Seizure of 15 British troops in the Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud

The seizure of eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines by Iranian forces on Friday morning is a further escalation of tension between Iran and the western powers. The incident may have its roots in growing Iranian involvement in the Iraqi insurgency, in proposals for stiffer sanctions against Iran, or both. It is evidence of the failure of Iran's ‘moderates' to check the radical agendas of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who seem determined to see direct confrontation between Iran and the international community. The incident should be seen as a further warning of the intensely destabilizing influence that Iran could have in its immediate region, and far wider.

Two incidents may have provided the immediate trigger for the decision to seize the troops, who were carrying out routine patrols in the Iraqi sector of the Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud. Firstly, recent allegations by British commanders of Iranian involvement in the Iraqi insurgency in the south of the country have been angrily refuted by Teheran. Secondly, President Ahmedinejad appears to have decided not to attend Saturday's UN Security Council vote on strengthening the sanctions regime in order to halt Iranian nuclear plans, complaining of US foot-dragging in issuing visas for his entourage.

In a wider context reports that the British troops were seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council (IRGC) Navy indicate that the decision may be connected to growing internal power struggles within Iran as the country faces ever-growing isolation because of its nuclear programme.

The incident looks very much like a political, rather than a military, matter. As in a previous incident in 2004, the troops were taken hostage without any use of force, and are reportedly safe. British and US reports deny that the patrol craft had strayed over the Iranian border on the Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud waterway that marks the border. However, official statements have been wary to accuse Teheran of a deliberate provocation, and suggested that the incident may have been a genuine misunderstanding.

However, such a benign explanation is unlikely. Earlier in the morning, the British commander in Basra said that Iran was involved in arming and funding local Iraqis to attack British forces. In Basra, the Iranian toman has replaced the Iraqi dinar as the main currency. The US has made similar allegations of Iranian involvement in the insurgency in their areas of operation, arresting five IRGC members in Erbil in January, and suffering the loss of five soldiers in Karbala nine days later, amidst rumours of IRGC retaliation. Indeed, the Iranians no longer even deny their intentions of extending their influence amongst Iraqi Shi'a. One possible interpretation of today's incident is that it was a further display of Iran's growing military power in Iraq.

There is another plausible explanation. Discussions in New York over a stronger sanctions regime took place on Saturday. Whilst Iran prepares to deal with restrictions to its oil exports - which represent 80% of its foreign trade - both sides are considering the possibility that the sanctions regime will not succeed in dampening Iranian enthusiasm for nuclear power. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already indicated that Iran is considering expelling the IAEA's nuclear monitors, and perhaps withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime altogether. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has loudly made, and then cancelled, plans to travel to New York to address the UN Security Council.

In the absence of an effective sanctions regime, the possibility of military action looms large. It would be appropriate and prudent for western forces in the region to respond to Khamenei's threats to expel the IAEA monitors, since they carry a direct military dimension. The most likely timing for such a decision is at the point at which the Nantaz enrichment plant can no longer camouflage industrial scale production of highly-enriched uranium, with the real possibility that Iran could begin to deploy nuclear weapons. Friday's incident could be part of a calculated western response intended to indicate that such a decision would be considered an act of aggression that would carry military, and not just political, consequences. 

In a wider context, the fact that the British servicemen were captured by the IRGC's naval force is of some concern. Since the IRGC is both a military and an ideological projection of the Supreme Leader's power, negotiating the release of the sailors and marines is a more complex matter than with regular Iranian forces.

The IRGC, or Pasdaran, was formed as a force loyal to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during the Iranian Revolution. However, under the ideological patronage of successive Supreme Leaders it has grown into a powerful, separate entity with ground, air and naval forces in parallel to the regular Islamic Republic of Iran forces or Artesh. The IRGC is one of Iran's principal instruments for projecting its power and influence, with ties to Hezbollah and Hamas, and to the insurgency in Iran. Under President Ahmedinejad, a Revolutionary Guardsman during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the IRGC has consolidated its influence on civilian life, deploying the huge resources of the 11 million-strong Basij paramilitary force to enforce the strict codes of the Iranian Revolution. IRGC involvement in the seizure of the British servicemen is further evidence of Iran's unchecked radicalism.

 

 

Back to top Previous article Next article