What did British politicians and officials think had given the go-ahead for the seizure of the Iranian tanker Grace 1 off Gibraltar on July 4th? Did they really think that the Iranians would not take revenge for what they see as a serious escalation of the American economic war against them?
The British cover article that the shipment of 30 Royal Marines by helicopter to take the mothership was entirely related to the application of EU sanctions to Syria, and nothing to see with US sanctions to Iran, was still pretty thin.
Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell has categorically stated that Britain has taken over the tanker "following a request from the United States to the United Kingdom".
We will tell you what is true. You can form your own view.
Of 15p $ 0.18 $ 0.18 $ 0.27
one day, more exclusive, badyzes and supplements.
A fact about Iranian foreign policy should have been written in the brains of every politician and diplomat in Britain, as is already happening in the Middle East, namely that what you will do to the Iranians, they will do it to a time and place such as their own choice.
The United States and the United Kingdom supported Saddam Hussein during his invasion of Iran in 1980, but this was not disconnected – though it is impossible to prove – with the following. suicide bombing that killed 241 members of the US Armed Forces in the naval barracks in Beirut in 1983.
Commentators seeking explanations on the seizure of the United Kingdom Grace 1 suggest that he was drugged into action by the super hawks of the US administration, such as National Security Advisor John Bolton.
But, given the inevitability of the Iranian reaction against the British naval forces, too weak to defend British-flagged tankers, the British movement is more like a strategic choice dictated by the lack of other options.
The confrontation with the EU about Brexit means that Britain has no choice but to join more and more closely with the United States.
Of course, this will hardly be a new start as Britain has stuck to the United States on almost every possible occasion since the 1956 Suez Crisis.
The lesson learned from this Whitehall debacle is that the United Kingdom must always be close to the United States. The French drew the opposite conclusion that they must be closer to continental European states in the form of the European Economic Community.
The unilateral relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom was operational in military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain has entered these quagmires to demonstrate its position as the most loyal ally of the United States, without a coherent policy and without sufficient forces.
Authorities continue to stop the Iranian tanker Grace 1 (AFP/ Getty)
The Chilcot report said the only recurring theme it could detect in British politics in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 was how to get its troops out of the country. Wanting to do this without offending the Americans, the British – after a serious miscalculation – decided that it would be best to do so by transferring their forces to Afghanistan, where more than 400 of them were killed in combat.
In its confrontation with Iran, Britain is in trouble as it tries to ride several horses at the same time. It is supposed to seek to join the Iranian nuclear deal and oppose US sanctions on Iran, but in practice, it has done nothing of the sort. Grace 1 was a clear demonstration of that.
A radio exchange between the United Kingdom and Iran released after the seizure of a tanker in the Gulf
One of the features of the current crisis is that the seizure of Stena Impero is clearly equal to Iran. Unlike past Iranian retaliatory actions, he makes no effort to hide this, presumably baduming that Britain can not do anything and that the time is right to demonstrate the strength and weakness of Iran.
Iran expresses no doubt that Britain is acting as an American attorney, although this has been true for a long time. But life as an attorney can be particularly dangerous in the Gulf at the present time because of the peculiar nature of the confrontation between the United States and Iran, in which neither party wishes engage in a total war.
This makes it necessary to act through proxies like the UK, an approach that minimizes the chances that Americans are killed and that Donald Trump has no choice but to take action retaliation.
Iran is visibly hurt by sanctions, but Iranians are more likely to blame the United States for their suffering than their own government. The United States will not launch a ground invasion, as was the case in Iraq in 2003, and as long as this is not resolved, Iran can withstand military pressure.
In fact, a permanent crisis in the Gulf, just below the level of a large-scale military conflict, is in Iran's interest and is better than suffering a prolonged economic siege. .