British
Pawns In An Iranian Game
By Pepe Escobar
29 March, 2007
Asia
Times
The
15 British sailors and marines who were patrolling the Shatt-al-Arab
- or Arvand Roud, as it is known in Iran - were not exactly indulging
in a little bit of Rod Stewart ("I am sailing/stormy waters/to
be with you/to be free"). They had their guns loaded. These would
certainly have been fired against Iraqi smugglers - or, better yet,
the Iraqi resistance, Sunni or Shi'ite. But suddenly the British were
confronted not by Iraqi but by Iranian gunboats.
This correspondent has been
to the Shatt-al-Arab. It's a busy and tricky waterway, to say the least.
Iraqi fishing boats share the waters with Iranian patrol boats. From
the Iraqi shore one can see the Iranian shore, flags aflutter. These
remain extremely disputed waters. In 1975, a treaty was signed in Algiers
between the shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein. The center of the river
was supposed to be the border. Then Saddam invaded Iran in 1980. After
the Iran-Iraq War that this sparked ended in 1988, and even after both
Gulf wars, things remain perilously inconclusive: a new treaty still
has not been signed.
The British are adamant that
the sailors were in Iraqi waters checking for cars, not weapons, being
smuggled. It's almost laughable that the Royal Navy should be reduced
to finding dangerous Toyotas in the Persian Gulf. Some reports from
Tehran claim the British were actually checking Iranian military preparations
ahead of a possible confrontation with the US.
Western corporate media overwhelmingly
take for granted that the British were in Iraqi or "international"
waters (wrong: these are disputed Iran/Iraq waters). Tehran has accused
the British of "blatant aggression" and reminded world public
opinion "this is not the first time that Britain commits such illegal
acts" (which is true). Tehran diplomats later suggested that the
British might be charged with espionage (which is actually the case
in Khuzestan province in Iran, conducted by US Special Forces).
Chess matters
The coverage of the sensitive
Shatt-al-Arab incident in the Iranian press was quite a smash: initially
there was none. Everything was closed for Nowrouz - the one-week Iranian
New Year holiday. But this has not prevented radicalization.
Hardliners like the Republican
Guards and the Basiji - Iran's volunteer Islamist militia - asked the
government of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad not to release the sailors
until the five Iranian diplomats arrested by the US in Iraq were freed.
They also demanded that the new United Nations sanctions imposed on
Iran over its nuclear program be scrapped. And all this was under the
watchful eyes (and ears) of the US Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain.
Much of the Western press
assumed Iran wanted Western hostages to exchange for the five Iranian
diplomats, without ever questioning the Pentagon's illegal capture of
the Iranians in the first place. Then the plot was amplified as an Ahmadinejad
diversion tactic as the UN Security Council worked out a new resolution
for more sanctions on Iran and as Russia told Tehran to come up with
the outstanding money or the Bushehr nuclear plant it is building in
Iran would not be finished.
The Shatt-al-Arab incident
has been linked to an Iranian response to Washington's accusations that
Tehran is helping Shi'ite militias with funds, weapons and training
in Iraq. For the record, Iran's ambassador in Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi,
said there is absolutely no connection: "They entered Iranian territorial
waters and were arrested. It has nothing to do with other issues."
Not surprisingly, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari had to take
the side of the occupiers who installed him in his post: he said the
British were in Iraq invited by the Iraqi government and were operating
in Iraqi waters.
This doesn't stop people,
especially in the Islamic world, questioning what business the British,
as an occupation force, had in the Shatt-al-Arab to start with.
From the depths of their
abysmal, recent historical experience, even the Arab world - which is
not so fond of Persians - sees the US-orchestrated UN sanctions on Iran
for what they are: the West, once again, trying to smash an independent
nation daring to have its shot at more influence in the Middle East.
More sanctions will be useless as China and India will continue to do
serious business with Iran.
Tactically, as a backgammon
or, better yet, chess move - in which Iranians excel - the Shatt-al-Arab
incident may be much more clever than it appears. Oil is establishing
itself well above US$60 a barrel as a result of the incident, and that's
good for Iran. It's true that from London's point of view, the incident
could have been arranged as a provocation, part of a mischievous plan
to escalate the conflict with Iran and turn Western and possibly world
public opinion against the regime.
But from Tehran's point of
view, for all purposes British Prime Minister Tony Blair is a soft target.
The episode has the potential to paralyze both President George W Bush
and Blair. Neither can use the incident to start a war with Iran, although
Blair has warned that his government is prepared to move to "a
different phase" if Iran does not quickly release the sailors.
If the Tehran leadership
decides to drag out the proceedings, the Shi'ites in southern Iraq,
already exasperated by the British (as they were in the 1920s), may
take the hint and accelerate a confrontation. Strands of the Shi'ite
resistance may start merging with strands of the Sunni resistance (that's
what Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has wanted all along). And this
would prove once again that you don't need nuclear weapons when you
excel at playing chess.
Pepe Escobar
is the author of Globalistan:
How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble
Books, 2007). He may be reached at [email protected].
Copyright 2007 Asia Times
Online Ltd
Click
here to comment
on this article