From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on Anti-War topics
Opposition to...
War against Iran Iraq War War in Afghanistan War on Terrorism Landmines Vietnam War Nuclear armament World War II World War I Second Boer War American Civil War War of 1812 American Revolutionary War
Agents of opposition
Anti-war organizations Conscientious objectors Draft dodgers Peace movement Peace churches
Related ideologies
Anti-imperialism Antimilitarism Appeasement Nonviolence Pacifism
Media
Books • Films • Songs
Politics Portal ·  v • d • e

Organized opposition to a possible future military attack against Iran by the United States (US) is known to have started during 2005-2006. Beginning in early 2005, journalists, activists and academics such as Seymour Hersh, Scott Ritter, Joseph Cirincione and Jorge E. Hirsch began publishing claims that American concerns over the potential threat posed by Iran's nuclear program might lead the US government to take military action against that country in the future. These reports, and the concurrent escalation of tensions between Iran and some Western governments, prompted the formation of grassroots organisations, including Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran in the US and the United Kingdom, to advocate against potential military strikes on Iran. Additionally, several individuals and organizations, including United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, and the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 states, have publicly stated their opposition to a would-be attack on Iran.

Contents 1 Reports of a potential military attack on Iran 2 Public opinion 2.1 Opposition to an attack 2.2 Support for an attack 3 Individuals 4 Organisations 4.1 Grassroots and non-governmental organisations 4.2 International opposition to war by a majority of countries and the majority of the World Population 5 Street actions 6 Internet actions 6.1 Reactions to UN Security Council Resolution 1737 by anti-war groups 7 See also 8 Video 9 References

Opposition to a would-be military attack on Iran followed several claims that the United States and/or Israel might carry out such an attack on Iran, in relation to claims that Iran may try to produce nuclear weapons. Some analysts say that Iran's potential production of nuclear weapons is the real reason for a would-be attack, while others say that it is an excuse for an attack. Noam Chomsky claims that the real reason for a would-be attack would be to "control Middle East energy resources", in particular oil.^[1] and physicist Jorge Hirsch claims that the real reason is that the US wishes to demonstrate its intent and capability to "use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries".^[2]. Starting in 2005, these analysts, including Seymour Hersh^[3], former UN weapons of mass destruction inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, Scott Ritter^[4], Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace^[5], Professor at the University of San Francisco and Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, Stephen Zunes^[6] claimed that the United States planned a military attack against Iran. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer^[7], physicist Jorge E. Hirsch^{[8] [9]}, Michel Chossudovsky^[10], and Seymour M. Hersh ^[11] claimed that the attack could be expected to use nuclear weapons, in line with the US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations which was revised in March 2005.

A Reuters/Zogby opinion poll taken in the United States and published on September 28, 2006 found a large majority (70 percent of those polled) opposing an attack on Iran if it were to involve a land attack by only US soldiers. Small minorities supported a land attack (26 percent) or an air attack against military targets (9 percent). A relative majority (47 percent) was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran and a minority was in favour (42 percent).^[12] A compilation of polls regarding the opinion of US adults about an attack Iran also suggested majority opposition to an attack on Iran among US adults during 2006 and early 2007, for questions where no leading information was supplied to those polled: a CBS February 2007 poll indicated about 10-20% of US citizens supported a USA attack on Iran at the time of taking the poll between June 2006 and early February 2007; a CNN poll on January 19-21, 2007 indicated 70% opposition to an attack on Iran; a Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 indicated about 76% opposition to a land attack and 54% opposition to an air attack. ^[13]

Polls with leading information, such as a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll taken June 24-27, 2006, asking "If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?", mostly gave minority opposition to an attack on Iran. This Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave minority (about 40 percent) opposition to an attack A Newsweek Poll taken on October 19-20, 2006 with the leading information "if that country [Iran] continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons" gave a large majority (76 percent) opposed to an a land attack and a small majority (54 percent) opposed to an air attack, conditional on the claim in the leading information.^[13]

A majority (56 percent) in a poll conducted in the USA during September 22-25, 2006 was in favour of a joint US-European attack on Iran. ^[14]

Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military intelligence officer and then a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, who is an active opponent to the Iraq War, has made several strong public statements opposing war against Iran, such as: "The alleged Iranian threat espoused by Bush is based on fear, and arises from a combination of ignorance and ideological inflexibility." and referred to what he called "numerous unconfirmed reports that the United States has already begun covert military operations inside Iran, including overflights by drones and recruitment and training of MEK, Kurdish and Azeri guerrillas."^[15]

The organisation Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) was officially founded on December 1, 2005 in London and claimed its first success to be the inclusion of opposition to an attack on Iran as part of the aims declared by the International Peace Conference in London on December 10, 2005.^[16]. Two UK organisations opposed to an attack on Iran, Action Iran^[17], and Iran Solidarity^[18] joined together with CASMII UK on November 6, 2006 to form a new organisation in the UK called Campaign Iran, which remains part of the international CASMII.^[19]

In November 2006, several peace organisations in the San Francisco Bay Area in the USA, in particular American Friends Service Committee, Bay Area United Against the War, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice, Berkeley Gray Panthers, Courage To Resist, Crabgrass, Declaration of Peace SF Bay Area, Ecumenical Peace Institute/Calc, Grandmothers for Peace, South Bay Mobilization, and The World Can't Wait--Drive Out The Bush Regime!, organised themselves together as the "Don't Attack Iran Coalition" and called for various actions including direct contact between US leaders and/or members of US Congress and Iranian leaders and members of parliament.^[20]

On September 16, 2006, representatives of the 118 states of the Non-Aligned Movement made a statement, at the summit level, supporting Iran's civilian nuclear program and opposing military attacks against nuclear facilities, stating "The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction, poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA. They recognized the need for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument, prohibiting attacks, or threat of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy."^[21]

March 7, 2007: A majority of people outside the US believe America is having a mostly negative influence in the world. One poll conducted for BBC World Service together with GlobeScan in 26 countries revealed that 51 percent of people thought the US was having a mainly negative influence in the world. Only 30 percent had a favorable view. The BBC poll found that on average, 75 percent disapprove of the way the US is handling the Iraq war, 69 percent disapprove of US treatment of detainees in Guantanamo and other prisons, 68 percent disapprove of how the US handled the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, 61 percent disapprove of US handling of the Iranian nuclear program. ^[22]

During global anti-war protests on March 18, 2006, in addition to protests against the Iraq War, many of the protests were directed against the perceived threat to attack Iran.^[23].

On September 23, 2006, one of the main slogans and themes of speakers at a demonstration of about 50,000 people criticising British prime minister Tony Blair at the Labour Party Annual Conference in Manchester was the call "Don't attack Iran".^[24]

On April 12, 2006, the political group MoveOn, which organises and informs an online community estimated at 3 million people, called on its supporters to lobby the United States Congress to prevent US president George W. Bush from attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.^[25]

In February 2007, ex-supreme NATO Commander, US General and 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark founded the website StopIranWar.com, which advocates against an attack on Iran.^[26]

In reaction to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran issued a statement titled "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy"^[27] dated December 24, 2006. In the statement CASMII expresses grave concern over the UN resolution. It characterizes the unanimous verdict as having been engineered by the US stating "As the Observer reported last Sunday, the US is giving up to 270% more foreign aid to Security Council members as incentive for them to support US positions." The statement further argues that the resolution could be abused and taken as a justification for war, just like the 2002 resolution--also unanimously passed--was used as an eventual justification for the US/UK invasion of Iraq. The statement also "notes" that "there may actually be no way for Iran to comply with the UN demands," saying "Just as the repeated American demands for more and more intrusive inspections, for opening up of Saddam’s palaces and interviewing Iraqi scientists did not satisfy America’s suspicions; neither will Iran’s 'compliance' with these demands be ever sufficient to 'prove' the non-existence of a WMD program."

• Confronting Iran: Critical Perspectives on the Current Crisis, its Origins, and Implications, Project on Defense Alternatives
• United States-Iran relations
• Government-organized demonstration in Iran
• Anti-Iranian sentiments
• Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
• Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility
• War of aggression

• The Oil Factor: Behind The War on Terror at Google Video

1. ^ Chomsky, Noam; Michael Shank (February 20, 2007). Chomsky on Iran, Iraq, and the Rest of the World. Z Communications. Retrieved on 2007-02-27.
2. ^ Hirsch, Jorge (November 1, 2005). The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda. antiwar.com.
3. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
4. ^ Sleepwalking To Disaster In Iran, April 01, 2005, Scott Ritter
5. ^ Fool Me Twice, March 27, 2006, Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy
6. ^ The United States, Israel, and the Possible Attack on Iran, Stephen Zunes, May 2, 2006, ZNet
7. ^ Deep Background, August 1, 2005, Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative
8. ^ A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran, Jorge Hirsch, November 12, 2005
9. ^ America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss ,Jorge Hirsch, February 20, 2006
10. ^ Nuclear War Against Iran, Michel Chossudovsky, January 3, 2006
11. ^ The Iran plans, Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker Mag., April 8, 2006
12. ^ Reuters (September 28, 2006). Americans favor diplomacy on Iran: Reuters poll. Yahoo. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.
13. ^ ^{a b} Iran (Polls listed chronologically. Data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.). Polling Report, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-02-27.
14. ^ Reuters/Zogby Poll (survey was conducted September 22-25, 2006). Reuters/Zogby. Retrieved on 2007-02-26.
15. ^ Ritter, Scott. "The Case for Engagement", The Nation, November 3, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-11-05.
16. ^ Declaration of International Peace Conference, London, 2005. Stop the War Coalition (December 10, 2005). Retrieved on 2006-10-23.
17. ^ http://www.actioniran.org.uk
18. ^ Iran Solidarity. End of Empire. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.
19. ^ "UK peace groups consolidate under "Campaign Iran"", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, November 7, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-11-07.
20. ^ "Don't Attack Iran", Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, November 11, 2006. Retrieved on 2006-11-11. (in English)
21. ^ Non-Aligned Movement (May 30, 2006). NAM Coordinating Bureau's statement on Iran's nuclear issue. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved on 2006-10-23.
22. ^ http://iran-daily.com/1385/2800/html/national.htm
23. ^ Worldwide Anti-War Protests - March 2006. Indymedia (22 March 2006). Retrieved on 2006-10-23.
24. ^ Massoumi, Nariman (September 24, 2006). Action Iran and CASMII march together against war. Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Retrieved on 2006-10-24.
25. ^ Solomon, Norman (April 18, 2006). How Long Will MoveOn.org Fail to Oppose Bombing Iran?. Z Communications. Retrieved on 2006-10-24.
26. ^ "StopIranWar.com" at the Huffington Post
27. ^ "A Terrible Day for International Diplomacy", ZNet. Retrieved on 2006-12-24.