Revisiting the Break in Relations with 'Malicious' Britain to the Exchange of Ambassadors

In the latest step towards the full establishment of diplomatic relations, Tehran and London exchanged ambassadors on September 6, 2016. From Iran, Hamid Baidi-Nejad, a key member of the nuclear negotiation team, and from Britain, Nicholas Hopton, have begun their duties as the new ambassadors of the two countries. Now, after five years of unproductive tensions for the Islamic Republic, the level of diplomatic relations between Iran and Britain has returned to the state of Azar 90, when a group of Basij students stormed the British embassy building and, worse, the residence of the embassy staff in Qolhak Garden, expressing their anger [read: the anger of the regime] towards London's decision to intensify sanctions against Iran by destroying the building and throwing out documents that were mostly consular documents of ordinary people. Now that relations between the two countries have moved out of a state of tension, it is worth revisiting the process that led to the severance of relations and now their renewal, especially considering that Ayatollah Khamenei had described Britain as 'malicious' and behind the 2009 sedition. Thus, the question arises: Does he no longer consider Britain malicious or believe it had no role in the 2009 sedition? He must be accountable for why, if he still sees Britain as malicious and the cause of the 2009 sedition, he did not prevent the renewal of relations with London. The anger of Tehran over banking sanctions but under the pretext of sedition. To find the tension that led to the severance of relations between London and Tehran, revisiting the events of that time helps us understand which country (Iran or Britain) adjusted its behavior so that full relations are now possible. The main events included: First; The Islamic Consultative Assembly passed a plan on November 27, 2011, which required Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government (which had a hardline stance on the nuclear issue) to downgrade relations with London from ambassadorial to chargé d'affaires. Members of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Assembly stated that the reason for presenting this plan was London's black record regarding Iran, including during the 2009 sedition. Zahra Elahian, a member of the Assembly, stated: 'The main elements of the sedition had interactions with the British embassy, and this embassy was a war room against us that operated 24/7, and its elements had a field role in creating chaos in our country.' The claim of Britain's involvement in the 2009 events echoed Ayatollah Khamenei's claims in the first Friday prayers after the 2009 elections, where he described Britain as the 'most malicious' enemy that had taken the place of the 'Great Satan.' Second; If the British embassy was involved in subversive actions as claimed by the members of the National Security Commission, the question arose as to why the Assembly did not vote to sever all ties with Britain? Why were the ambassador and members of the British embassy not expelled as 'undesirable elements'? (Refer to the article: The Islamic Republic did not dare to sever relations with Britain). The baselessness of the proposed plan regarding Britain's alleged involvement in the 2009 events becomes clear when we know that about eighteen months had passed since the 2009 events. Why was the proposal to reduce diplomatic relations with London not presented during all this time? Third; The reality behind this plan was that London had announced its intention to exert pressure on the nuclear issue by unilaterally cutting all financial ties with Tehran and, more importantly, sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran. The message of this decision from London to Tehran was so grave that it was feared that this pattern of sanctions would be followed by other EU members as well, especially since the officials of the Islamic Republic knew that sanctioning the Central Bank was stepping on the throat of the country's economy. It was from here that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another member of the Security Commission, opposed the plan, saying: 'My opposition is not because I have sympathy for the English, but because I believe this plan should be more decisive... We should lock the door of the British embassy and deal with Britain more severely.' Noorollah Heydari, a representative from Farsan, also said: 'Why should we have a reactive approach after every hostile move by Britain that indicates passivity? This does not demonstrate a powerful diplomacy from Iran; therefore, we must do something to prevent these issues from recurring.' Fourth; The anger that emerged in the Assembly marked the beginning of 'emotional behavior,' which only two days later, on December 8, 2011, culminated in the storming of the embassy building by Basij students and, worse, the residence of British employees, bringing the incident to the forefront of world news. This storming occurred in the presence of the capital's police, who showed no deterrent action, providing evidence of the regime's will and support for the deliberate assault on British diplomatic premises in Tehran. Fifth; The result of the emotional behavior of the embassy occupation was that the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the attack on the British embassy in less than six hours. The proposal to sanction the Central Bank of Iran not only passed with the approval of all EU members but also received unanimous approval from the US Senate. Thus, the Islamic Republic found itself caught in the 'banking sanctions trap' of its own making, leading later to the Supreme Leader issuing a command for a heroic flexibility to escape this quagmire. In addition to these sanctions, the EU imposed further sanctions on 180 Iranian officials. The British ambassador, who had been mandated by the Assembly to leave Iran within two weeks, left Iran with all embassy members within one day. The British government subsequently required all diplomatic staff of the Islamic Republic in London to leave the country within 48 hours, thus severing diplomatic relations between Tehran and London for the second time (the first time was due to the book 'The Satanic Verses'), with the least damage being the complete loss of access for 350,000 Iranians residing in Britain to consular services. The assault on the British embassy not only harmed the Islamic Republic but also the people in need of consular services. However, worse than all this was the unprecedented insult that the Islamic Republic suffered in its own capital. The description of this insult and humiliation was that European embassies in Tehran, in a meaningful and unprecedented action, all drove in their diplomatic cars in a long line during daylight to visit the scene of the incident, each sending shocking visual reports of what they saw to the world. This behavior by all European governments demonstrated that the regime under Ayatollah Khamenei lacked decorum in its conduct. Early regret and the desire to renew relations with Britain. Despite Ali Larijani, the Speaker of the Assembly, describing the entry into the British embassy as 'a symbol of the public opinion atmosphere in the country due to decades of British oppression of the Iranian people,' as time passed, the damages of that emotional behavior, which were evident in the intensification of sanctions, became clearer. Among other things, eight months after this incident, the Canadian government announced the complete severance of diplomatic relations with Tehran and the closure of its embassy, citing concerns about the potential for a similar incident to occur for itself. In the first shift regarding the condemnation of the assault on the British embassy, Ali Khamenei, nine months after the incident, described Britain as malicious but characterized the entry into the embassy building as incorrect, stating: 'In the case of the occupation of that malicious [British] embassy, the feelings of the youth were correct, but their entry [into the embassy] was not correct. I support student gatherings, but I oppose extremism in these gatherings.' Thus, the groundwork was laid for Ali Akbar Salehi, the then Foreign Minister, to reveal that 'we have repeatedly told Britain that their chargé d'affaires can come and start his work.' It was clear that the severance of relations with Britain had its adverse effects on the intensification of sanctions and the deterioration of relations with the European Union. Salehi's announcement made it clear that the Islamic Republic, led by Ayatollah Khamenei, was eager to renew relations with London, and all claims of involvement in the 2009 events were mere empty words. The postponement of relations until the 2013 elections. With Ayatollah Khamenei's positioning against the assault on the British embassy and Ali Akbar Salehi's statements, London received sufficient signals that the Islamic Republic was willing to renew relations. However, London decided to postpone establishing relations with Tehran until after the new government took office, waiting to see the outcome of the 2013 elections. With Khamenei's concession in the nuclear project and the coming to power of a government that made constructive engagement with the world its slogan, London saw no further reason to maintain the severed relationship. Thus, the conditions for the first meeting between Zarif and William Hague on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and the agreement to appoint a 'non-resident chargé d'affaires' and now the establishment of diplomatic relations were created. William Hague stated that 'the new president of Iran presents himself and his country in a much more positive light than before. We need to conduct an experiment to gauge the sincerity of the Iranian government.'