Iran certainly miscalculated when it decided to kidnap 15 British sailors from Iraqi waters. Diplomacy is not the ‘patriotic art of lying for one’s country,’ but is about nation-branding and public image. At a time when Iran is trying to prove to the international community that its nuclear and regional intentions are peaceful, it was particularly misguided.
However, the resolution of the crisis shows that engagement can produce results. Negotiation is not the same as appeasement – it has to be patient but robust, multilateral but critical. Despite the media frenzy during the crisis, focus groups that were held after the release show that the British public do not now have a more bellicose attitude toward Iran.
Margaret Beckett has passed the biggest test of her career as Foreign Secretary – and deserves a great deal of credit, along with the ambassador in Tehran, Geoffrey Adams. The veteran Downing Street diplomat Nigel Sheinwald’s telephone diplomacy with Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, also helped swiften the release of the 15, apparently being prompted to do so by Jon Snow after an interview on Channel 4 News. Larijani is emerging as a stronger and more moderating force in Tehran, and plays a far more crucial role in the nuclear programme and other security planning than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As Britain takes the chair of the UN Security Council, we should reflect on the careful path we have trodden in recent weeks – wisely resisting American offers to provide a military show of force. We will have to continue to resist the elephant trap that ‘the only thing worse than military action against Iran, is Iran building a bomb’. A fairer binary choice is one between choosing critical diplomacy or military action. A negotiated settlement is a win-win scenario: we get a better relationship with a regional power and proliferation reassurance, while Iran gets the recognition it craves and a better security environment.
Military action, however, is a lose-lose scenario: we face the prospect of knock-on effects in Iraq, and Iran pulling out of the nuclear proliferation treaty, as the people of Iran face civilian casualties and (assuming you discount a full invasion) an emboldened, hard-line regime. And there is still time: even if Iran’s nuclear programme were focused on weapons, and Iran got over myriad technical problems (which is unlikely), it would still be a year away from enough material for one bomb.
Britain must utilise all the multilateral and regional tools at its disposal. Pressure from Turkey, Iraq, and even Syria highlighted Iran’s isolation on the hostages issue. The little publicised nuclear deal with North Korea only worked with the help of China and other regional powers – and of course, the active involvement of the Americans.
Elahe Mohtasham is the first western academic granted access to talk to Iranian scientists and visit Iranian nuclear facilities. She argues that, unpalatable as some of Iran’s policies and actions may be, it is far from an imminent danger. The threat is not based on hard evidence of a weapons-driven programme, but by fear that Iran’s mastery of civilian technology would provide the means to rapidly develop a weapons capability in future. Iran must, of course, do more to allay that fear; but so should the US offer more to allay Iran’s genuine security concerns.
Foreign Office and IAEA officials are bleary-eyed and frustrated by Iran. Not just from recent events, but also from years of painstaking negotiations, which seem to have produced little: the number of centrifuges in Natanz has doubled in the last month, and Iran only meets its legal minimums at the IAEA. But there is still hope and time for a coup de theatre. Remember, we got nothing from the Iranians during the hostage crisis, no consular access; and then everything we demanded: the return of all 15 soldiers, with no apology from Britain. One can only hope that sense will prevail in other matters.