Options limited in Iran stand-off

[TheMercenary]

Options limited in Iran stand-off
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC News website



The British government is preparing to turn private into public diplomacy in an effort to get the release of the 15 sailors and marines captured by the Iranians. But its options are somewhat limited if Iran does not respond .


The British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett returned to London early from a visit to Turkey after an inconclusive phone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

Mrs Beckett will make a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday.

And the Ministry of Defence is preparing to show evidence that the British sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters when they were taken.

However, if Britain creates a lot of sound and fury, Iran can respond. It is good at playing that game and the risk is that the Iranian government would simply exploit the incident for even longer.

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of rhetoric and riposte. He has shown a ready defiance of the UN Security Council over Iran's enrichment of uranium. He thrives on a confrontation.

According to Mark Bowden, in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."

The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode.

'Different phase'

There has been talk in Iran, denied by the foreign ministry, that Iran is looking for the release of five of its officials detained by the Americans in Iraq and accused of being secret agents.


The atmosphere is not conducive to compromise. It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial


Part of President Carter's problem was that he sounded weak and the American public did not like that, though he argued that his priority was the safety of the captives.

So Tony Blair might well ratchet up the language to sound tougher if this goes on. He has already said that the row will move to a "different phase" if there is no breakthrough.

So what options are open to him?

GPS data

Force is out. It is seen as counterproductive. Instead, Mr Blair could release the data, from GPS satellite locators and radar traces, which should show where the British party was when it was taken.

The British government insists that its personnel were inside Iraqi territorial waters at the time and not on the Iranian side as Iran claims. The ship the boarding party was inspecting is still said to be at the same location. Data might not convince the Iranians but it might convince the rest of the world.

The demarcation line is vague, so Iran might dispute any data. The line was supposed to have been laid down along the middle of the channel in a treaty in 1975 but this incident happened in the Gulf itself where the line peters out.

In any event, the treaty was broken when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran across the same waterway, known to the Arabs as the Shatt al-Arab and to the Iranians as the Arvandrud, the River Arvand.

Louder voices

Mr Blair could call on other countries to make stronger representations, on the grounds that the British were on the right side of the line and the right side of the law, acting under a UN resolution allowing for foreign forces to be in Iraq.

The EU has already made a statement. A Russian or Chinese comment might be more helpful but both countries are reluctant to take sides. He could turn to the UN itself.

The Iraqi government's request for the release of the detainees might also count as Iran has reasonably good relations with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.

Britain could expel Iranian diplomats and even break off relations. That, however, could be matched move for move and might leave the UK damagingly out of contacts with Iran over the larger issue of its nuclear activities.

Domestic pressure

Such measures might help satisfy domestic critics like The Times, whose editorial line is that the British government has been "pusillanimous".

It wants a deadline set for a release and unspecified sanctions applied thereafter by the UK and its allies, including possibly the Iraqi government.

But setting a deadline is unlikely to impress Iran. It is currently ignoring a UN deadline on enrichment.

An apology by Britain might get the men and the woman sailor, now named as Faye Turney, released. The last time this happened, in 2004, the British personnel did say sorry on Iranian TV and were freed.

To an extent this is out of Mr Blair's hands. The British personnel might indicate regret on their own initiative.

It is unlikely that the British government would do so.

Relations worse

The reason for this is that things have soured with Iran since 2004. A new government is in power there and for the last 18 months the UK and the US have accused Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guards who detained the British sailors, of helping Shia guerrillas with bomb technology.

The atmosphere therefore is not conducive to compromise.

It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial.

The best the British government can probably hope for is that in due course Iran will make its point and then make the release.

The Jimmy Carter scenario is one that London does not want to think about.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk