Back to Gideon RachmanThere is much head-scratching in Britain today, about why the Iranian government has chosen to focus its anger about “foreign meddling” more on the UK than the US. Why is it Iranians working for the British embassy who have been arrested? Why did the supreme leader single Britain out for special condemnation in his speech at Friday prayers, ten days ago?
Two popular theories are doing the rounds here. First, its all to do with history - and Iranian memories of decades of British meddling. Second, the Iranians want to keep open the possiblity of accepting Obama’s famously outstretched hand. Both theories have their merits. But I think there is a simpler explanation. I’m sure the Iranians are furious with the Americans and see the CIA’s hand everywhere. But arresting Americans or bating Obama is risky. The US is the sole superpower and has troops and planes sitting in the Gulf and in Iraq. It is much easier and less risky to pick a fight with Britain.
You could see the same logic at work in the recent spats between Britain and Russia. The Russians, like the Iranians, claim to be convinced that western intelligence agencies are plotting against them and fomenting revolution. But it was the British Council that was singled out for harassment - not some branch of the American government. Again, its easier to pick on the less intimidating “little Satan”.
If it’s any comfort to the Brits, they are not the only ones to suffer from the middling-power syndrome. The French were shocked by the ferocity of the Chinese reaction to the Sarkozy government’s policy on Tibet. Surely, the Americans had been just as sympathetic to the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama? Well yes, but that’s not the point. France looked likea free hit. You have to think harder before confronting America.
What could remedy this sorry situation? Only real and consistent displays of European Union solidarity - in which a confrontation with one European country is invariably treated as a confrontation with the EU as a whole. The trouble is, this rarely happens - see Danish cartoons, the Baltic pipeline, and the sad episode of the Parsley Islands.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.