History Frames Iran Standoff
Resentment Runs Deep Over Past British Hand In Oil Trade, Governing
By MARC CHAMPION
The standoff over captured British sailors in Iran, which is entering a second week with little sign of resolution, is being fueled in part by more than a century of troubled history between the two countries.
As rhetoric escalated and small blasts shook the British embassy in Tehran yesterday, analysts said Iran's decision to hold 15 British marines and sailors seized in disputed waters 10 days ago is a message of defiance to the U.S., as well as to Britain and other countries trying to limit Iran's regional influence and nuclear program.
Concern that the crisis could escalate has driven world oil prices higher. Tehran says the sailors entered Iranian waters illegally and denies any ulterior motives.
But if Tehran is using Britain as a proxy for the U.S., analysts say, the country Iran's conservatives have called the "little Satan" is also a target in its own right. At various times in the past two centuries, Britain controlled Iran's oil production and industry, split control of the country with Russia and deposed or installed Iranian leaders. As a result, Britain still faces a deep-rooted reputation for deceit and hostility.
"The Iranian government suffers from a serious hysteria when it comes to relations with the United Kingdom," said Amir Cyrus Razzaghi, president of ARA Enterprise, a consultancy that serves foreign investors in Tehran. "Historical evidence from the past two centuries has led to a wide belief that Britain is constantly conspiring against Iran."
British officials said yesterday they were exploring potential for dialogue with the Iranians, after an exchange of diplomatic letters that appeared to leave some room for compromise. But rhetoric on all sides is escalating.
President Bush weighed in publicly for the first time on Saturday, describing Iran's behavior as "inexcusable." Speaking at Camp David in Maryland, where he was meeting the president of Brazil, Mr. Bush said: "Iran must give back the hostages. They're innocent."
United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed "disgust" at Iran's televised broadcast of an apology by a second British captive Friday. The European Union foreign ministers also issued a strong statement Friday demanding the sailors' return, although they stopped short of threatening trade sanctions. The EU is Iran's largest trading partner.
Meanwhile, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasted the U.K. and others for arrogance during a speech in southern Iran. "Instead of apologizing over trespassing by British forces, the world's arrogant powers issue statements and deliver speeches," said Mr. Ahmadinejad, according to IRNA, Iran's official news agency. Iran has hinted that it could put the sailors on trial. It has also complained that British troops fired shots in the air outside the Iranian consulate in Basra, Iraq.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's language chimes with a common Iranian stereotype of British foreign policy as both arrogant and underhanded, analysts say. As recently as 2005, Mr. Ahmadinejad accused Britain of complicity in terrorist bomb attacks that killed five people and injured more than 100 in southern Iran, accusations that resonated in parts of the country, despite strenuous British denials.
The British embassy in Tehran has had to abandon a building that looks out over the compound wall, because organized protesters throw rocks through the windows most Fridays. Yesterday, about 200 protesters threw rocks and firecrackers at the embassy, calling for the ambassador's expulsion.
British influence in Iran goes back centuries, much of it driven by an effort to block Russian forces reaching Britain's valuable colonies in India. In 1907, Russia and Britain divided Iran into three zones. Russia controlled the north, Britain the south, while the center was a neutral buffer zone.
A British businessman, William D'Arcy, bought the rights to all of Iran's oil reserves in 1901. He struck oil in 1908, forming the Anglo- Persian Oil Co., now BP PLC. Another British businessman, Reuters news agency founder Baron Julius de Reuter, was given control of the majority of Iran's transport infrastructure and industry.
In 1925, Britain helped bring an ambitious military officer, Reza Khan, to power, deposing the centuries-old Qajar dynasty. Renamed Reza Pahlavi, the new shah later ended the Anglo-Persian Oil Co.'s monopoly over Iran's oil assets. When British and Soviet forces invaded in 1941, he was sent into exile and replaced by his son Mohammed, the last shah of Iran.
Even in the dying days of the British Empire, the U.K. played a role in Iranian politics. In the early 1950s, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq again sought to nationalize Iran's oil industry. Britain teamed up with the U.S. and the shah in 1953 to oust Mr. Mossadeq in a coup d'etat.
Trade and diplomatic relations have normalized since 1998, and Britain has long since lost the ability to control events in Iran. The next steps will be decided by current political calculations in Tehran, analysts say.
"I see this as part of a process in which the whole national-security apparatus in the country is being mobilized," said Cyrus Kadivar, a London-based director for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Kroll Inc., the investigative and risk-management consultancy. He noted strident recent rhetoric from Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and large increases in military spending. "If it doesn't resolve itself in the next few days then we are in a very different stage."