“Israel’s nuclear hypocrisy runs deep.”
As the world awaits the outcome of US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Carol Turner, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), considers what might follow.
On the evening of Friday 20 June, Rafael Grossi the Argentinian diplomat who heads the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) told the UN Security Council (UNSC) there was no evidence Iran was developing nuclear weapons. One day later, on 21 June, the US military bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Rafael Grossi urged the restoration of weapons inspection. Iran’s nuclear facilities had already suffered ‘severe damage’, warning that a strike on the Bushier nuclear power plant in the southwest of Iran could cause its reactor core to melt triggering a regional catastrophe.
It is for reasons like these that the Geneva Conventions – which set out the rule for the conduct of wars – specifically and explicitly prohibit attacks against nuclear facilities.
When the UNSC met again in emergency session on 22 June, called by Russia, China, and Pakistan, The three are said to have proposed a resolution demanding immediate and unconditional ceasefire, according to Al Jazeera and others. The vote has not been scheduled. But statements have made clear it will be vetoed by the US and possibly other UNSC permanent members.
Grossi called attention to the likely but as yet unconfirmed damage of US strikes. He reported:
- Fordow – craters are visible indicating US use of ground-penetrating munitions [bunker busters], but no one is in a position to assess the underground damage.
- Esfahan – additional buildings were hit with US cruise missiles including some buildings related to uranium conversion and the entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched uranium.
- Natanz – the fuel enrichment plant has been hit again, and the US confirms it used ground-penetrating munitions.
Despite international law and the overwhelming view of experts, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu claim Iran is only months away from developing nuclear weapons. Bombing Iranian facilities will halt this, they claim.
The decision to develop a nuclear weapons programme is a political decision. Until a week ago, the chief protagonists had engaged in five rounds of US-Iran nuclear talks, hosted by Gulf states. Iran signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970. The Iranian parliament is now considering whether to withdraw from it, as the world awaits the outcome of US bombing.
Nuclear hypocrisy
In March, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that Iran’s stock of enriched uranium did not mean it was building nuclear weapons. The media was dishonest, she said, taking the situation out of context. The day after the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, Gabbard changed her mind and said Iran had a nuclear weapons programme.
Israel’s nuclear hypocrisy also runs deep:
- Israel is an undeclared nuclear weapons state.
- Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
- Israel does not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect it nuclear facilities.
With or without nuclear capability, Netanyahu says the actions of the Iranian regime are inconsistent with Israel’s interests and objectives. Israeli politicians from across the political spectrum agree with him.
Israel’s military strikes go beyond degrading Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel has targeted ballistic missile facilities as well as key military figures and nuclear scientists. The scale and choice of these targets, as well as Netanyahu’s own words, are rightly understood as seeking to destabilise the Iranian leadership and bring about regime change.
This aligns with Trump’s policy on Iran. On 4 February this year, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum NSPM 2 which is described as ‘Imposing Maximum Pressure on the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Denying Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon, and Countering Iran’s Malign Influence’. The memorandum directs the US offices of state to pursue these objectives:
- Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles;
- Iran’s terrorist network should be neutralised; and
- Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered.
Regime change on the agenda again
It’s hard to credit that anyone politician could seriously suggest regime change after the experiences of the 21st century. Recall what happened in Libya and Syria, and remember:
Afghanistan
The last troops withdrew in 2021 after 20 years of occupation, leaving Afghans to their fate at the hands of the Taliban. NGOs attach that Afghans today continue to experience extreme repression and human rights violations by the Taliban – public executions, stonings and floggings, enforced disappearances, unlawful detentions, and arbitrary arrests, while ethnic groups, including religious minorities, are marginalised and subject to forced evictions. The Taliban has failed to lift restrictions on women and girls as it agreed to do when it signed the Doha Agreement in 2020.
Iraq
The last US troops drew down in December 2011, marking the official end of the war waged by the US and Britain. As the state structures of Iraq were destroyed and dismantled, first Al Qaeda then the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) moved in to fill the gap. The destruction of the Iraqi state structures such as the military and police, led to a series of conflicts between armed groups contesting for power. In January 2018, for example, ISIS suicide bombers killed 27 people in the centre of the capital Baghdad. US attacks continued throughout Trump’s first term. A US airstrike on Mosul in March 2017, for example, known as the Mosul Massacre, killed between 2-300 civilians. It was the largest civilian death toll of any airstrike during the invasion. The IS insurgency was a direct result of the war in Iraq. It continues to this day.
The historical record notwithstanding, the aims of Israel and the US described above go well beyond the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapon potential.
Netanyahu has openly called for regime change. In a video broadcast to ‘the proud people of Iran’ immediately after the first evening of Israeli air strikes, Netanyahu said: ‘The Islamic regime which has oppressed you for almost 50 years, threatens to destroy the State of Israel,’ he said. ‘As we achieve our objective, we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom.’
While the US officially denies it seeks the downfall the Iranian regime. A number of Trump’s remarks have welcomed that possibility. How far he will go remains unclear.
Alternatives are out there
No one in their right mind can seriously support any country possessing weapons that can do hundreds of times the damage of the United States atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. As the 80th anniversary of the bombing approaches, statements like mine are more than a peace movement pipedream – quietly becoming a living reality as they spread across the global south.
Since the 1960s, nuclear weapons-free zones have been established by agreements which ban the use, development, and deployment of nuclear weapons on the territories of participating countries. These treaties are recognised by the United Nations and cover 115 countries – from southeast and central Asia, and Africa, to the South Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean. They include the countries of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Sadly, though perhaps unsurprisingly, nuclear weapon states such as Britain don’t countenance nuke free zones in their backyard. When the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons made it through the UN General Council and eventually onto the international statute book, for example, the US, Britain, and France issued a joint statement that they would never sign it.
Just as the re-establishment of talks is essential to dial down military escalation in the short term, an agreement to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East will be an indispensable foundation for future peace in the region.
What next?
In the immediate aftermath of US airstrikes, re-establishing talks is difficult but not impossible. The alternative means continued military action with the possibility of violence and destruction reaching incredible proportions. As Grossi suggests, ‘If the window for diplomacy closes, violence and destruction could reach unthinkable levels, and the global non-proliferation regime could crumble and fall.’
As I write, the next moves lie with Iran and United States. Iran has vowed to retaliate. The US says this would be a ‘severe mistake’. Trump has hinted regime change could follow.
If Britain is to exercise any degree of influence, the Prime Minister must stop must shuffling his feet and hiding his head. Britain and the EU have to climb off the fence.
CND calls for immediate ceasefire, the re-establishment of nuclear inspection, and a return to talks. The labour movement must add its voice to the demand of those of us calling for an end to the threat of war with Iran.
- Carol Turner is Vice Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). You can follow her on Twitter/X, and CND on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X and TikTok.
- If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.
