Iranians protest at UK embassy party

There seems to be a bit of a theme running through Iran's propaganda/actions as of late...

Iran protest at Queen's party

'England's servants'

"The British embassy should be shut down" and "Death to England, down with the den of spies," the demonstrators shouted.

All this as 1,500 guests were invited for the biggest diplomatic reception of the year at the embassy.

Islamic students in black shirts pelted the front gate of the building with bags filled with coloured paint, tomatoes and eggs.

"Shame on you, servants of the English," they chanted.

It goes hand in hand with this recent thread.

Aside from getting the name of the country wrong (it's Britain, not England), does this show that it's going to be difficult (perhaps impossible) for anyone to deal with Iran as it is currently? Or is it just a minority of extremists stirring the pot?

does this show that it's going to be difficult (perhaps impossible) for anyone to deal with Iran as it is currently?

In a word ... Yes.

This is a regime which operates it's own internal Gestapo like agency which has summarily executed at least 40,000 of it's own citizens for un-Islamic activity.

Iran is our generation's equivalent of the proto-Nazi dictatorship of the 1930s.

It is gathering in power and influence like a snowball. Like all religious fanatics of any faith, they believe they have the right to demand conformity from the rest of the world.

With lots of help from Uncle Sam in Iraq the whole middle east is descending into a radical militant blood bath.

If we demanded that muslims in the UK drank alcohol and did not congregate on Fridays at Mosques then there would be howls of protest.

originally posted by sy_gunson: '..... they believe they have the right to demand conformity from the rest of the world.'

Nevertheless (and public relations exercise or not) Iran did not 'demand conformity' from the British captives, earlier this year.

The Queen's birthday celebration was being held in Tehran. And the focus of the demonstrators' indignation was Iranian guests at the celebration.

They said any Iranian guests who tried to attend the party were dirty traitors willing to sell out their country.

They called the guests dirty Iranians willing to eat the birthday cake of the queen of lies and corruption. " Shame on you, servants of the English," they chanted

But the intention was to intimidate Iranians from attending.

This comes as Iran's minister of intelligence recently warned Iranians not to give interviews or information to foreigners, and a number of Iranian-Americans have been jailed on suspicion of spying.

news.bbc.co.uk...

If the boot were on the other foot --- if British dignitaries attended a birthday celebration hosted by, for example, an Argentinian embassy in London during the Falkland war --- would it be so surprising if the British protested?

Wouldn't such a hypothetical situation be particularly exacerbated if --- at the same time British dignitaries were swanning around supping champagne in honour of 'The King of Argentina' --- ordinary Britons were being warned by the British government ' not to give interviews or information to foreigners' and Argentian-Britons were " being jailed on suspicion of spying " ?

And wouldn't there be calls from militant Britons for the Argentinian embassy to be closed?

British warships recently engaged in 'exercises' extraordinarily close to Iran. US fighter-jets are continuing the provocation at the same time --- within Western-msm and hundreds of internet forums --- there is continual speculation concerning the US' intention to 'nuke Iran', etc.

What would 'we' do in Iranians' shoes? Their country is under virtual seige and threat from the UK and US (and others of the 'coalition of the willing'). Ordinary Iranians have deliberately been placed under extreme stress. They've seen what has happened and is happening in nearby Iraq.

Who but the most arrogant would not understand this mild little demonstration against a tea-party?

What sort of arrogance lead to the holding of such a tea-party in the first place, in light of current circumstances ? Wasn't it the intention of certain within the British establishment to deliberately compromise and embarrass prominent Iranians by inviting them? Was it a ploy to cause a demonstration which in turn could be broadcast in Britain as a means of justifying future attacks on Iran?

Diplomacy ? Hardly. Provocation: very possibly.

In any case, the 'protest' was a storm in a tea-cup which most Britons (and others) would find perfectly understandable.

Although interesting, I'm not sure the Britain-Argentina analogy works quite so well because the conflict there was over a different issue, the circumstances were different and the UK's political system is very different to that of Iran... in addition, there's still nothing to guarantee that a war will break out between the US/UK and Iran, especially given Blair's stepping down in a couple of weeks and the US Presidential elections next year.

And unless directly provoked and threatened, I honestly can't see the US using nuclear weapons... the Bush Administration knows that this (and indeed any rushed/'manipulated' attack on Iran) would drain them of their international support overnight.

I'd also point out that the demonstration wasn't limited specifically to the Iranian guests at the party:

"The British embassy should be shut down" and "Death to England, down with the den of spies," the demonstrators shouted.

Remember what happened when fundamentalist elements within Iran had similar ideas about the American embassy in Tehran?

That said, I don't think military action against Iran would help anyone at this stage. If (and it's a big 'if') Iran genuinely doesn't have any desire for nuclear weapons at the moment, an attack now would surely change that attitude. It would also sweep away the remaining moderate voices in Iranian politics... a lot of people are tired of the restrictions imposed on them by the current government. I imagine many would prefer a democracy to a theocratic regime.

It's also foreign policy which is propping Ahmadinejad and his government up. The domestic situation inside Iran is pretty bad, and had the Iranian President not had the United States as a convenient nation to blame for internal problems and unite many Iranians who would otherwise not support him, it's likely his government would have collapsed (and indeed still might collapse) due to popular pressure.

Regimes like the one in Iran can't last forever, since they go against the basic human desire for freedom. We know there is dissent, especially amongst young people and academics, and an attack would simply strangle off internal dissenters and make things much, much worse. The West can still solve this diplomatically - it's not easy and it's not quick, but in the end it will surely be a much safer outcome. Ahmadinejad's more moderate opponent, Mohammad Khatami (a former president), supported talks and conciliation rather than confrontation. I can't help but wonder if we toned down our rhetoric against Iran whether the Iranian political system would take care of Ahmadinejad for us and introduce a president who would be willing to discuss problems with the West.

I might just interject here that Iranian riot police where deployed and although not keen to be seen on camera acting "against" their people, they did do so and kept the crowds back from the embassy.

Illustrates the multiple layers within Iranian society at large. Some radical elements stage a protest, but a Government organ actively moves against them to quell the situation.

EDIT: Lets also remember Iran is a democracy. Some will likely trot out the fact they bar some candidates from running, but they are quite fair about it. many hardliners were barred as well as reformists.

In any democracy, there is still a level of control from TPTB over who exactly is allowed to play.

[edit on 14/6/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
I might just interject here that Iranian riot police where deployed and although not keen to be seen on camera acting "against" their people, they did do so and kept the crowds back from the embassy.

Do they have much of a choice? Even though you might not like a nation, if they have an embassy in your territory you're obliged to protect it from this sort of thing.

Think back to 1980, when the Iranian Embassy in London was taken over by terrorists trained by Saddam Hussein - remember what happened? Despite the UK having no love of the Iranian government (we were vocal supporters of the Americans when their embassy staff were held hostage) we nevertheless sent the SAS in to rescue the hostages. Had we left them in there we would have been crucified diplomatically - similarly, as an embassy is technically the territory of the government it represents, had the riot police allowed the protesters to damage/breach the embassy then it would have some very serious ramifications. It might also tip the balance against Iran.

I would also be careful about characterising Iran as a democracy. There are democratic elements, but it is not worthy of the classification 'democracy' in my view. As you said, candidates for the government are screened by the Council of Guardians (half of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader) and can be rejected. People don't have an automatic right to stand for election as they do in the UK, France, Germany, United States, Canada, Australia etc.

You've also got the Supreme Leader himself, who is elected not by the people but by an Assembly of Experts. The Supreme Leader basically has the final say in Iranian politics.

So as I said, there are democratic elements, but there are a lot of places where it just doesn't fit the bill as a full democracy (not to mention the role that the Revolutionary Guard play etc.)

I think the major failure with the war in Iraq is that we were off by a letter. Iran should have been our target. They're a country just too dangerous for the good of humanity.

Good of Humanity? I think not...

I must remind you that it's the coalitions presence in the middle east that is stirring up this hatred towards us. If anything were for the good of humanity, we would have never set foot in Iraq. Afghanistan literally asked for our help, so yes, we have every right to be in Afghanistan assisting in the removal of radical groups... but not Iraq, and certainly not Iran... unless it is your goal to repeat histories mistakes, then by all means, proceed.

Originally posted by johnsky
Good of Humanity? I think not...

I must remind you that it's the coalitions presence in the middle east that is stirring up this hatred towards us. If anything were for the good of humanity, we would have never set foot in Iraq. Afghanistan literally asked for our help, so yes, we have every right to be in Afghanistan assisting in the removal of radical groups... but not Iraq, and certainly not Iran... unless it is your goal to repeat histories mistakes, then by all means, proceed.

Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not, but Iran is posing as a threat more and more each day. We will argue more and more whether or not to attack them until they strike us first.

' Iran is posing as a threat more and more each day.' ?

Threat to you, personally, do you mean? Isn't that what all this 'war-hawk' talk is about .... the fear of comfortable, soft in the middle little Westerners that in some way, Iran might 'hurt' them and their precious little lives ?

And what is all the posturing and holier-than-thou pronouncements about? Do we have heads of state here in the forums? Or maybe you're in the military and will actually be putting your own lives on the line in your proposed 'attacks' on an independent nation at the same time you'll be placing other's lives --- Iranian lives -- at risk ?

Doesn't appear to matter one iota to the wannabe-war-hawks that the affairs of Iran and Iranians are just that ..... their affairs: their business .... THEIR country !

How hilarious. Individuals who in all probability are incompetent/ineffective in their own lives and affairs .... presuming to decide if and when an entire country of people, many of whom would ECLIPSE you in any field you care to mention ... should be 'attacked'.

Too many movies, dears. Too much mindless made-for-halfwits tv. Too much fantasising, there alone, in your room, hunched over your keyboard, pretending to be Churchill.

Is your room clean? Are your toenails clean? When was the last time you brushed your teeth? Are you working, or letting others work for you?

Are you a perfect neighbour? Are you involved in 'good works' within your OWN community? Have you set realistic goals, achievable goals, re: your OWN life? Sure about that? What did you do for anyone beside yourself today?

THESE are the issues about which you need concern yourselves.

Presuming to decide if and when some OTHER person should don a uniform and go off to kill Iranians to safeguard your own petty interests is despicable.

And what a laugh --- all this pompous rant about 'how dare Iranians protest outside a belated birthday party for the Queen !

Sour grapes, because those same Iranians taught Britain several public lessons in how to behave, not that long ago ?

Or pretensions of 'Empire' surfacing via anonymous posts in a forum ?

You want Iran to be 'attacked' so they can't hit you first?

Well put your life where your mouth is --- and go and pre-emptively attack Iran yourSELF !

Go on. Less talk, more action, from the wannbe-war-makers. You wouldn't make it two feet past your front door.

And again, put the boot on the other foot. If protests outside an embassy upset you, try to imagine how upset you'd be if nondescript little Iranians were presuming to decide when Britain should be 'attacked'.

Britain deserves far better than the representation it's received in this thread.