The storming of the British embassy in Iran, and the retaliatory measures by Britain and other western countries to curtail diplomatic ties with that country, has escalated their Cold War (so far) to a dangerous level. At its root is the perceived Iranian ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. Why are the US and its allies so obsessed with Iran? Surely, even if it were to become a nuclear power, which is not the case as things stand, it cannot become such a horrible threat to the world. The superior nuclear arsenal of the US, Israel and others will annihilate Iran if it were to use its (presently non-existent) nuclear weapons against any other country. This is not to suggest that Iran should become a nuclear power. Indeed, for a credible nuclear-free world, all existing nuclear countries should shed their nuclear weapons. Until then, they have no moral authority to enforce their will on others, because as long as nuclear status is a power symbol as well as the weapon of last resort, it will continue to tempt nations able to go that way. To understand Iran’s pariah status, one has to go back to its Islamic revolution in 1979. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, a loyal US ally, was a terrible blow to the US for reasons of geopolitics, strategy, and the control of oil supplies from the Middle East, of which Iran was a major producer. Iran was the first chink in the US’s strategy of controlling the Middle East, and could set a precedent for other countries in the region. On top of this, the new Islamic Iran was not only contemptuous of US power, it even had the temerity to humiliate the US by holding hostage its embassy staff. Since then, on both sides, there is a continuing war of nerves. In 1980, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with US encouragement and support, to assert Iraq’s sovereignty over the vital Shatt al-Arab waterway. The resultant war between the two countries lasted eight years, with an estimated million dead and wounded — perhaps even more. Iran suffered the most in human lives lost, with the war ending in a stalemate and a UN ceasefire. But it wobbled the Iranian regime and set back its political agenda of promoting the Islamic revolution through its example. And that was not an inconsiderable gain for the US and its Middle Eastern allies comprising the region’s dictators and kings. These countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others, were feeling uncomfortable and insecure with Iran’s Islamic revolution. The irony of it is that Saddam Hussein’s Iran adventure set the stage for his destruction at the hands of his benefactors, the US and its allies. An important reason for Saddam’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, illegal as it was, was his country’s large amount of financial debt incurred through borrowings from neighbours like Kuwait. At the time they were only too happy to lend all that Saddam wanted because he was fighting for all of them against the dreaded new Islamic regime of Iran. And when he was virtually defeated (because Iran was ready to fight on), Kuwait asked for its money back, which Saddam had no way of paying. In that desperate situation, he decided to annex Kuwait and solve all his financial problems and more by taking over the country’s oil wealth. He had reportedly mentioned his plans of annexing Kuwait to the US ambassador in his country who, the story goes, did not raise any objection. Saddam apparently took this as clearance from the US, with their close relationship forged during the Iran-Iraq war. As we know, Saddam’s Kuwait invasion led to the first Gulf War in which the US defeated Iraqi forces and Kuwait was restored to its ruling dynasty with Iraq required to pay reparations. It was also subjected to a harsh regime of UN sanctions, impacting its population, especially women and children. The US just stopped short of overthrowing the Saddam regime, a task that was subsequently completed by President George Bush senior’s son after he became president in 2001. The second Gulf War was unleashed on Iraq because of the Saddam regime’s alleged links with terrorists as well as its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And that was a lie. But he had to go anyway, as he had outlived his usefulness against Iran and was too difficult, among other things. However, initially the speed with which the US forces advanced made Iraq’s neighbours like Iran and Syria nervous lest it might be their turn next. They became keen to cooperate with the US to hunt down terrorists in their own backyards and to generally improve relations with the US. But at the time the US was in a celebratory mode, with President Bush declaring ‘mission accomplished’ on the decks of a US warship. The US was on a mission to bring about democracy and freedom in the region under its control and supervision and to have uninterrupted access to oil supplies. At the same time, the demonstration effect of strong and successful US action was supposed to have a salutary effect on groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinians in the occupied territories. In other words, it would not only reassert firmly US control and dominance, but also solve Israel’s security situation in a volatile region. This was the time when there was so much talk of reintroducing benign imperialism and to make the US’s dominant role in the world clear cut, both in word and deed. The point of recalling all this is to note that Iran’s clerical regime is still around, though it has multiple problems and challenges at home, as we shall analyse later. (To be continued) The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au