Iran's dangerous gamble

The release of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran for 13 days after allegedly straying into Iranian waters in the northern Gulf is a welcome development. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has stressed that no deal was made with the Iranian government and that the UK had not apologised over the incident. Mr Blair simply said that new lines of communication had opened with Iran that were "sensible to pursue".

However, coupled with the joy of the release of its naval personnel, Britain had to face the ugly reality of the deaths of four British soldiers and their Kuwaiti interpreter in a roadside bomb blast in Basra, Iraq. Britain has long suspected that Iran is supporting Shi'ite militias in Iraq in their fight against their troops. Mr Blair remarked: "The general picture, as I have said before, is there are elements, at least, of the Iranian regime that are backing, financing, arming terrorism in Iraq." So one can justifiably say that Iran continues to be a source of instability in the region.

The situation certainly had the potential to escalate - that would have been extremely dangerous considering Iran's nuclear standoff - and the fact that it has been resolved by diplomacy is good news. The reality is that from the very start Iran did not have much of a case. Accusing the British of 'blatant aggression' for allegedly crossing into Iranian territorial waters was absurd.

The naval personnel were operating out of Iraq under a UN mandate and were not staging an assault on Iranian territory. Furthermore, there is no agreed demarcation to the waters in question. The most the Iranian government could have asked for if it really believed the British personnel were in its territorial waters was for an eventual international agreement to formally establish the separation between Iranian and Iraqi waters.

The seizure of the British sailors, however, probably had nothing to do with an apparent intrusion into Iran's territorial waters. It was, most likely, Iran's response to the recent passage of a UN Security Council resolution which tightened sanctions against Iran and demanded that Teheran halt its uranium enrichment programme. Such a response was not only irresponsible, but also dangerous and counter-productive for Iran.

The UN resolution was passed by a 15-0 vote - not even Russia and China defended Iran. The writing was therefore on the wall for Iran, namely that the international community was losing patience with its intransigence. Furthermore, within the Arab world, key states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are becoming increasingly suspicious of Iran's international behaviour. So while Iran's reaction should have been more diplomacy and international engagement, it chose, very foolishly, to create another crisis.

Iran's behaviour while the British personnel were held captive there, also won them no sympathy from the international community. Parading the captives on television - where they were coerced to 'confess' and 'apologise' for their 'intrusion' - as well as threatening a show trial, is both illegal and hideous. It is not surprising that nobody supported Iran over this issue and it is equally not surprising that the UN Security Council expressed its 'grave concern' over the situation and the European Union condemned Iran's actions.

Iran therefore had no choice but to release the captives. It is also believed that a number of governments in the region and the Arab world lobbied Iran and persuaded them to do just that. So clearly Iran did not come out victorious in this episode. The Iranian government did its best to turn defeat into victory by going out of its way to show that the captives were well treated, by having the captives say they were well treated, by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally meeting all the captives to wish them well as they were about to be released (live on television), by saying that the captives' release was an 'Easter gift to Britain' and by giving the released captives gifts to take back to the UK. These things might have impressed certain sectors of Iranian public opinion but somehow I don't think the international community was taken in.

It is also true that Iran has many different interlocking - and sometimes competing - centres of power, and this would have made the resolution of this problem even more complicated. Even though the Iranian President is democratically (sort of) elected by the people, it is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei - who is not elected - who has the final say on all matters of state, especially when it comes to foreign policy and defence.

Ultimately, however, it is important that Iran comes to terms with the fact that diplomacy is in its long-term interest. The seizure of the British personnel was a very foolish incident and one hopes that Teheran has learnt a thing or two from this experience. There are elements within the US State Department and UK Foreign Office, not to mention the US Congress, that want a dialogue with Iran and Syria. Iran should take advantage of this opportunity and seek to co-operate more with the international community over issues such as Iraq and its nuclear programme.

By doing this it would be putting the hawks in Washington - who still believe that Iran's nuclear facilities should be bombed - on the defensive. If Iran engages in diplomacy and starts to behave responsibly in the region, then its security concerns - many of which are legitimate - can be properly addressed.