Proceeding contribution from Ben Wallace (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Iran.
Iran
The statement I made in my speech about the activity of the PMOI comes from the Department of State’s recent listing, in which it gives its reasons for proscribing—[Interruption.] I consider US intelligence to be important in making these decisions. Having personally been involved in actions with the Provisional IRA and the IRA, I recognise that the past is just as important as the future. I would be interested to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) voted for our colleagues in Sinn Fein to receive allowances when the matter was raised in the House. I suspect that—[Interruption.] That person did not, given that he is presently not an active member of a terrorist organisation, although I am sure that in the past he was. I would like to move on. It is important that we recognise that the PMOI and the MKO represent a dangerous organisation at the very heart of Iran, no matter what people’s views are on the regime. In fact, the supreme leader himself was blown up by the PMOI and lost one of his arms, and the second President of the Iranian Republic was killed. Imagine what Conservative Members would think of any deal with the IRA, had it been successful in killing half the Cabinet in the Brighton bombing. We must recognise that there are terrorist groups in Iran that would not help the cause, let alone move it forward. The second question is, who do we do business with in Iran? People often ask me that because Iran, which does not have a political system like ours—no parties, no party leadership—is often driven by personalities and factions. Some would like to posture around the Iranian President, and some Iran watchers are toying with the idea of waiting for a new, perhaps more moderate President. From the outside, no matter what Presidents look like or say, we should remember that the nuclear programme has gone on under reformist and conservative Presidents. We should recognise that the Iranian constitution makes it clear that power in Iran is nearly always, and always has been, with the supreme leader. It is the words and actions of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that, in the end, can help forge a resolution. Constitutionally, it is he who controls the levers of the state—the courts, the media and the revolutionary guard—and even the President and Foreign and Defence Ministers must be vetted by his office. My message to the new Administration in Washington and to the Government is to try to go to the top. Let us try to speak directly to the supreme leader. Let us ask him to put aside his role of speaking only to heads of Muslim countries, and to try to engage directly with the United States and to put aside historical preconditions, because that is the way to get some real resolution. Perhaps because Iran is a revolutionary state, or perhaps because it is not governed by a party political system, parties, personalities and slogans take centre stage. Observers find it hard to distinguish gesture politics from real politics. A good example of the gap between official speak and actions is that in Iran it is illegal to have a satellite dish, but everyone has one. One can see them on driving down any road. As one diplomat once said, there is something very French about the Iranians. If people believed every slogan, they would certainly think that they would be in danger going anywhere in Iran, but that is not the case. The Iranian people are friendly, approachable and engaging. We have to distinguish between slogans and reality. We are, perhaps, safer in Iran than in Saudi Arabia, so let us not get hung up on inflammatory statements made by the current President Ahmadinejad or on the death to America day, an annual event to which I have not yet been invited. If I can live with a Bobby Sands avenue outside a British embassy, I am sure that other people can live with other gimmicks. Perhaps the real hints to where Iran is are in the writings of supreme leader Khamenei. On the subject of future engagement with the US, only last year he said to students in Yazd:""However we have never said that the relations"—" with America—""will remain severed forever…Undoubtedly, the day the relations with America prove beneficial for the Iranian nation, I will be the first one to approve of that."" Regrettably, like several Islamic leaders, the supreme leader does not recognise the state of Israel, and that is a bad step for Iran and other nations. We must deal with today, and I agree with the right of Israel to exist. However, his words are not the same as the inflammatory language of the current President.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 488 c257-9WH
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Armed conflict Human rights Drugs Iraq Economic situation Foreign policy Foreign relations Proscribed organisations Nuclear power Politics and government Terrorism USA Sanctions Afghanistan Israel Iran Middle East Taliban Mujahedin-e Khalq
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 23:20:11 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534869
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534869
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534869