What the end of the hostage crisis means for the world

IRAN

By Angus McDowall in Tehran and Anne Penketh

Related articles

• Leading article: Iraq and the erosion of Britain's moral authority
• Blair attacks Iran as Basra deaths overshadow the hostages' return
• British hostages: 'It's just a relief that this is all over'
• Anne Penketh: Is Tehran really to blame for mounting death toll?
• Letters: British hostages in Iran
• Search the news archive for more stories

Much has been made of the factionalism in Iranian politics, but the past fortnight has demonstrated an unusual degree of unity. Whether the capture of the British boats was planned by the Revolutionary Guards alone, or approved from on high, will probably never be known.

But Iranian insiders say the Supreme National Security Council, where foreign policy is decided, took charge of the crisis early on and exploited it.

This does not mean that the regime is united in everything, however - wide rifts separate the warring factions on everything from economic management to Iraq and the nuclear confrontation. But the division of labours - between diplomacy and credit - reflects a shift in the delicate balance of Iranian politics.

Ali Larijani, the increasingly influential secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, is understood to have made the diplomatic breakthrough, whereas President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared to play little role in the saga beyond making the dramatic announcement of the release. Despite being the nominal head of the council, his foreign policy credentials are poor - and were not called upon until it was time to present Iranian magnanimity to the world.

Official opinion in Tehran is that the crisis ended with an Iranian victory. Iran showed that despite months of Western pressure, it could seize two boatloads of coalition troops and hold them for two weeks without facing serious sanction - a lesson to Britain and the US of the possible consequences of future confrontation.

The only groups to be dismayed by Wednesday's events were hardline factions already opposed to the President. They were given a sop in the award of a medal to the Revolutionary Guardsman who captured the British boats, but were cheated of their demand to see the sailors tried and an apology from the UK.

Despite the comparative unity in how to deal with this crisis, some powerful Iranian pragmatists are aware it leaves Iran low in international stock. It is likely to have exacerbated the concern of the (Sunni Muslim) Arab states about the (Shia Muslim) Iranian regime, as they were already worried about the prospect of Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iranian pragmatists understand that the hostage crisis could backfire on the country when the question of its nuclear programme is next put to the UN Security Council in two and a half months. The EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, raised the issue of the British sailors' detention in a conversation on Wednesday with Mr Larijani - but officials denied any trade-off.

The diplomatic channel between Mr Solana and Mr Larijani has stayed open despite Iran's defiance of the United Nations. European nations and the US suspect Iran, which declares its intentions are peaceful, is trying to build a bomb under cover of a civilian programme.

TONY BLAIR

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Tony Blair's relief at Iran's release of the 15 Royal Navy personnel was eclipsed by the news that another four British soldiers had met their deaths in Iraq.

At the start of Prime Minister's Questions each Wednesday, Mr Blair almost always has to pay tribute to the latest serviceman to be killed in Iraq. There was a similar sombre moment yesterday when he appeared outside No 10 to speak about the return of the 15 but had to focus on the deaths in Basra.

Time is running out for Mr Blair to escape what many Labour MPs have long regarded as inevitable - that his "legacy" in the eyes of most people will be defined by Iraq. As well as the disastrous aftermath of the war itself, "Iraq" has also come to symbolise the public's lack of trust in Mr Blair for taking the country to war on a false prospectus.

There was a time when the Prime Minister hoped to announce a significant withdrawal of British forces from Iraq before standing down this summer. Such hopes have been scuppered by George Bush's decision to send more US troops to the Baghdad region - a move that is also likely to prevent Gordon Brown, Mr Blair's probable successor, drawing a line under Iraq by pulling out British forces early in his premiership.

So the "Blair Legacy Project" is being scaled down. There seems little sign of early progress in the Middle East peace process, another issue Mr Blair had hoped to highlight in his final months. He may rely mainly on Northern Ireland, an issue on which he deserves praise for his painstaking work, and may announce his departure on 9 May, the day after self-government is restored in the province.

Yesterday Mr Blair hailed the release of the 15 as a victory for the Government's "twin-track" approach - maximising international pressure on Iran while seeking talks with it.

But officials admitted privately that the breakthrough made by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Mr Blair's foreign affairs adviser, on Tuesday night was thought likely in Downing Street to lead to prolonged negotiations - not the early release of the 15, which came as a pleasant surprise. In other words, Iran called the shots because it held all the cards.

GEORGE BUSH

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

As the Bush administration hailed the release of the 15 British sailors and marines, Washington signalled its readiness to talk to Iran directly over the Iraq crisis. But it dismissed suggestions of an impending quid pro quo release of the five Iranians being held by US forces in northern Iraq.

The US was considering a request from Iran for consular access to the five, said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman. But "there's no inclination to let them go", Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, told reporters.

At the White House, officials insisted that the US was not involved in the resolution of the crisis, which had been settled between London and Tehran.

Indeed, from the outset Mr Bush has kept a low profile. That approach contrasts with his handling of the nuclear stand-off with Iran, where he insists that every option, including the military one, is "on the table" to prevent Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Almost certainly by no co-incidence, the British sailors were captured as the UN Security Council prepared to pass the tougher sanctions. Since then the nuclear stalemate has been virtually forgotten.

The hope now in Washington is that the surprise release of the 15 would lead to a change of heart by the Iranian leadership on the nuclear issue as well.

But Mr Gates said there were still "many unknowns" in why they were released.

The unexpectedly speedy end to the crisis may bolster those who believe negotiation, not confrontation, is the way to deal with Iran. Yet rumours persist, despite official denials here, that the US plans military strikes by the end of this month to destroy Iranian nuclear installations.

BRITISH ARMY

By Kim Sengupta

The British military were caught off guard when the service personnel was seized and they were taken by surprise again by the suddenness with which they were freed. But, behind the relief that the episode has ended peacefully, is the realisation that what happened has huge implications for the UK's presence in the Gulf.

An inquest is already under way into why no intelligence indicated that the sailors and marines were at risk, and into the weaknesses in the rules of engagement which allowed them to be captured with no resistance. Debate will also focus on whether the hostages should have allowed themselves to be paraded on television for propaganda purposes, and what they are told to do under such circumstances.

The wider question brought up by the hostage-taking concerns the challenges that British forces in Iraq, on land and water, can expect in an attritional confrontation with Iran. What happened in the Shatt al-Arab followed months of accusations by the US and UK that the Iranians have been supplying Shia militias in Iraq with sophisticated explosive devices which have claimed the lives of coalition troops.

The feeling is that more crises will follow. Admiral Sir Alan West, who has just left as head of the Royal Navy, told The Independent: " It is not just a military but very much a political matter as well. There will be a thorough debriefing of the service personnel who were taken prisoner, and a thorough analysis of lessons learnt. We had set up a system of communications with the Iranians on the Gulf but obviously, on this occasion, it did not work, and this is something we need to look at. The important matter is to decide how we interact with Iran."

Although British naval forces are in the Gulf under a United Nations mandate, they are not, despite some reports to the contrary, working under UN rules of engagement which have often been criticised for not being robust enough.

The coalition forces in Iraq have their own rules and the American ones differ from the British. Commander Erik Horner, of the US Navy, said: "Our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation." US personnel, said the commander, faced with the same situation as the British, would have opened fire.

For the British, a firefight was not a practical option. The two patrol ships that seized them had rocket-propelled grenades and heavy-calibre machine-guns. The British marines and sailors only had rifles.

Major-General Julian Thompson, who led the marines in the Falklands War, said: "We need to find out why there was nothing at hand to go to their rescue. We all have our views about the Iraq war - I have been publicly against it - but, if we are to put our forces in harm's way, then we must make a better job of looking after them."