By Kenneth J. Theisen
Last week the Bush regime announced that
it was sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns, the third ranking
diplomat in the State Department, to join international talks in Geneva
with Iran about its nuclear program. This was billed by the Bush
administration as a sign that it was doing everything possible to reach
a peaceful settlement with Iran. But was this “change” in
tactics really meant to achieve a breakthrough, or just a continuation
of the Bush regime’s war-like actions against Iran?
When the seven governments sat down on
July 19th it was not a case of negotiating in good faith, but a chance
for the U.S. and its allies to deliver an ultimatum to Iran. The U.S.
accused Iran of stonewalling the U.S. and five other world powers on
their call to freeze Iranian uranium enrichment. The six powers,
which include the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China,
gave Iran two
weeks to respond to their demand that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment.
This sets the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions if the Iranians
refuse to comply, which is very likely.
State Department
spokesman Sean McCormack stated, “We hope the Iranian people understand
that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which
would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to
further isolation.”
Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian
delegation stated, “Suspension – there is no chance for that.”
Chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili said, “Iran is calling on
the Western powers to resume the dialogue.”
Iran is currently under three different
sets of U.N. economic sanctions for its past refusal to suspend enrichment.
Iran maintains it has the legal right to enrich for peaceful purposes.
The U.S. maintains that enrichment is a cover for the development of
nuclear weapons. The Bush regime is using this excuse to justify it
continuing attacks on Iran. To date these attacks have taken the form
of not only diplomacy, but sanctions, political rhetoric, and military
planning and exercises. But the possibility of war is still an “option
on the table” according to all top officials in the Bush regime.
The latest ultimatum calls for a six-week
commitment from Iran to stop expanding enrichment. In return the
U.S. and its allies claim they will agree to a moratorium on new sanctions
for up to six weeks. This is supposedly meant to create the framework
for formal negotiations which would lead to Iran’s commitment to an
indefinite ban on enrichment. At the July 19th “talks,
according to McCormack, Burn’s message to the Iranians was, “Iran
must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United
States. [Iran needed to] “make a choice between cooperation,
which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only
lead to further isolation.”
People should not be fooled by this latest
“diplomacy.” The U.S. is being pressured by the other six
powers to at least “sit down” with Iranian officials. Also
in light of Obama’s election campaign where he has criticized the
Bush administration for its failure to negotiate with Iran as foolish,
this latest move is also meant to placate voters. Polls have shown
that Americans prefer the U.S. to negotiate with Iran rather than go
to war. But Burns and the U.S. are not negotiating in any real
sense.
I am reminded of Germany’s “diplomatic
negotiations” in 1939 just before it attacked Poland. Hitler
had already given the orders for the invasion of Poland. The Nazis made
plans for staging fake attacks by the Poles against Germany to justify
the invasion. But despite the fact that he knew the invasion was
certain to occur, Hitler pretended to negotiate with England, France,
and Poland, literally right up to the time of the invasion. Right
after the invasion was launched, Hitler then made a radio address to
the German people stating that he did everything he could to resolve
the issues between Poland and Germany peacefully, but that he had been
stymied by the other side which failed to negotiate in good faith.
This was an outright lie, but it was believed by many of the “good
Germans” at that time.
The Bush regime is also using diplomacy
to achieve it ends, which include domination of the Middle East and
hegemony over the world. They do not want a diplomatic breakthrough
on the enrichment talks any more than Hitler wanted Poland to accede
to his demand in 1939. Hitler confided to his closest henchmen
his fear that Poland would actually give in to the demands. (Bush had
a similar fear before the Iraq invasion. At one time he has a discussion
of forcing the Iraqis to shoot at a U.S. plane disguised as an U.N.
plane in order to further war.)
The U.S. has chosen to key in on the
nuclear enrichment issue as an excuse for its moves against Iran, just
as it used the weapons of mass destruction excuse to justify the Iraq
invasion. It is bent on regime change in Tehran because Iran does
pose a real obstacle to the U.S., but not because Iran may or may not
have a secret nuke program. The current diplomacy needs to be seen in
the context of U.S. goals. It is just one of the tools in the imperialist
arsenal wielded by the U.S. in order to remove the Iranian regime.
Yes, if the U.S. can force the Iranian regime to capitulate to the Bush
regime political program then it may not launch a war. But we
can not for a minute forget that war is an option that has been planned
for by the regime. Like sanctions, political rhetoric, and diplomacy,
war is never ruled out by U.S. imperialists. None of these weapons
is mutually exclusive and they have been and will continue to be used
in tandem as long as U.S. imperialism exists.
For those who think we just have to get
through the elections, consider this. On July 23rd, Barack
Obama said, “A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world
must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I will take
no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat.
A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle
East but around the world”I think there are opportunities for us to
mobilize a much more serious regime of sanctions on Iran but also to
offer them the possibility of improved relations to the international
community.” It appears that Obama has learned a lesson from
the Bush regime and intends to use the same weapons of diplomacy, sanctions,
rhetoric, and the threat of military attack.
The only “change you can count on”
is that initiated by the masses of people. Obama will not stop
war against Iran. Only you and millions like you can make sure
war does not occur by doing what you can to oppose the Bush regime’s
plans. Your alternative is to be one of those “good Germans”
that goes along with the agenda. Which will you choose?
Ken Theisen is a veteran activist
of movements opposing U.S. imperialism, its wars and domination of countries
throughout the world, and an advocate against domestic violence in the
San Francisco Bay Area.
