The psychological warfare that began with the arrest of British sailors by the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guards enticed many to ask for the motivation behind this decision. In an interview with “Rooz,” renowned Iranian political scientist and University of Tehran professor Davoud Hermidas Bavand claims that, even though in the short run this scandal could boost the morale of the radicals in Tehran, in the long run if will have no effect other than strengthening the position of war hawks in the White House.
Rooz (R): Dr. Bavand, how do you interpret the decision to arrest and subsequently release the British sailors in the current environment?
Davoud Hermidas Bavand (DHB): For a while, a semi-tense situation had evolved between Britain and the Islamic Republic. The British tried to connect terrorist attacks in Basrah to Iran, while Iran attempted to hold Britain responsible for terrorist attacks in Ahwaz [capital of Khuzistan province in Iran]. The incident took place outside the Arvandrood area. It took place on the bordering waters between Iran and Iraq. The Iranians claim that the British had entered into Iranian waters, but the British claim that they were in Iraqi waters, although later on some British officials adjusted their views. In any case, under normal circumstances, if a boat, even a war boat, does not abide by border rules, it will receive a warning to leave the area. This is both the legal norm and is mandated by Article 33 of the 1958 Geneva Convention (On The Continental Shef).
(R): But that is under normal circumstances. What about the present?
(DHB): Well, things are different in times of crisis. In any case, they were arrested.
(R): What do you think motivated the Revolutionary Guards?
(DHB): According to the Security Council resolution, coalition forces are in charge of controlling and monitoring ships that they suspect are involved in smuggling weapons and other things into Iraq. That is their responsibility. I guess that the British forces got too close to Iranian waters to do this when the incident took place. A fact-finding commission must report on what really happened.
(R): Some argue that this incident was a show of power from the Revolutionary Guards. Now that the sailors are released, do you think that the Islamic Republic reached its aims?
(DHB): Well, they [Iranian officials] had already said that if the other side makes “illegal” decisions we could do the same. If we take this as an “illegal” act, then it is a response to the other side. In the domestic front, this act has emboldened the radical front, which has focused both domestic and international attention on itself.
(R): In recent months, many have discussed the option of taking “military action” against Iran. Given the current situation, do you think that such an option is probable?
(DHB): American officials have repeatedly denied the possibility of attacking Iran. European countries have a negative view on military action as well. But we should keep in mind that, when the United States Congress says that any military action against Iran must be by its approval, it means that the option of “war” is on the table, but its when and how must be approved by Congress. The stationing of American aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, especially the third one that is on its way, goes beyond ensuring the security of a limited waterway like the Persian Gulf. These carriers should normally be stationed in the Arabian Sea or the Gulf of Oman. Their costly presence in the Persian Gulf cannot just be a psychological maneuvering. The military option is a final option for the United States. I believe that, if Mr. Bush does not face more regional crises, he will pursue passing further resolutions against Iran and influencing the American public opinion gradually through various scenarios. The Islamic Republic’s decision to arrest the British sailors provided one such scenario to those who are after manipulation the public to prepare it for the last stage: military strike.
