No
Evidence Of Iran’s Role In Violence And Instability In Iraq –
Confirms British Foreign Minister
By Mehrnaz Shahabi
19 July, 2007
Countercurrents.org
David
Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1)
with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian
complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops:
Asked by the FT, “What
do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers
in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well,
I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored.
I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not
fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning,
Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should
be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have
the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more
closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied,
“Well no, I chose my words carefully…”.
This confession came in the
context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian
role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question
“There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no
…”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear:
There is no evidence.
Contextually, this important
admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence
linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by
the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s
readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people,
for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions
which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed
suspicions for which again, there is no evidence .
Confirmation of the absence
of evidence was then followed by yet another confirmation that Britain
is leaving the military option “on the table”, on pretexts
for which, there is no evidence, either of Iran’s breach of non
proliferation rules or its threat to international peace and security.
This confirms that despite a change of faces and make up, Britain continues
to tow the American foreign policy and is in danger of being dragged
into another illegal and immoral war, contrary to the will of the British
people, and contrary to the evidence of its own finding. Jack Straw
rejected as madness, any idea of military attack on Iran. Yet, Miliband
refused to remove the military option off the table.
Keeping open, submissively,
the possibility of British participation in a US/Israeli war or to give
at least political backing to such an adventure, supports the assumption
that the transition from Blair to Brown is significant, not from the
point of view of any fundamental difference between Blair and Brown
and their respective cabinets, but because of popular opposition to
Blair’s open warmongering and servitude to American foreign policy.
The transition to the new
government is a victory for the popular opposition to war and will remain
a victory only if, under popular pressure and demand, the Brown government
categorically rejects and opposes the military option against Iran;
that it rejects the sanction resolutions which cause Iranian people
immense suffering, and as with Iraq, are used as a pretext for war;
and demand that the British government uses any influence it might have
on the US administration in support of the pursuit of bilateral dialogue
between the US and Iran without precondition.
Silence of the Media
The financial Times itself
did not linger on the admission by Miliband of absence of evidence.
Relevantly so, two days previously the FT published a story alleging
Iranian government’s cooperation with Al-Qaeda using Iranian territory
for launching anti-coalition operations in Iraq, without any evidence.
Across the mainstream media the response has been uniform silence. This
revelation should have been greeted with relief and welcomed by those
in Britain and the US who are genuinely concerned about the tragedy
that this illegal invasion and occupation has brought upon the people
of Iraq, the security and moral implications for the people of the US
and the UK, the welfare and safety of the coalition troops and the establishment
of peace and security in Iraq and the Middle East. Considering the orchestrated
chorus of the war media finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every
corner, from Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq and beyond, sabotaging
the ‘noble efforts at establishing peace, security and democracy
in this dangerous region’, these warriors of the clash of civilisations
have not found the absence of evidence of Iranian complicity in the
violence in Iraq newsworthy!
Neither has the 8th July
Associated Press story (3) of the released audio tape from Abu Omar
al Baghdadi, the leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, has elicited
any response from the US government, or particular interest and analysis
in the media. In this audio tape, Baghdadi, allegedly, threatens to
wage war against Iran unless Iran stops supporting the Shiia government
in Iraq, and declaring that “his Sunni fighters have been preparing
for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran”.
This absence of interest in the media, in the wake of the recent flood
of propaganda accusing Iran of complicity with Al-Qaeda (2) (4) is remarkable
in its degree of cynicism, not just towards Iran but towards genuine
desire for peace and security internationally.
The US, with its army briefing
of 2nd July by Bregadier General, Kevin Bergner, who made wild and serious
accusations about Iranian complicity in Anti-Us insurgency and its collusion
in killing the US servicemen, has understandably remained silent!
Because of course, both the
confirmation of Iranian non-involvement in the violence in Iraq, and
the Al-Qaeda’s alleged intention to wage a war against Iran should
Iran continue to support the Iraqi government, debunks the myth of Iranian
involvement and investment in the continuing instability in Iraq and
exposes the alliance of interests between the US and Al-Qaeda around
their deep hostility towards Iran.
For those with a genuine desire for peace, this clear confirmation of
the absence of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in
Iraq would have signaled a better prospect for establishing security
in Iraq, and a better prospect for a successful withdrawal of troops.
This would have also indicated the possibility, at least as far as Iran’s
willingness is concerned, for a fruitful outcome for the bilateral dialogue
between Iran and the US, the consequences of which are far reaching
in terms of prosperity and security for the people in the region and
for peace and security internationally.
Mehrnaz Shahabi is a member
of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran
(UK Board)
1.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
b9b5b078-2d57-11dc-939b-0000779fd2ac.html
2. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
9cc4d5f4-2be3-11dc-b498-000b5df10621.html
3.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/
ap/20070708/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_al_qaida_1
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2085192,00.html
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.