This overt endorsement by the UK, in allowing an act aimed at interfering with Iran's domestic affairs, marks a worrying departure from diplomatic norms and risks inflaming tensions between the two countries.
To truly support the Iranian people, the British authorities should consider advocating for the lifting of illegal American and European economic sanctions that predominantly harm ordinary citizens. Yet, instead, the British government appears to be engaging in a politically motivated ploy to maintain pressure on Tehran in hopes of isolating the country at a time when Iran is making a good success in diplomatic outreach in the Middle East including the recent restoration of diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia and promoting relations with other neighboring countries.
The UK government's hypocrisy is also evident in its reaction to graffiti, critical of British policies toward Iran, on its embassy walls in Tehran. The UK government has always overplayed its outrage at such trivial acts as a ground for openly endorsing and providing a platform for far more provocative acts committed against Iran. Granting a British establishment-sanctioned "green light" to the forthcoming gathering in London is an example among many.
As signatories to the UN Charter, which enshrines the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states, the British government's endorsement of such a gathering not only contravenes international law but also sends a clear message that Iran's sovereignty is not to be respected. The Iranian foreign ministry has a duty to itself and its people to take appropriate action in response to such a blatant violation of fundamental diplomatic norms.
The UK has consistently misrepresented itself as a so-called supporter of the Iranian people, when in truth, for decades, they have been at the forefront of implementing sanctions on the Iranian nation particularly since way before the US withdrew from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Furthermore, London has willingly cooperated and supported former US President Donald Trump's maximum pressure policy against Iran. How could the UK claim to stand with the Iranian people while supporting measures explicitly designed to harm them?
The situation raises questions about the British government's true intentions and whether it has the welfare of the Iranian people at heart. The sponsorship of such a gathering, which directly aims to destabilize Iran, serves only to expose the fallacy of the UK's claims to support the Iranian people. If the British authorities continue to allow the gathering to proceed, they will be held accountable for their hostile actions driven by ulterior motives against Iran.
This recent act is just another in a long line of dubious British policies against Iran. In the past, the UK has been involved in orchestrating the 1953 coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh; siding with Iraq's brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, in his aggression against Iran during the 1980-1988 war; and imposing crippling sanctions on the Iranian people. In light of these historical acts of hostility, it is no wonder that many Iranians would still say, "The job is always an English job."
This dangerous act of political intervention has the potential to destabilize the region further and harm diplomatic efforts aimed at promoting stability, dialogue, and mutual respect. One cannot help but notice striking similarities to the British age-old strategy of "divide and rule," which they have historically implemented throughout various parts of the world, such as India, Africa, and the Middle East. This infamous British approach, which revolves around sowing discord among different groups of people in order to extend its own influence and power, seems to be reemerging today in relation to Iran and the broader region.
In analyzing Britain's intentions toward Iran, one must consider the possibility that their ultimate goal is not to support democracy but rather to divide the Iranian nation as they did to other nations in the past. Furthermore, by fostering divisions in the region at large, Britain could be seeking to generate and exploit artificial rivalries. This would create an environment where British arms sales thrive, thereby advancing their political and commercial interests at the expense of regional stability.
In a time when the age of empires has come to an end, it is rather disappointing to see the United Kingdom employing tactics from an outdated playbook. The people of Iran, as well as others in the region, have grown wise to the manipulative strategies employed throughout history, and are increasingly aware of the potential consequences of succumbing to foreign influence aimed at dividing them.
Fortunately, the era of empires has long since passed, and the “imperial” strategies of old are no longer viable in the interconnected world we live in today. As such, it is unlikely that the British efforts to divide and rule will find any real success on the ground.
In the 21st Century, wielding power through division is not only morally condemnable but also strategically ineffective. For the British government, recognizing this reality will allow them to shift course. By leaving its imperial past behind and embracing a new role, Britain will serve not only its own interests but also the interests of all nations striving for a more secure and prosperous world.
In conclusion, the British government would do well to reconsider its support for the anti-Iran gathering and instead focus on a more constructive and diplomatic approach to building positive relations with Iran, rather than fanning the flames of discord and distrust.
**9417
Your Comment