Iran: Targeting the U.S.-U.K. Alliance by Aaron Mannes

According to U.S. officials, the Iranian forces that seized the British sailors earlier today were Revolutionary Guards, also known as Pasdaran. This is a significant distinction. The Pasdaran is a military force that is independent of Iran’s regular military. The regular military is charged with defending the Iranian state, the Pasdaran defend the Islamic revolution. In this role, domestically they have crushed opposition riots and internationally they are linked to efforts to export the revolution. The Pasdaran collaborate with Hezbollah and the Palestinian terrorist groups and are central to other covert Iranian international activities (including, allegedly, in Iraq.)

From the Marine Barracks attack in 1983 which forced the U.S. led peacekeeping force out of Beirut, leaving Lebanon to the tender mercies of Syria and Hezbollah, to the hostage crises of the 1980s which sparked major political scandals in both the U.S. and France, to the AMIA attack in 1994 which both retaliated against Israel and punished Argentina for reneging on technology deals with Syria and Iran, and to the 1996 Khobar Bombing which increased pressure on the U.S.-Saudi relationship – the Iran has a strong record of carefully and effectively deploying terror attacks and hostage taking to further its goals. The Pasdaran have frequently been charged with implementing these operations.

In this case, targeting British servicemen could part of a growing strategy to push the U.K. away from the U.S. The strategy parallels the al-Qaeda strategy of targeting U.S. allies in Iraq (exemplified by the 3/11 Madrid attack which effectively knocked Spain out of Iraq.) With Tony Blair almost a lame duck and the Iraq war tremendously unpopular in the U.K., the next Prime Minister will probably distance himself from the U.S. While the U.S. and U.K. are certain to maintain a close alliance on many issues, there won’t be much British enthusiasm of high-risk American endeavors. Knowing that a stern line with Iran may result in messy hostage crises may lead to shifts in British policy.

For the United States, this would be a major loss. British support has been crucial, both in providing manpower on the ground but also in maintaining at least some international legitimacy in Iraq and elsewhere. For Iran, fostering U.S.-U.K. rifts is advantageous in Iraq where the Iranians would have a completely free hand in the Shia dominated south. These rifts could also create tensions in the efforts to maintain a united diplomatic front in checking Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

During the Lebanon hostage crisis of the 1980s Britain, unlike the U.S. and France absolutely refused to negotiate with terrorists. This stiff upper lip may be a thing of the past. A few years ago, after a diplomatic spat with Iran, the British government released Hadi Soleimanpour, Iran’s Ambassador to Argentina when the AMIA bombing occurred, rather than comply with Argentina’s extradition request.