Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Sixth Report


4  Role of Third Parties

46. The note submitted by the FCO states that the Government embarked on a "world-wide diplomatic lobbying campaign" in a bid to isolate Iran.[77] We have already considered the results of its efforts at the Security Council and European Union. This short section considers the role of regional states and the United States.

Regional States

47. The FCO note says that many countries supported the Government's diplomatic lobbying efforts against Iran. Arab countries, led by the Iraqis, "were particularly active." In the assessment of the FCO, "the impact in the Gulf States was of real significance."[78] Lord Triesman told us that,

    a significant number of Arab and Islamic states, or the secular Islamic states—I make that distinction because Turkey played a significant role in this—were very willing and very vigorous. At one stage, we were told that Mr Mottaki [Iran's Foreign Minister] was complaining that one of the reasons he could not speak to us more often was that he was on the phone all the time to all of those people who were phoning him.[79]

Sir Richard Dalton agreed. He told us alongside the EU statement referred to earlier,

    the key influences on the Iranians were, I think, the regional ones. … A major Iranian objective was to show power in the region, yet they had a stream of phone calls from all their regional neighbours, saying, 'Please bring this to an end.'[80]

48. Members of the Committee raised the issue of the detained personnel with Syria's President, Bashar Assad, whilst on a visit to Damascus at the time of the crisis. We asked Sir Richard for his assessment of Syria's role. He replied:

    There have been articles suggesting on the basis of Syrian briefings that the Syrians were pleased to help. That would fit with the Syrian wish to make it plain to the west that it is not a country to be put into the doghouse and isolated, in the way that might be associated with US policy, but rather is a reasonable country, that can be dealt with. Putting a good word in would have been a logical course as part of the Syrian campaign to rehabilitate its image.[81]

The United States

49. There were press reports that the United States had offered to conduct aggressive military patrols over Revolutionary Guard bases to underline the seriousness of the situation, but that the Government asked the Americans not to embark on this course.[82] We raised this with Lord Triesman. He replied:

    The United States had two carrier battle groups—I believe they were the Eisenhower and Nimitz groups. Each contains quite a large number of ships, and the two would obviously have sizeable air power based on them. Their plans and manoeuvres, as I understand it, had been formulated a long time in advance. In general, such manoeuvres involved them staying on the Iraqi side of the waterway and inland. In the past, they have certainly involved them flying over oil installations on that side of the border, both at sea and inland. We simply expressed the view—at this stage I would rather go no further—that low flights, even over the oil platforms, would not be helpful in trying to conduct the discussions that were going on.[83]

50. We conclude that the Government appears to have made good use of third parties in applying pressure on Iran. In particular, we believe that representations made to the United States not to conduct their intended military plans and manoeuvres were particularly important in helping to prevent an escalation of the situation.


77   Ev 12, para 6 Back

78   Ev 12, para 6 Back

79   Q 126 Back

80   Q 5 Back

81   Q 6 Back

82   "Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace", The Guardian, 7 April 2007 Back

83   Q 121 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 22 July 2007