The “old fox” is back. When Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond visited Tehran this week, he did far more than reopen the British Embassy: his presence signalled a new chapter in the poisonous yet strangely intimate relationship between Britain and Iran.
In Iran's eyes, Britain is still the 'old fox’
The reopening of the British Embassy in Tehran begins a new chapter in an old and poisonous relationship
Gary Thompson, overseas security manager at Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, raises the Union Flag at the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran Photo: REUTERS/Darren Staples
By David Blair
25 Aug 2015
The Telegraph
The “old fox” is back. When Philip Hammond visited Tehran this week, he did far more than reopen the British Embassy: his presence signalled a new chapter in the poisonous yet strangely intimate relationship between Britain and Iran.
One local daily welcomed the Foreign Secretary by helpfully listing the top 29 “crimes” supposedly committed against Iran by the “old fox” – namely Britain. The charge sheet in “Kayhan” ("Universe") newspaper began in 1857, when London deprived Iran of a slice of what became Afghanistan, and continued into 1889, when Britain seems to have “established a casino” in Iran.
The litany of shame galloped through the 20th century, pausing to dwell on the Salman Rushdie affair when Britain’s biggest offence was, it appears, to have “protected” the British author rather than give him up to be murdered.
The final entry on the “Kayhan” indictment occurred as recently as 2009, when the Foreign Office allegedly masterminded the street protests against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election.
This catalogue of infamy presented Britain as monstrously cunning, implacably ruthless – and possessed of almost magical power. In real life, our diplomats are excruciatingly well-intentioned; in Tehran, these distinctly unfox-like officials are credited with the ability to conjure revolutions from thin air, as if they might wake up one day and beguile hundreds of thousands of Iranians into filling the streets.
Such were the characteristics imposed upon the inoffensive figure of Mr Hammond during his two days in Tehran. So how did this particular idea of Britain take hold in Iran – and why have the two old enemies restored full diplomatic relations now?
Iran’s attitude towards Britain is explained by a crucial paradox. On paper, the country was always independent and never part of the Empire – Iran was not painted red on the map. But, in reality, London ran the place anyway.
Britain needed Iran as a source of oil and a buffer state to protect India from Russian expansion. Yet the chosen method of control was veiled and indirect. Instead of conquering Iran, Britain made itself the power behind the “peacock throne” of a succession of pliant Shahs.
This meant that Iran never had an Independence Day, marking a clear and unambiguous transfer of power. Hence some Iranians still question whether their country is genuinely the master of its fate. Every event, whether trivial or tumultuous, is put down to the work of cunning outsiders.
The last Shah, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, went to his grave believing that Britain had masterminded his downfall by organising, of all things, the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Fast-forward three decades and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, bluntly declared that Britain was behind the mass demonstrations in 2009.
Iranian rulers - whether Shahs or Ayatollahs - tend to think the British are out to get them. And ordinary Iranians often believe that whoever might pretend to be in charge of their country is actually a puppet of shadowy foreigners.
So why did London and Tehran both consent to reopen the British Embassy? And how did Mr Hammond come to be watching a Union Flag being raised in the heart of Tehran, where it now flies over the Embassy’s five acres of emerald lawn and elegant Victorian architecture?
Graffiti in Persian saying 'Death to England' is seen above a picture of the Queen at the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran Photo: REUTERS/Darren Staples
It would be comforting to believe that enlightened diplomacy explains this outbreak of harmony. Perhaps Britain and Iran decided to bury the hatchet purely out of goodwill.
In fairness, both sides have showed a rare degree of magnanimity: Britain could – and perhaps should – have been far more offended by the fact that the Embassy was looted by a pro-regime mob in 2011. Remarkably, the Foreign Office chose to clean up the damage at its own expense. Meanwhile, Iran’s rulers went out of their way to welcome Mr Hammond.
But more familiar forces have also been at work. The Foreign Secretary would not have gone to Tehran – and the Embassy would not have reopened – unless Iran had signed the nuclear deal in Vienna last month. And Iran would not have done so unless it had wanted to escape the punitive economic sanctions imposed by America, Britain and their allies.
So Iran’s rapprochement with the West is a victory for straightforward, old-fashioned coercion, at least as much as for moderation and wisdom. Which, given the history of the 'old fox’ and the Islamic Republic, is entirely what you would expect.
In Iran's eyes, Britain is still the 'old fox’ - Telegraph
In Iran's eyes, Britain is still the 'old fox’
The reopening of the British Embassy in Tehran begins a new chapter in an old and poisonous relationship
Gary Thompson, overseas security manager at Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, raises the Union Flag at the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran Photo: REUTERS/Darren Staples
By David Blair
25 Aug 2015
The Telegraph
The “old fox” is back. When Philip Hammond visited Tehran this week, he did far more than reopen the British Embassy: his presence signalled a new chapter in the poisonous yet strangely intimate relationship between Britain and Iran.
One local daily welcomed the Foreign Secretary by helpfully listing the top 29 “crimes” supposedly committed against Iran by the “old fox” – namely Britain. The charge sheet in “Kayhan” ("Universe") newspaper began in 1857, when London deprived Iran of a slice of what became Afghanistan, and continued into 1889, when Britain seems to have “established a casino” in Iran.
The litany of shame galloped through the 20th century, pausing to dwell on the Salman Rushdie affair when Britain’s biggest offence was, it appears, to have “protected” the British author rather than give him up to be murdered.
The final entry on the “Kayhan” indictment occurred as recently as 2009, when the Foreign Office allegedly masterminded the street protests against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election.
This catalogue of infamy presented Britain as monstrously cunning, implacably ruthless – and possessed of almost magical power. In real life, our diplomats are excruciatingly well-intentioned; in Tehran, these distinctly unfox-like officials are credited with the ability to conjure revolutions from thin air, as if they might wake up one day and beguile hundreds of thousands of Iranians into filling the streets.
Such were the characteristics imposed upon the inoffensive figure of Mr Hammond during his two days in Tehran. So how did this particular idea of Britain take hold in Iran – and why have the two old enemies restored full diplomatic relations now?
Iran’s attitude towards Britain is explained by a crucial paradox. On paper, the country was always independent and never part of the Empire – Iran was not painted red on the map. But, in reality, London ran the place anyway.
Britain needed Iran as a source of oil and a buffer state to protect India from Russian expansion. Yet the chosen method of control was veiled and indirect. Instead of conquering Iran, Britain made itself the power behind the “peacock throne” of a succession of pliant Shahs.
This meant that Iran never had an Independence Day, marking a clear and unambiguous transfer of power. Hence some Iranians still question whether their country is genuinely the master of its fate. Every event, whether trivial or tumultuous, is put down to the work of cunning outsiders.
The last Shah, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, went to his grave believing that Britain had masterminded his downfall by organising, of all things, the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Fast-forward three decades and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, bluntly declared that Britain was behind the mass demonstrations in 2009.
Iranian rulers - whether Shahs or Ayatollahs - tend to think the British are out to get them. And ordinary Iranians often believe that whoever might pretend to be in charge of their country is actually a puppet of shadowy foreigners.
So why did London and Tehran both consent to reopen the British Embassy? And how did Mr Hammond come to be watching a Union Flag being raised in the heart of Tehran, where it now flies over the Embassy’s five acres of emerald lawn and elegant Victorian architecture?
Graffiti in Persian saying 'Death to England' is seen above a picture of the Queen at the British Embassy in Tehran, Iran Photo: REUTERS/Darren Staples
It would be comforting to believe that enlightened diplomacy explains this outbreak of harmony. Perhaps Britain and Iran decided to bury the hatchet purely out of goodwill.
In fairness, both sides have showed a rare degree of magnanimity: Britain could – and perhaps should – have been far more offended by the fact that the Embassy was looted by a pro-regime mob in 2011. Remarkably, the Foreign Office chose to clean up the damage at its own expense. Meanwhile, Iran’s rulers went out of their way to welcome Mr Hammond.
But more familiar forces have also been at work. The Foreign Secretary would not have gone to Tehran – and the Embassy would not have reopened – unless Iran had signed the nuclear deal in Vienna last month. And Iran would not have done so unless it had wanted to escape the punitive economic sanctions imposed by America, Britain and their allies.
So Iran’s rapprochement with the West is a victory for straightforward, old-fashioned coercion, at least as much as for moderation and wisdom. Which, given the history of the 'old fox’ and the Islamic Republic, is entirely what you would expect.
In Iran's eyes, Britain is still the 'old fox’ - Telegraph
Last edited: