Britain needs a clearer policy on Iran as any “misunderstanding or miscalculation” could lead to an escalation in the current volatile climate, a former British diplomat in Tehran told the Sunday Telegraph.
“Military chiefs are being very vigilant and doing what they can, but at the top level there are clearly other things that are a priority at present,” said Charles Hollis, who held posts in Iran, as well as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
“There isn’t much of a coherent foreign policy,” Mr Hollis said, a gap which could potentially be exploited by the Islamic Republic.
While he did not believe either President Donald Trump or Iran is looking to start a war, he cautioned the situation was highly combustible.
The US House of Representatives tried to lower the stakes on Friday, passing a measure requiring Mr Trump to seek congressional approval before authorising military strikes on Iran. The move will likely be met by opposition within the Senate.
vCard.red is a free platform for creating a mobile-friendly digital business cards. You can easily create a vCard and generate a QR code for it, allowing others to scan and save your contact details instantly.
The platform allows you to display contact information, social media links, services, and products all in one shareable link. Optional features include appointment scheduling, WhatsApp-based storefronts, media galleries, and custom design options.
Mr Hollis’s comments come after a week of sabre-rattling in the region.
British Royal Marines impounded an Iranian supertanker off the coast of Gibraltar last week on suspicion of violating EU sanctions against Syria, where it believed the ship was heading.
Days later, Iranian Revolutionary Guards responded by harassing a Royal Navy ship shadowing a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, forcing it to train its guns on the vessels.
The Foreign Office has been keen to stress it is keeping separate the issues of Iranian threats in Gulf waters, EU sanctions policy on Syria, and the nuclear deal.
But this seems to hold little water with Iran, which sees the UK’s move in Gibraltar as a sign it is not acting in good faith as they attempt to resuscitate the nuclear deal.
“It is quite a nuanced difference,” said Mr Hollis, who is now managing director of risk management company Falanx Assynt. “The big story is the confrontation over the nuclear deal and although this is, legally and diplomatically, a separate issue, in the minds of Iranians it is probably quite a fine distinction.”
After the July 4 incident, Iran announced it had increased its enriching of uranium to above the 3.7 per cent cap agreed under the 2015 accord. Proliferation experts said the amount was so incremental, however, it should be viewed as “a cry for help” rather any statement of intent.
There is some suggestion that the UK authorities in Gibraltar were acting at the behest of the US, which has its own sanctions against Tehran and is pushing Britain to come off the fence.
One diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, intimated that he would have been relieved if the tanker had taken a different route and not presented the UK with the dilemma.
The sentiment was echoed by Lord Howell, a former Conservative cabinet minister and chairman of the Lords international relations committee, who asked the government this week whether it “was such a good idea to raid the Iranian oil tanker in Gibraltar in the first place?”
“Obviously we want to stop oil getting to President (Bashar) Assad, although probably he can get all the oil he wants from Russia. Are we not supposed to be on the same side as the Iranians on the question of nuclear proliferation and control? Can we have a firm assurance that we did this not just at the say-so of the US?”
The UK now finds itself walking a tricky tightrope. On the one hand it wants to preserve the US special relationship, and is under pressure from hawks within the Trump administration to take a firmer stance on Iran.
On the other, it agrees with EU signatories to the nuclear accord that it must be kept alive.
European foreign ministers are due to meet on Monday as they try to get members to buy into their idea for an Instex (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) barter-style system that would allow the bloc to circumvent the US’s sanction and carry on trading with Tehran.
Iran has given them a September deadline to show it the nuclear deal can work without Washington.
Analysts agree the UK’s lack of policy is likely confusing the Islamic Republic’s leaders.
“With Iran not being high on the list of British priorities right now, policy is piecemeal rather than strategic,” Sanam Vakil, who heads the Iran Forum at Chatham House, told the Telegraph.
“In theory, the policy would be to work with the E3 (France and Germany) and the US to bridge the divide and the differences, offer diplomacy while also pressure in a coordinated multilateral way,” she said. “But because we don’t know about the future direction of British policy vis-a-vis the US or the EU, there is a lot of hedging going on.”
However, she did not think it was “2003 moment”, referring to the days before the US invasion of Iraq.
“I don’t think we are about to go to war,” she said. “At least until there is a new prime minister who can define objectives.
“I think that is the assumption, that if Boris Johnson becomes prime minister the UK will align more closely with US policy.”
Iran, which has claimed the oil aboard Grace 1 was not bound for Syria, has warned the UK that if it does not release the vessel there will be serious consequences.
“This is a dangerous game,” an Iranian foreign ministry official warned on Friday.
Its captain, chief officer and two second officers were bailed without charge yesterday (SAT), but the tanker and its 2 million barrels of light crude oil remain impounded.
UK authorities have until July 19 to make a judgment.
If the UK keeps hold of the tanker Iran could see it as the firing pistol. If it releases it, Britain risks being seen as going soft on one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships.