I apologize for the lack of updates on the Iran-U.K. crisis. Over the weekend, there was a definite hardening of the British tone, as indicated by what the Telegraph reported yesterday: “Tony Blair warned Iran last night that it has only a few days to find a diplomatic solution to the escalating crisis over the 15 missing British sailors and Marines.”
Of course, this raises the question, only a few days… or what? Blair didn’t say, and that has The Times of London upset:
[The soldiers’] kidnapping is an outrage. In earlier times it would have been an immediate casus belli. It would fully justify the use of force to obtain their release. There is, however, an even greater outrage compounding this insult to international law: the pusillanimous timidity of British officials and politicians, who have failed disgracefully to confront Iran with the ultimatum this flagrant aggression demands.
Frankly, I’m not sure if Blair’s words were even as obliquely confrontational as the Telegraph suggested (”only a few days to find a diplomatic solution”). This CNN video includes his actual statement, so you can judge for yourself:
Meanwhile, an article in The Australian quotes a White House spokeswoman referring to the incident as a “hostage-taking” and saying the Bush Administration shares Britain’s “concern and outrage.” (Hat tip: Right Wing News, via Melissa Clouthier.)
The good news (potentially, at least) is that Iran’s tone appeared to soften on Monday:
Iran said Monday it was questioning 15 British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was “intentional or unintentional” before deciding what to do with them—the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff. …
The Iranian emphasis Monday on the detainees’ intent was a noticeable pullback from the certainty expressed Saturday by Iran’s military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar. Afshar said then that the 15 confessed to “aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran’s waters.”
Meanwhile, oil prices spiked because of “fears that tensions over [the kidnapping] and Tehran’s nuclear programme could escalate into a wider confrontation.”
Pajamas Media has a continually updated roundup post.
P.S. Admiral Sir Alan West explains the rules of engagement for British soldiers in the situation they were confronted with:
The rules are very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting. … So we try to downplay things. Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.
If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can’t allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation’s servicemen. That is clearly wrong.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:33:01 am
Good post … One other thing I’d add is that the BBC reported yesterday that a source they have in Iran warned that it would be a “minimum of days” before the hostages are released.
It seems that it’s really the Iranian position which is hardening, not Britain’s, and we’re running a risk not only to the future of the captured servicemen but also to western policy against Iran if we don’t get our act together.
http://elliottjoseph.blogspot.com/2007/03/iran-prevaricates-so-do-we.html
March 27th, 2007 at 9:14:56 am
Recollection of Jimmy Carder’s temerity in a similar situation. Would suggest to Blair that in this situation the correct course of action is, “You have 6 hours to return our soldiers to us in harmed and in good health. Failure to comply will be taken as an act of war against the United Kingdom. As a state of war will exist in 6 hours we are presently targeting the presidential palace. Our secondary target will be all Iranian nuclear facilities. You now have five hours fifty nine minutes.”
March 27th, 2007 at 9:19:26 am
Yes, I do recognize that that is an uncharacteristically hawkish position for me to take–Andrew should appreciate it.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:57:21 am
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has liver cancer. Not good.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:09:13 am
Well said DCL… they understand threats and force. They feast on weakness.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:36:09 pm
“They feast on weakness.” Heh. Nice comment about a country that spent eight years at war with Iraq and got to the point where they had old men and young boys charging the Iraqi forces with outdated rifles. Richie Rich doesn’t know shit about Iran.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:49:34 pm
SoDamn Insane,
Not to speak for Richie Rich here, but in your rush to disagree with and insult him, I think you misinterpreted his comment. I don’t think by saying that Iran understands “threats and force” and “feasts on weakness” Richie Rich was saying that Iran was in fact weak. Rather, I believe what he might have been trying to say was that Iran only respects other countries who threaten and show the willingess to use force, and sees, e.g., magnanimity by others as a sign of weakness that it will try to exploit (i.e., “feast” on). I’m sure Richie Rich will correct me if I’m wrong, but if this is in fact what he was saying, he is entirely correct IMHO.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:58:16 pm
I got what Richie Rich was saying. I am pointing out that Richie Rich assumes that laying into Iran is somehow going to result in the Iranians respecting the UK and US. I’m saying that’s a crock of shit.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:35:07 pm
Yeah, shows of force don’t get no respect…diplomacy does! Idiot.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:49:58 pm
We really backed off after Al-Qaeda’s “show of force” on 9/11. I’ve noticed how “Shock and Awe” stopped the Iraqis from attacking our troops. And, dammit, JFK was a fucking idiot for using diplomacy to get those missiles out of Cuba. We should have just invaded. Who cares if Castro’s plan was to launch missiles into Florida if we had done so.
I don’t believe in “shows of force.” I believe in kicking someone’s ass in. However, when you commit kicking someone’s ass in, you commit 100% - that means enough troops, a draft, if necessary, etc. Until then, you use diplomacy. None of this shit about “shock and awe.”
March 27th, 2007 at 2:56:43 pm
Recess is over, son.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:59:36 pm
JFK was a fucking idiot for using diplomacy to get those missiles out of Cuba. We should have just invaded.
Actually, “diplomacy” was only effective during the Cuban missile crisis to the extent it was supplemented by a naval quarantine of the island, which strongly resembled . . . what’s the phrase I’m looking for . . . oh yeah, a show of force. Apparently the only valid options are diplomacy or “kicking someone’s ass in,” and never the twain shall meet.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:57:17 pm
And, dammit, JFK was a fucking idiot for using diplomacy to get those missiles out of Cuba.
Um, far be it from me to agree with Joe Mama, but as he said there WAS a show of force involved in the resolution of the Cuban missle crisis. Also, one instance of diplomacy working does not mean its a cure all, any more than one instance of force demonstrate its always the best approach.
Cause you know, diplomacy worked incredibly well in preventing world war II…
March 27th, 2007 at 4:54:11 pm
speak softly and carry a big stick. one does not want to kick someone’s ass if one does not need to. But one should be willing and ready to defend one’s self against attack.