One press conference against another. The first, that of the British sailors in front of Iranian television. The second, just a few days later with the same participants, in front of the press from across the Channel. Two contradictory versions of a single event. There is no point in wondering about the possible indignity of comparing them. The damage is already done. It’s a bit like incorrect information, with significant consequences, appearing in bold headlines in the press before being denied in tiny characters the day after tomorrow. The Iranians have undoubtedly won this first media round of a broader war they wage in the shadows against Western powers. And this, for at least three reasons.
In front of British journalists, the Royal Navy soldiers extensively emphasized the intensity of the “psychological pressures” they endured. We are inclined to believe them, even though we suspect that their training certainly includes solid preparation to cope with such situations if necessary. Was it the result of this preparation that contributed to the sometimes relaxed demeanor of Faye Turney, the only female military member of the group, when she turned towards one of her teammates who, for his part, was visibly holding back a smile during a shot widely broadcast by Iranian television? Nevertheless, the effects were disastrous. And whatever the harshness of the detention conditions of these soldiers, these few seconds of conversation with the misleading appearances of a “urban and civilized” moment are enough to instill doubt in the public’s mind.
Then, the assertion by British authorities that no bargaining had taken place is seriously undermined by the reality of the facts. The almost simultaneous announcement of the release of an Iranian diplomat, mysteriously disappeared in Iraq two months earlier, along with the first visit by a member of the Iranian embassy in Baghdad to the five “diplomats” of this country captured mid-January in Iraq by the American army, lends credibility to the idea of a quid pro quo from which only Tehran ultimately benefits. Whether or not the Iranian authorities premeditated this seizure, as the British are convinced, they evidently exploited the incident to the best of their interests.
Finally, the second press conference during which the safe and sound sailors answered a few questions could have served to erase the adverse effects of the first. The multivoiced recitation of a text meticulously prepared by their hierarchy gave the impression of a new formatting of their thoughts. Will we ever know their personal opinion?
Is the image no longer, as Freud said about the word, “the murder of the thing”? Naming or showing normally aims to clarify, to cleanse the mind. One gets the feeling, in this affair as in others, that by trying to say as little as possible while striving to make others believe the opposite, the historical truth, if it can ever be grasped, is becoming increasingly obscure.
