Friendly Advice

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.

Comments

[Aazaad]

I would like to salute Lord Corbett for his tireless efforts for exposing danger of Islamic Fundementalism and source of it which is the Iranian Cleric Rigime. His efforts wouldn't be complete if he was not supporting and introducing the Iranian resistance ( MEK and National Concil of Resistance ) for freedom and Democracy for Iran. I am glad that I have an opportunity to support his visdom and efforts regarding this complex issue that world and Iranian People are facing now. Thank you Lord Corbett.

[M-Rahmat]

I agree 100% with Lord Corbett.
The Iranian need democracy and freedom; they are tired of public hangings, strict dress codes, and stoning. But in order to have freedom and democracy in Iran, we need to support PMOI/MEK. Because they are the only line of defense against the brutal regime of Iran.

[Maryam2004]

Lord Corbett,
I agree 100% with everything you've said.
The Iranian people want/need democracy and freedom, and they are sick and tired of public hangings, strict dress codes, and stonings. And we all need peace and freedom in the Middle East, which is not only good for Iranians, but also for all of Iran's neighbors and for the American public as well.
PMOI/MEK is the last and only line of defense against the Iranian regime, and America has to do all they can do to support them in their quest for freedom, peace, and democracy in Iran.

[StMTraveler]

What can be done about Iranian and enrichment?

There are solutions to the dilemma of nuclear fuel for Iran unless we are just playing politics. The solutions demand the International cooperation mostly from the USA.

Israel has nuclear bomb, Iran does not. Should Iran acquire nuclear bomb to balance the threat from Israel?
No. It would be insanity to acquire it. Then we must demand that Israel should eliminate her nuclear bomb.
Solution: make the Middle East free of nuclear bomb.

Should Iran continue to develop her nuclear fuel cycle for generation of electricity? Yes. The alternative options will increase the Iranian dependence on other nations. The recent problems of Iran to acquire fuel from Russia for the Bushehr nuclear power station prove my argument.

If we don't want Iran to have any nuclear fuel cycle, then (option 1) nuclear fuel enrichment facility in Iran could be placed under the control of IAEA for production and distribution, and waste disposal, or (option 2) accept the Iranian concept of nuclear fuel consortium.

The first option would be the best model for the rest of the world. It should have been adopted as the standard operating procedure for all enrichment activities shortly after USA had developed and tested the first nuclear bomb. But, in contrast to the suggestion of many nuclear scientists, President Truman demanded that USA had to control the future by being the sole owner and the operator of the nuclear enrichment system.
It did not work.

[Moe-Sabat]

I agree with the lord's view. US needs to remove MEK, an organization that the Islamic Republic of Iran fears the most, from the terrorist's list and in fact assist them in their efforts against the Iranian regime. The civilized world cannot accept the ayatollahs' regime to have nuclear weapon. With the current state of the US economy and the states of the conflicts in Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, the best alternative is to support viable anti-Iranian regime elements. This is the least costly way to meet the challenge head-on. If we do not want to make the mistakes we did in Iraq again, then let the Iranian people get rid of the tyrants in their country.

[massoudt]

Lord Corbett is right, the only sensible solution to Iran question is a democratic change in Iran by Iranians and their organized resistance without outside interference. It is time to end the so called engagement (i.e. appeasement) policy with the mullahs. For 30 years the mullahs have terrorized the honorable Iranian nation and the West has kept quiet and has even aided the mullahs! A nuclear armed mullahs with armed fanatic proxies throughout the Middle East and a stated goal of spreading their so-called Islamic revolution is asking for a major trouble!!

[rep-hater22]

Lets for a moment look from the other perspective. If you were Iran and Both 2 super armies of the world (USA, Israel) were constantly talking about how they needed to go to war with you wouldn't you try to gain as much protection as possible. As well what right does the US or UK have to tell Iran they can't have nuclear power. It’s okay for the US and Israel to have nuclear power but not Iran, why because Israel says so. When will the US stop blindly supporting Israel. I’m for peace in the Middle East, USA doesn't seem to be. Don't forget that the US is the villain in this case. The eight year war between Iraq and Iran was started by Iraq who were funded and supported by the USA all to help Israel. my point is that starting wars for Israel is unjustifiable. ya know those chemical weapons that Sadam used on his own people, ya they were given to him by the US. So don't forget to look at this from the other side.

[MagisterLudi]

The eight year war between Iraq and Iran was started by Iraq who were funded and supported by the USA all to help Israel."

Now for facts:
The Soviet Union sold or gave the greatest amount of military equipment and supplies to Iraq.
Anyone with eyes saw Iraqi army mostly fielding Soviet made T-62 and T-72 tanks and MiG-29 planes.
France provided greatest amount of high tech weapons to Iraq. Surface-to-Air and Mirages.

1980-1982. Saudi Arabia provided Iraq with $1 billion per month.

Soviet Union, France and Saudi Arabia--hardly can be viewed as Israel supporters. Think about it.

[MagisterLudi]

It's next to impossible to maintain a economically viable society without vigorous trade relationships with the world. Insular self-feedback societies tend to rot from within. Supporting refugees playing at resistance and occasionally indulging in mindless hyper-violence is futile and morally indefensible.
Four steps will hasten the fall of the mullahs:
1. Severely restrict trade with Iran. Especially hi-tech.
2. Scare mullahs witless and bait them into the arms race ( Mission accomplished).
3. Do not engage with clowns like Ahmadinejad on equal footing. Maintain indulgent superiority.
3. Remain patient.

[Noushin]

There are three options to deal with the Iranian regime:

1. War. It will be big failure. Lots of bloodshed. Not possible to achieve a democratic change.

2. Appeasemen­t.. It will only delay a war. It will be a more destructive more as the Iranian regime would have already obtain nuclear weapons and has had a chance to further arm its terrorist satellites in Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere.

3. Support the Iranian people and help change from within. This is the most plausible solution. One of its most fundamental pre-condition is to remove the unfair and never-fitting "terrorist" label from the most organized and most popular Iranian resistance group, namely the Mojahedin (PMOI or MEK). The PMOI happens to be the most popular resistance group the modern history has ever seen. Look at the political support from 1000s of parliamentarian from around the world. Look at the support it has received from the people of Iraq thru public declarations. But most importantly, look at the support from the Iranian people: the most recent gathering in support of the PMOI in Paris attracted more than 70,000 people. Has history seen anything like that?

My kudos to Lord Corbett.

[MajorKong]

I disagree with your premise that "Not attacking Iran" = "Appeasement".

You've stretched the definition of appeasement far beyond it's original meaning.

[MagisterLudi]

Appeasement:" The granting of concessions to a hostile power in order to keep the peace; agreement to avoid conflict."
Noushin used the term in precisely correct context. Consider expanding your horizon beyond the narrow narrative.

[WilliePilgrim]

If the framers of the constitution and the founding fathers had bumper stickers in order to get their revolutionary ideas across to the public, the one they would apply as a remedy to our current foreign policy might be this famous adage:
A friend of Liberty everywhere, but guarantor of none but ourown.

[Aaror]

What is the best way to help the current regime in Iran?
Bluster from the US about bombing, overthrowing him, etc.
Iran still remembers the US led overthrow of the Democratically elected gov't by the Shah. We need to be very careful when we move in that area. Granted, for a while there were uprisings in the streets, but then Bush called Iran part of the Axis of Evil, which united the people of Iran against him (and led to the current president, as the pro-democr­acy/pro-US president was destroyed by the pronouncement).
High level talks will weaken the current Iranian Govt, which is holding on to life by it's fingernails. All we have to do is act towards Iran the way we would like folks to act towards us and you will see a new Iran that is pro-US.

[KrautMan]

I agree with most of the statements in this article. What I really miss though is a reference to the fact that the world wouldn't have to deal with those islamo-fascists hadn't the U.K. and the U.S. toppled the democratically elected governant of Iran/Persia in the 50s (look it up at Wiki, "Operation Ajax"), and re-installed the monarchy for purely commercial reasons. Things tend to bounce back in your face if you meddle and that's exactly what happened there. It's all nice rampaging over the globe to install democracies but it might be a good idea not to destroy them berforehand.

[MagisterLudi]

" the world wouldn't have to deal with those islamo-fascists hadn't the U.K. and the U.S. toppled the democratically elected governant.­"

This is a conjecture, not a fact.

[MajorKong]

True. But the fact is that there WAS a secular, democratic government in Iran before we went and overthrew it.

It is also fact that the Islamic revolution was primarily a reaction to the authoritarian rule of the Shah. That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened anyway but that seems much less likely.

[KrautMan]

No use denying that you are right, but don't you think it's kind of weird to bring it up? Would you agree with my thesis, that overturning a democratically elected government and replacing it with a repressive regime made it more probable that the US ended up with having to deal with a repressive regime?

[alnezh]

This is a nice article by LORD ROBIN CORBETT about situation in IRAN. Majarity of iranian 75 million are hopeless because of religious dictatorship and have no choice to rise up againest MULLAHS ,tthere is a public hanging innocent people every single day in different city.U.S and E.U COUNTRIES are closing thier eyes, ziping up thier mouths,blocking thier ears about HUMAN RIGHT issue in iran and my people are suffering every single days as times goes on.Then some official in USA talking about having future plan to negociate with AHMADINED who is just a pond. YES HONORABLE CORBETT tell the truth about situation in the middle east.I do support 100 %.THANKS for good and usefull article.AL NEZH from ALEXANDRIA

[hassabe]

Mr. Corbett. I am with you. Why us government not supporting Iranian resistance? Instead of possibly using military forces or policy of appeasement.

[renatam]

Your Lordship, the US has much on our plate at the moment as you may have noticed. It is time for Americans to stop allowing our interests to be hijacked as the stalking horse of agenda(s) for smaller Nations to wield undue influence, leveraging our blood and treasure. We cannot and will not carry the burdens while our own citizenry lacks health insurance and economic stability. Our military is exhausted from foreign excursions -- and, while the UK joins America to invade oil rich Nations -- they don't remain after the no-bid contracts and other opportunities are exploited.

We will not interfere in Iran for -- BP. And, be sure, whatever DEALS were made in Iraq -- will be reviewed.

The EU Nations pioneered colonialist exploitation of the world and wreaked havoc we are still dealing with as a world community. Iranians want peace and freedom, but so do peoples in Africa and other Nations you don't seem to be as concerned about. The era of foreign excursions for DEALMAKING by Nations who do not bear the major burden is over. While I respect our British friends, it is high time Americans look at ourselves and our place in the 21st Century. We need to have an internal discussion as you noted. However, the discussion is more expansive than the narrow interests of what serves the UK or Israel.

[MagisterLudi]

"Iranians want peace and freedom"
SOME Iranians want peace and freedom. OTHER Iranians want religious super- conformity and oppression. Lord Corbett does NOT espouse invasion, but rather support for Iranians who refuse to kowtow to the Iranian oppressive theocracy. Who are you with?

[MajorKong]

I'd say it's questionable whether the PMOI/MEK wants "peace and freedom". We might just be supporting secular thugs against religious thugs. Just because someone hates the mullahs doesn't mean they're nice guys. Saddam hated the mullahs too.