Following the storming of the British Embassy compounds in Tehran, InsideIran’s Reza Akbari conducted an interview with Hossein Alizadeh, the former Iranian charge d’affaires at the Iranian embassy in Finland. He resigned after the contested 2009 presidential election.

Q: How significant were the protests at the British embassy? Do they mark a new chapter in hostilities between Iran and the West?

A: Without a doubt this is a new chapter in escalation of tensions between Iran and Britain and between Iran and the European Union. The Iranian Parliament recognized the key role Britain plays in the European Union and realized that the remarks coming from London are very different compared with the more passive remarks from other European countries such as the Netherlands and Italy.

Understanding Britain’s pivotal role, the Iranian regime decided to first begin its opposition . I only believe it is a show, they passed a bill in the Parliament to reduce diplomatic ties with Britain to the level of charge d’affaires. As part of the same approach, they also physically attacked the embassy and the British residential compound.

Without a doubt these actions will result in the escalation of tensions between Iran, Britain and European Union.

Q: Were these protests orchestrated by the regime?

A: I don’t have a doubt in mind that yesterday’s actions were designed in advance. I can bring up many other examples of similar attacks on other foreign embassies in Tehran. Many years ago, there were attacks on the Embassy of Saudi Arabia, which resulted in the death of Saudi diplomat who fell off the roof.

There have been attacks on the Embassy of Netherlands due to the remarks made by an official from the country. There were similar attacks on the Embassy of Morocco. There have been numerous cases of such attacks. The best example to make the case that such attacks have the government’s backing is the hostage crisis at the United States’ embassy. Some so-called students attacked the U.S Embassy, but the highest political official in Iran, the Supreme Leader, supported that attack. The U.S diplomats were held captive for 444 days. If that incident was supported by the government, then without a doubt, yesterday’s incident was also supported by the government.

I would never believe that the Iranian security forces who had the power to crackdown on millions of street protesters in 2009 are now incapable of stopping a few hundred people from entering the British embassy. Therefore, I believe there was a hidden agenda to drive this action. I am pretty sure that the attackers were not students. They are the same pressure groups that oppress the opposition forces within the country.

Q: Do you think the Iranian regime is more extremist today than a few years ago?

A: Obviously the recent bill passed in the Parliament, yesterday’s incident, and other messages coming from Iran, lead us to believe that the Islamic Republic has decided not to take a single step back. The Iranian government wants to maintain the status quo, and in order to achieve this goal it will use every possible means available to it.

The storming of the embassy would have never happened without the approval of senior regime officials. Therefore, the regime’s decision is to deal with any country that puts pressure on Iran by all means necessary. We should even expect to witness the further radicalization of the Iranian government.

It would not be out of the realm of possibilities for Iran to even use its connections in Europe to plan a sabotage attack even inside Europe.

Q: Do you think this is in response to a perception that Iran will soon be attacked military by the US or Israel?

No, I don’t believe so. The military strike was not seriously considered as an option against Iran. The Iranian government has not taken these threats seriously. The Iranian government believes it is capable of responding, on a limited basis to any military strike. The Iranian regime is not like Saddam’s regime or Qaddafi’s regime, which were completely unable to retaliate.

Iran has proven it has some missile capability. They can easily promote instability in the region. They know the military option is on the table, but it is not the first priority of the Western governments. So, I do not see a direct connection between the Embassy events and the military threats. I do however see a connection between these events and the increase of pressures through sanctions.

These events happened after the British government announced they will be sanctioning Iran’s Central Bank. This is an attempt by the British government to cut the vital artery of the Iranian regime.

Q: What should be the response from the US and Great Britain?

I believe the speed of discussions about Iran between Britain and its allies will increase. Yesterday’s events will be bitter for Britain, but at the same time it demonstrated to them that they have found Iran’s most venerable point. Iran’s vital artery is its Central Bank.

I believe if Britain would have only imposed economic sanctions on Iran, without sanctioning the banks, the response from Iran would have not been so hostile. In a sense, this is feedback on how effective these sanctions really are. So, they will more than likely continue to take advantage of Iran’s venerable point.

More than likely, sanctioning of Iran’s Central Bank will become the first priority on the list of other Western governments.