According to today's news Jack Straw has said Iran is pushing its luck in declaring that it intends to restart its nuclear programme. If last night's More 4 programme "Why We Went to War" is to be believed then Iran was probably always next in line to be "democratised" after Iraq as part of Bush's plans to liberate people living udner the axis of evil. Certainly the US has been more vocal in its sabre rattling against Iran than Europe including Britain over recent months, but that is no doubt due to the US government's belief that it can do almost anything it wants whereas Blair's government, especially after Iraq, is constrained by domestic politics.
The most likely outcome is an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by Israel aided by US intelligence from its spy satellites. In the present climate of the Middle East, however, such an attack is not without its drawbacks for Israel. But if with the demise of Sharon, Natanyahu, becomes Prime Minister, such an attack is almost inevitable.
However, what I am more interested in is what socialists response to the situation should be. Whatever, our attitude to the clerical-fascist regime in Tehran, the fact is that Iran is a sovereign state. In what sense can a state be said to be truly sovereign, or to have achieved national independence if other great powers can dicatate to it, what its should do within its own borders, especially when what is being obejected to - in this case a nuclear programme - is something those other powers have done themselves, and the results of which they cling to, and continue to expand. If what was being discussed was a situation where all the nations of the world had banned a particular activity then that might be a different matter, but as long as their are nations that posess nuclear weapons, and particularly as the nations that posess them have been the ones most prone to invading other countries and interfering in their affairs in other ways, what justification can there be for denying this right to others?
But for socialists the matter does not end their. Socialists are not moralists. We do not determine our politics in accordance with some abstract, let alone absolute moral code. It may be morally indefensible for nations that posess nuclear weapons to deny that right to other nations, but we do not thereby draw the conclusion surely that these other nations should develop nuclear weapons either. As socialists we seek to create a world where people can enjoy a better more civilised existence than the one they enjoy under capitalism. Such a world is impossible if we destroy what exists through nuclear war, and is inconcievable even under circumstances where people live with a persistent threat of nuclear annhilation.
What then should socialists be saying about Iran's nuclear programme, and the response to it from the major powers. Firstly, Iran maintains that it is developing a civilian programme. That may be true. As socialists we have raised the demand that any civilian nuclear programme, whether in Iran or in Britain, should be udner democratic workers control and supervision, and that it should only be taken forward if such control and supervision indicates that it is safe, and compatible with the interests of workers. If, as is understandable given the infiltration opf past inspection teams by the CIA, countries such as Iran fear the impartiality of International teams of inspectors, then we should suggest in their place, an international workers Inspectorate that can look at such developments wherever they are taking place. Surely, the US could not object to being subject to the same kind of inspections it demands of others. Secondly, we must reject the right of the US, Britain, Israel or any other country to act as wrold policeman by attacking countries who udnertake policies or programmes they object to. A Healthy Workers State would undoubtedly pursue programmes such capitalist powers would abhor, we should not allow legitimate precedents to be establsihed now. Thirdly, we need to link opposition to nuclear proliferation to a renewed demand for nuclear disarmament. Blair is about to give the go ahead for the replacement of Trident. WHY? He has repeatedly said that the war now, is a war against terror. You do not defeat terror by nuking countries. Fourthly, the Labour Movement must begin to adress the situation in Iran itself. Iran has a large working class, and a relatively modern capitalist economy. The Labour Movement internationally should give the maximum support to workers in Iran to organise, and to replace the rule of the mullahs. Replacement with a workers government is unlikely, but the potential for the establishment of a secular, democratic state, is entirely possible, and one in which workers through a workers party could be an important influence.
Above all socialists must set the agenda according not to what appears feasible, not by relying on the goodwill of other agencies, but on the basis of what is in the interests of the working class, now and in the future. Only by doing so can we begin to mobilise the forces which will be needed to fight for that agenda, and to make the working class the motive force of history it needs to be, rather than the pawns in someone else's game.