LONDON A researcher in political geography has challenged the British government over its ambiguous abbreviation of the Persian Gulf. Dr. Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh asks whether it is not time to review the somewhat less than dignified position of shying away from pronouncing the correct, complete and historical name of the Persian Gulf for incomprehensible reasons. In a letter to Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, he suggests that dropping the name of Persian from the Persian Gulf was based upon incomprehensible justifications.

The start was traced back to 1962 amidst pan-Arab euphoria to Arabise all the names of people and places in and around the Arab world, whereas the name Persian Gulf has evolved throughout history and being used for more than 2,500 years. The researcher in political geography said that the abbreviation was rejected by Arab scholars until Saddam Hussein of Iraq took up the campaign.

He asked cook whether British support would only encourage Saddam and his kind in the Arab world. He also pointed out that the UK's stance on abbreviating the Persian Gulf was out-of-line with U.S. policy, even though Washington also had even closer ties with some Arab countries. ``The United States does not appear to see any relevance in compromising principles and national dignity for these relations," Cook was told.

Mojtahed-Zadeh suggested that it was a dangerous example of changing the historical name of geographical places for political expediency that was not adequately compatible with Britain's claim of wanting to play a leading role model in the world. Meanwhile, Foreign Office Minister Derek Fatchett said Monday that Britain wanted to engage more effectively on matters of mutual interest with Iran. With the growing concern and preoccupation in both the West and the Middle East over Iraq, he specifically said, The role of Iran is very important.

In a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute devoted to Iraq and the future of security in the Persian Gulf, Fatchett took time out to digress on the contrasting approach towards Iran. He said that during his recent visit to Abu Dhabi, Doha and Cairo there was growing recognition in the region of Iran opening up its relations. The result, the minister said, has seen some progress.

He attributed much of the credit to the role of Iran's President Mohammad Khatami. He said that Britain looked forward to more constructive relations following last September's decision to resume full diplomatic ties. He said the UK was waiting for Tehran to name an ambassador, but hoped it would not be too long. In his lecture, Fatchett defended British policy towards Iraq, saying it had led to a new consensus.

But he dismissed claims that London always followed on the coat tails of Washington. Countries should have the ability to take a different line, he said and exampled the UK's policy towards Iran and its initiative to hold the Lockerbie trial in a neutral country as areas where the UK had a different approach with the U.S. The foreign office minister revealed that he was to hold a further meeting with Iraqi opposition groups on Tuesday, but strenuously denied there was a hidden agenda to topple Saddam Hussein. It is not our responsibility to arm the opposition groups or change the regime in Baghdad, he said.

Change, he said, would inevitably come from within.