Iran and Ban Ki-moon's intriguing independence
Ban Ki-moon has been under increasing pressure from the United States and Israel not to visit Iran at the end of this month.
The UN Secretary General traditionally attends the 16th Annual meeting of the Non-aligned Movement. This is a grouping of 120 states extending from Argentina to Zambia and includes countries as diverse as Egypt and India. It is Tehran’s turn to host the meeting this year. Mr Ban fully intends to attend.
The US – with support from the UK and other ‘Northern’ states – has been diplomatically gunning for Iran for years.
Of late Washington has stepped up both the rhetoric and the pressure.
The back chatter of threat from Israel, with escalating talk of a bomb attack against Iran’s nuclear installations, has given a nasty edge to it all.
Both Washington and Tel-Aviv have explicitly asked Mr Ban not to go. He has steadfastly resisted their calls.
When I met him in London, at the end of last month, I sensed in talking to him that the UN Secretary General, safely into his second term, has developed a more confident sense of independence.
This is not the first time in recent months that the US has tried to interfere with the UN’s activity in international diplomacy.
Britain joined the Americans in preventing the then UN special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan from including Iran on an emergency meeting on Syria. A key regional player was thus excluded from vital negotiations.
Many are wondering at the hypocrisy that seems to mark the isolation of Iran in such tense and critical times.
Saudi Arabia, whose involvement in the war in Syria has been widely reported, is suffering no isolation for its activities.
Far from it, despite the Saudi funded Wahhabi elements who are active from Syria to Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Kingdom remains deeply entwined with US and European defence interests.
Indeed, in every foreign field of conflict in which UK forces are present, there remains considerable evidence of Saudi involvement and influence in the Sunni forces ranged against them.
Iran’s purchase on the Assad regime is at least as influential as the Saudi engagement with the forces ranged against it. Iran’s influence in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq renders Tehran a quadrant of enormous regional influence.
Yet the response of the US and its allies is to dig its head ever deeper into the sand, in the hope that in some way the Islamic revolution will go away.
History tells us that in times of regional and international tension, engagement with every possible source of influence is essential if peace is ever to prevail.
Should we despair of, or praise, Ban Ki-Moon’s courageous independence in this moment of burgeoning tension?
Follow @jonsnowC4 on Twitter.