LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Financial Times – April 11, 2007
From Ms Janet Tavakoli

Sir, John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, appears stubbornly determined to turn what he characterises as a “win-win” for the Iranian government into spin-spin for a bellicose agenda (“How Iran probed, found weakness and won a triumph”, April 9). Britain refused to capitulate while being open to discussions, i.e., information-gathering, a wise course for whatever comes next. Mr Bolton inaccurately cites the debacle’s “murky start” in the Gulf while ignoring Iran’s claim that the US started taking hostages on January 11 2006, in northern Iraq by arresting five members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, supposed diplomats under the protection of the Vienna Convention. While one may dismiss that claim, it was a foreshadowing of what was to come.

Mr Bolton also seems to ignore the rich history between the US, Britain and Iran. Both the US and Britain played a lead role in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, who nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company chiefly because he thought Iranians were not getting a fair share of the profits.

Furthermore, Iran may be acutely aware that it does not – as Mr Bolton claims – hold “all the high cards”. Nor is the world necessarily “a more dangerous place” as a result of British restraint. The only thing that seems clear is that Iran’s actions are a cry for attention. Mr Bolton claims that “it is even less likely there will be a negotiated solution to the nuclear weapons issue”, but he offers no real evidence, only his interpretation of recent events.

Both Mr Bolton’s interpretations and facts have proved wrong in the past. (Among other things, Mr Bolton recently appeared on The Daily Show and aggressively used incorrect information to “correct” host Jon Stewart on the political beliefs of President Lincoln’s cabinet during the Civil War.)

Instead of accepting Mr Bolton’s interpretation, perhaps the US should keep its allies close and keep Iran closer by opening our own discussions.

See also:

“Oil and Power: Iran Approach Must Avoid Past Mistakes” – Hedgeworld (Reuters) – June 12, 2006

“Oil Pressure: Fallout from the Iraq Study Group Report” – Hedgeworld (Reuters) – December 14, 2006, Updated February 13, 2014