If there is one thing guaranteed to have heated up the recent exchanges between the US and Iran, it is the issue of oil.
As the US pressed for stricter sanctions against Tehran's attempts to press ahead with its nuclear programme, so Iran retaliated with a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, said that blocking the sea lanes through which most of the world's oil is shipped is a "red line", and it was reported that secret diplomatic communications were made directly with the Iranian leadership in Tehran.
Both Britain and the US made carefully choreographed and identical noises, pleading for a peaceful resolution but not ruling out possible future military action.
This fresh round of the diplomatic war has proved two things. First, the idea of making another attempt at "engagement" with Tehran's regime has failed - they simply continue to rattle their sabres and issue ever more bellicose threats.
Second, the tougher sanctions being imposed against Iran's central bank, and an EU embargo planned on Iranian oil, are not enough. They need to be evolved into a longer lasting and wider thinking policy.
For ordinary Iranians, watching the Arab Spring unfold around them and realising how their leaders have condemned them to international isolation sends out a message; now is the time for empowerment; now is the time to be galvanised.
For that to happen, the opposition to the regime must be allowed to find its voice. Led by Maryam Rajavi, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) hopes one day to replace the brutal regime with a democracy. The PMOI`s manifesto is for a non-nuclear future for the country, for equal rights between men and women, for Iran to have a free press, and to espouse other forward-thinking policies.
But for the Iranian resistance to have a real say, first they must overcome a burden under which they are shackled. Designation as a terrorist organisation according to US law must be revoked.
The move is long overdue. The UK delisted PMOI in 2008, and the following year the Council of the European Union removed it from the list of designated organisations.
Support is overwhelming in the US as well. US Congress and dozens of senior former national security officials, in a rare bipartisan campaign, are all for delisting it. But only the State Department can authorise the move, and for inexplicable reasons, it is dragging its heels. The only tool the US seems interested in using at the moment with regards Tehran is sanctions. Why do officials not realise what a message it would send to recognise the legitimacy of the opposition? This is not a matter of political banner waving. There are more 3,000 people at a refugee camp in Iraq to whom this is a matter of life and death.
Camp Ashraf, 40 miles north of Baghdad, has been home to 3,400 exiled members of the PMOI for more than 25 years but recently Iraq's new Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has appeared to support the desire of the Iranian regime to wipe out their principal opponents.
In two deadly attacks in 2009 and 2011, the Iraqi armed forces killed 47 of Camp Ashraf's defenceless residents and wounded more than 1,000. Maliki vowed to close down the camp by the end of last year, raising alarms about another possible humanitarian catastrophe. A massive international campaign in the final days of 2011 averted the possible disaster and Maliki was forced to rethink his plans and agree to move the Iranian dissidents to a former US military base called Camp Liberty.
However the developments have stalled and Iraq has once again begun creating obstructions - including moves to make the camp more like a prison than somewhere offering "Liberty".
The first months of 2012 will be crucial in deciding the fate of the refugees, whose numbers include nearly 1,000 women. But one element that would change the entire outlook, and offer them the greatest hope, would be to change the status of the PMOI.
All 3,400 dissidents have applied for political asylum. The UN refugee agency has wanted to process their requests for months, but the Iraq government has blocked such action.
The objective is to allow the Camp Ashraf refugees to relocate in third countries, but while they're on the terror list, such relocation would be unlikely.
After so much procrastination, 2012 must be the year that the State Department takes decisive action. Tehran is not a friend to appease, and its regime fears all that the PMOI represents.
The United States must now unlock the shackles and allow the resistance to find its own path, away from Camp Ashraf, and towards a democratic Iran.
Sir Roger Gale is Conservative Member of Parliament for North Thanet and former Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party. He is a ranking member of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom.
Brian Binley: Unshackle MEK, Protect Ashraf Residents
Naghmeh Rajabi: Don't Trust the Iraqi Government's Words over Ashraf!
Abbas Rezai: Would Iran Assassinate Its Own Scientists?
Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iran News - Breaking World Iran News - The New York Times
Iran | World news | The Guardian
Gulf smugglers slow runs amid Iran tensions
Iran Sanction Bill Exempts BP Project
...Because the officials know how it will look when the MEK gets caught in one of their covert attacks on Iranian civilians. In addition, even if the MEK are not responsible on said attack, the Mullahs will claim any covert actions are the result of the West-assisted MEK only impowering the IRI's propaganda machine.
In addition the regime in Iran claims a lot of things the holocaust never happened, there is not one single homosexual in Iran, the MEK had weapons of mass destruction in Camp Ashraf, the MEK are a cult, Camp Ashraf is full of female suicide bombers. There comes a point when nobody believes a word you say if all you do is come out with irrational wild statements. The reality is that the regime in Iran is a laughing stock to everyone aprt from the Iranians who have to live under them.
The US government is interfering in Iranian people's affair by siding with the mullahs to brand their main opponents terrorists so that they can be killed with no questions asked. CAN'T YOU SEE THIS? The US must stop this bizarre policy of siding with the devil and LET THE PEOPLE OF IRAN CHANGE THE REGIME.
Foreign intervention is on the wrong side this time, the side of tyrants. DON'T YOU SEE THIS?!!
The same applies to Iran, and a dozen other oil producing states whose prime asset fuels insane dictators and bloodthirsty regimes, and increasingly crazy measures on the part of western nations to get hold of it.
And that is the source of our problem. The west must buy oil to live, the oil-dictators must sell oil to live; we swing on the same pendulum and will continue to do so while the oil holds out
Of course, the oil-pendulum is slowing down, even though both sides pretend it isn’t, and both know what is going to happen when it finally stops swinging: our consumerist way of life ends, and the sheiks go back to their camel herds. Each is trying to consolidate what they imagine they have, an assured future despite depleting oil.
Oil has provided the energy-source for many evil regimes, no dictators let go of power without bloodshed (check your history), Iran will attack if cornered by sanctions, and inflict as much damage on western oilflow as possible before going down. Iraq is already reverting to type as USA leaves, as oilwealth skews any notion of reality and reinforces tribalism and religious warfare
http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
The PMOI have never from their very inseption declared that they are to rule Iran they have said let the people decide. This is not about the PMOI ruling Iran and never has been it is about letting the people of Iran decide.
Would the UK embrace a non-nuclear future?
Not on your nelly.
The PMOI will hopefully be able to assist the people of Iran in bringing democracy to their country.
I dont mean to be rude, but thats very naiive. Assisting the people of Iran is the last thing on their minds. The theocracy in Iran is "vile" as you put it, but so is the theocracy in Israel - which actually HAS nuclear weapons - and we're doing nothing about that.
This issue for me is that the western nations have made a habit of picking on Middle eastern countries that have oil which we need, and using any pretence to invade and pulverise them.
Nobody gives really gives a damn about possible nuclear weapons in Iran, except for maybe the Israelis, as it will potentially curb some of their clout. Its just an excuse to attack.
This is why we need WikiLeaks !
Check the history. Iran has NEVER invaded another country & started a war in modern times ! In fact, the UK & Soviet union invaded Iran to secure its oilfields (sound hauntingly familiar ?) Exactly 70 yrs ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
unfortunately the regime in Iran takes its direction from its misinterpretation of the khoran thus it decided to carry the war its premise was to take over Iraq in order to get to Israel so it could reclaim the holly muslim sites.
Unfortuntaley it was a big mistake the result being 1 million dead Iranian civilians.
Hey, exactly when did the Brits start caring about Iranian self determination?
A bit of research shows that the Brits have a 200 year history of interacting with Iran, and never in all that time did they support the people of Iran. They overthrew the Iranian government with the help of the USA and imposed a dictator on the people just so they could reap higher oil profits - but after 200 years of lies and betrayal by the Brits, Iranians are supposed to believe suddenly the leopard has changes it's spots? Like a wife-beater who has been brutalizing his spouse for decades, the wife inherits a little wealth and he comes back saying "oh I'm a changed man!"
Sorry sir, but the British people should be on their knees begging forgiveness from Iran for the 200 years of abuse. Save the high words for somebody foolish enough to believe them.
So, just out of curiosity, and to get a different side of the question: would it significantly detriment international security if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon?
If what is good for Iran is good for Britain then so be it. Were not so naive to think that this British politician supports the PMOI just out of the goodness of his heart. He propably supports the PMOI because their desire for equal rights between men and women their desire for a free press their adhjerance to the universal declaration on human rights and their desire for democracy are all things that everyone should support. At the same time no doubt he supports them because it is partly good for Britain.
Ultimately what is good for Iran is all that counts if it is good for others as well then wonderfull good for the Iranian desire for democracy and freedom is my only concern.
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/12/iran-oil-giant.html
China's multi-billion dollar investment in Iran will definitely complicate the delicate balancing act for the United States should they choose to take military action against the Iranian regime.
Ultimately it does not change the fact that these sanctions are neccesary and should be increased if possible. They improve the chancees of a democracy in Iran from within.
I am sure it was a difficult decision but when balances up the pros and the cons one is still left with the knowledge that it was the right thing to do.
Given that rule of a disenfranchised electorate by an unrepresentative elite enacting un-mandated policies, is a description of the UK. How is becoming a clone puppet state going to improve the situation for those people?
“watching the Arab Spring unfold”
We can see the installation of dumbocracy, as its gradually imposed in Egypt.
"for the Iranian resistance to have a real say, first they must overcome a burden under which they are shackled."
Then when they have done the donkey work, the West can walk in and take charge.
"the State Department can authorise the move, and for inexplicable reasons, it is dragging its heels."
They have their own war to fight. Currently they are caught in a pincer movement between Occupy, and Wall Street. But don’t put any money on that unfettered ponzi scheme surviving.
"moves to make the camp more like"
Gitmo? Now there’s a shining example of what “democracy” can do.
"After so much procrastination."
If the West ever was to embrace true democracy. Who knows? Other nationals might view it as a cause worth dying for.
You make a statement that just because the west has had poor foreign policy in the past that the people of Iran should not fight for democracy your point of view gets the world no where.
I wonder if the right honourable gentleman would consider it a "forward thinking" policy for the UK to consider a "non-nuclear future"?
"First, the idea of making another attempt at "engagement" with Tehran's regime has failed - they simply continue to rattle their sabres and issue ever more bellicose threats"
Who is rattling sabers and making ever more bellicose threats, us or Iran?
It seems to me the threats coming from the west could hardly be more bellicose. Strangely Israels undocumented nuclear weapons elicit no threats at all, bellicose or otherwise. This double standard is not lost on anyone, least of all the Iranians (not to mention our double standards when it comes to who is a "terrorist" and who is not).
Shouldn't we be encouraging the Israelis to embrace "forward thinking" policies like Iran?
Of course Iran. The West is begging them for negotiations. Even with each iota of additional sanction the western leaders are careful not to upset the mullahs and reemphasize all they want is not regime change but regime "negotiations". Shame!
Threatening to destroy their economy with sanctions is not "begging"
Murdering their scientists is not "begging"