Global Politician – MP Brian Binley is the UK Conservative Party Member of House of Commons for Northampton South. He was elected to the parliament in 2005 after defeating incumbent Labour MP Tony Clarke. He recently visited Washington, D.C. where he met with David Storobin to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and the opposition to the Mullah’s regime, as well as the Israel-Hizballah war. This is part 1 of the interview.
Q. Do you believe Iran is building nuclear weapons?
A. To discount the possibility seems to be highly irresponsible, and in terms of protecting the security of the world, certainly the Western World, we have to take the possibility seriously. I think it’s clear based on the evidence, certainly based on the evidence first produced by the National Council of Resistance of Iran [the largest anti-Mullah Iranian opposition group], that Iran is on course to create nuclear weapons. That creates a situation that is really quite frightening.
Q. What evidence is available right now that Iran is building nuclear weapons?
A. The evidence first produced by the National Council was on the Natanz facility. That evidence has been added to and documented more since then. I believe the world is now taking seriously the threat of nuclear weapons to the point where the United Nations has given Iran until the 22 of August to come to negotiations. If nuclear Iran weren’t a possibility, the U.N. would not call for it.
Q. And what happens if Iran simply refuses?
A. As it well could. And that leaves us in a frightening situation. And this is where we get into the Israel-Lebanon situation. There’s no doubt that Iran is pulling the strings with regard to the Hizballah, and is feeding it with weaponry and some men. I believe that the Israeli-Lebanese situation creates a focus that Ahmadinejad appreciates. Jordan, Egypt and the Saudis are also showing that they have an electorate, well, maybe electorate would not be the right word, but a population to whom they are be responsible. So we are seeing the sorts of statements that Ahmadinejad welcomes with open arms.
Q. Is there any possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities?
A. All the words I have are ‘no’. I’ve talked to Americans and their statements are, “that’s out of the question.” I’ve talked to some people on the [Capitol] Hill only a couple of days ago.
I went to visit Israel last September to talk with their people, including the Chairman of the Knesset Defense and Intelligence Committee, and I’ve asked them about the Iranian situation and nuclear weapons, at a time when it didn’t have the sort of profile it has now. And he [Chairman of the Defense and Intelligence Committee] made it clear that it’s doomsday from their perspective. So, we are in a very volatile situation.
We are in a situation that requires two things. If you would like to isolate Iran, by not giving it comfort of the statements from nations I just talked about [Jordan, Egypt and the Saudis].
Q. What kind of statements?
A. Well, the sort of statements from the Saudis condemning Israel. When the war started, their statements were anti-Hizballah, but now we are seeing a slight change in that respect, and we are seeing criticism of the Israelis, which is highly welcome by Ahmadinejad. And there’s a fear that this sort of support might grow, and which is I would want a cessation of hostilities as quickly as possible. Destroying the Lebanese nation actually makes it more difficult [to counteract Iran]. You simply cannot go in there and destroy a guerilla organization. We’ve learned that lesson. The only way you do destroy it is to destroy the whole of Lebanon, and that seems to me a step beyond reason.
Q. What possible steps can you take to pressure Iran?
A. The world must isolate Iran.
Q. How? Economically?
A. We’ve got to isolate them in terms of political support in the region and in the wider world. Secondly, we’ve got to recognize that there’s a possibility of internal change in Iran. That is an option. More and more intelligence suggests that the regime is nowhere near as secure as it would want us to believe. Intellectuals, students, feminist groups, even some mullahs, and certainly the general view in the county is that Ahmadinejad is leading the country in the wrong direction. You merely have to take a poll undertaken by an unbiased organization that suggests that only a third of the population agrees with the policy of creating nuclear weapons. That certainly suggests that regime change is an option, and to proscribe the National Council and their allies seems to me to be hindering and burdening the very organizations that seem to create that change.
Here we have an organization that has renounced violence, has no record of attacking the West, which supports democracy, and yet we proscribe this organization to the point where their leader, Ms. Maryam Rajavi, cannot come to the United States to explain their positions against the present regime. The Chinese have a very wise saying – the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and maybe we ought to understand that.
In a situation where these freedom fighters are fighting the present regime, no longer proscribing them would at least level the playing field.
Q. There have been some rumors that the United States is helping the National Council and their military organization, MeK, indirectly. Washington is not helping the organization directly, but rather people affiliated with it.
A. I haven’t heard of those rumors, and I certainly note from my own country, that our government and the European Union, in general, has refused to no longer proscribe the National Council. Our government has been appeasing the Mullahs. We asked Jack Straw only two months ago to de-proscribe the NCRI and the answer was a definite ‘no’.
Q. What were the reasons that he gave?
A. Because they were a terrorist organization. I then asked if he could point to one incident when the National Council or the MeK harmed Western interests, and he could not give me an answer, he could not point out even one incident. And indeed I believe there aren’t any. When you consider that the American government investigated for 16 months, went through massive DNA testing procedures and found that not one person at Camp Ashraf [MeK base in Iraq that has been disarmed by the United States] was involved in terrorist activity, and indeed gave them protected persons status under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Only a few weeks ago, the French courts lifted all restrictions on the NCRI and Ms. Maryam Rajavi because there’s no evidence that this is a terrorist organization.
More recently, I’ve asked the new Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, “In the light of the American findings and the French decision, was it now time to re-consider the proscription of the National Council” and her answer was that she will talk about it with the Home Secretary.
Q. So there has been some progress?
A. There has been some progress, but I see no evidence of support from the British government, and I haven’t heard of any support from the American government. So what you say may be true [about indirect American support for the NCRI], but I have no knowledge of it.
Q. An Iran expert affiliated with the UK Conservative Party told me that the NCRI is not that popular in Iran.
A. I would simply disagree with that particular position, and I think the evidence suggests that given a way to present their case politically and to act as a proper opposition in exile, we may well find that their chances are greater than we may think. And certainly to rule out the main opposition would be unacceptable. It makes sense to at least consider the option presented by Ms. Maryam Rajavi. I find it absolutely crazy that our government is still trying to appease the regime that is proving to be increasingly intractable. I find that remarkable. The very reason we put the MeK on the proscribed list is to appease the Mullahs. And what do we have? We have our approaches thrown back in our face. These people have committed no acts against Britain and the West.
Q. What about the Shah’s people? What is your view of them?
A. I’m not involved with them. I’m a monarchist, but I support the sort of monarchy that we have in the UK where the monarchy doesn’t have parliamentary power. I think it’s a tragedy that the Shah didn’t embrace the sort of monarchy that we have in Britain because had he done so, had he embraced an elected parliamentary democracy and worked with a democratic parliament, his descendants may have retained their seats to this very day. That didn’t happen and we can’t go back in history. What we need in Iran is to establish a democratic system that honors human rights.
David Storobin is a New York lawyer who received Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Rutgers University School of Law. His Master’s Thesis (M.A. – Comparative Politics) deals with the historical causes for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. He is also currently on the Board of Directors of the Ibn Khaldun Center for International Research (www.centroik.ufm.edu.gt) at the University of Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala. He’s been interviewed on radio and cited in books as a political expert.
editor@globalpolitician.com