Washington has manufactured a crisis over Iran's peaceful nuclear programme in order to pursue its own interests in the region, writes Ismail Salami in Tehran Washington's double-edged policies towards the Islamic Republic of Iran are not only exhausting the patience of the Iranian people, but they are also testing the conscience of the international community. Goaded on by Washington, EU foreign ministers decided on 23 January this year to impose a ban on oil imports from Iran using the excuse that the country was pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. However, Iran has said that it will not allow other regional states to sell their oil on international markets if Iran is prevented from doing so. Ali Akbar Velayati, an advisor to leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said recently that "in the absence of Iranian oil, international oil prices will soar dramatically. Western countries are well aware of this, and Iran will never allow itself to be put in a situation where it cannot sell its oil but other regional states can." This firm stance on the part of Iran means that EU states will need to prepare themselves for the consequences if they continue in their policy of servitude to Washington. Earlier, Iran also warned that it would close the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf to oil shipments, a move which the IMF said "could trigger a much larger oil price spike, including by limiting offsetting supplies from other producers in the region." The EU sanctions on Iranian oil, effective in July, will have drastic repercussions for the European Union, since Iran has decided to counter-attack by banning the sale of oil to Europe. This proactive move will have serious consequences for the Iranian economy, but it will also lead to drastic hikes in oil prices for European countries. According to Velayati, the EU decision to impose sanctions on Iranian oil exports was a "political maneuver." Iran did not need European customers, he added, since "global demand is always there." In the long run, western oil firms and consumers may emerge the losers from the EU decision, since the IMF has predicted that oil prices could rise by up to 30 percent to over $140 a barrel if Iran halts its oil exports altogether. While Saudi Arabia has vowed to fill the gap left by the halting of Iranian oil exports, the question arises of what could happen were the Saudis unable to make up the shortfall. Some European countries, including Italy, Spain and Greece, rely on Iranian oil imports. Greece also buys Iranian oil on credit, and the EU ban on imports of Iranian oil would likely lead to further economic disaster for the country. Meanwhile, Iran will be able to find new customers in Asian markets. Much to the chagrin of Washington, a number of countries, including China, India, Russia, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, have refused to follow the US lead on sanctions. Russia has slammed the new package of sanctions, with the Russian foreign ministry describing the EU move as "deeply erroneous." "Under such pressures, Iran will make no concessions and will not alter its policies," the Russian statement said. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has told reporters that there is no proof that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. Russia has warned the West against any US-led attack on Iran, saying that this would lead to catastrophic consequences for the entire region. The EU sanctions are being seen as the latest episode in Washington's attempts to break the Iranian government and to bring the Iranian nation to its knees. However, Iran has been suffering from US sanctions since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and it has long learned to turn such sanctions into an opportunity to attain self-sufficiency. The present sanctions, designed by the US and now followed by the EU, are tailored to suit the interests of Israel, an arch-enemy of Iran. Ever since its inception following the 1979 Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the target of destabilisation efforts led by Washington. In his book Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq (1993), US journalist Alan Friedman emphasised how the US aided the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in attacking Iran in the 1980s. According to Friedman, Washington gave Iraq billions of dollars worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, non-US arms, military intelligence, special operations training, and other forms of assistance throughout the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. According to Friedman, an Atlanta branch of the Italian bank Banca Nazionale del Lavoro funneled over $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Moreover, a 1994 report from the US Senate banking committee indicated that the US provided the Saddam regime with chemical weapons and that it exported pathogenic, toxigenic, and other biological materials to Iraq after licensing by the US department of commerce. The report revealed that 70 shipments, including of anthrax, were sent to Iraq from the US over a three-year period. The Saddam regime then used such US chemical weapons against Iranian combatants and civilians. Around 100,000 Iranians were affected by Iraqi nerve and mustard gas during the war, and between 5,000 and 6,000 are still receiving medical treatment. Washington's enmity towards the Islamic Republic goes far beyond its opposition to Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, which has constantly been used as political leverage to stunt the country's economic and political growth. The present depiction of Iran as a threat to regional and global stability is only the latest episode in a saga manufactured by Washington in order to try to smother a voice critical of its own policies. The writer is an Iranian expert on Middle East affairs.
