Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 198)
WEDNESDAY 4 JULY 2007
LORD ARCHER
OF SANDWELL
QC
Q180 Mr. Moss: May I turn to relationships
between Iran and the inner Middle East—Israel, Lebanon and
that sort of area? Since the President came to power in 2005,
it seems obvious that the anti-Israel component has been elevated,
but how deeply does anti-Zionism run within Iranian society? Would
it be any better if there were a regime change, for example?
Lord Archer: I think that the
President is the first senior member of the Administration who
has actually said out loud, "We want to wipe Israel off the
face of the earth." There may be some anti-Zionism; there
is certainly anti-Zionism within the regime because the Jewish
group—since it was made up of all Jews—must have been
targeted for that reason. The people were in prison certainly
a few months ago and had been there for some time. I do not know
whether the group has now been released.
We know that the regime is strongly supporting
and supplying weaponry to Hezbollah, to Hamas and to the group
within Palestine, the name of which escapes me for the moment.
We know that, before he became President, he had established a
group—again, the name of which escapes me—the purpose
of which was to eliminate Israel.
Q181 Mr. Moss: If there were a regime
change, do you believe that the attitude of the new Iran towards
Israel would be markedly different?
Lord Archer: I cannot recollect
much evidence of strong anti-Zionism under the Shah, and I certainly
cannot recollect any external action against Israel under the
Shah.
Q182 Mr. Moss: I mean if there were
regime change from the present situation.
Lord Archer: Oh, I am sorry. You
mean since the President came to power.
Q183 Mr. Moss: Yes. If there were
a regime change now with the new people coming in whom you are
talking about, do you think that there would be a marked difference
in approach towards Israel?
Lord Archer: Whether there has
been an escalation in the support given to Hezbollah, Hamas and
the others is difficult to assess. Obviously, they do not send
us specific reports of what they are doing, but we know that they
have been much more strident in their pronouncements than previously.
Q184 Mr. Moss: What evidence do you
have of Iranian involvement and influence in the Lebanon, particularly
Hezbollah?
Lord Archer: We know that they
supported Hezbollah strongly. In fact, we have the Prime Minister's
authority for that. He dealt with it at some length at the Lord
Mayor's banquet last year.
Chairman: The former Prime Minister.
Lord Archer: I will get used to
that. It is like a new year, is it not?
We know that that has been happening.
Q185 Mr. Moss: Would you go as far
as to say that Iran pulls Hezbollah's strings, for example—that
it is in control of what goes on there?
Lord Archer: Again, it is difficult
to say. I think that we could put it the other way round. They
could probably pull the blanket from under Hezbollah, if they
so chose, because Hezbollah seems to rest pretty heavily on their
resources. How far they are pulling the strings, I do not know.
At the very least, they have a common purpose, which is to eliminate
Israel.
Q186 Mr. Moss: How active do you
believe Iran has been in the Palestinian territory? For example,
do you go along with the idea that the Iranians were instrumental
in the recent activities of Hamas in Gaza?
Lord Archer: Certainly a lot of
people believe that they were. What will be the effect now that
Hamas has, as it were, joined the club, I am not sure. If you
want to destroy Israel, there is everything to be said for supporting
particular groups dedicated to destroying Israel. Once they have
joined up, there is not much point in continuing to supporting
them. But, whether or not that is the case, I certainly have no
evidence either way.
Q187 Mr. Moss: Do you have any evidence
of a very strong economic and financial commitment by Iran to
both Hezbollah and Hamas? If that were true, would that be one
of the reasons why there are economic problems back in Iran?
Lord Archer: Almost certainly,
I think. We have a very rich oil country. If the oil had been
wisely used, the standard of living would have been much higher.
First of all, a great deal of the income was devoted to weaponry,
and secondly, as you say, a great deal has been poured into international
terrorism. We are not talking only about Hezbollah and Hamas.
For example, only a few days ago there were extradition proceedings
against former President Rafsanjani and others in relation to
the bombing in Buenos Aires of the Jewish centre which cost so
many lives in 1994. This has been going on for a very long time
and is not confined to Israel.
Q188 Mr. Hamilton: Does Iran hate
Israel or does Iran hate the Jews? Is it the Iranian state we
are talking about or the Iranian people? The Shah had a very close
alliance with Israel. Was that supported by the Iranian people?
Is it the state of Israel that they are targeting or the Jewish
people?
Lord Archer: It is certainly the
state, because as we know the whole thing has stepped up in recent
years. We know about the imprisonment of the group of people who
could only have been targeted because they were Jews. That is
certainly the state. It is part of the ideology because this is
an extremist form of Islam, part of which wants to export Islam
to the rest of the world and standing in the way is what it regards
as an anti-Islamist outpost.
Whether it is true of the Iranian people is
very hard to assess. One does not see it in ordinary newspapers
every day of the week. It is not like Germany was in the 1930s.
I have never come across a demonstration either way, and certainly
not an anti-Semitic demonstration in Iran. I suspect that it is
being whipped up by the Government and, to put it at its lowest,
there would not be great resistance from the people if there was
a Government who said, "We now want an accommodation with
Israel."
Q189 Andrew Mackinlay: Lord Archer,
picking up on what Malcolm Moss was asking, what is the position
on Israel of the Iranian exiles with whom you have dealings?
Lord Archer: I have never heard
an anti-Israeli word from them. I ought to have explained earlier.
I wrote the letter initially to the Committee at the request of
the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom, the Chairman
of which is my noble Friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale. This
note came from him and he is quite right that the NCRI is pledged
to the peace process. It is true that I have never heard any suggestion
that any part of the NCRI is anti-Israeli. It is not something
that is greatly discussed, except in the context of the hostility
of the present regime to Israel.
Q190 Ms Stuart: Given that we are
talking about a country of which people have various impressions,
did you see or listen to the programme that the BBC did on modern
Iran? It sent out a CD to every MP. It was on the modern world
and what life is like. It gave the impression essentially that
the Government are out of tune with their people; the people are
far more moderate. Do you think that is just PR or is that really
how modern Iran is? I am getting terribly confused here.
Lord Archer: I have forgotten
where the information came from.
Q191 Ms Stuart: The BBC ran a series
of programmes on modern Iran called "Understanding Iran".
Lord Archer: I am not sure where
they got the information from.
Q192 Ms Stuart: They talked to Iranians.
Lord Archer: I have come across
colleagues in the House who have said, "Well I have visited
Iran and I did not see anyone being tortured." We have to
point out that torture does not normally take place in the market
square. It would be difficult to gather any feeling about this.
I would be surprised if there is any support for the Government
line on this among the general public.
Q193 Sir John Stanley: Lord Archer,
in your evidence you said that there was a broad expectation that,
by the end of this decade, Iran would become a nuclear weapon
state.
Lord Archer: Yes.
Q194 Sir John Stanley: Do you think
that there is any policy option open to the British Government
and the international community to prevent that from happening?
Lord Archer: One opportunity obviously
is article 41 sanctions. It is only a personal opinion, but I
cannot believe that article 41 sanctions, however rigidly applied,
would actually bring down the Iranian regime, or that it will
change its direction. What sanctions might do, however, is to
exacerbate general unrest among the public. So it is possible.
I would advocate article 41 sanctions, but without any belief
that they would solve the problem.
As I say, there are only two other possibilities.
One is to negotiate with the Iranians, hoping that we can persuade
them to become much more peaceful and to become good citizens
of the international community. But that is not their ideology.
That is not why they participated in the revolution in the first
place. I think it is virtually impossible that we could change
their direction.
The third possibility is invasion, but I cannot
believe that anyone regards that as a desirable way forward. The
only way would be regime change, based on the unrest in Iran and
the fact that, if there were a direction towards revolution, it
would be strongly supported. That is by far our best hope.
Q195 Sir John Stanley: So you are
giving us the clear view that you do not believe that there is
any external, viable option to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear
weapon state. You put your hope in the possibility of some form
of popular uprising, a" la eastern Europe after the collapse
of the Soviet empire. Do you believe that the structure of the
Iranian state, its security apparatus and so on, makes likely
the internal combustion, of a democratic or semi-democratic nature,
that you postulated earlier? Do you think that that is likely
to happen?
Lord Archer: We know that it has
not contained the unrest at the moment. There have been 500 demonstrations
in one month. There have been constant demonstrations, including
in the universities and so forth—and demonstrations by motorists.
It does not seem that any repressive machinery can keep it down
for ever. But what it does need, I think, is co-ordination and
direction. That, I think, is where the hope lies.
Sir John Stanley: Thank you.
Q196 Chairman: Your paper rules out
the military attack by non-Muslim foreign soldiers, but it is
silent on the question of air strikes. Do you have a view about
what might happen if there were to be air strikes on Iran?
Lord Archer: I personally would
be against it. First, air strikes target the wrong people; the
people who would be killed and maimed and whose livelihoods would
be destroyed would not be the members of the regime. Secondly,
it would still be an article 42 attack; unless it was sanctioned
by the Security Council, it would be unlawful, and we saw what
can happen when it was used before.
Q197 Chairman: So you are saying
that in order to stop Iran's nuclear programme—I am following
Sir John's question—we somehow or other have to wait for
a revolution from the streets to change the nature of the regime?
Lord Archer: Not to wait, if I
may say so, but to encourage. At the moment, we have the Council
of Resistance waiting to intervene. We are doing the very best
we can to undermine it. As I said, I have been careful about the
sub judice rule, but if it were the case that they were not labelled
as terrorists in the west—if it appeared that the rest of
the world supported the Council of Resistance—that would
make life much easier for them. I think that it would shorten
the odds substantially.
Q198 Chairman: Lord Archer, thank
you for coming here today. We appreciate your evidence, and we
are grateful for your written submission. If you have anything
else that you want to send us in writing, will be happy to see
it.
Lord Archer: That is most kind.
Thank you very much.
Chairman: We are now ending the public
evidence session. We have a private meeting next, so I ask members
of the public to leave quietly.
| 
