PARIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The release of the 15 British soldiers being held in Iran does not appear to be an isolated incident. Strangely both governments, while criticising each other, are both prepared to take that line in public. They would both like us to think it was an incident over a disputed line of control, at sea.
But this does not appear to be the case. It seems as if a number of factors moved Iran to keep the British soldiers for as long as they did. After all, Iran had hostages taken in Iraq. Firstly, the Iranian diplomat taken hostage, probably by the Iraqi army after a request by the U.S., has been released. Secondly, it appears the U.S. have conceded that the five Iranian diplomats arrested by them some weeks back in Irbil will be visited by Iranian authorities.
The taking of the hostages by Iran also appears to have been a local dispute seized upon by more right wing elements of the Iranian regime. After the British service people were arrested, whether they were inside Iranian waters or not, hard line elements in Iran saw the capture as a way of shoring up support at home.
The government of Ahmadinejad had been losing support inside Iran. Economically it has not been a success with continued large scale imports of gasoline stretching budgets. Amazingly Iran imports over $10 billion of gasoline each year, as it cannot refine its own crude products. It also imports a series of petrochemical products for the same reason.
While there is zero evidence that Iran has the capability to make a nuclear weapon, or is even close to doing so, the nuclear question has also worried Iranians. The belligerence of Iran over the issue seems to have been short sighted. Were the government of Ahmadinejad to more open it is likely the country could start to undertake a nuclear energy programme, something it desperately needs to satisfy growing demand from a more urban and very young population.
As a result the hostage situation allowed the Mullahs, Ahmadinejad’s superiors, to shore up support at home citing the usual drivel of ‘patriotism’ and ‘defence’. Of course these excuses are also trotted out by Prime Minister Blair and President Bush in similar circumstances. Anyone who disagrees in these situations is certain to be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of invective and it works internally in Iran just as it does in Washington or Westminster.
What is more worrying is the preparedness of both sides to up the ante. Tony Blair was quick to allege that ‘some elements’ of the Iranian government have been either supplying or financing Shia militias in Iraq. Again there is zero hard evidence to say that this has been happening but another tried and tested tactic is to repeat allegations over and over again until some members of the public begin to believe them.
In Iran the authorities were obviously delighted to parade the British service people in laughable TV ‘commercials’ to prove their point. It was not hard to see that the British marines and sailors could barely suppress their laughter when standing in front of the Iranian cameras the whole thing being quite bizarre.
But these kind of moves, like Blair’s assertions, only serve to heighten tensions. They are nothing more than internal moves to shore up support as we have said. But what for is the problem.
The uncomfortable assertion is that a departing Tony Blair, an under fire president Bush and an embattled president Ahmadinejad might find a conflict a great way of distracting the public from their obvious failures. Each one of them could use further death and mayhem as self-justification and all three of them are quite happy to do just that. None of these men lies awake at night worrying about the innocent civilians whose deaths they have engendered.
What is quite obvious is that any conflict in the region would set oil prices alight. Firstly the U.S. and U.K. would not have the support of any politicians in the region, even Saudi Arabia and the new Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al-Thani have openly said they will not support any action taken against Iran. This could throw the middle east into turmoil and create a spike in crude prices that could easily go above $100 per barrel in between now and the time when president Bush will have to step down in November 2008. In fact violence is even more likely before Tony Blair steps down at some unnamed point in the next year or so.
Once again the short term and ultra-violent ambitions of a tiny number of politicians could end the lives of even more innocent people, and make the oil trading community some extra billions of dollars on the way through. We have been warned.
