The Iran-UK Face-Off

The British Navy incident illustrates just how aggressively the U.S. and British are acting toward Iran and how quickly they can fabricate pretexts for further aggression. Take the maps the British produce as evidence to try and prove their personnel were in Iraqi waters. Even U.S. military experts admitted that neither side could prove conclusively where the confrontation happened given that it took place in a very narrow body of water with contested and, in some cases, uncharted borders. 

The World to Win News Service (AWTW) pointed out (April 2), “The maps the UK government trotted out to prove that its commando boats were in Iraqi waters were drawn up by the British themselves and have no legal validity. Former Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West implicitly admitted as much in a BBC interview (29 March). When asked how one could determine where the maritime border is, he answered, ‘It is highly complex. A commission is meant [in the future] to lay down the median line between the Shatt al-Arab and agree where the various lines are. So we have the line we believe is the correct one.’ 

Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekis- tan called the British maps ‘a fake with no legal force,’ and concluded, ‘The UK was plainly wrong to be ultra-provocative in disputed waters.’” 

What exactly were British forces doing less than 10 miles from Iran’s coast? If they were inspecting boats for contraband, as claim- ed, why did they board an Indian- flagged vessel after it had dropped its load of automobiles in Iraq? The British government hasn’t answered this question. 

It turns out they were doing much more. Britain’s Sky News (April 5) reported that the captain in charge of the “Interaction Patrol” admitted they were gathering intelligence on Iranian activity in the area: “Basically we speak to the crew [of any vessel they encounter].... If they do have any information because they’re here for days at a time, they can share it with us. Whether it’s about piracy or any sort of Iranian activity in the area.” This report was withheld by Sky News until after the British personnel were released. 

The British warship Cornwall, which dispatched the craft seized by Iran, is the flagship of an anti-submarine and minesweeping battle group that includes several other British warships. Its intelligence gathering is done in concert with the massive deployment of U.S. forces in the region, which now includes two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups comprised of dozens of heavily armed warships with attack aircraft and missiles. 

As AWTW News Service notes, “Under the command of the USS Stennis, all of these ships are currently carrying out war maneuvers in the Gulf.... The role of the Cornwall and other British ships would be to help protect the American strike force and prevent the Iranian government from retaliating against other countries’ shipping in the Gulf once Iranian-bound vessels came under attack. These so-called ‘war games’ are a rehearsal for a naval embargo and possible combined naval and air attack on Iran.” 

Given the fact that the British knew that its forces were operating close to (or inside) Iranian waters and could be seized (as happened in 2004), it’s quite possible the British deliberately risked confrontation in order to either unnerve Iran and/or test its response. The Guardian reports that Iranian officials state this was the fourth such intrusion into Iranian waters in the last three months. 

Both British and U.S. officials got on their high horses to denounce Iran’s seizure. Blair called it “illegal” and a violation of international law, while Bush cried “inexcusable” and called the British military personnel “hostages.” Meanwhile, the U.S. had seized Iranians inside Iraq three times this year, once with the cooperation of Iraqi government forces. All officials were in Iraq legally and all but one is still being held without formal charges or means of redress. The Iranian government is not being allowed to see its personnel and the U.S. only recently allowed a Red Cross visit. 

One Iranian captive—Jalal Sharafi, the second secretary at Iran’s embassy in Baghdad seized by Iraqi Ministry of Defense forces —was let go just prior to Iran’s release of the British military personnel. The U.S. denied any involvement in his seizure, but the U.S. oversees the operation of the Iraqi Defense Ministry and works closely with it. When Sharafi returned to Tehran he said he’d been brutally interrogated and tortured with a U.S. official present (which the U.S. denies). According to the BBC, Jalal Sharafi appeared at a Tehran news conference and gave a detailed account of beatings, including being whipped with cables and tortured with an electric drill. A Red Cross official has confirmed that he saw marks on Sharafi’s feet, legs, back, and nose. An Iranian psychiatrist said that Sharafi was suffering from sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. 

All of this is treated by the U.S. government and media as if it is perfectly normal and routine— barely worth mention—and certainly not worthy of condemnation and exposure. This is a chilling illustration of the degree to which the Bush program of illegal detentions and torture, and stripping people of legal rights, has been normalized. 

The actions of the Cornwall and U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf are part of a broad campaign against Iran being orchestrated by the U.S. across the Middle East. This has included U.S. efforts to militarily encircle Iran, to provoke instability internally, and to cripple it economically. ABC News reported that since 2005, U.S. officials have secretly been encouraging and advising guerrilla fighters from the Baluchi tribe in Pakistan to launch attacks inside Iran, and their attacks have resulted in the killing or kidnapping of more than a dozen Iranian officials and soldiers. A “Democracy Now!” segment (March 27) exposed U.S. support for anti-government Iranian Kurdish forces. There are reports that U.S. intelligence operatives are working inside Iran to gather information in preparation for attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites. 

The U.S. pushed through sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council in December and again in March, and is engaged in an aggressive campaign to force international corporations and financial institutions to cut off capital to Iran to cripple its oil and industrial sectors. Across the region, the U.S. is targeting groups with ties to Iran. The U.S. is also stepping up its arms shipments to allies in the region, and has dispatched another carrier group, the USS Nimitz, to the region—ostensibly to relieve the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, but raising the possibility that the U.S. could soon have three carrier groups off Iran’s coast. 

The Bush administration did not push for a military escalation in the latest standoff, but this does not mean war is off the table. The U.S. is aware of the enormous difficulties it faces in Iraq and the dangers inherent in war with Iran. But it is continuing to build an international consensus against Iran, to isolate it politically, and to prepare public opinion for whatever actions it deems necessary. 

While there are divisions within the U.S. ruling class over how to deal with the Middle East, all sides are approaching this from the standpoint of protecting U.S. imperialist interests in the region. Significantly, no leading Democrat has spoken out against war with Iran and language forbidding such a war without Congressional consent was removed from the recent war appropriations bill. This is why the overall trajectory—while many different contradictions are at play and war is not inevitable—remains toward confrontation and war. 

For instance, tensions are continuing to mount over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran recently told the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, charged with monitoring its nuclear sites, that it would withhold information because the agency had repeatedly allowed confidential information crucial to the country’s security to be leaked and that in the current climate such information could be used to further a U.S. or Israeli military attack. Iran has also announced—in defiance of U.S. and UN demands—an acceleration of its efforts to enrich uranium. Iranian officials warn they will abandon the non-proliferation framework if international powers continue to pressure them to give up their rights under existing treaties to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.  

Not a week goes by without new rumors of a U.S. attack on Iran. In April the Jerusalem Post reported that Russian intelligence services were predicting a U.S. surprise attack on Good Friday (April 6). Kuwait’s Arab Times reported (April 4) the U.S. was planning an attack at the end of April. Iranian officials have stated they fear an attack this summer. The website Swoop writes: “Following the May 24th expiry of the deadline for Iranian compliance with UN demands, we will enter a more volatile period with increasing potential for an accident...to grow into a regional confrontation.” 

All this underscores the need to build mass opposition now to any attack on Iran and to step up efforts to drive out the Bush regime and repudiate its entire agenda of aggressive and unending war. 

Z 

Larry Everest is author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (Common Courage), a correspondent for Revolution, and a contributor to Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney (Seven Stories).