizations

The organization Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) was officially founded on December 1, 2005 in London and claimed its first success to be the inclusion of opposition to an attack on Iran as part of the aims declared by the International Peace Conference in London on December 10, 2005.[18]. Two UK organisations opposed to an attack on Iran, Action Iran[19], and Iran Solidarity[20] joined together with CASMII UK on November 6, 2006 to form a new organisation in the UK called Campaign Iran, which remains part of the international CASMII.[21]

In November 2006, several peace organisations in the San Francisco Bay Area in the USA, in particular American Friends Service Committee, Bay Area United Against the War, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Berkeley Gray Panthers, Courage To Resist, Crabgrass, Declaration of Peace SF Bay Area, Ecumenical Peace Institute/Calc, Grandmothers for Peace, South Bay Mobilization, and The World Can't Wait--Drive Out The Bush Regime!, organised themselves together as the "Don't Attack Iran Coalition" and called for various actions including direct contact between US leaders and/or members of US Congress and Iranian leaders and members of parliament.[22]

In June 2007, on the 20th anniversary of the June 28, 2007 chemical weapons attack on the Iranian town of Sardasht, two Iranian NGOs, the Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support (SCWVS) and the Organisation for Defence of Victims of Violence (ODVV), signed a joint petition with Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran opposing both sanctions and a military attack against Iran,[23] as well as asking the Iranian government to "pay more attention to human rights and social and political freedoms, so as to create the grounds for a stronger and greater unity of the people of Iran in the face of foreign pressures and threats."[24]

Non-Aligned Movement

On September 16, 2006, representatives of the 118 states of the Non-Aligned Movement made a statement, at the summit level, supporting Iran's civilian nuclear program and opposing military attacks against nuclear facilities, stating "The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction, poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA. They recognized the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument, prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy."[25]

Arab League

Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, stated in June 2007 that the states of the Arab League are "unanimous in their opposition to military attack on Iran".[26]

International Atomic Energy Agency

On Thursday June 14, 2007, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking at a meeting of the IAEA, said that war against Iran "would be catastrophic, it would be an act of madness, and it would not solve the issue."[27] During the preceding several weeks, ElBaradei had several times expressed his opposition to a military attack on Iran by the United States or Israel. He made these statements as part of what he saw as his role as Director General of the IAEA, stating "I have no brief other than to make sure we do not go into another war, or that we go crazy into killing each other."[28]

Street actions

During global anti-war protests on March 18, 2006, in addition to protests against the Iraq War, many of the protests were directed against the perceived threat to attack Iran.[29].

On September 23, 2006, one of the main slogans and themes of speakers at a demonstration of about 50,000 people criticising British prime minister Tony Blair at the Labour Party Annual Conference in Manchester was the call "Don't attack Iran".[30]

Internet actions

On April 12, 2006, the political group MoveOn, which organises and informs an online community estimated at 3 million people, called on its supporters to lobby the United States Congress to prevent US president George W. Bush from attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.[31]

In February 2007, ex-supreme NATO Commander, US General and 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark founded the website StopIranWar.com, which advocates against an attack on Iran.[32]

Reactions to UN Security Council Resolution 1737 by anti-war groups

In reaction to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran issued a statement titled "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy"[33] dated December 24, 2006. In the statement CASMII expresses grave concern over the UN resolution. It characterizes the unanimous verdict as having been engineered by the US stating "As the Observer reported last Sunday, the US is giving up to 270% more foreign aid to Security Council members as incentive for them to support US positions." The statement further argues that the resolution could be abused and taken as a justification for war, just like the 2002 resolution--also unanimously passed--was used as an eventual justification for the US/UK invasion of Iraq. The statement also "notes" that "there may actually be no way for Iran to comply with the UN demands," saying "Just as the repeated American demands for more and more intrusive inspections, for opening up of Saddam’s palaces and interviewing Iraqi scientists did not satisfy America’s suspicions; neither will Iran’s 'compliance' with these demands be ever sufficient to 'prove' the non-existence of a WMD program."

See also

References

  1. ^ Chomsky, Noam (February 20, 2007). "Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World". Z Communications. Retrieved 2007-02-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Hirsch, Jorge (November 1, 2005). "The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda". antiwar.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Seymour M. Hersh (January 24 2005). "Annals of National Security: The Coming Wars". The New Yorker. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 1 2005, Scott Ritter
  5. ^ Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy
  6. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet
  7. ^ Deep Background, August 1, 2005, Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative
  8. ^ A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran, Jorge Hirsch, November 12, 2005
  9. ^ America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss ,Jorge Hirsch, February 20, 2006
  10. ^ Nuclear War Against Iran, Michel Chossudovsky, January 3, 2006
  11. ^ The Iran plans, Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker Mag., April 8, 2006
  12. ^ Klare, Michael T. "Bush's Future Iran War Speech: Three Charges in the Case for War". Nation Institute. Retrieved 2007-04-09.
  13. ^ Reuters (September 28, 2006). "Americans favor diplomacy on Iran: Reuters poll". Yahoo. Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  14. ^ a b "Iran (Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.)". Polling Report, Inc. Retrieved 2007-02-27. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  15. ^ "Reuters/Zogby Poll (survey was conducted September 22-25, 2006)". Reuters/Zogby. Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  16. ^ "European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran" (Press release). Open Europe. April 4, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-05.
  17. ^ Ritter, Scott (November 3, 2006). "The Case for Engagement". The Nation. Retrieved 2006-11-05.
  18. ^ "Declaration of International Peace Conference, London, 2005". Stop the War Coalition. December 10, 2005. Retrieved 2006-10-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  19. ^ http://www.actioniran.org.uk
  20. ^ "Iran Solidarity". End of Empire. Retrieved 2006-11-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  21. ^ "UK peace groups consolidate under "Campaign Iran"". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. November 7, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-07.
  22. ^ "Don't Attack Iran". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. November 11, 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-11. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  23. ^ "Iranian NGOs express opposition to sanctions, military intervention and foreign interference in Iran". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. 2007-06-28. Retrieved 2007-07-01.
  24. ^ "Iranian NGO's against sanctions & military intervention against Iran". Organization for Defending Victims of Violence. Retrieved 2007-07-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  25. ^ Non-Aligned Movement (May 30, 2006). "NAM Coordinating Bureau's statement on Iran's nuclear issue". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2006-10-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  26. ^ "?". iranmania.com. June 18, 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  27. ^ Heinrich, Mark (June 14, 2007). "IAEA urges Iran compromise to avert conflict". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-06-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  28. ^ Saeidi, Shirin (June 17, 2007). "Muffled Voices: ElBaradei's Unheard Assessments". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved 2007-06-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  29. ^ "Worldwide Anti-War Protests - March 2006". Indymedia. 22 March 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-23. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  30. ^ Massoumi, Nariman (September 24, 2006). "Action Iran and CASMII march together against war". Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved 2006-10-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  31. ^ Solomon, Norman (April 18, 2006). "How Long Will MoveOn.org Fail to Oppose Bombing Iran?". Z Communications. Retrieved 2006-10-24. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  32. ^ "StopIranWar.com" at the Huffington Post
  33. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy". ZNet. Retrieved 2006-12-24. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)