On April 19, 2017 an article titled ‘European nations need to
co-operate with US on #Iran policy’ written by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass was published on ‘eureporter’. Among other issues,
the article has a clear and profound answer, to a common narrative of opponents
of the new U.S. policy towards Iran regime, which is formulated in this phrase:
“upsetting Iran with terror-related sanctions could lead to the failure of the
nuclear agreement”.
Within his
first month in office, the Republican president has directed his State
Department to begin a review that could actually lead to the hard-line Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) being designated as a foreign terrorist
organization. It appears not improbable that President Donald Trump’s intends
the United States to move to confront Iran’s paramilitary force with expanded
economic sanctions, writes Lord Maginnis of Drumglass.
Moreover, the
US Congress has recently shown support for related measures, and the Senate has
signalled the need for more punitive measures to confront the IRGC’s terroristsponsorship.
Of course, some
among the US self-styled ‘liberals’, and even more in the UK and the rest of
Europe, oppose these sorts of measures out of concern that challenging the IRGC
may be regarded as an affront to the Islamic Republic as a whole. But surely
this is a false premise on which the leaders of modern, Western democracies
would formulate a strategic policy. Negotiating with Iran over issues unrelated
to its support for terrorism and its human rights abuses is cowardly and
dangerous. It is simply not reasonable to sweep those issues aside.
Tehran may be
angry with the West, but is the US and are European nations to somehow pretend
that liberal democracy, safeguarding the rights of all people should no longer
be a universal principle. Each is a challenge to the other’s fundamental vision
of governance and the future ideological landscape across the globe.
The Islamic
Republic of Iran may see itself as the prototype of modern theocracy and a
paradigm for all factions of political Islam. The antithetical natures of that
and of our perception of government may not mean “No contact” but the West
cannot afford to “be taken to the cleaners” as they have been in respect of the
2015 nuclear agreement. Future deals of that sort does preclude the kind of
broad-based reconciliation that some of the more optimistic Western policy
makers seem to envision.
Antagonizing
Tehran is not a reason for imposing sanctions on the IRGC or designating it as
a terrorist organization, but it is an unavoidable consequence of taking
well-justified measures to confront one of the most destabilizing and
anti-democratic forces in the world today.
The IRGC has
been a driving force behind a massive crackdown on any internal dissent, which
were evident after the conclusion of nuclear negotiations and now, in the
run-up to the presidential elections due to take place in Iran in May. The IRGC
has also been responsible for a number of aggressive manoeuvres directed
against U.S. and British naval forces and commercial vessels in the Persian
Gulf. This force-projection only serves to reinforce the imperialist aims of
the IRGC that are on display in its escalating support for foreign proxies and
direct intervention in regional conflicts like the Syrian and Yemeni civil
wars.
In recent
weeks, the leading Iranian opposition organization, the National Council ofResistance of Iran (NCRI) has released several reports on the IRGC, detailing
not only the growth of its training programme among foreign terrorists and
militant groups, but also its acquisition of ever-greater shares of the Iranian
GDP, whereby it finances its terrorist activities and tightens its grasp upon
the Iranian political and judicial infrastructure. The NCRI’s intelligence
stands alongside the reports of numerous human rights organizations that are
keen to highlight how the IRGC has taken it upon itself to round up prominent
activists and journalists as well as anyone whose social activities or online
communications suggest sympathy with secular or pro-Western viewpoints.
Left to its own
devices, the IRGC will continue to seek more wealth and power both at home and
abroad, and it will use these means to thoroughly undermine any optimistic
Western visions for internal reform and the emergence of a kinder, gentler
Islamic Republic. In this sense, the pressure to avoid sanctioning the IRGC or
labelling it as a terrorist organisation is dangerously self-defeating. The
more we strive to keep Tehran feeling happy and unperturbed, the more freedom
we will give it to its continuing commitment to the hard-line identity embodied
by the IRGC.
The argument
against Donald Trump’s approach to Iran policy often seems to hinge on the
notion that upsetting Iran with terror-related sanctions could lead to the
failure of the nuclear agreement. This is certainly a possibility, but if it
happens it will be a result of Tehran’s choosing to defend its terrorist
activities at the expense of re-engaging with the international community. This
is not just an acceptable option; it should be seen as a further incentive to
understand and sanction the approach being proposed by the US president. The
Iranian regime should be placed squarely in the position of having to choose
between terrorism and compromise. Iran must clearly show the world that the
theocratic regime’s priorities can be more flexible.
The principal
question when considering a strategy like President Trump’s is whether its
implementation will violate the commitments already made by the countries
implementing it. Without question, the European leadership is committed to the
defense of the nuclear agreement. And that leadership has recently received
assurances of the same from the White House. But, it is not the responsibility
of Washington, London, or any other Western capital to look beyond the given
agreement in order to discourage Tehran from violating its own commitments.
Neither is it in Western interests to do so.
The European
countries have demanded guarantees from the President Trump’s administration
regarding the nuclear deal, and they have received them. Now, they must
reciprocate by providing the U.S. with assurances that no Western power will
stand in the way of efforts to disrupt and diminish the most hard-line
institutions in the Islamic Republic. Doing so would not directly undermine the
nuclear deal; it would hinder any sanctions needed to impose any deal to
prevent Iran from continuing to finance terrorism or to worsen the suffering of
the Iranian people.
There is no
logic whereby any democratic government can reasonably oppose such measures.
Strategic planning dictates that Britain and other European Nations should
follow suit with complementary and concurrent sanctions and terrorist
designations for the IRGC.
The Trump
Administration plans, to achieve the structured success necessary and essential
need proper corporate strategic planning – not an option but a duty.
Lord Maginnis
of Drumglass is an independent Ulster Unionist member of the UK House of Lords
and prominent member of the British Committee for Iran Freedom (BCFIF).
Comments
Post a Comment