Jack Straw, Britain’s foreign secretary, like his predecessor Robin Cook, is convinced it is important for Britain, and the European Union, to engage in a dialogue with Iran, and not like the Americans just shout at it. Of course, he hopes this will encourage more moderate policies in Tehran. Just at the moment there is no evidence of moderation rippling out of Iran. Inevitably he has come under criticism for not being firmer with a regime that is seen as supporting international terrorism and violating human rights. Britain, Germany and France have been actively involved in talks with Iran seeking to persuade it to stop its controversial nuclear program. The three European Union members have not been successful. Britain decided this matter should be put before the UN Security Council, and it is possible that at some stage UN sanctions could be imposed on Iran, although Russia and China could seek to prevent such a move.

For some two years the British Foreign Office, in the light of the crucial talks on Iran’s nuclear program, raised its concerns over Iran’s links with the Iraqi insurgents only through diplomatic channels. I think this was right. But on Oct. 5 this policy changed dramatically, and an unnamed senior Foreign Office diplomat accused Iran of helping to kill British soldiers in southern Iraq. Britain believes that Iran is implicated in the upsurge in violence through encouragement and the supply of increasingly sophisticated weapons, and presumes this policy is to warn off Britain over its moves in the Security Council against it.

It is known that Iran’s policies for Iraq come under the Supreme National Security Council which is also responsible for running its nuclear program. The Iranians are being accused of supplying infra-red “trip wires” to set off explosives and a new armor-piercing bomb, both of which are used by Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon against Israeli forces. The new bomb is said to be similar in impact to three land mines.

British military intelligence suggested to journalists months ago that Iran was supporting in southern Iraq a terror group run by Abu Mustafa Al-Sheibani which is supposed to have nearly 300 fighters. It may have been behind the murder of six British Royal Military Policemen back in 2003. In the past three months six soldiers and two security guards have been killed in the Basra area. One of those killed, on Sept. 11, was Maj. Matthew Bacon, a highly regarded officer of the Intelligence Corps, who worked in the headquarters of the Multinational Division in Basra.

The British accusations on Oct. 5 brought a swift and robust response from the Iranian Embassy in London. Its spokesman, Hamid Babaei, said:

“We categorically reject such accusations. The stability of Iraq is of paramount importance to Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always taken a position against the insurgency and violence in Iraq.”

Babaei then produced a surprise accusation of his own that British forces are behind “terrorism” in southern Iran, supporting cross-border incursions. I am not clear what this refers to and what evidence is available.

For a considerable time the United States has charged the Iranian government with backing the insurgents’ attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. The Foreign Office denied that the statement of Oct. 5 had been made after diplomatic pressure from Washington.

The Foreign Office claims that there was evidence that elements in Tehran had been in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups in Iraq. While it might be natural to suggest that the Iranians were working with some Shiites in southern Iraq, it is not impossible that the Iranians might also be supporting the Sunni insurgents as a way of making life difficult for the Americans in Iraq. It could be argued that it is in the interests of Tehran to remind the Americans regularly, that it has a very real capacity to embarrass and unbalance the American position in the Middle East and is prepared so to do. It is a fair assumption that since the hawkish President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won his surprise election victory in the summer Iran has embarked on a tough policy toward the Americans and the British. The president has made clear his anger at the attempts by these two countries, and many others, to contain his country’s nuclear program.

There is one other factor to take into account. Individual government departments, and the hard— line Republican Guard, are inclined to go there own way in Tehran and the government is seldom seen to act as one. It could well be the case that the president is not fully in control of what Iranians are doing today in Iraq.

It is safe to forecast that British-Iranian relations are going to remain in choppy water for a long period.