“Historic moment,” Philip Hammond tweeted on arriving in Tehran yesterday to reopen the British embassy there. The foreign secretary later hailed this step forward in relations between “two great nations” and called last month’s nuclear deal with Iran historic, too. He should not get carried away.
The first British ministerial visit to Iran in 12 years is an important moment but one that should be managed with extreme caution. It is only four years since an angry, politically steered mob rampaged through the embassy and set fire to the Union Jack. Iran remains a sponsor of terrorism throughout the Middle East and an egregious abuser of human rights. Britain must be ready to criticise the government openly. There is, whatever Foreign Office textbooks may say, no diplomacy like candour.
The patching-up of the relationship with the Iranian regime is a byproduct of the nuclear deal between six world powers and Tehran, but that deal remains flawed. It aims to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons in exchange for relief from western sanctions. It has yet to be ratified by Congress and will come into effect only after the International Atomic Energy Agency has worked out how Iran’s downgrading of its nuclear programme can be credibly monitored.
Thorough verification is at the heart of the deal. Western critics argue that its chief weakness is the opportunity provided for Iranian deception . One argument has already flared this month over the limited terms of access to a controversial military site at Parchin. Inspectors will be given at best “managed access” and may not be physically present when Iranian officials gather soil samples. Other rows can be expected and will place pressure on the new British mission in Tehran.
The embassy would, under normal circumstances, be expected to advance the interests of British business, keen to strike commercial bargains with a country eager to use freed-up oil revenues to modernise the economy. Italy and Germany have been quick to sign memorandums of understanding with the regime and there is a fear that British companies could fall behind in the gold rush.
Advertisement
Every attempt to deepen business ties with Tehran carries political risk, however. It becomes correspondingly more difficult to reinstate sanctions should Iran be caught cheating. Balancing these priorities will be a challenge for all the western powers. Some may choose to overlook infringements in the implementation of the nuclear deal or give Iran the benefit of the doubt in order to seal a contract. Britain should not.
There is concern too that cash will flow from a newly enriched regime to the Revolutionary Guard and its many sinister allies in the region. Iran is propping up the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad. It funds Hezbollah units and supplies arms to Hamas. One possible outcome of the nuclear accord is that Iran becomes the unhindered and increasingly successful champion of bloody insurgencies in the neighbourhood while its ambitions to make a bomb are merely put on ice.
The nuclear agreement, according to President Obama’s inflated claims, was a triumph of statecraft over the threat of war. In fact, the deal’s loopholes, its many potential pitfalls and its self-imposed constraints, will force the West to reinvent the practice of diplomacy. The embassy in Iran must reach out to the people of the country while remaining deeply sceptical about the sincerity of the regime. It must not be afraid to speak out for the persecuted Baha’i believers, for political dissidents, for the rights of women. If, as expected, the regime takes a sterner tone towards the opposition, Britain must be ready to express its displeasure. And if Iran shows any sign of hoodwinking its way towards a bomb, sanctions must not only be put into place again but tightened. Trust has to be earned, not wished into being.