Iran's mullahs come out fighting
The storming of the British embassy in Tehran and William Hague’s closure of the Iranian mission in London brings to an end the fruitless diplomatic reconciliation instigated by the last Labour government.
Iranian protesters outside the British Embassy in Tehran. The compound was stormed and damaged - and the staff were evacuated Photo: AFP/GETTY
8:54PM GMT 30 Nov 2011
41 Comments For the beleaguered group of diplomats holed up in the British Embassy compound in Tehran and surrounded by a baying mob of Iranian protesters, it was, as one of their colleagues phlegmatically remarked yesterday, “a very hairy few hours”.
The embassy staff had been forewarned that trouble was brewing. All Tuesday morning, pro-government Farsi websites had posted comments calling for protesters to gather in Bobby Sands Street. This is the name that the road leading to the British Embassy was given by the ayatollahs when they last squared up to Britain, over the Salman Rushdie affair in 1989.
The original aim of the protest was to commemorate the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, one of three killed in the past two years on the streets of Tehran. But with relations between Britain and Iran entering one of their periodic crises, the bloggers argued that there was no better way to mark the scientist’s death than to focus their ire on the embassy compound in central Tehran.
Britain has a long and undistinguished history of intrigue in Iranian affairs, dating from the 19th century when British gunboats regularly shelled Persian ports to persuade the Shah to toe the line. More recently, in 1953, British intelligence masterminded the plot to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh – arguably Iran’s last democratically elected prime minister – after he sought to nationalise the British-owned Anglo-Iranian oil company.
Given this history of skulduggery, it is hardly surprising that most Iranians believe Britain is involved in the carefully coordinated campaign of assassinations, bombings and acts of computer sabotage that are clearly designed to disrupt Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. In the most recent incident, a mysterious explosion appears to have caused significant damage to the uranium enrichment complex at Isfahan, a vital feature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
If, as seems likely, this was the result of sabotage, then the finger of suspicion will inevitably point towards Israel’s Mossad intelligence service. As Mossad works closely with its British and American counterparts, the Iranians, not surprisingly, will conclude that British agents are also engaged in targeting its nuclear facilities.
Only last month, a senior Iranian military officer claimed the British Embassy was a centre of “conspiracy and espionage” that should be dealt with by the Iranian people. The likelihood that the embassy was about to be attacked by a hostile mob was so strong that the Foreign Office took the unusual step of releasing a statement calling on the Iranian authorities to ensure that it was adequately protected. The request fell on deaf ears.
At just after 2pm on Tuesday, a mob, which included members of the Basij paramilitary brigades, surged through the lines of riot police that had been stationed in Bobby Sands Street and broke into the embassy grounds. At around the same time, another crowd broke into the residential compound at Qolhak Gardens in northern Tehran, a 50-acre parcel of land granted to the British by the Persian Qajar dynasty in the 19th century. In recent times Iranian officials have disputed Britain’s ownership of the Qolhak complex, claiming it was stolen from Iran. They have even suggested that Britain should hand over Hyde Park by way of recompense.
The mob hurled stones and petrol bombs, broke into the ambassador’s residence, tore down the Union flag, destroyed portraits of the Queen, ransacked offices and burnt at least one embassy vehicle. While the staff, as part of a well-rehearsed contingency plan, sought refuge in a secure room, the rampaging crowd set fire to the British, American and Israeli flags in the compound.
It seemed that the clock had been turned back to the early days of the Islamic revolution in 1979, when a group of student protesters – said to have included Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s current president – stormed the American Embassy and took 50 diplomatic staff hostage in a stand-off that lasted for 444 days.
In the event, the security precautions prevailed, and all the staff have now been safely evacuated. Yesterday William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, was able to inform the Commons that, by way of retaliation, he was ordering the closure of Iran’s diplomatic mission to London, thereby officially bringing to a close Britain’s short-lived diplomatic reconciliation with the mullahs.
With hindsight, it is a minor miracle that our diplomatic mission to Tehran lasted so long, given the dramatic decline that has taken place in recent years in relations between the two countries. Today’s atmosphere of mutual antagonism contrasts sharply with the period that followed the decision by the former foreign secretary Robin Cook to restore relations with Tehran as part of New Labour’s ethical foreign policy.
Both Mr Cook and Jack Straw, his successor, believed the best way to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear programme was to establish a constructive dialogue with the mullahs. Mr Straw’s enthusiasm for the enterprise even led him to become the first British foreign secretary to visit Tehran since the Islamic Revolution.
But their goodwill was misplaced. Rather than negotiate, the Iranians continued with the development of their nuclear programme, to the extent that the most recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concludes unequivocally that Iran has conducted work on projects normally associated with the production of nuclear weapons.
Throughout this period, British diplomats based in Tehran have had the unenviable task of trying to maintain a dialogue with their Iranian counterparts while nurturing deep reservations about the ultimate objective of their nuclear activities. This difficult balancing act was possible, to an extent, so long as Iran’s moderate president, Mohammad Khatami, remained in power. But after the more hard-line Mr Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, relations quickly became strained, to the point where contact between British diplomats and Iranian officials became non-existent.
“It was a very frustrating experience,” says a diplomat who recently served at the embassy in Tehran. “We tried very hard to maintain some kind of dialogue, but the Iranians just didn’t want to listen to what we had to say.”
Normal diplomatic relations were effectively frozen after Britain backed the Green Movement that emerged in Iran following the disputed presidential election in 2009. The Revolutionary Guards responded by harassing Iranian members of the embassy staff, with one of them receiving a jail term on trumped-up treason charges.
In many respects, Britain’s continued diplomatic presence in Tehran was an accident waiting to happen, particularly after William Hague, following his appointment as Foreign Secretary, determined on a more robust approach to dealing with the ayatollahs.
This culminated last week in Britain announcing the most wide-ranging banking restrictions it had ever imposed on a foreign power, thereby denying Iran’s banks access to London’s financial institutions.
It is to be hoped that the British authorities gave due attention to the likely impact this would have on the security of our small diplomatic presence in Tehran, as Iran’s exclusion from London’s financial hub has added to the mood of paranoia that has swept the country following publication of the IAEA’s report.
The recent attempt by Revolutionary Guards to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington is evidence that Iran is adopting a more offensive posture in its dealings with the West and its allies. There are also indications that Iran has placed itself on a war footing since publication of the IAEA report. The Iranian Air Force has set up a number of “Rapid Reaction Units” to intercept any attacks, while Mohammad Ali Jaafari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, has ordered all military units to be in a state of operational readiness.
After Mr Hague’s announcement, diplomatic relations between the UK and Iran have been reduced to a bare minimum: for the moment, any contact will be through international institutions such as the UN’s nuclear negotiating team. As a new mood of anti-Western hostility descends on Iran, it is difficult to envisage British diplomats returning to Tehran soon.
Con Coughlin is the author of 'Khomeini’s Ghost’ (Pan Books)
Only last month, a senior Iranian military officer claimed the British Embassy was a centre of “conspiracy and espionage” that should be dealt with by the Iranian people. The likelihood that the embassy was about to be attacked by a hostile mob was so strong that the Foreign Office took the unusual step of releasing a statement calling on the Iranian authorities to ensure that it was adequately protected. The request fell on deaf ears.
At just after 2pm on Tuesday, a mob, which included members of the Basij paramilitary brigades, surged through the lines of riot police that had been stationed in Bobby Sands Street and broke into the embassy grounds. At around the same time, another crowd broke into the residential compound at Qolhak Gardens in northern Tehran, a 50-acre parcel of land granted to the British by the Persian Qajar dynasty in the 19th century. In recent times Iranian officials have disputed Britain’s ownership of the Qolhak complex, claiming it was stolen from Iran. They have even suggested that Britain should hand over Hyde Park by way of recompense.
The mob hurled stones and petrol bombs, broke into the ambassador’s residence, tore down the Union flag, destroyed portraits of the Queen, ransacked offices and burnt at least one embassy vehicle. While the staff, as part of a well-rehearsed contingency plan, sought refuge in a secure room, the rampaging crowd set fire to the British, American and Israeli flags in the compound.
It seemed that the clock had been turned back to the early days of the Islamic revolution in 1979, when a group of student protesters – said to have included Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s current president – stormed the American Embassy and took 50 diplomatic staff hostage in a stand-off that lasted for 444 days.
In the event, the security precautions prevailed, and all the staff have now been safely evacuated. Yesterday William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, was able to inform the Commons that, by way of retaliation, he was ordering the closure of Iran’s diplomatic mission to London, thereby officially bringing to a close Britain’s short-lived diplomatic reconciliation with the mullahs.
With hindsight, it is a minor miracle that our diplomatic mission to Tehran lasted so long, given the dramatic decline that has taken place in recent years in relations between the two countries. Today’s atmosphere of mutual antagonism contrasts sharply with the period that followed the decision by the former foreign secretary Robin Cook to restore relations with Tehran as part of New Labour’s ethical foreign policy.
Both Mr Cook and Jack Straw, his successor, believed the best way to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear programme was to establish a constructive dialogue with the mullahs. Mr Straw’s enthusiasm for the enterprise even led him to become the first British foreign secretary to visit Tehran since the Islamic Revolution.
But their goodwill was misplaced. Rather than negotiate, the Iranians continued with the development of their nuclear programme, to the extent that the most recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concludes unequivocally that Iran has conducted work on projects normally associated with the production of nuclear weapons.
Throughout this period, British diplomats based in Tehran have had the unenviable task of trying to maintain a dialogue with their Iranian counterparts while nurturing deep reservations about the ultimate objective of their nuclear activities. This difficult balancing act was possible, to an extent, so long as Iran’s moderate president, Mohammad Khatami, remained in power. But after the more hard-line Mr Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, relations quickly became strained, to the point where contact between British diplomats and Iranian officials became non-existent.
“It was a very frustrating experience,” says a diplomat who recently served at the embassy in Tehran. “We tried very hard to maintain some kind of dialogue, but the Iranians just didn’t want to listen to what we had to say.”
Normal diplomatic relations were effectively frozen after Britain backed the Green Movement that emerged in Iran following the disputed presidential election in 2009. The Revolutionary Guards responded by harassing Iranian members of the embassy staff, with one of them receiving a jail term on trumped-up treason charges.
In many respects, Britain’s continued diplomatic presence in Tehran was an accident waiting to happen, particularly after William Hague, following his appointment as Foreign Secretary, determined on a more robust approach to dealing with the ayatollahs.
This culminated last week in Britain announcing the most wide-ranging banking restrictions it had ever imposed on a foreign power, thereby denying Iran’s banks access to London’s financial institutions.
It is to be hoped that the British authorities gave due attention to the likely impact this would have on the security of our small diplomatic presence in Tehran, as Iran’s exclusion from London’s financial hub has added to the mood of paranoia that has swept the country following publication of the IAEA’s report.
The recent attempt by Revolutionary Guards to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington is evidence that Iran is adopting a more offensive posture in its dealings with the West and its allies. There are also indications that Iran has placed itself on a war footing since publication of the IAEA report. The Iranian Air Force has set up a number of “Rapid Reaction Units” to intercept any attacks, while Mohammad Ali Jaafari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, has ordered all military units to be in a state of operational readiness.
After Mr Hague’s announcement, diplomatic relations between the UK and Iran have been reduced to a bare minimum: for the moment, any contact will be through international institutions such as the UN’s nuclear negotiating team. As a new mood of anti-Western hostility descends on Iran, it is difficult to envisage British diplomats returning to Tehran soon.
Con Coughlin is the author of 'Khomeini’s Ghost’ (Pan Books)
