Attack on Iran would be 'disastrous' for region - PublicServiceEurope.com

Reports that the UK government has rejected US requests to use British bases in the build-up to potential military action against Iran are a welcome surprise – dialogue and diplomacy are the only way forward,writes the CND general secretary

Sometimes when it comes to questions of war and peace, one can feel that politicians are not sufficiently seized of the constraints of international law. That was certainly the feeling across much of British society a decade ago, when the government was revving up to go to war on Iraq on the basis of a tissue of lies, disregarding both morality and law.

At that time, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament worked to challenge the legality of the United Kingdom's use of force in reliance on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, taking the government to court in December 2002. Our view – which was shared by millions – was disregarded. Tragically as it turned out, for the innocent civilians of Iraq, and for many of our own troops sent to fight, it was not possible to prevent the Blair government from embarking on that disastrous war and subsequent occupation.

So recent reports that the government has rejected requests by the United States to use British military bases as part of a build up towards war on Iran, were an unexpected surprise – but one that we warmly welcomed. This decision puts a check on US mobilisation at a point when the escalating rhetoric around Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions is reaching alarming levels and fears of military attack on Iran are very real.

In fact, the CND had already engaged with the government on this very issue, because in May of this year – just prior to the Baghdad talks with Iranian officials – working with Public Interest Lawyers, we sent a letter to Prime Minister David Cameron expressing concerns about the illegality of any pre-emptive strike on Iran. We argued that without the support of the UN Security Council and in the absence of an evidenced threat, any strike would be illegal.

We were particularly concerned about the insistence by many political and legal commentators that pre-emptive military action might be necessary to deal with the alleged threat posed by Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. We sought to remind the prime minister that no concrete evidence has been provided to substantiate western concerns and that military intervention on the basis of such an ill-defined threat would be illegal. And the letter drew a comparison with the UK and US pursuit of the illegal war in Iraq based upon the, ultimately illusory, threat allegedly posed by Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The letter also set out the very limited circumstances prescribed by international law where pre-emptive military action can ever be justified. In short, such military action must always be used as a last resort; it must be sanctioned by the UN Security Council; it must be multilateral in nature and it must be in response to a clearly defined, instant and overwhelming threat. In our opinion, none of these criteria can be said to exist in the current Iranian context.

There is an increasing realisation that the consequences of a military attack on Iran would be disastrous, not only for that country but for the region as a whole. The lessons of both Iraq and Afghanistan show that there cannot be a military solution to complex regional problems – death and destruction is not the answer.

And it seems that, at least for now, the government has heeded those lessons. Genuine dialogue and diplomacy on the basis of equality and respect is the only way forward. This step by the government, respecting international law and rejecting pre-emptive war, helps create a much-needed space for that dialogue and diplomacy to take place.

Kate Hudson is the general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament