Tread lightly with Iran, Tony Blair

By Francesca Lo Basso
Collegian Editor
April 4, 2007

If you see an angry bear, should you poke it with a stick and call it fat? I would imagine common sense would tell you no, but if you look at the examples being set by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush, you might think otherwise.

The current climate between Iran and Britain is strained, and it seems to only be getting worse. According to BBCNews.com, the basic timeline of events follows as such:

On March 23, 15 Royal Navy sailors and marines from the HMS Cornwall were seized by Iranian soldiers for trespassing on Iranian waters. The British navy personnel were doing a routine search of Iranian ships in what they said were Iraqi waters. The siege took place in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, a space that has long been a subject of territorial dispute between Iran and Iraq.

Blair continues to insist that the soldiers were 1.7 nautical miles in Iraqi waters, whereas Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims they were 0.5 kilometers in Iranian territory.

On March 24, a news agency in Iran’s capitol city, Tehran, declared the captives admitted to sailing in Iranian waters. Meanwhile, Britain’s foreign secretary met with the Iranian ambassador in London to demand the group’s immediate release. Blair remarked that the event was “serious” and called for a swift end to the “unjustified and wrong” detention of the soldiers.

Several days later, an Iranian news station broadcast an interview with Faye Turney, the only woman captive, in which she said she and her colleagues had “obviously” trespassed on Iranian waters. The Iranian foreign minister said Turney would be released in two days. Blair told Parliament that it was time to “ratchet up” pressure on Iran.

Britain persists in demanding the immediate release of its soldiers, and issued a statement in which it remarked it “deplored” Iran’s actions. As a result, Iran suspended any actions to release Turney because of the United Kingdom’s “incorrect attitude.”

Just this past weekend Bush condemned Iran’s actions, and ruled out a possible exchange of the British personnel for five Iranians American forces had seized in Iraq. Iran released a statement in which it commented that legal action was being taken against the 15 for “entering Iranian waters.” Ahmadinejad also called Britain “arrogant” for failing to apologize to Iran.

On Sunday, 200 Iranian students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British embassy in Tehran while the Iranian foreign minister said his country was waiting for a “change in attitude” from the United Kingdom and a “moderate approach” to its requests, according to the Associated Press.

Throughout the course of this crisis, Britain has persisted in its stubborn resolve that its personnel did not trespass and that it wants their immediate release, but how concerned can it be about its people’s welfare if its resolve is only angering Iran more? We all know this is more than a game of chicken – can anyone say assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand or the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Iran has been feeling increasingly threatened by U.S. and U.K. military forces since the United Nations passed a resolution intensifying sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program earlier this month.

Iran also continues to feel under siege as American troops have now essentially surrounded it – they have forces stationed in almost every country bordering Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan. The sentiment of isolation was compounded when Americans detained five Iranians in Iraq. Iran says they are diplomats, but America claims they are members of the Revolutionary Guards with a mission to support Iraqi insurgents. There has been no diplomatic access to them, no charges brought against them and no information about their condition or location. Also, a former Iranian deputy defense minister disappeared in Turkey four months ago and Iran claims he was abducted by the United States or Israel.

It is in this climate that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently made the disconcerting statement that Iran has so far acted legally to defend its right to pursue a nuclear program, but because the international community has responded with “illegal acts,” Iran itself would now feel justified in acting illegally. He even said that Iran would rely on any means necessary to defend itself.

So the threat of nuclear war is looming, and Bush and Blair keep prodding the bear with a stick. BBC News correspondent Matt Frei, who has been living in Iran for five years, recently released a statement in which he said: “I’m not saying [Ahmadinejad] has been grossly misunderstood. I am saying that Iran is far less monolithic than many in Washington like to think. The trick is to sweat out the differences.”

No side wants a war – or another one at least – but, yet, that is what all sides are inching towards. Frei continues with, “What’s more, the rhetoric coming from the U.S. is music to Tehran’s ears. Every time there’s a tiff the price of oil inches above $65 a barrel, making the Iranian government a little bit richer still.”

People’s lives are hanging in the balance and yet Iran, the United States and the United Kingdom all seem to be concerned with image instead of empathy. That state of the world – its poverty, malnutrition and prejudice – have long since bothered me, but add to the mix hatred and an international testosterone fest and you have the ingredients for one hell of a world war.

lobassof1@lasalle.edu