Let's not have an Iran inquiry in the UK

The British government has won a vote in parliament on changing the arrangements for an inquiry into the war on Iraq, but only after it made concessions - one of the virtues of established democracy.

The Conservative opposition, the Liberal Democrats (who were against the war from the start) and some Labour members of parliament (MPs) wanted the inquiry to be open, wider representation in its panel, witnesses to give testimony under oath, a greater role for MPs and for there to be more scrutiny and apportioning of blame.

Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown initially said the inquiry would hear evidence in private and is not aimed at apportioning blame.

Media speculated that Tony Blair, the former prime minister who led the country into the war, pressured Brown to have the inquiry held in private.

Blair vehemently resisted calls to launch an inquiry while in office, and his infamous spin doctor Alistair Campbell wrote on his blog that he was in favour of a private inquiry as a better job would be done without the frenzy of 24-hour media attention.

The Labour government had to make some concessions in order ro defeat an opposition motion in the House of Commons.

The opposition wanted more transparency and the inquiry panel to include senior civil service and military figures. The government, in a face-saving move, said it would be left to the head of the inquiry to decide, and he in turn promised some hearings will be held in public. The inquiry will also allot blame, but the shape of the panel and the length of the inquiry will be left to the team. This compromise is significant, and at last we will have an inquiry into what the Liberal Democrats' leader has labelled "the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez".

Mentioning the Suez incident - when Britain, France and Israel in 1956 plotted to invade Egypt and force a regime change - one cannot help but think of Iran.

The situation in the Islamic Republic is not 'contained' as some think, and seeds of dissent are spreading, depite the crackdown. The coming weeks and months will be crucial - not only for the Iranian government but also for Tehran's relations with the world.

The Iranian leadership, which has blamed its internal problems on outside forces, singled out the UK for the harshest words from the Supreme Leader.

Two British diplomats were subsequently expelled from Tehran, and London returned the favour. It could be true that Iran did not want to antagonise the 'Great Satan' (the US) after the overtures from President Barack Obama.

Britain, as a major ally of the US, especially in foreign policy, may have been chosen as the next best target. At least we did not hear Iran resort to blaming Israel, another 'Satan' in Iranian political rhetoric.

In a region where history is part of the present, Iranians still believe in British conspiracies against their country. This has its roots in history, long before the Islamic revolution.

The 1813 Treaty of Gulistan, regarded as a humiliation in Iran, under which Persia was forced to cede territory to Russia, was put together by British diplomat Sir Gore Ouseley.

In the 1860s, Britain was instrumental in setting Iran's borders with India. And it was British forces in Iran under General Edmund Ironside (later commander of British land forces during the Second World War) that helped put Reza Shah (father of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah overthrown in the Islamic revolution of 1979) on the Peacock throne.

Britain was also involved, along with the US, in the infamous coup against the elected government of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. It was not only the alliance with the Americans that motivated British involvement, but also direct national interest.

Mossadeq had wanted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in which the British had a majority share, so the British and Americans organised a coup, put Mossadeq under house arrest and placed Pahlavi firmly in control as Shah.

Iranians also haven't forgotten Western support for Saddam Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war. And the incident a couple of years ago when 15 Royal Navy personnel were seized by Iranian forces was just the latest example of mutual mistrust between London and Tehran.

There is no way to verify Iranian accusations that the British have been meddling in their internal affairs. But if Teh-ran is playing the blame game in trying to find a foreign party to hold responsible for its internal instability, it should not pick on Britain.

If either Israel or the US is seeking regime change in Iran, Britain should stay out of it - we do not want to have an Iran inquiry in a few years' time.

Dr Ahmad Mustafa is a London-based Arab writer.