The Comment Factory

On Friday July 3 2009, Iran made accusations that staff from the British Embassy in Tehran had been involved in the recent protests at the election result, claiming that some staff had not just taken to the streets, but had been involved in inciting unrest.  The claims were made in a speech by the leader of the Guardian Council, Ahmad Jannati, who stated that “the British Embassy had a presence [in the protests] and some people were arrested,” some had confessed, and individuals would be put on trial.  Thus far nine employees have been arrested, with two remaining in custody.

The British Government is understandably concerned, and is seeking clarification from the Iranians. Significantly, however, the claims appear to refer to Iranians employed as staff in the British Embassy, rather than to British diplomats serving in Iran. It is common practice to employ local people as staff in embassies, not as officials, but as functionaries who carry out tasks necessary for the maintenance of a diplomatic mission. This affair highlights the tensions for locally employed members of embassy staff, particularly when disagreements between the two states appear.  The British Embassy’s Iranian staff are caught in a tricky position. They remain Iranian citizens living in Iran, yet serving a foreign government, leading to suspicion about their loyalty, and as they are not diplomats they enjoy none of the immunity that such a status would afford them.

It is the loyalty of these individuals that the Iranian Government has called into question, going so far as to imply that they have acted as agents of the British Government. This is the most serious aspect of the charge of incitement of discontent – that they did this not as outraged Iranians expressing their discontent at an election that was called into question, but that they functioned as British agents and that the British Government was attempting to foment unrest in Iran. This seems shocking, but is an accusation that has been leveled by many governments, including the British, in times of political instability, but what has gone awry here is the process. Iran has effectively accused Britain of capitalizing on the recent protests in an attempt to destabilize Iran. It has chosen to do so via a speech concerning the arrest of Iranian employees of the British Embassy in Tehran, rather than communicating with the British through diplomatic channels. That the British Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, seems to be struggling to speak with his opposite number about the issue further highlights the odd way that Iran has chosen to handle a sensitive diplomatic matter.

Iran accuses Britain of violating the norms of diplomatic relations, yet chooses to do so by circumventing diplomacy. European Union states are putting pressure on Iran to clarify their position and to drop the matter, threatening a withdrawal of diplomatic staff. The British are refusing to issue new visas for Iranian diplomats. Iran has brought itself to a diplomatic impasse with Britain, and by extension the EU. While this may be overcome, it will doubtless sour relations between Iran and the West as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad enters his second term in office with a hard line on foreign policy. Iran, it seems, is upping the ante, pushing to become the dominant state in a fragmented Middle East, capitalizing on the softening of American foreign policy under Barack Obama, and engaging in a diplomatic spat with Britain not unlike that which recently occurred with Russia.