The release of the 15 captured sailors has ended after a 13-day stand-off that has revealed certain "methods" currently employed against Iran and its diplomats. But was the release also timed to counteract a possible planned US strike on Good Friday?

On Wednesday, April 4, 2007, the 15 captured sailors were released by the Iranian government. It ended a 13-day standoff that threatened to become a global crisis. Iran and Britain were both claiming that the release of the 15 British military personnel vindicated their own strategies. Tony Blair welcomed the surprise Iranian promise to release the captives as a success for the government's "measured approach", but Tehran also claimed that its handling of the situation had won it new respect on the world stage.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced the release towards the end of a 90-minute monologue on regional history and global politics, claiming it was a seasonal gift. "Under the influence of the Muslim Prophet, [Iran] forgives these 15 people and gives their freedom to the British people as a gift," President Ahmadinejad said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair emerged from 10 Downing Street with Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, to hail the ending to the crisis as a victory for tightrope diplomacy. "We have taken a measured approach, firm but calm, not negotiating but not confronting either," he said. Addressing the Iranian people directly, he said Britain respected and admired Iran's "ancient civilisation" and "proud and dignified history". "We bear you no ill will. The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue."

Iran believes that the 13 day period has cut down British arrogance. A senior Iranian source - with contacts in the Revolutionary Guards who took the British naval patrol captive in the northern Gulf on March 23 - said the incident would serve as a lasting lesson to Britain's leaders. "They believe they are in the 19th century and Britain is an empire. But we are not Pahlavis [the family of the last Shah] and we are no longer in the British Empire." Iranian politicians also stated that Britain was lying when it claimed that the seizure had occurred in Iraqi waters, belittling Iranian diplomats even further when they claimed that initially, the Iranians had produced a map that "clearly" showed the seizure had occurred in Iraqi waters.

The main question is why and how the British sailors were released. Great Britain was adamant the Britons' release was not linked to future talks. "We didn't get into negotiation. This is not a conditional release," said one Downing Street insider. However, speculation of a secret deal was raised by a US announcement that Iranian diplomats might be given access to five Iranians arrested by American soldiers in Iraq, after three months in detention. Earlier in the week, it was learned that the seizure of the 15 sailors might have been specific retaliation for the seizure of these Iranian diplomats.
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who has been negotiating consular access to the five Iranians, told the British newspaper "the Guardian" that he had pursued the issue for weeks and that there was "no connection whatsoever" to the release of the Britons. A source close to the Revolutionary Guards agreed. The fate of the Irbil five was not a motive for the capture, he said, but it did become a negotiating point after the event. "Officially there is no swap. But there should not be a double standard. You want access [to your prisoners]. We want access [to ours]."

The Prime Minister's office believes that the end of the crisis is a vindication of Blair's "twin track" approach of getting the backing of the international community on the one hand and pursuing talks with the Iranians on the other. During the first week of the crisis, attempts to establish substantive talks with the Iranians proved futile, hampered by the long public holiday there. The Iranians, too, bridled at UK attempts to bring pressure through the UN and the EU. Specifically the UN was rather if not totally unwilling to help the British endeavour, perhaps because with the Iraqi war, Britain took no notice of UN mandates against that country. The German government, leading the EU, tried to put pressure on Iran, but unsuccessfully.
Less known is that the Syrians claim to have played a leading role in persuading Iran of the foolishness in detaining the Britons any longer. Iran's decision may have been the culmination of many reasons, but observers say Tehran must have been convinced it was in its interests to give up its bargaining chips. All sailors had admitted to trespassing into Iranian waters (some repeatedly) and could be put on trial. But on Monday, April 2, the Iranian government stated that it would not hold trials, thus largely making the sailors surplus to requirements.

Iranian sources explained that the Britons had been captured by low-ranking Revolutionary Guards. They claim it was at least the fourth such incursion in three months. "They came to our waters before ... at least three times," an Iranian source said. "We gave them notice that you shouldn't be. We didn't use aggressive methods. We didn't shoot [across the British bows]. Both sides know the sensitive atmosphere."
Once arrested, their release required intervention on a higher level. That was delayed by the No Rouz (New Year) holidays which only ended on Tuesday April 3.

But analysts in Tehran say the British crew provided a convenient tool for the Iranian government at a time it was casting around for a means to strike back against an Anglo-American policy of isolation. The capture occurred the day before discussions at the UN over Iran's nuclear programme. "Iran was seeking the chance to get something out of Britain," said Mohammad Atrianfar, a commentator with close ties to moderate figures in the Iranian regime. "The issue isn't important militarily, but it has been useful politically."
But what if there is indeed a military dimension to this? The Russians had warned of a US attack against Iran for April 6. This information came from the highest echelons of the Russian army. Even if the information proved to be erroneous, Iran, who works closely with Russia (Russia providing assistance in the creation of their nuclear reactors), must have taken this information seriously and may have decided to act in such a way as to postpone what may still be the inevitable. It is unlikely Britain would have aided in such American air strikes, or may have tried to dissuade the US from carrying them out if the sailors were still in Tehran on April 6. But it is clear that Britain has no clear influence over the White House and hence the attack may have been carried out, regardless of the sailors' presence in the Iranian capital - or elsewhere.
However, by showing this "good will gesture" on April 4, Iran may have played upon the international community, to show its good nature. If the US were to carry out military strikes on April 6, it might embarrass the US government if it were asked to explain their military attack, at a time when Iran seemed to be coming around. And trying to counter an imminent attack may indeed be the card that Iran played by scheduling their release for April 4, "just" in time for the world's headlines to run their release on April 5 - making it very hard for the US to justify why it would attack on April 6.

Still, that same April 4, there were rumours, from inside Kuwait city, that the US was planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of the month. The Kuwait-based "Arab Times" newspaper cited - as usual - anonymous sources in Washington. It said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran. The speech will provide the "evidence" and the "justification" for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions. According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms - a US claim for which there has so far been no hard evidence.
Though Iran may have changed the political landscape, they are not yet out of the murky waters.