Navigation

Primary Navigation

Secondary Navigation

Talking Politics

Back to Talking Politics home

Search

UK vs Iran: What next?

Mon Jul 06 11:39AM

Iran and Britain are engaged in a grim, bitter game of diplomatic who-blinks-first.

By Alex Stevenson

The powers-that-be in Iran are steadily cranking up tensions as they seek to establish an external enemy.

First came public comments by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, that the British government was deliberately acting to foment unrest in the wake of last month's disputed election. Then we had the tit-for-tat expulsions of embassy staff, a standard practice with a common currency in international relations. It's the diplomatic equivalent of stamping your feet - Britain used it against Russia following Moscow's refusal to extradite Alexander Litvinenko.

There was a big raising of the stakes with the news that nine British embassy staff had been arrested. Officials in government did not know where they were being held. All but two were subsequently detained, but last Friday we learned from the Guardian Council these may face trial for their claims.

Britain had a quick response: behind the scenes, diplomats have been working to secure agreement across the EU at united action. Anyone who knows the EU - witness their disjointed response to Russia's military intervention into Georgia last year - will be aware of how elusive such unity can be. But Britain somehow persuaded the entire EU to summon their Iranian ambassadors.

This is a major victory. But for Britain it is only a battle in a much larger (diplomatic) war. Foreign Office officials are privately determined to stand up to Iran, despite realising Tehran has little motivation to budge. They are aware the harder Britain's response becomes the easier it will be for Iran's hardliners to paint the picture of an external aggressor, prepared to meddle in Iran's internal affairs.

But they also know Britain's credibility remains at risk. No country can reasonably be expected to stomach the insults endured in recent months without acting.
So we have the prospect of several months of slowly raising tensions, with matters forced quicker to confrontation in the event of Iranian intransigence over the captive diplomats. A slow escalation is the reasoned, if somewhat remorseless, response.

From summoning ambassadors the next steps are visa bans; the withdrawal of ambassadors; and then, inevitably, sanctions at the UN. Blink and you won't miss what is bound to a long, drawn-out struggle.

Comments211 - 214 of 214

First
Previous
19
20
21
22
Next
Last

At least the Iranian President got more votes than our presbyterian prat,
Brown , give or take some dodgy counting
As for millipede,we know why he got that job schhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
As for 221 "nuke em" ,probably works for the BBC or Fox News

From b.connaughton236 on Wed Jul 08 10:47PM
Report abuse
I do love to read these comments, but have never before made on myself. My highlights are the sort of comments which read 'leave 'em alone - its nothing to do with us!'...classic, just classic. These sort of people are the first to pipe up with their 'wisdom' when things go wrong. Ten yeas from now, when Iran has a fully developed nuclear asenal, has declared openly against the west in the form of a Jihad, has moved aggresively against other more progressive middle eastern states, has cut of oil revenues, and is holding the west to ransom with threatened nuclear aggression, these very same commentators will be saying 'why has this useless government allowed it to come to this? We saw back in 2009 that Iran was becoming ever bolder internationally and did nothing'.
For my part I cannot understand the concept of thinking that it is fine for me to enjoy the protection, freedom and rights associated wit the basic dignity of the human condition, but that these rights do not have to be ensured for all. It is HUMAN rights is it not (as averse to ENGLISH rights. Of course this is the cause of much frustration to me, given that so many of the west's 'interventions' are in truth for anything but human rights. If one of our commentators were to see their neighbour beating the hell out of their wife through the ever so respectable net curtains, I assume that they would not call the police - it being none of their business after all? Or if not, please explain exactly where and when something begins and ends as 'our business' because for me, an oppressed person in Iran, fearing for their life, is as important as seing a neighbour being beaten.

From janmolbyspassing on Thu Jul 09 05:24AM
Report abuse
i think that if the goverment want to invade iran then let them do it but at the end of the day there gonna send the army because not one person in the house of parliment or the goverment would even think of grabbing a weopon and some body armour and go out them selves especially when they know that our @#$% out it afghanistan have got the correct kit to do that job so how the hell are we gonna have it for iran

From robspencer5627 on Thu Jul 09 07:32AM
Report abuse
Iran politics are best left to the Iranian electorate. Internal pressure will in time bring about change. Change cannot be imposed as by so doing we bring upon ourselves the wrath of those that do not want that change, and we know where that has lead both in Iraq and soon enough in Afghanistan. Milliband does look and sound ridiculous when he 'talks the talk, but cannot walk the walk'

From davidknhead on Thu Jul 09 12:25PM
Report abuse