James Mills argues that Britain has to look to the past if it hopes to build a positive relationship with Iran
LAST week saw the 30th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution and this week sees the opening of an exhibition at the British Museum on Shah Abbas I of Iran. The latter has only been possible due to the co-operation of the Iranian government. Foreign Office staff are advised to pay the British Museum a visit. If we want to rebuild relations with Iran, we have to know how these began in order to understand how they might be restored.
In fact, relations between Iran and Britain arose out of mutual respect and shared interests. Sir Anthony Shirley was sent by Elizabeth I to the court of Shah Abbas I in 1598 from a desire to build trading relations and create an alliance with Christendom against the mutual enemy of the Ottoman Empire. What lay at the heart of Shirley’s mission was the view that Iran was an equal on the international stage. However, an initial relationship between peers has come to be defined by caricatures owing more to a lack of understanding than dialogue.
This understanding of the history of Anglo-Iranian relations is essential if we are ever to achieve a successful engagement with Iran. Ignorance of our entwined past is a failing on our side. The history of the past few hundred years in Iran is just as important to Iranians as the history of the past 30 years is to us. Consider the recent European offer of economic inducements in exchange for Iran giving up autonomy over its nuclear energy programme. This was resoundingly rejected by the Iranians and compared to the 1828 Treaty of Turkmanchia, which was imposed on Iran by Tsarist Russia.
When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asks the United States to apologise for it previous acts against his country, he takes the US involvement in the coup of 1953 as seriously as the Americans regard the hostage crisis of 1979.
A reconsideration of policy is essential. Barack Obama appears to accept this, offering a policy “based on mutual interest and mutual respect”. However, with the recent closure of the British Council in Tehran, it appears that this country is once again dragging its heels.
Relations with the Iranian government have been extremely problematic in the past, but now is the time to draw a line and acknowledge the clean slate which Obama’s administration is offering. According to many experts, including Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, a pre- emptive military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would probably be illegal.
And it would only serve to delay the nuclear programme, not destroy it completely.
Also, if the goal of sanctions was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear capability, they have clearly failed – according to the West own estimates. If the aim was to bring about “regime change” – which only 1 per cent of Iranians want to see, according to a BBC poll last month– sanctions have failed here, too. So the logical option is to scrap sanctions and begin rapprochement by means of trade – the very way in which relations were initiated 400 years ago.
The time is right for a new beginning, with the economic crisis we are suffering also takings its toll on Iran. The International Monetary Finds says that Iran needs an oil price of $90 a barrel to balance its budget, while the Iranian government’s own figures have changed between $60 and $50 a barrel over the past 12 months. With the current price below $40 a barrel, it is obvious that there is a major budget deficit.
The rest of the Iranian economy is also in trouble. Inflation stands at almost 30 per cent and unemployment is around 12 per cent. The BBC poll showed that economic woes are preoccupying many Iranians, with 45 per cent concerned about poverty and unemployment.
With two-thirds of Iranians under the age of 30, Iran has a young population that will require jobs and is more likely to be receptive to change. This future generation of voters will be politically dominant within Iran for decades to come, and the risks of them becoming radicalised against the West ought to be obvious – as last month’s student protests in Tehran against the Israeli attack on Gaza showed.
There is a perception that the conservatives in Iran have mass support. But we should remember that Amadinejad won an unexpected victory in 2005 with only 37 per cent of the vote. He was helped in his triumph by George Bush’s misguided rhetoric about an “axis of evil”, which failed to recognise the mood for conciliation in Iran at the time. As a 2002 opinion poll in Tehran highlighted, two-thirds of Iranians wanted direct US-Iran talks. Ahmadinejad’s share of the vote was far less than liberal reformer Mohammad Khatamy got in the two previous elections of 1997 and 2001 – 57 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively.
There is speculation that Khatamy could stand again in June this year. If a positive diplomatic narrative can be pursued, this could only help his cause. So it would be a mistake to do anything that played into the hand of Iran’s hardcore conservatives – something Obama acknowledges, with his policy of re-engagement.
Many of Iran’s grievances towards the West over the past century are understandable. Once mistakes are acknowledged, we will be in a position to say that we truly are extending the hand of friendship. If Tony Blair can apologise for Britain’s involvement in the slave trade, then it should probably not be beyond the wit Gordon Brown to say sorry for the imperialist aggression of the British Empire.
In 1622, our two countries combined to resist a mutual enemy. At that time, it was the Portuguese. Now the mutual enemies of Britain and Iran are the Taliban and al Qaida. And we have a shared aim: a stable Middle East. If we can re-establish the mutual respect that existed when Anglo-Iranian relations were first established, we will be far better placed to achieve our joint aspirations.
When Sir Anthony Shirley returned to Britain, he described Iran as a country where “we may learn many great and good things”. That sentiment should be embraced once more. And we have the incentive that originally sent Shirley to Iran: trade.
James Mills is a former researcher in the Institute of Middle East Studies at the University of St Andrews
