Iran’s seizure of a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz has global implications. If the situation escalates, it could lead to military clashes that suck in not just Iran and the UK — but also the US and Iran’s regional rivals. Any conflict in this region could destabilise the global economy, since one-third of the world’s seaborne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
As Britain and its allies seek a way through this crisis, they need to balance several considerations. The first is the importance of upholding international law and the principle of freedom of navigation. The second is the practical necessity of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. The third is a strong preference for a diplomatic over a military solution. Finally, the crisis should be dealt with as part of the broader rise in tensions between Iran and the US.
On the issue of law, Iran argues Britain was the first to violate the rules by seizing an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar that was suspected of violating EU sanctions on Syria. But there is a clear difference between Britain’s effort to enforce sanctions against Syria’s rogue regime, and Iran’s retaliatory action against a tanker undertaking legal commercial operations.
Questions are already being raised in Britain as to whether its naval response fell short, and whether that is related to the UK’s broader defence cutbacks. In due course, the legal and political basis for the seizure of the Iranian ship can be challenged in international forums. But this legitimate exercise should not be used as an excuse to legitimise Iran’s hijacking of a tanker — let alone Iran’s more general threats to disrupt shipping, in response to America’s intensified economic sanctions.
In the short run, diplomacy alone may not be enough to guarantee freedom-of-navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. So it is welcome that the Trump administration is looking to coordinate an international naval mission, code-named Operation Sentinel, to protect shipping in the region. This is all the more important given that Donald Trump has, in the past, raised questions over whether the US should continue to play the role of naval policeman in the Gulf. The US president is correct that most of the oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is bound for Asia, not America. But a disruption to global energy supplies would affect the whole world, including the US.
America’s role in protecting freedom-of-navigation does, however, highlight the controversial policies Mr Trump has pursued towards Iran. His administration’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear accord, negotiated by his predecessor, has never been accepted by the EU’s leading powers — including Germany, France and Britain, which have struggled to keep Iran within the deal.
The UK now faces the difficult task of mustering a firm bilateral response to Iran over the tanker — which is likely to include intensifying economic sanctions — without jeopardising wider diplomatic initiatives. Handling this complex knot of issues is made all the harder, given that Britain will this week have a new government, probably headed by Boris Johnson, who is keen to cultivate a closer relationship with the Trump administration.
However, the fears that Mr Johnson will act as America’s “poodle” do not take into account that the Trump administration is itself divided over Iran — with hawks pushing for conflict, while the president hankers after direct talks with Iran’s leadership.
The UK and the EU should encourage his efforts to pursue a diplomatic initiative. The goal should be to settle the tanker issue in a broader resetting of relations between Iran and the west.
