Why the UK does not wish to give its bases to the US

Recently, the UK has announced its opposition to providing its military bases in the region to the US in order to attack Iran. What is the reason for this explicit approach by London with regard to a possible attack against Iran for its nuclear activities?

Basically, there is no fundamental difference between the US, Israel, the UK, and the EU on the need to put pressure on Iran. It means that they concur on taking any action to limit or even stop Iran's nuclear activities. However, today, the issue is that there are serious differences between the positions of UK politicians and officials on one hand and those of neo-cons in the US and Israeli officials on the other on the way this pressure should be applied. The British government believes that sanctions and economic and political blockades have been effective and can force Iran to accept the outcome of negotiations while American neo-cons and the Israeli government believe that one should ultimately resort to military means against Iran or a comprehensive attack or bombardment of Iran's nuclear centers.

But, Britain, particularly with its experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and also considering the present conditions of this country, does not believe that a military attack against Iran is a proper measure. In London's point of view, the economic and international conditions are not prepared for such a measure. 

On the other hand, the conclusions made by the Obama administration and the government of David Cameron are as follows; a possible military attack against Iran is not, ultimately, to the benefit of the West; the Islamic Republic of Iran and its present government will, in the long run, benefit from this war; and such a military attack will not have strategic impacts on Iran's nuclear activities, and it might cause the people of Iran to be more united in maintaining the Islamic Republic. With this analysis, the government of Britain is, these days, against a military attack against Iran. London believes that economic and political sanctions against Iran have been effective and, in the long run, will be more effective than a military attack. 

Can it be concluded from this position that London not only will not allow its bases to be used by Washington, but also is totally against any kind of military option against Tehran?

Since the George W. Bush administration in the US and the Tony Blair government in Britain, no government has, until now, openly declared that it is 100% against any military measure against Iran, and even if such an intention exists, they will never announce it.

It is said in political science discussions that politics is the art of possibilities; hence, a military option is one of these possibilities, but it seems impossible that, at the present time, they would think seriously about it.

It should be mentioned that there are three important events ahead of us, which will determine the West's approach with regard to Iran's nuclear program.

1. The US presidential election which will be held within the next few days.

2. Israel's national election which will be held in January.

3. Iran's presidential election which will be held in June.

Therefore, these three elections which will be held within the next 8 months, will determine the fate of Iran's nuclear issue and the general texture of the impacting factions within the next few years and the disputing or negotiating parties in this issue.

During the war in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, the UK always stayed shoulder-to-shoulder militarily with the US. Why are we witnessing such a difference with respect to Iran?

British public opinion is against the involvement of this country in another war and the pressure from the public opinion has resulted in the withdrawal of almost all British forces from Iraq. The same pressure will be responsible for the withdrawal of British forces from Afghanistan. Therefore, chances seem very remote for Britain to tolerate another war. The other issue reflected in American and British media is that the UK, US and EU have paid a price and received casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq; however, the end result is that the governments running these countries today are to a great extent under the influence of Iran. In other words, Iran has been the ultimate winner of these conflicts, particularly the one in Iraq.

Consequently, when a war broke out in Iran’s neighborhood and Iran did not pay any price for it, it has been the winner. If such a war occurs in Iran, it will definitely make better use of it and will reach its political objectives. Therefore, it seems that not many countries in the international community or even within NATO will support the decision to attack Iran.

Tehran-London relations have been frosty during the past year.  Can this move by the UK be considered as a green light to Tehran for diplomatic reconciliation?

Following the victory of the Islamic revolution, there have been a few cases of severance of relations between Tehran and London, the most important of which was on the eve of the war. At that time the British embassy in Tehran was closed. After a short time, at the beginning of 1980, Sweden became the country protecting British interests in Tehran.

Considering my studies on different official British documents, it should be said that this trend is repeating itself again, meaning that there has been a period of one-sided cutting off of relations with Iran by Britain, and, after some time, there has been no willingness to establish relations by London. But, following a period of covert and overt diplomatic disputes between the two parties, Britain shows its interest in the improvement of relations, and ultimately, after procrastination by Iran, these diplomatic relations are resumed. Therefore, I believe that this period of indifference is passing and, sooner or later, during the next few months and at the latest after Iran’s presidential election, and with a change in Iran’s government, there will be some developments in Iran- Britain relations. Of course, contrary to the past, it must be said that this time, Britain had considerable reasons for reducing its relations, which included the attack against Britain’s Embassy in Tehran. This attack, which was said to have been done by some “unofficial elements”, had no logical justification and was completely against Iran’s national interests. Later, Iran’s officials also expressed their regret in this regard.