British-Iranian tensions have climbed yet another notch following the arrest by British police of the former Iranian Ambassador to Argentina, writes Mustafa El-Labbad The arrest of former Iranian Ambassador to Argentina Hadi Soleimanpour in London on Friday, on the charge of complicity in the bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, is one more indicator of mounting international pressures on Iran over the past four months. His arrest is further proof of the media campaign to paint Tehran as a regime that flouts international law and legitimacy, the ultimate authority on which is the current US administration. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, there has been a tangible rise in tension in Iranian government circles. Tehran appears to be hemmed in, incapable of action at home or abroad, and haunted by a relentless onslaught of criticism woven and orchestrated by Washington. Iran stands variously accused of meddling in the domestic affairs of Iraq, of obstructing the Middle East peace process through its support of the Lebanese Hizbullah and the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad movements, and, more ominously, of pursuing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In tandem with these external pressures, it also faces mounting popular discontent at home, highlighted by the student demonstrations in July that led to the arrest of 4,000 protesters. This has been accompanied by several cabinet resignations in futile anger at the continued control by conservatives over power in spite of their declining popularity. Minister of Education Mustafa Moin tendered his resignation at the same time as the arrest of Soleimanpour, a gesture reflecting the growing loss of confidence in President Mohamed Khatami and his reform government's ability to peacefully transform the Iranian system. Since the election of Khatami in 1997, the Iranian reform movement proved highly adept at handling public relations abroad. A sedate rhetoric using modernist terms of reference did much to enhance Iran's international image. On the other hand, conservatives have retained a monopoly on "revolutionary" rhetoric, which in the Iranian political lexicon is synonymous to a vehement, blanket anti- westernism. In addition to a reluctance to make even the least subtle distinctions, conservative rhetoric reflects an intransigent clinging to the past and an inability to fathom the profound changes that have taken place in the international order since the collapse of the Soviet Union and, in particular, since 11 September 2001. Perhaps the most vigorous proponent of these attitudes is Hussein Shariatmudari, editor-in-chief of the right- wing Kahan newspaper. In a recent editorial in response to the arrest of Soleimanpour he demanded "Why do we not exercise our right to punish the reactionary British government, which according to the members of the British parliament, is playing the tail of the dog in international affairs." The "dog", of course, refers to US President George W Bush. The journalist's appeal was translated into action when the Iranian minister of foreign affairs announced his country was cutting cultural and economic ties with Argentina, which had issued the warrant against the former Iranian diplomat. Argentina has millions of dollars worth of export contracts to Iran in wheat, sunflower oil, rice and other foodstuffs. Of little avail was the response of British charge d'affaires in Tehran, when summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to receive an official protest, which claimed that the arrest was not a political, but rather a purely criminal matter. Officials in Tehran could have easily pointed to the fact that London, via Britain's High Court, had refused to extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet accused of crimes against humanity in connection with the deaths and disappearances of thousands of his opponents during his nearly two decades of rule. It has been nine years since the bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires. As deplorable as that incident was, regardless of who the perpetrator was, it is remarkable that Soleimanpour's arrest took place only two weeks before the International Atomic Energy Agency is scheduled to submit its report on Iranian WMD to the Security Council. Clearly this is more than mere coincidence. There can be little doubt that the Soleimanpour case was deliberately revived in order to help set the international stage for punitive measures, including military action, against Iran. However, the Iranian regime, still dominated by the increasingly unpopular conservative forces, continues to react against this campaign with angry, defensive outbursts. This rhetoric only facilitates a mission bent on abusing international institutions and contrived facts and figures to back Tehran into a corner. From there, an eddy of endless international demands is ultimately designed to serve as the pretext for toppling the regime. The arrest of the former Iranian diplomat also indicates that Britain, historically the European nation with the closest connections to Iran, has made up its mind to join Washington's steamrolling operation against Tehran. That the Bush administration is determined to overthrow the Iranian regime has been made abundantly clear in the months following the fall of Baghdad. This belligerency is in spite of the fact that Washington had held secret negotiations with Tehran, via the good offices of Switzerland, Afghanistan and Britain to reach understandings over the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Khatami demanded an apology from the British government over the arrest of the former Iranian diplomat. Although in keeping with internationally recognised diplomatic norms, the request is certain to be drowned out by the bombast of Iranian conservatives and by the din of the anticipated protest demonstrations that are expected to converge on the British Embassy. Following the victory of the Islamic revolution, worshippers in Friday prayers in the University of Tehran would chant: "Death to America! Death to Israel! Death to Britain!" When, in the mid-1990s, Iranian-British relations began to thaw, the "Britain" part vanished from the refrain. It may soon be revived, however, as part of the conservatives' response to Britain's blind loyalty to the neo-con administration in Washington.
