But One Step

Breaking banking ties with Iran, and more

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

But One Step
by Peter Martindale
28-Nov-2011
 

It is abundantly clear to all, including the Iranian regime, that the West has intent to cause regime change in Iran. The new sanctions announced this week are a clear step towards that goal. It is the beginning of moves that the Iranian freedom movements have been asking the West for for some years. The West has been deaf to the advice of people with knowledge of Iran (predominantly Iranians!), and have thus been following policies of their own which have proved disastrous.

Now, maybe, the West is learning: Iranians have said for a long time that they do not want assistance in deposing their regime, only that they want the West to cease supporting the regime: The West has been appeasing and collaborating with the Mullahs despite the atrocities inflicted upon Iranian people, and the regime's continuing preparations for aggression against the world! This is largely because there has been reluctance amongst governments internationally to put principle and lives before profit; they do not want to save lives at the expense of losing business and influence!

For many years, one group of Iranian refugees have provided the West with intelligence on the Iranian regime, including first alerting them to the nuclear energy and weapons programme. Those allies of the West are in a refugee camp in Iraq, known as Camp Ashraf.

Camp Ashraf and its inhabitants have Protected Status under Geneva conventions. Yet every single country and larger political entity on the planet is failing its obligations under the Geneva Conventions: even the UN. There is a binding international legal obligation on all countries to protect such people.

The government in Iraq is under the control of Iran and there is a signed accord between the two to eradicate Camp Ashraf and its residents in the coming weeks.

Now that we are out of Libya, which was not a threat to the West, maybe focus should urgently be applied to a far more serious problem; Iran.

The USA and Britain still have powers and obligations to enter Iraq to ensure it does not slip into becoming a security issue for the world: it has already. America has legal obligations to enter Iraq now, and to secure the safety of Camp Ashraf. Immediately thereafter, UN forces should be located at Camp Ashraf with full combative powers to protect the residents.

The world has known about the danger for two and half years: since the first murderous attack on the camp by the combined forces of Iran and Iraq.

There has been plenty of warning of the proposed massacre of the refugees, as several attacks have taken place and there is a public statement from Iran-Iraq.

It will be utter disgrace on the UN , USA, and the West if another Ashraffi dies. They are our friends and allies.

Obama has no focus and has proved to be a light-weight; he has let the mullahs pull the wool over his eyes, it was he at their behest who removed American military protection from Camp Ashraf, he has let them trample over the agreements that American soldiers signed with every one of the residents of Ashraf, he has supported Iran in trampling over the lives of American soldiers who fought to free Iraq, and insult their memory. It was he who ordered the withdrawal of USA troops from protecting camp Ashraf refugees.

Will he ever prove himself as a world class statesman? He can start now by immediately ordering American troops back to protect these refugees. In the meantime Britain must act within the UN to get troops there. Are Messrs Hague, Cameron, and Clegg up to the job?

Applying sanctions now is necessary but too late to take effect to save the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf. Blood will be on the hands of Western politicians if the international community does not immediately act to protect Camp Ashraf.

The Iranian regime knows that the destruction of the Camp and its residents spells the end of the Iranian freedom movement for years to come. And the West have despicably used these refugees in recent years as pawns in the policy of appeasement towards the mullahs in order to secure oil and technology trade.

After all the posturing on the 'Arab Spring' in the Middle East and support for removal of friendly governments who are making changes towards democracy, why do Clegg and Cameron and Hague want to ignore Iranians and bolster the aggressive regime with its declared intent to wreak havoc?

First published in HuffingtonPost.com.

AUTHOR
Peter Martindale is a former councillor, a writer and human rights activist.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
BacheShirazi

The west and democracy

by BacheShirazi on Wed Nov 30, 2011 09:19 AM PST

The west only wants to have more power and influence in the middle east. Iran also wants more power and influence in the middle east. The west is not looking to bring democracy to Iran, only to persue its own interests. And that's fine, all countries do this. If the western or any other countries wanted to bring democracy everywhere, they would first strart by overthrowing dictatorships in Africa that have very weak armies, like Zimbabwe for example. But there is not much interest in influence in that part of the world.

 

If regime change in Iran means setting up a regime that is passive towards western interests, the west will persue this. If the current regime becomes passive towards western interests then the west will no longer have a problem with Iran. 


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

I have questions

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Nov 30, 2011 08:47 AM PST

 

  • I want regime change. But I prefer Reza Pahlavi where does my opinion get in.
  • What defines  a "Haman Rights Activist". Is this a term people give to themselves?  Is there an agency that verifies people are legitimate "Human Rights Activists"; how do I know who is legitimate and how do you define legitimate.
  • How do I know West really wants regime change in Iran. Many posters on IC in particular AmirParviz give really strong reason for the opposite. What proof do I see that West really wants this? And I mean proof not opinion.
  • Why should I trust MEK since their history does not bear paint a good picture. Did they not force all their member to divorce. Do they not demand absolute obedience. They have a terrible record that does not bode well.
  • Does the West realize how unpopular MEK is in Iran? That if they push them on Iranians they get massive resistance. With 3000 troops MEK is not able to gain or hold power. It will require American troops and 100's of thousands of them.
  • Is West trying to use MEK as front line troops and discard them when done. Something for MEK rank and file to think about before rushing in.

 

 


  •  
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

I guess my post was censored

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Nov 30, 2011 08:13 AM PST

 

MEK is nothing but a bunch of opportunists who try to use any excuse for power. No one with any sense or history will support them. They betrayed Iran; attacked West and embody the worst of Akhoond and Marxism.


  •  
ham1328

M.E.K. is the largest, armed, active Iranian opposition group.

by ham1328 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 04:50 AM PST

Great post, all Iranians must be included in the post I.R.I. regime. Let the Iranians in Iran vote for their future, but exclude no one. 


  •  
hass

Rubbish

by hass on Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:04 AM PST

MEK is not the "iranian freedom movement"


  •  
bahmani

MEK is not an Iranian opposition

by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 05:02 PM PST

The MEK is merely the saddest persona-non-grata to the government of Iran. As it was to the previous government of Iran under the Shah.

The pathetic sad case of the MEK is that they are at once the only armed militant organization willing to fight against the Iranian government (choose any one you wish), while at the same time having NO SUPPORT AMONG THE IRANIAN PEOPLE (Again choose any era you wish).

So, to worry about the MEK now, is the height of foolishness and the best example of just how ignorant this writer is to the real conditions in the Iran-centered world these days.

The real fact is that the US has 2 choices ahead. One is peaceful and slow and steady with progress begetting progress. The other is fast and furious with an extremely high cost, and a doubtful chance of long term success.

The latter is the way that these kinds of useless sanctions go, that only rev up the rhetoric towards an inevitable surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. With the obvious constant retaliatory fears that follow it.

The former is the logically more effective way of putting down all the threats and hardware of sanctions and other bunker busting devices, and showering the Iranians with so much goodwill and sincere respect and honor that they have no choice but to swoon in total ecstasy.

Since we can easily afford to do both, why not try the "kill them with kindness" approach first? We can always bomb the crap out of them later.

Apparently, according to legend, Iranians are magnanimous in the face of kindness and generosity. They also cannot accept a gift without giving one in return.

I have no basis in fact for this other than I learned it while playing Prince of Persia II on the PlayStation.

To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/


  •  
Bavafa

Only if the West would just do the responsible thing…

by Bavafa on Mon Nov 28, 2011 01:27 PM PST

By bringing justice and accountability to the leadership of this cultish/murderous group.

  The resident of Camp Ashraf indeed need our help, but first to emancipate them from the cult and leadership that they have no freedom to part with.  Then extensive psychological treatment to undo the many years of harm that has been brought to them.

 

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad


  •  
Dr. Mohandes

peter Martindale???

by Dr. Mohandes on Mon Nov 28, 2011 07:24 AM PST

LOL

More LIke Mashti Rajab.

 


  •  
amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

Article started out okay... then became shameful by saying

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Nov 28, 2011 09:55 AM PST

"The MEK, They are our friends and allies."

The MEK are active terrorists you manipulative moron! That you still wish to use thems as your pawns is the real disgrace. Stop your support for Terrorist Organzations and get the members the help they need to disband, as there are many abused members among them. Human Rights, Democracy, Equality, Freedom, Justice... Where In US Foreign Policy do you see that?

Also Pressuring the Regime gradually is not a Policy of Regime change, the EU and USA are in complete agreement on that subject. They love Islam fr Iran, since the subjugation and destruction of Iran is the goal, for now with the exception of the MEK it is unlikely the USA can find a better group than the IRI to achieve its goals.


  •  
MeyBokhor_Manbarbesuzan

MEK, Again?

by MeyBokhor_Manbarbesuzan on Mon Nov 28, 2011 05:28 AM PST

Then only response to this article is one loud shishaki and Sereshk.


  •  
Fred

Pawns

by Fred on Mon Nov 28, 2011 04:46 AM PST

As far as the MKO is concerned, the only agenda at this moment for human rights activists and those who care about Iran and Iranians is to try to save the lives of nearly 3400 Iranians being used as pawns by all sides.

These people have been used and abused; they need medical help and psychological counseling. Most of all, they need extrication from certain demise in less than a month and half time.


  •