|
|
HOME |
|
Waxbarasho |
|
MAQAALLO |
|
ISLAM |
|
KEYDKA WARARKII |
|
NALASOO XIRIIR |
| |
| |
|
|
|
 AUDIO LINKS |
|
|
| SOMALI LINKS |
|
|
| BOGAG ISLAAMI AH |
|
|
|
"The U.K.-Iran Crisis: The West Confronts a Rising Iran"
Mon.Apr.02,2007.
The latest crisis between Iran and the United Kingdom, which started when British sailors boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship suspected of being involved in car smuggling in the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway, shows no sign of abating. Iranian naval forces seized British sailors and marines, numbering 15, as they were conducting operations on the Indian ship; the Iranians claimed that the British sailors were in Iranian territorial waters, an assertion refuted by the British. The dispute sparked anti-British protests in Iran, raised Middle East tensions, which were already high over concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and sent shockwaves through the oil market. Iran is now planning to put the British military personnel on trial and has declared that legal proceedings against them have already commenced (although there is some confusion on this account).
Background to the Controversy
Shatt al-Arab is a 193-kilometer (120 miles) stretch of salt marsh at the head of the Persian Gulf that forms the boundary between Iran and Iraq. Iraq had ceded control over parts of the waterway to Iran in 1975, which it renounced in 1980 and declared Shatt al-Arab as part of Iraqi territory, leading to the eight year war between the two neighbors.
Since Iran and Iraq have never signed any agreement fixing the boundary at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the British statements of great certainty about their operations may be exaggerated. Yet the same logic dictates that the Iranian evidence showing the alleged British incursions with great precision is also problematic. The British Royal Navy is part of the coalition that is charged with the protection of Iraqi offshore oil infrastructure and the security of merchant vessels, as well as maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of Iraqi territorial waters under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1723.
The latest incident harks back to a similar incident in 2004 when Iran held eight British sailors captive for three days who were subjected to mock executions as well as paraded blindfolded and forced to apologize on television before their release. In 2004, Iran's president was Mohammed Khatami, considered a moderate and a pragmatist. With the current political dispensation in Tehran being led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the situation appears all the more ominous.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (I.R.G.C.), which is suspected of having conducted the operation against the British naval forces this time, has emerged as a central part of the Iranian regime in recent years under the direct control of Ayatollah Khamenei and is now widely considered to be Iran's main instrument in projecting power and influence across the Islamic world.
Britain swiftly reacted by making public previously secret navigational coordinates that seem to certify that the British vessel was 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when it was apprehended. The initial longitude and latitude coordinates that the Iranian authorities provided supported the British contention that its naval personnel were indeed in Iraqi waters. When the Iranians were apprised of this, however, they provided a new set of coordinates that put the British team in Iranian waters.
The captain of the Indian ship that was being detained by the British military has also provided a statement that his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British forces. The Iraqi government has also supported the British position that the British sailors were in Iraqi waters and has called for their release.
Iran, on its part, is now claiming that the British military personnel entered its territorial waters six times before they were arrested and has suggested that it also has videotapes and documents to support its claims.
Britain, meanwhile, has gone ahead and frozen all bilateral business with Iran after Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that Britain's campaign to free hostages would move into a "different phase" if they were not released soon. The cessation of official business with Iran, however, is more symbolic than substantive as the British direct official bilateral ties with Iran were extremely limited to begin with. Iran has so far responded by displaying some British prisoners on state television, by making public several letters supposedly written by the sole female sailor to her family back in the United Kingdom in which she expressed remorse for having strayed into Iranian waters, and by broadcasting footage of a British marine seeming to apologize for straying into Iranian territory.
International Reaction
Meanwhile, global cracks have been visible as the U.N. Security Council was only able to express its grave concern over the incident and did not oblige Britain with the tough language that it had sought. Russia did not support the wording that implied that the British had been seized in Iraqi waters while serving under a United Nations mandate. Other members of the Security Council -- such as China, Congo, Indonesia, Qatar, and South Africa -- were also reluctant to blame Iran.
Therefore, the result was a non-binding statement calling for an early resolution of the crisis. Yet even this infuriated the Iranians who contended that Britain's decision to internationalize the crisis would only delay its resolution and decided to postpone the release of the female sailor that was promised a day before.
The European Union, on the other hand, has provided stronger backing to Britain than expected by expressing unconditional support for the United Kingdom's position. The significance of this support in concrete terms, however, remains an open question. After keeping quiet for a few days, presumably not to add fuel to the fire, U.S. President George W. Bush finally came out strongly in support of the United Kingdom and demanded the immediate release of the sailors.
Tensions Increase
The timing of Iran's act, on the eve of a Security Council resolution against its nuclear program, suggests that it may have been an attempt to distract the international community. Some have suggested that Iran's strategic objective may be to isolate the United States in the region by forcing the British to get out of Iraq.
There is some speculation that the British sailors may have been seized as bargaining chips to press for the release of Iranians held by U.S. forces in Iraq. Earlier this year, the U.S. military had arrested six officers, allegedly of the I.R.G.C., in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil, five of whom are still detained. Iran also suspects that one of its senior intelligence officers has defected to the United States. Washington and London have made it very clear that such an exchange remains out of the question as the Iranian forces that were inside Iraq were breaching the U.N. mandate and undermining the democratically elected government of Iraq. Britain, so far, has also refused to admit, as suggested by Iran, that its naval forces had strayed into Iranian waters by accident.
Tensions, however, are rising on all sides. The British government is coming under attack for what is being perceived as its weak response. The Times of London reflected a growing view in the country when it editorialized condemning "the pusillanimous timidity of British officials and politicians, who have failed disgracefully to confront Iran with the ultimatum this flagrant aggression demands." There is a growing revulsion and disgust at the way the British sailors are being seen to be exploited by the Iranian regime for propaganda purposes.
At its core, this is a political, not a territorial, dispute and the 15 British military personnel are just pawns in a much bigger strategic game between Iran and the West over the future of the Middle East. This standoff comes just days after the U.N. Security Council had unanimously voted to impose tougher sanctions against Iran because of its defiance on the nuclear issue and after U.S. warships were deployed in the Persian Gulf for their biggest naval exercises there since the invasion of Iraq four years ago.
As Iran has become more confrontational in recent months, there is growing nervousness among the Gulf States, and speculation has increased about a potential war between the United States and Iran. The U.S. naval exercises are as much about sending a message to Iran that despite Iraq and Afghanistan Washington is fully capable of responding to other threats, as it is about reassuring its nervous allies in the region.
Yet Iran is also upping the ante. The Iranian navy is conducting its own war games and is reportedly using "rocket-launching ships, heavy warships, and logistic ships, as well as surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles" along with electronic warfare and simulations of "attacking surface and sub-surface targets" in the northern and middle Gulf. There is growing concern about the beefing up of naval forces by the Iranians in the Gulf. There was an incident a few weeks back when the Saudis discovered an Iranian submarine near the coastal city of Jubail. The latest capture of British sailors only underscores the rising tensions between Iran and the West.
While the British government has come under attack domestically for not being tough enough against Iranian intransigence, there is a danger that the escalation ladder that it is trying to climb by trying to ratchet up pressure might backfire if Iranians decide to dig in their heels. It is clear that the West can only escalate it up to a point, since the West holds very few cards that it can play against Iran in the present strategic context.
For Tehran, it is an ideal time to take on the West as the United States and the United Kingdom seem bogged down in Iraq with the U.S. public losing interest in costly military interventions. Iran also realizes that it enjoys great leverage in the political and security environment in Iraq and has the capability to intensify its sabotage activities there. The global situation is also working in Iran's favor. The credibility of the United States and the United Kingdom is at an all time low in the comity of states as a result of the Iraq crisis. Few states will be willing to place their bets on their pronouncements even if they are accompanied by evidence.
Meanwhile, Iran's standing in the Islamic world seems to be at an all time high, especially after the perceived victory of Hezbollah over the more powerful Israeli military. Iran is today exerting power and influence in the strategic vacuum created by the overthrow of its foes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite suggestions in some quarters that a military confrontation is inevitable, even some neo-conservatives now concede that military options against Iran are unworkable and might even be counter-productive.
For some, Iran's latest act is reminiscent of Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers last year and one of the lessons of the Lebanon war was that Iran, if only through proxies, was capable of causing serious damage. A military attack might also serve to increase domestic nationalistic sentiment and unifying diverse forces in Iran against the United States, thereby strengthening the hand of Ahmadinejad who has been under some pressure domestically for poor economic performance. A military action might serve to postpone, rather than eradicate, Iran's perceived nuclear ambitions.
Yet the limits of diplomacy are also clear for all to see as so far it has failed on producing any significant change in Iran's behavior. The Security Council has so far passed several resolutions against Iran's nuclear program and has tightened sanctions against the regime, garnering support not only from the West but also from states seen as sympathetic to Iran, yet the Iranian work on uranium enrichment has continued unabated. Furthermore, the more Iran is threatened by the outside world, the more its stature in the Islamic world grows as a "crusader" against "Western imperialism."
Conclusion
The present crisis between the United Kingdom and Iran may finish soon once the Iranians have squeezed whatever propaganda benefit they can from the squabble. Diplomatic contacts between the two sides are already underway and may yield some result once a face-saving formula is found for both sides.
Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that tensions between Iran and the West will cease anytime soon. The present crisis is just one of the manifestations of the changing balance of power in the Middle East wherein Iran is emerging as the main power in the region. Its leaders know this and they are exploiting the present strategic environment to their advantage.
For the West, the unfortunate reality is, be it diplomacy, bilateral or multilateral, or the threat of force, there are no good options left. While some creative thinking may help, Western policy toward Iran in the coming days and weeks will be about choosing an option that minimizes damage as much as possible.
Report Drafted By:
Dr. Harsh V. Pant
Source Fr.PINR.
|
|
|
|
| MAQAALLO | |