A mob of Iranians attacked the British Embassy in Tehran last week, vandalizing the building and seizing diplomatic staff. Due to the violence and destruction resulting from several hundred attackers rampaging through the buildings, the Embassy has been evacuated and closed by the British government, and diplomatic relations between the Britain and Iran have ceased. The Iranian Embassy in London has been closed, and more than 20 Iranian diplomats were unceremoniously sent home.
The British ambassador to Iran, Dominick Chilcott, has publicly accused the Iranian government of backing the attack. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is believed to have ordered the raid, which was led by a volunteer militia, the Basij, headed by his son, Mojtaba Khamenei. It is rumored that Ayatollah Khamenei, 72, has been grooming his son to eventually take over as supreme leader.
Perhaps this attack was a demonstration of Iranian resolve to resist Western protests over its development of nuclear weapons, or simply a political game intended to give Khamenei an upper hand over his subordinate, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Regardless, the damage to British-Iranian relations is severe, and many Western governments are now accelerating their diplomatic retreat from the government in Tehran.
Memories of how Iranian protesters invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, seizing 55 Americans, who were held as hostages for 444 days, have been forefront in many minds. In addition to looting and stealing, individual British staff members were held by the mob. Fires were set in various rooms of the Embassy, and portraits of Queen Elizabeth were torn down.
The British Embassy is of great significant historical status, as the location of the famous Tehran summit in 1943, where Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin began to decide the fate of the postwar world. Now subjected to wanton violence and destruction, the Embassy is symbolic of the damage Iran has done to its international standing, both generally and specifically in connection with its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency recently issued a report on the Iranian nuclear program, which reaffirmed many fears. Iran currently has enough uranium for four bombs, although work is still required to enrich that uranium to weapons grade. As a result, Western leaders and commentators are increasingly grappling with the question of whether mere economic sanctions alone will be enough to convince Tehran to abandon the dream of becoming a nuclear-armed country.
How likely is a military strike on Iran, targeting its nuclear weapons facilities?
Prominent Israeli newspapers have begun to openly debate the prospects of an attack on Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that he would bomb Iran's nuclear sites if necessary. For many in Israel, an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would pose a direct and cataclysmic threat to the existence of the Jewish people. Iran is believed to have at least 300 missiles with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel. With U.S.-produced F-15 and F-16 fighter planes, and an ample supply of "bunker-busting" GBU-28 bombs, Israel is equipped to do the job.
What would be the impact of such an attack on the other Arab countries?
The Arab Spring movement that has swept through the region over the past year has encouraged both liberal groups to voice their concerns and Islamist organizations to make real progress in securing political power in the new regimes. Should the region be engulfed by war, it is highly unlikely that any trend towards openness and democracy would continue in such an emotionally charged environment, and anti-Israeli sentiment could foster the continued popularity of extremist and conservative political leaders.
Notably, if Iran were attacked, it is highly likely that it would close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway leading out of the Persian Gulf and through which 90 percent of the oil produced in the Gulf region is shipped. Although above-ground pipelines have been installed in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Iraq, a regional war's impact on global oil supplies could be significant. Iran, therefore, plays a pivotal role in the future of the region, and Britain, together with the United States and other Western countries, must takes the steps necessary to ensure that the region's long-term security and stability is maintained.
In addition to escalating diplomatic confrontations with Iran, Britain also faces difficult economic times at home. Recent pronouncements by the British government have made clear the intention to continue on the path of austerity followed since the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition unseated the big-spending Labor party two years ago. Unfortunately, many of Britain's Western allies, who are essential to helping it achieve its diplomatic goals – keeping peace in the region and keeping nuclear weapons away from Iran – are also suffering severe economic challenges.
In such tight times, it is tempting for a government to de-prioritize complex international problems, in favor of the immediate financial needs of their citizens. Britain must resist the temptation to ignore the risks posed by Iran and postpone these problems to the indefinite future.
Instead, Britain and its allies, including the United States, must remain committed to a non-nuclear Iran. Iranian leaders have shown where their radical rhetoric can lead. Adding nuclear weapons to that volatile mix would be a step in the wrong direction.