In the midst of your presidential election, the views and opinions of an outsider, even one who holds enormous affection and admiration for America, is not always welcome. Nonetheless, some issues are so serious that they require all who care about the United States to step forward and offer what I hope will be accepted as friendly advice.
The world has no shortage of crises to confront, from the instability of financial institutions to global climate change, from crippling reliance on oil to fuel our economies to the threat of terrorism leaving open societies, such as the U.S. and the U.K, vulnerable to cruel and intolerant fanatics.
From my perspective, the top tier global issue that receives far too little attention is the growing threat of nuclear proliferation, whether in the hands of unstable regimes or the even greater danger of such weapons reaching the hands of non-state actors. In short, the case of Iran and its intransigent mullahs is rarely the focus of John McCain and Barack Obama, and voters are being denied the genuine debate and discussion they deserve, given the stakes.
Too often the issue is framed in a simplistic way that suggests only two options exist, either to get more aggressive, which may lead to use of force against Iran's nuclear facilities or, on the other hand, to an "engagement" bringing together the presidents of Iran and the U.S. for negotiations to ease the tensions.
What's missing is the opportunity for the Iranian people to work for what they most crave -- change. If the byword today in America's election is "change," imagine the desperation for change among the citizens of Iran given their condition: life in an oil rich country so mismanaged that they have to ration gas; life under a dictatorship that has eliminated all internal opposition through imprisonment, torture and exile of its dissident population; life in a theocracy that demands conformity and punishes those who dare to stand up to the authorities; and life under a regime that not only exports hate with lethal arms to some of the world's leading terrorists such as Hizbollah and Hamas, but which has relentlessly pursued acquisition of nuclear weapons, all the while threatening to use them.
There was a time nuclear proliferation seemed to matter more to leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. Under the weight of so many big problems to confront at once, it appears many have forgotten the terrible but certain logic of nukes: if and when Iran gets them, the Saudis surely will embark on rapid WMD development, and then the Egyptians, and the Turks, with no end in sight. For those who think the Middle East is a dangerous place today, imagine it over the next decade if the region is nuclearized.
What can we do besides threaten war or promise talks without precondition? We can work to empower the Iranian people in their struggle to bring about democratic change. Where do we start? By recognizing that for more than 40 years -- going back to the time of the Shah -- there has been an Iranian resistance movement that has advocated for a democratic, non nuclear, secular government.
Rather than build them up, both our governments, in London and Washington, succumbed in 1997 to the sweet nothings coming out of Tehran promising better times if only we would do the mullahs the favour of demonising their opposition. Even though leading U.S. and U.K. government leaders openly admitted their decisions were completely political and based solely on the slender hope that Tehran might behave more agreeably, we went along and placed the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the pillar of the Iranian resistance movement, on the U.K. and U.S. terror watchlists.
But change is, indeed, in the air. In June of this year, the U.K. courts, after an exhaustive investigation, concluded that the resistance should be removed from the terror watchlist. A few weeks later, the government and Parliament complied.
The U.S. State Department today is conducting a similar review, and by every measure of common sense and evaluation of the relevant criteria, it should follow the U.K precedent. Not only will the resistance be unshackled to make its case around the world, but the people of Iran immediately will be strengthened in their resolve to oppose the tyrants who suppress them.
During an encouraging week in Washington talking to many American leaders who share my views and who similarly are expressing to the Bush Administration the need for change, three developments have caught my attention. First, the latest report of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) once again highlighted the unwillingness of the mullahs to work with the international community to resolve the nuclear crisis. Second, it also was disturbing to observe five prominent Americans, former Secretaries of State of both parties brought together at a forum, appear to fight over who was most eager to board the next plane to Tehran.
Why the desperation to confer legitimacy and credibility upon the Ayatollahs when they, true to their religious fanaticism, refuse to move one centimetre in their policies as terrorists at home and abroad? Yes, there is a time for talk, but it is inexplicable that so few are bothered not only by Tehran's indifference to dialogue, but its consistent mocking of the international community's legitimate efforts to achieve progress, with even IAEA director Mohammed el Baradei recently throwing up his hands in frustration.
The one bit of good news while I was in the U.S. was seeing thousands of protesters in New York City voicing their displeasure at the appearance of President Ahmadinejad at the UN. The right to assemble and enjoy free speech is a basic American right, a principle still admired and envied in many parts of the world. Removing the Iranian resistance from the watchlist would be in keeping with this American ideal, giving hope to millions of Iranians that the world still cares, and offering the promise that the next President might bring urgent new thinking to this deeply troubling global issue.
Lord Corbett, a member of the House of Lords from the Labour Party, is chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom.