Peace in the Middle East — US style
The US administration's decision to cut off all US trade and investment with Iran is a continuation of its policy to suppress any country in the Middle East with the potential to challenge Western countries' control over Middle East resources and politics.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, US policy has focused on keeping down any country that could lead the Middle East into relations with First World countries on equal terms.
During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), US national security adviser Henry Kissinger argued that continuing war between Iran and Iraq could only benefit the US and Israel. "I hope they kill each other", he said. "Too bad they both can't lose".
The US-led war against Iraq in 1991, under the Bush administration, helped to shore up US influence in the region.
After the Gulf War an "internal review" of US policy towards Iran was drafted by the US State Department. The review reasserted the potential of Iran as a source of leadership that challenged the US and argued that Iran could be a nuclear threat "within three to five years".
US President Bill Clinton now takes the baton, calling the economic blockade of Iran and Iraq "dual containment".
Since 1992 Iran has pursued a policy of reorienting its economy towards the West. Under the regime of Ali Akhbar Rafsanjani, Iran has sought foreign loans and investment, trade agreements and joint ventures.
The results of this policy included a $US1 billion contract with Conoco oil, scuttled as a result of Clinton's decision. Iran is currently engaged in major economic projects with Pakistan, China, Russia, Germany and France.
Ending these relations is Clinton's new project — and a timely distraction from domestic problems heightened by the Oklahoma City bombing.
The Clinton campaign against Iran is based on three claimed threats: terrorism, nuclear weapons development and threat of blockage of oil supplies.
International terrorism is perhaps the most worn card. After claims that Libya, Syria and Iraq have each been "the major supporter of international terrorism" over the last 10 years, it is now Iran's turn. Even the Australian government has played down this claim.
The "nuclear threat" has its precedents in US stand-over tactics towards Iraq after the Gulf War and, more recently, North Korea.
The development of nuclear power facilities in Iran by Russia and China is being portrayed by the US as an Iranian move to develop nuclear weapons. The "embargo", said Clinton, "is the most effective way our nation can help to curb [Iran's] drive to acquire devastating weapons". This is particularly cynical coming from the only country which has ever used nuclear weapons, and which maintains an unimaginably devastating arsenal of nuclear and other implements of mass destruction.
The fear of Iran blocking oil supplies to the "world" is equally hypocritical. The United States Joint Chiefs of Staff argue that Iran has "the capability to interdict shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz", affecting 20% of the world's oil supply. Iran is presented as a "threat" to the world economy, but the US already "interdicts" the economic relations of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea etc.
The US can, and does "interdict shipping traffic" in the Persian Gulf, as the Gulf war showed. It also has the ability to attack any Gulf country, with air bases in Taif and Khamis Mushayt along the Red Sea coast in Saudi Arabia, and bases in Turkey. Equipment to supply armoured brigades is currently stored by the US in Kuwait and Qatar.
Peace in the Middle East will come only with political and economic independence. Enforcing a "peace" on unequal terms merely sets the stage for the next conflict.