Asked at a private gathering why the government backed military action against Iraq but not against Iran, a member of Tony Blair's cabinet responded: "Iranians aren't Arabs. They're civilised. They think like we do." That a serving minister could project racist instincts and simpleton's thinking with such alacrity speaks volumes for the state of modern politics. Still, the substance of the remarks requires scrutiny, in the light of the detention of the 15 British navy personnel.

In this, the second week of their capture, the top priority for British policy must be the early release of the 14 men and, famously, the one woman, Faye Turney. Their staged appearance before TV cameras and coerced confessions are politically abhorrent and personally distressing. The motive for their capture, pre-planned as it seems, has been much speculated on. Is it linked to Iran's nuclear ambitions, a response to the latest UN resolution condemning them? Does it reflect a power struggle involving the Revolutionary Guard and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the one side, and pragmatists around the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on the other? Is it simply a reflection of antipathy towards Iran's longest-standing foe, Britain? Or is it retaliation for the seizure of five Iranians by US forces in the Iraqi town of Erbil?

The Americans have vehemently denied any link, as well they might. Indeed, the relative silence of the Bush administration should be seen as a blessing. It is America's examples around the world, from the use of "rendition" flights and Guantanamo Bay to examples of torture in Iraq, that provide cover for regimes such as Iran's to behave in the way they do. The UK, playing its usual role, comes a close second.

Yet whatever the dismal recent history of Iraq, is something new afoot? Is Britain relearning the lessons of careful diplomacy? From the moment the crew was seized, much of the British media attacked the UK government for being pathetic, weak, lily-livered. Why couldn't our ministers tell the Iranians what's what and . . .

Do what exactly? Bomb? Invade? Detain more of their troops? Once these silly ideas are dismissed, one is left with the time-honoured options of talking, threats of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure. The EU has been staunch in its support, the UN less so. Disappointing though that may be, it is no surprise that Britain is distrusted by other members of an institution we have helped undermine.

In spite of the rebuffs, Britain has knuckled down and sought a way out. The more neoconservatives in the US and UK complain, the more Blair should be praised. It is too early to say whether Britain's more subtle approach to crisis management is confined to this specific case, or whether it presages a broader change of attitude to "rogue states". Recent negotiations with North Korea, led by China, provide evidence elsewhere of new thinking.

That Tehran was a few years ago lumped together with Pyongyang speaks volumes for George Bush's grasp of international affairs. The British government, to give credit where it's due, has, together with the French and Germans, sought to engage Iran on the nuclear issue. Their lack of success denotes not a failure of diplomacy, but the complex power structures in Iran, a country that is educated, proud and embattled.

There were signs as we went to press of diplomatic moves by both sides. A resolution would provide an opportunity on which they could build. The most urgent task is to agree confidence-building measures on the Iran-Iraq land and sea borders. (One works from the assumption also that the basic military errors which appear to have been made when the sailors were seized will not be repeated.)

It is in the interests of Iranians and the world that the position of Holocaust deniers such as Ahmadinejad be weakened. It is only Iranians themselves who can make this happen. Unfortunately, the invasion of Iraq and subsequent US and UK actions have only reinforced the hardliners' hold and encouraged them to seek confrontation.

The British minister was not wrong in suggesting that Iranians act in the way we do. That is just the problem.

Don't be scared of the truth

Cast your mind back to an ancient time in an ancient land: 1997, and the gods of new Labour could do no wrong. Those who criticised publicly did so at their peril. Those who raised questions privately feared ostracisation.

Fast-forward ten years, as Gordon Brown's many enemies scent sweet revenge. They proclaim the Chancellor was warned about the recklessness of his plan to remove tax relief on pension contributions. Documents released now show that he was told of the risks, but he took a different view. This is surely the responsibility of government - to assess the pros and cons, and then decide. Indeed, whatever later caused the huge deficits in pension funds (and there are several reasons, of which Brown's Budget move was one), the main reason at the time for raising the cash was not unreasonable - to invest more in health and education.

So, if Brown has a fairly decent story to tell, why has he been so scared to tell it? Why did the Treasury fight for two years to stop the official papers being released under the Freedom of Information Act? And then why was the information slipped out late on a Friday? Journalists and the public are far too wily to fall for that old trick.

Governments get into trouble (viz: Iraq and much more) only when they play fast and loose with information and when they claim civil service advice was more supportive than it was. Tell it straight, at the time and after. It's always the safest bet.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website