Britain sees the sharp end of radical Iranian rhetoric

Signs point to further difficulties after the Iranian attack on Tehran’s British embassy.

By TIMOTHY SPANGLER
Iranian demonstrators carry a British flag (R) 311 (photo credit: REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi)
Iranian demonstrators carry a British flag (R) 311
(photo credit: REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi)
Last week, an Iranian mob attacked the British embassy in Tehran, vandalizing the building and seizing diplomatic staff. Due to the violence and destruction resulting from several hundred attackers rampaging through the building, the embassy has been evacuated and closed by the British government, and diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran have ceased. The Iranian embassy in London has been closed and over twenty Iranian diplomats were unceremoniously sent home.
British Ambassador to Iran Dominick Chilcott has publicly accused the Iranian government of backing the attack. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is believed to have ordered the raid, which was led by a volunteer militia, the Basij, headed by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. It is rumored that Ayatollah Khamenei has been grooming his son to eventually take over the role of supreme leader one day.
Perhaps this attack was a demonstration of Iranian resolve to resist Western protests over its development of nuclear weapons, or simply a political game intended to give Khamenei an upper hand over his subordinate, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Regardless, the damage to British-Iranian relations is severe, and many Western governments are now accelerating their diplomatic retreat from the government in Tehran.
Memories of the seizure of 55 American hostages by Iranian protesters in the American embassy in 1979 have been forefront in many minds. In addition to looting and stealing, individual British staff members were taken into custody by the mob. Fires were set in various rooms of the British embassy and pictures of Queen Elizabeth II were torn down.
The British Embassy is of great significant historical status, as the location of the famous Tehran summit in 1943, where former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, former British prime minister Winston Churchill and former Soviet premier Josef Stalin began to decide the fate of the post-war world. Now subjected to wanton violence and destruction, the embassy is symbolic of the damage Iran has done to its international standing, both generally and specifically in connection with its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency recently issued its report on the Iranian nuclear program, which reaffirmed many fears. Iran currently has enough uranium for four bombs, although work is still required to enrich that uranium to weapons grade. As a result, Western leaders and commentators are increasingly grappling with the question of whether mere sanctions alone will be enough to convince Tehran to abandon their dream of becoming a nuclear-armed country.
How likely is a military strike on Iran, targeting its nuclear weapons facilities?
Prominent Israeli newspapers have begun to openly debate the prospects of an attack on Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made clear that he would bomb Iran’s nuclear sites if necessary. For many Israelis, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would pose a direct and cataclysmic threat to the future existence of the Jewish people. Iran is believed to have at least 300 hundred missiles with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel. With US-produced F15 and F16 fighter planes, and an ample supply of “bunker-busting” GBU-28 bombs, Israel is equipped to do the job, if a decision was ever reached to unilaterally deny Iran the nuclear option.
What would be the impact of such an attack on the other Arab countries in the region?
The Arab Spring that has swept through the region over the past year has encouraged both liberal groups to voice their concerns and Islamist organizations to make real progress in securing political power in the new regimes. Should the region be engulfed by war, it is highly unlikely that any trend towards openness and democracy would continue in such an emotionally-charged environment, and anti-Israeli sentiment could foster the continued popularity of extremist and conservative political leaders.
Notably, if Iran were attacked, it is highly likely that they would close the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 90 percent of the oil produced in the Gulf region is transported. Although over-ground pipelines have been installed in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Iraq, the impact of a regional war on global oil supplies could be significant. Iran therefore plays a pivotal role in the future of the region, and Britain, together with the United States and other Western countries, must takes the steps necessary to ensure that long-term security and stability is maintained in the region.
In addition to escalating diplomatic confrontations with Iran, Britain also faces difficult economic times at home. Recent pronouncements by the British government have made clear that their intention is to continue on the path of austerity that they have followed since the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition unseated the big-spending Labor party two years ago. Unfortunately, many of Britain’s Western allies, who are essential to helping it achieve its diplomatic goals for Iran, are also suffering severely economic challenges.
In such fiscally-strapped times, it is tempting for a government to de-prioritize complex international problems, in favor of the immediate financial needs of their citizens. Britain must resist the temptation to ignore the risks posed by Iran and postpone these problems to the indefinite future.
Instead, Britain and its allies, including the United States, must remain committed to a non-nuclear Iran. Iranian leaders have shown where their radical rhetoric can lead. Adding nuclear weapons to that volatile mix would be a step in the wrong direction.
The writer is a commentator who divides his time between the United Kingdom and Southern California. He has appeared on CNN, CNBC, BBC and Sky News, and has been featured in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Financial Times and the Economist.