No evidence of Iran’s role in Iraq violence: British FM

July 21, 2007 - 0:0

David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview with the Financial Times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops.

Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. …, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”. This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence. Contextually, this important admission by the British foreign minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear program and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the Security Council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence. Because of course, both the confirmation of Iranian non-involvement in the violence in Iraq, and the Al-Qaeda’s alleged intention to wage a war against Iran should Iran continue to support the Iraqi government, debunks the myth of Iranian involvement and investment in the continuing instability in Iraq and exposes the alliance of interests between the U.S. and Al-Qaeda around their deep hostility towards Iran. For those with a genuine desire for peace, this clear confirmation of the absence of Iranian involvement in the violence and instability in Iraq would have signaled a better prospect for establishing security in Iraq, and a better prospect for a successful withdrawal of troops. This would have also indicated the possibility, at least as far as Iran’s willingness is concerned, for a fruitful outcome for the bilateral dialogue between Iran and the U.S., the consequences of which are far reaching in terms of prosperity and security for the people in the region and for peace and security internationally. (Source: