Iran is probably one of the few countries, especially in the Islamic world, that hates the British more than it hates the Americans. This dates back to the days when Britain reigned supreme in the world when Iran - then Persia - lost parts of its territories to the British Empire.
The British also invaded Iran again in 1941 to prevent it from allying itself to the Axis powers.
To this day the Iranians still view their former colonial masters with suspicion.......
In Iran the British call the shots with the US
By Patrick Mercer, Sunday Telegraph
02/09/2007
Sometimes you can't grasp a concept unless it comes in the shape of a parable. Our ambassador in Teheran explained to me that if it rained at a local football match, one Iranian would turn to the other and say: "Typical piece of British work!" In a few short words, I got it: Iran's memory of Britain's involvement in the country's history is much more vivid than I realised. We are seen as being the shot-caller for the Americans and, above all else, Albion is perfidious in everything she does.
While that may not be the greatest reputation to have, it does mean that we can exert real influence in Iran and punch above our weight.
A series of meetings I had recently with Iranian government officials opened my eyes still further.
First, they refused to admit that their nuclear programme was for anything but benign civil purposes; yet they still posed the rhetorical question that if they could produce a bomb, why shouldn't they?
Everybody else has, they said, and they, unlike us, had actually felt the effects of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The thousands of casualties that the Iran-Iraq war caused is a vivid memory that is not going to slip out of the public mind.
One of the by-products of the Islamic revolution and the Iraq war was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: the elite paramilitary force that is loyal to the religious leaders rather than President Ahmadinejad.
Again, it was difficult to understand this concept, until I talked to our taxi driver.
He did not carry his 45 years easily, nor the Iraqi shrapnel in his left leg, but eight years as a cabbie in Reading meant conversation was relatively easy. Smiling, polite and affable, he surprised me when he said that he was a former Revolutionary Guard and that he was ready to face any of Iran's enemies again. International sanctions against Iran would just make his people all the more stubborn he said, "just like the Blitz".
The government officials went even farther. They asked me why Britain had signally failed to control the opium crop in Afghanistan, the poison of which was leaking into their overwhelmingly youthful society. Next, if we were serious about the "war on terror", why were we prepared to treat with the Taliban? Last summer's uneasy "truce" in Helmand had done nothing to dispel Iranian concerns about British chicanery.
Similarly, it perplexed Iranian officials that British MPs could publicly back internationally proscribed organisations such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran. In Teheran, our supporting the PMOI is as difficult to understand as American backing for the IRA through Noraid.
So, if we are going to avoid President Bush's latest talk of a nuclear holocaust and Teheran's riposte that she will fill the power vacuum left by Iraq, how are we going to set about it?
First, we must understand that there is no one chain of command in Teheran. The incident of the British naval hostages earlier in the year demonstrates just this. The Revolutionary Guards who were responsible are not necessarily accountable to Ahmadinejad: we have to learn to cope with both a religious and a secular power base.
Next, Iran will deny any involvement in the provision of weapons to Afghanistan.
Why, they ask, would a Shia government support a Sunni insurgency to which they have always been opposed? They admit they support the Shia militias in southern Iraq but maintain that this stops short of arms or expertise. I believe both statements are nonsense and that we must understand that Iran will do anything to protect its borders - and if this also involves poking the West in the eye, so much the better.
We must and can avoid a war that will turn into a regional conflict. Labelling the Guards as a terrorist organisation (Bush's latest offering) in order, we are told, to set the conditions for air strikes, will only exacerbate the problem further. The arrest and blindfolding of eight Iranian officials in Baghdad, last week, before their release 24 hours later doesn't make the Americans look any less clumsy. Similarly, whatever the future holds in our conflict with the Taliban, we must recognise Iranian anxieties and Teheran's agenda.
There is no easy solution to Iranian intransigence but there has to be consistency among the major international players. China and Russia must be brought onside and the United Nations must adopt a firm line that doesn't smack too much of Capitol Hill. If Iranians have an exaggerated view of Britain's influence, let's use our history and acumen to the hilt. If we don't, the world's most lethal game will soon be beyond our control.
------------------------------------------
Patrick Mercer is Conservative MP for Newark, Nottinghamshire
telegraph.co.uk
The British also invaded Iran again in 1941 to prevent it from allying itself to the Axis powers.
To this day the Iranians still view their former colonial masters with suspicion.......
In Iran the British call the shots with the US
By Patrick Mercer, Sunday Telegraph
02/09/2007
Sometimes you can't grasp a concept unless it comes in the shape of a parable. Our ambassador in Teheran explained to me that if it rained at a local football match, one Iranian would turn to the other and say: "Typical piece of British work!" In a few short words, I got it: Iran's memory of Britain's involvement in the country's history is much more vivid than I realised. We are seen as being the shot-caller for the Americans and, above all else, Albion is perfidious in everything she does.
While that may not be the greatest reputation to have, it does mean that we can exert real influence in Iran and punch above our weight.
A series of meetings I had recently with Iranian government officials opened my eyes still further.
First, they refused to admit that their nuclear programme was for anything but benign civil purposes; yet they still posed the rhetorical question that if they could produce a bomb, why shouldn't they?
Everybody else has, they said, and they, unlike us, had actually felt the effects of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The thousands of casualties that the Iran-Iraq war caused is a vivid memory that is not going to slip out of the public mind.
One of the by-products of the Islamic revolution and the Iraq war was the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps: the elite paramilitary force that is loyal to the religious leaders rather than President Ahmadinejad.
Again, it was difficult to understand this concept, until I talked to our taxi driver.
He did not carry his 45 years easily, nor the Iraqi shrapnel in his left leg, but eight years as a cabbie in Reading meant conversation was relatively easy. Smiling, polite and affable, he surprised me when he said that he was a former Revolutionary Guard and that he was ready to face any of Iran's enemies again. International sanctions against Iran would just make his people all the more stubborn he said, "just like the Blitz".
The government officials went even farther. They asked me why Britain had signally failed to control the opium crop in Afghanistan, the poison of which was leaking into their overwhelmingly youthful society. Next, if we were serious about the "war on terror", why were we prepared to treat with the Taliban? Last summer's uneasy "truce" in Helmand had done nothing to dispel Iranian concerns about British chicanery.
Similarly, it perplexed Iranian officials that British MPs could publicly back internationally proscribed organisations such as the People's Mujahedin of Iran. In Teheran, our supporting the PMOI is as difficult to understand as American backing for the IRA through Noraid.
So, if we are going to avoid President Bush's latest talk of a nuclear holocaust and Teheran's riposte that she will fill the power vacuum left by Iraq, how are we going to set about it?
First, we must understand that there is no one chain of command in Teheran. The incident of the British naval hostages earlier in the year demonstrates just this. The Revolutionary Guards who were responsible are not necessarily accountable to Ahmadinejad: we have to learn to cope with both a religious and a secular power base.
Next, Iran will deny any involvement in the provision of weapons to Afghanistan.
Why, they ask, would a Shia government support a Sunni insurgency to which they have always been opposed? They admit they support the Shia militias in southern Iraq but maintain that this stops short of arms or expertise. I believe both statements are nonsense and that we must understand that Iran will do anything to protect its borders - and if this also involves poking the West in the eye, so much the better.
We must and can avoid a war that will turn into a regional conflict. Labelling the Guards as a terrorist organisation (Bush's latest offering) in order, we are told, to set the conditions for air strikes, will only exacerbate the problem further. The arrest and blindfolding of eight Iranian officials in Baghdad, last week, before their release 24 hours later doesn't make the Americans look any less clumsy. Similarly, whatever the future holds in our conflict with the Taliban, we must recognise Iranian anxieties and Teheran's agenda.
There is no easy solution to Iranian intransigence but there has to be consistency among the major international players. China and Russia must be brought onside and the United Nations must adopt a firm line that doesn't smack too much of Capitol Hill. If Iranians have an exaggerated view of Britain's influence, let's use our history and acumen to the hilt. If we don't, the world's most lethal game will soon be beyond our control.
------------------------------------------
Patrick Mercer is Conservative MP for Newark, Nottinghamshire
telegraph.co.uk
