Tehran and London’s Bilateral Need for Détente

How has the tension created in Tehran-London relations following the attack against Britain’s embassy in Iran impacted the relations between Iran and the EU during the past two years in different areas?

One of our mistakes was linking inefficient diplomacy with the nuclear issue, whose negative consequences we are still faced with today. The reason was the presumptions which existed in our inefficient diplomacy. First, some in Iran believed that Britain has had special powers, whether inside Iran or inside the EU and in relation with the US, which could deal heavy blows to us. Since the beginning, our view of our relations with Britain was mixed with a kind of illusion which led to the type of relations we have with this country today. The important issue is that if we intend to achieve a comprehensive agreement and establish close relations with the P5+1 countries, we need to consider Britain as a member of the EU and an independent and strong country and also a country which has close relations with the US. It seems today that Britain has also assessed Iran from different aspects and considers Iran’s diplomacy today as being different from Iran’s diplomacy six months ago. It is based on the viewpoint that the British have also sought the opening of gates of negotiation following the coming to power of the new administration in Iran.

Why does Britain show a willingness now to move in the path of détente with Iran? Are there economic or political and strategic interests for this country?

Whether we like it or not, Britain has its own position in the Middle East. Based on some analyses and assessments, its status might have been wrongfully achieved, but it must be noted that Britain today is different from 70 years ago. Changes have been made in Britain. This is while the Britain of 70 years ago was a world power which exercised it in the region. Today’s Britain must enter into different political games. Today’s Britain needs to have relations with all countries of the world including countries with regional powers. Iran is a regional power; although it has not used this aspect during the past few years. Iran is considered a regional power based on its surface area, human forces, knowledge and economic issues. That is why establishing relations with a regional power is significant for Britain. The cutting off of our relations with Britain was the result of the illusions which caused bilateral political relations to move towards creating tension; an issue which was criticized by many even inside Iran.

The time has come now to correct this mistake. Due to both economic issues and regional disorders, Britain seeks to establish relations with Iran. Today, Britain has no status in Syria or in Iraq or Egypt. That is why it can use Iran to influence or, at least, be present in these regional issues. Today Britain has no status in Afghanistan. This country awaits the entrance and decision of the US to respond positively to the US’ demands. This is while Britain can, at least, determine and review its relations with Afghanistan through Iran. Britain no longer has its previous power of maneuver in the Persian Gulf region and can only pursue such maneuvers through Iran.

Of course, all the above-mentioned points would not mean that Britain can step on Iran’s shoulder in order to achieve its objectives. This is a normal bilateral diplomatic relations between the two countries which could be used to establish relations with that country’s neighbors. Iran also uses a similar prescription for its regional relations. Tehran also seeks favorable relations with the EU and pursues its own objectives through these relations. Iran can achieve the necessary bilateral political advantage from establishing relations with Britain, as Britain also pursues its own political interests from this relation. Tehran must open the path for this bilateral and diplomatic relation if the interests of both countries are safeguarded.

Simultaneously with the attack against Britain’s embassy in Tehran and the halt in its activities, tensions were created in our relations with other countries like Canada. Is there a strategic relation between this chain of events?

This analysis cannot be made that the tension created in relations between Iran and Britain brought about an opportunity for other countries like Canada to retaliate. I assume that Tehran’s role should not be ignored in the tension which was created in relations between Iran and Canada. I do not seek to find the country which was responsible in this matter. When the embassy of a country is attacked in Iran, this issue could create an excuse for countries which have problems with us and there might even be exaggerations in the nature of the created differences.

During the past two years, Iran has been involved in the nuclear issue. At the same time, due to the inefficiency of our foreign policy, countries could not take the necessary benefit from our foreign policy. Of course, we also did not have much to say either. After the attack against the British embassy, some countries used this issue or, like Canada, stopped their activities in Iran or, like Australia, reduced the level of their relations. Some countries even summoned our ambassadors and warned them against these issues. What I say is that we must have relations with all countries of the world except those which cannot fit in our foreign policy.

Nevertheless, what will be Iran’s advantages from establishing relations with Britain?

Britain is a big country with vast relations and influences in the entire world. Although Britain is different today from what it was in the past, establishing relations with it as a big country which is a Security Council member and has close relations with the US and many other countries of the world would have its advantages. On the other hand, Britain is a strong and rich country with numerous resources. Britain has very high technology. It is considered as the heart of Europe in financial matters. London could be called the stock market and even trade market of Europe. Furthermore, the British are wise people and have a very progressive diplomacy. They also hold high degrees in science which we could use. The fact is that Iran does not have a good historical background with Britain. The British must somehow compensate for these feelings and this time move in a way to gradually remove this image from the minds of the Iranian people.