Boris Johnson was right to go to Iran, but he was the wrong choice as Foreign Secretary

At least Boris Johnson has done the right thing in flying to Iran to speak to his opposite number, Mohammad Javad Zarif. He made a terrible mistake when he suggested to MPs that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the Iranian British national, had been training journalists when she was arrested in Iran last year.

His unfortunate choice of words seemed to support the Iranian authorities’ allegation that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe was spying.

We should accept, however, that the Foreign Secretary made a mistake and that he did, after some prompting, tell the House of Commons that he was wrong to say what he said and that he apologised for it. His error cannot be undone, unfortunately, and the Iranian judicial system will continue to exploit it.

It is possible that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe will appear in court again this weekend and find that her five-year sentence has been extended. We should be clear that Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention is unjustified, and that the Iranian authorities are wrong to use her as part of their propaganda campaign against the West.

Mr Johnson has done what he could to atone for his carelessness. He has met Richard Ratcliffe, Nazanin’s husband, who has campaigned tirelessly for her release, and he has now sought to open a dialogue with the Iranian government.

The Foreign Secretary’s visit is unlikely to produce immediate results, and Mr Johnson has been keen to downplay expectations. “It was made very clear that we shouldn’t expect any miracles,” said Tulip Siddiq, Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s MP. The geopolitical context, with Britain’s ally the United States tilting towards Israel on the question of Jerusalem, seems inhospitable.

Mr Johnson no doubt tried to distance the UK from the Trump administration in his discussions, stressing British support for the 2015 agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme. But, as ever, it is the theocratic shadow state that wields the real power in Iran, and it is ideologically disinclined to make much moral distinction between what it sees as the “Great Satan” of the US and the “Little Satan” of the UK.

Let us hope, then, that Mr Johnson’s officials have done whatever work they can to try to engage with the Iranian brokers who hold Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s fate in their hands.

In the meantime, it is worth stepping back to consider Mr Johnson’s future. It would be wrong to move him for a mistake for which he has apologised and sought to make amends. But he was a poor choice as Foreign Secretary in the first place, and his handling of the responsibilities of this great office has not been so impressive that he has made a compelling case for long service.

When the Prime Minister, strengthened by her success in Brussels this week, comes to refashion her Cabinet in due course, there is a strong case for appointing as Foreign Secretary someone with more subtlety, principle and above all tact than the present incumbent.