the UK-Iran relation: a history
Wall Street Journal - April 2, 2007
History Frames Iran Standoff
Resentment Runs Deep Over Past British Hand In Oil Trade, Governing
By MARC CHAMPION
The standoff over captured British sailors in Iran, which is entering
a second week with little sign of resolution, is being fueled in part
by more than a century of troubled history between the two countries.
As rhetoric escalated and small blasts shook the British embassy in
Tehran yesterday, analysts said Iran’s decision to hold 15 British
marines and sailors seized in disputed waters 10 days ago is a
message of defiance to the U.S., as well as to Britain and other
countries trying to limit Iran’s regional influence and nuclear program.
Concern that the crisis could escalate has driven world oil prices
higher. Tehran says the sailors entered Iranian waters illegally and
denies any ulterior motives.
But if Tehran is using Britain as a proxy for the U.S., analysts say,
the country Iran’s conservatives have called the “little Satan” is
also a target in its own right. At various times in the past two
centuries, Britain controlled Iran’s oil production and industry,
split control of the country with Russia and deposed or installed
Iranian leaders. As a result, Britain still faces a deep-rooted
reputation for deceit and hostility.
“The Iranian government suffers from a serious hysteria when it comes
to relations with the United Kingdom,” said Amir Cyrus Razzaghi,
president of ARA Enterprise, a consultancy that serves foreign
investors in Tehran. “Historical evidence from the past two centuries
has led to a wide belief that Britain is constantly conspiring
against Iran.”
British officials said yesterday they were exploring potential for
dialogue with the Iranians, after an exchange of diplomatic letters
that appeared to leave some room for compromise. But rhetoric on all
sides is escalating.
President Bush weighed in publicly for the first time on Saturday,
describing Iran’s behavior as “inexcusable.” Speaking at Camp David
in Maryland, where he was meeting the president of Brazil, Mr. Bush
said: “Iran must give back the hostages. They’re innocent.”
United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed “disgust” at
Iran’s televised broadcast of an apology by a second British captive
Friday. The European Union foreign ministers also issued a strong
statement Friday demanding the sailors’ return, although they stopped
short of threatening trade sanctions. The EU is Iran’s largest
trading partner.
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted the U.K. and
others for arrogance during a speech in southern Iran. “Instead of
apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world’s arrogant
powers issue statements and deliver speeches,” said Mr. Ahmadinejad,
according to IRNA, Iran’s official news agency. Iran has hinted that
it could put the sailors on trial. It has also complained that
British troops fired shots in the air outside the Iranian consulate
in Basra, Iraq.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s language chimes with a common Iranian stereotype of
British foreign policy as both arrogant and underhanded, analysts
say. As recently as 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad accused Britain of
complicity in terrorist bomb attacks that killed five people and
injured more than 100 in southern Iran, accusations that resonated in
parts of the country, despite strenuous British denials.
The British embassy in Tehran has had to abandon a building that
looks out over the compound wall, because organized protesters throw
rocks through the windows most Fridays. Yesterday, about 200
protesters threw rocks and firecrackers at the embassy, calling for
the ambassador’s expulsion.
British influence in Iran goes back centuries, much of it driven by
an effort to block Russian forces reaching Britain’s valuable
colonies in India. In 1907, Russia and Britain divided Iran into
three zones. Russia controlled the north, Britain the south, while
the center was a neutral buffer zone.
A British businessman, William D’Arcy, bought the rights to all of
Iran’s oil reserves in 1901. He struck oil in 1908, forming the Anglo-
Persian Oil Co., now BP PLC. Another British businessman, Reuters
news agency founder Baron Julius de Reuter, was given control of the
majority of Iran’s transport infrastructure and industry.
In 1925, Britain helped bring an ambitious military officer, Reza
Khan, to power, deposing the centuries-old Qajar dynasty. Renamed
Reza Pahlavi, the new shah later ended the Anglo-Persian Oil Co.’s
monopoly over Iran’s oil assets. When British and Soviet forces
invaded in 1941, he was sent into exile and replaced by his son
Mohammed, the last shah of Iran.
Even in the dying days of the British Empire, the U.K. played a role
in Iranian politics. In the early 1950s, Prime Minister Mohammed
Mossadeq again sought to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. Britain
teamed up with the U.S. and the shah in 1953 to oust Mr. Mossadeq in
a coup d’etat.
Trade and diplomatic relations have normalized since 1998, and
Britain has long since lost the ability to control events in Iran.
The next steps will be decided by current political calculations in
Tehran, analysts say.
“I see this as part of a process in which the whole national-security
apparatus in the country is being mobilized,” said Cyrus Kadivar, a
London-based director for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Kroll
Inc., the investigative and risk-management consultancy. He noted
strident recent rhetoric from Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei,
and large increases in military spending. “If it doesn’t resolve
itself in the next few days then we are in a very different stage.”
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 am
There are those who feel that even our fate today is being decided by Britain or the USA. There are many who believe they have no power to make a difference. We believe there is hope. We promise that the people will have there freedom and faith restored.