Tit-for-Tat

Update: Iran has blamed the Britain and the United States for two bombings in Ahvaz which killed at least 9. "Traces of the occupiers of Iraq is evident in the Ahvaz events. They should take responsibility in this regard," said President Ahmadinejad 1/25/2006.

Originally posted @ 11:50 am 10/20/2005.

There is a grow rift between the Iranian government and that of Great Britain. It began in the Shi'a south of Iraq. The British have controlled this region since the 2003 invasion, specifically Basra which is the second largest city in Iraq. While relatively calm, there are "doings-a-transpiring." First some history: This area revolted in 1991 (at the suggestion of the United States) following the liberation of Kuwait. The uprising was brutally suppressed and a deep distrust formed. Americans had encouraged the revolt and idly watched as the Shi'a were slaughtered for adhering. Over the next twelve years, influence and support quietly flowed from Shi'a Iran as dissidents fled to and returned from Iran. Following the overthrow of the Baathists in 2003, a political vacuum was formed, allowing a greater degree of cross-border influence. Ties were formed and support structures implemented; the play for power had begun.

Recently Great Britain accused Iran, specifically the Revolutionary Guard, of supplying armor-piercing explosives to insurgents in Iraq. Iran, of course, denied the accusations, stating that a "stable Iraq" is in their interest. They fail to mention what conditions providing that stability are preferable, but one can assume they prefer stability based on anything which increases their leverage and influence, such as a Shi'a dominated Islamic government.

More recently, Iran has accused the British of "leaving footprints" behind a bombing in Iran. They claim to have evidence linking the British to a shopping mall bombing in Ahvaz which killed six and wounded over 100. The Iranians did not publicly offer the evidence and I would not expect them to do so. The area where the bombings occurred has been a prolonged source of unrest for the Iranian government. By blaming the British, they accomplish a number of objectives.

1. They establish an external enemy as a source of civil disorder, reducing the appearance of internal discontent while consolidating support against a foreign actor.
2. They paint the British as "meddling with internal affairs," building on the same theme as the nuclear issue (think US & EU3).
3. They split the appearance of impropriety with the British. Both are making essentially the same claims so both can claim the other is lying.

A problem arises for the Iranians through all this. The British have repeatedly denounced the bombing in Iran as a terrorist act. They have offered support and assistance if needed. These are hollow offers (because Iran would never accept) but they portray Britain as actively opposing the actions in Iran while Iran has remained essentially silent about attacks on the British in Iraq. A subtle, but vital difference. The British are willing to say they'll help solve Iran's problems, but Iran is not willing to say they'll help solve the British problems. Nuanced, but it clarifies the audiences for whom this public tit-for-tat is aimed.