Future Britain, More Dangerous than Before
In the spring of this year, in an unprecedented achievement at the Interparliamentary Union Summit in Panama, the Iranian delegation managed to approve its proposed resolution on the Middle East and North Africa. During this assembly, the head of the Iranian delegation received an invitation for a meeting from his British counterpart Mike Gibbs, an experienced diplomat. The majority of the Iranian delegation did not welcome this request, as it was suspected that Gibbs was aiming to discuss controversial topics for exploitative reasons:
After careful consideration I accepted to meet Mr. Gibbs’ invitation. However, I surprised him with my question: “I wonder why the British government did not recall its ambassador in Iran for a disciplinary hearing? I think we can agree that despite the requirements of international conventions and bilateral relations, he reacted in a hostile manner and as a result he reminded the Iranians of the dark history between the two countries…” The rest of the meeting carried on in the same vein and we discussed episodes, like British colonial attitudes toward the people of Iran that the led up to Ajax Operation which toppled the Iranian nationalist government in 1953, the Islamic Revolution, the First Persian Gulf War (1980-1988), sanctions and interventions. Our meeting ended with my British counterpart wishing for further discussions in the future.
During the past year in which the Iranian parliament discussed the possibility of reducing or cutting diplomatic relations with Britain, I was amongst the people who supported careful considerations of our relationship with this country. I believed that according to our history and particularly with respect to the events that have taken place in the past three years, British presence and influence in Iran’s politics, economy and society has come to a halt. Therefore their government is seeking opportunities to prove that abridged relations between the two countries would be costly for Iran.
Right now Britain’s main objective is to open a case against Iran under article 41 of chapter 7 of the UN charter. This resolution contains different sanctions amongst which diplomatic sanctions are included. When it was evident that diplomatic efforts were greatly reduced between the two countries, Britain concluded affairs by removing all its diplomats from Iran; this is while it had the option of simply recalling its “ambassador” in Iran but leaving their chargé d’affairs to carry on with administrative procedures. Indeed, Britain was looking for the opportunity to involve their fellow Europeans and the UN in a game that will only result in their own eventual loss; this is not a new scheme.
For instance in the coup d’etat case Britain had the opportunity to leave Iranian oil to Iranians, yet it formulated a military coup in Iran. Moreover, Britain engaged in separating Bahrain from Iran; similar things happened at least in 58 other parts of Iran and its neighboring countries, where Britain left behind seeds of division and conflict.
Unmistakably, Britain’s parting with Iran and the Persian Gulf was a bitter experience. The concept as well as the content of today’s International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed during Britain’s looting of Iran’s oil. Britain was the first plunderer of oil in the Middle East, and at that time it would pay less than 10% of the oil money back to Iran. The rest would be accumulated in its foreign exchange reserve. Britain’s modern economy was compiled with Iranian oil money. Its attitude with Iran has been one of vengeance since the day Iran took back control of its oil reserves.
Britain’s false preaching of supposed political freedom and human rights will never fool Iranians. At the height of US attacks on Iraq, Britain was the only country to propose a geographic division within Middle Eastern countries, a proposal that was not even welcomed by their US allies. This proposal was even published on the BBC website, suggesting Iran’s disintegration into ten separate countries and Iraq into three. It also included countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was based on this proposal that the British troops were positioned in the southern parts of Iraq, close to Iraq’s oil reserves; a plot to ensure Britain’s dominance over the world’s oil.
Britain is trying to teach a lesson to the West, particularly to the US, that creating geographic partitions within the Middle Eastern countries is the ultimate solution to the problems. With each new division and each new border there will come more conflict and divergence. It is this separation in the world of Islam that will contribute to the West’s survival.
History shows that no Western intervention in the world of Islam has ever brought about peace, prosperity or growth. Therefore, Britain’s intentions make it a more dangerous enemy than ever before.
Britain’s cruel intentions are hidden behind its popular slogans. However, Iranians are equipped with sufficient experience and knowledge to deflate any of its destructive intents. Today Britain’s past activities in attempting to colonize Iran and to create instability by fabricating a military coup are evident. As a result of looting Iran’s natural resources and its engagement in arming Iraq with illegal chemical weapons in the First Gulf War, Britain has the blood of young Iranians on its hands.
In order to slow Iran’s post-war recovery, Britain imposed economic sanctions on Iran. It accuses Iran of aggression and instability every time there were disagreements amongst Iranian politicians. Yet, we must remember not to engage Britain in its hostile games. For instance some European ambassadors visited the aftermath of the riots outside the British embassy in Tehran and its diplomats’ residences in Gholhak, Tehran. According to international conventions; when outside embassy grounds, ambassadors are to follow the local government’s guidelines. The foreign ministry of Iran failed by authorizing the European ambassadors’ visit to the British embassy. The implications of this visit were nothing but Britain’s attempt to firstly create a psychological atmosphere against Iran, and secondly to justify their diplomatic sanctions on Iran in the European Union and ultimately in the UN security council.
Iran has not welcomed the recent sanctions but in practice has welcomed any opportunity to fight back against these policies. Three years ago Iran was restricted from any financial transactions in the dollar zone, shortly followed by euro zone limitations. Sadly this has resulted in facts such as financial restrictions on Iranian cancer patients who travel to Europe for treatment.
Based on past political and diplomatic incidents, preventive measures should be taken with respect to Iran’s enemies of the past, today, and the future. Measures similar to ones that are taken on Britain. The history of British hostility has not and will not leave any space for future diplomacy between the two countries.