Still at Sea

Still at sea On April 4, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pardoned 15 British Navy servicemen. Devyani Onial examines post-mortems to see what lessons could have been learnt from this episode

• Who really gained from this crisis?

In the short-term it would look as if Iran has. In the recent past it has suffered a number of international humiliations. First, five Iranians were arrested by Americans in Iraq, then there was the disappearance — presumed defection of a top general on a visit to Istanbul and then the mysterious death of an Iranian nuclear scientist. Through its tough talking, the Iranian regime can be seen to assert its territorial rights and sovereignty. That will score some much-needed points for the present regime at home, where experts say it has as many differences with rivals as it has with other countries.

• Did Iran want to send out a message through this incident?

Story continues below this ad

There was a message in the capture and subsequent release of the British servicemen. As Iran experts Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh wrote in an article: ‘‘The Islamic Republic of Iran sent its adversaries a pointed message: just as Iran will meet confrontation with confrontation, it will respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism. ’’

• Did Britain get the message?

It appears to have. It’s not still clear whether Britain and Iran had a deal over this but what is clear is that consular access has been given to Iranians in US custody.

The incident, according to a leader in the Guardian, could also ‘‘teach the British navy to be not quite so relaxed about its personnel in waters where the international boundary changes according to the seasonal rise of the mud banks The British crew were ripe for the plucking.’’

• Is there anything the United States can learn from this?

Story continues below this ad

The most important lesson for the United States perhaps is this: quiet diplomacy can work. It now needs to decide whether it wants to adopt a policy of engagement or follow an even more aggressive policy.

The latter can bring it fresh troubles. It would mean that the US would have to stay in the Persian Gulf indefinitely, making its position increasingly vulnerable in the region and leading to a heightened terror threat at home.

And these would not be its only concerns. As the New York Times cautioned, ‘‘A continued policy of confrontation will also complicate America Iraq’s policy. Just as Iraqi Sunnis have cultural and political ties with Sunni Arab states and look to them for support, Iraqi Shiites trust and depend on Iran. An Iraq policy that allies the United States with Sunni Arab governments to eliminate Iranian influence in Iraq will be construed as biased against the Shiites. Such a policy will not win the support of the Shiite-dominated government on which the success of the new American strategy depends.’’