Iran's irrational act of war continued
By Charles Bird Posted in Spotlight Blogs | War — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've been holding back in talking about Iranian forces who captured the 15 British sailors in the Persian Gulf, but this has gone too far. To me, the Brits made a persuasive case:
The 15 British service personnel captured by Iran were "ambushed" 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters, the MoD has confirmed.
Tony Blair told the House of Commons it was time to "ratchet up" the diplomatic and international pressure on Iran.
At a briefing in London, the MoD said it "unambiguously contested" claims from Teheran that the UK vessel carrying the sailors and Marines had strayed into Iranian waters.
Vice Admiral Charles Style said that the Iranians had given two different positions for the Royal Navy boarding party - the first inside Iraqi territorial waters.
Read on . . .
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of co-ordinates," he said.
Admiral Style said the boarding party was "ambushed" during the routine after the search of a vessel and that their detention was "unjustified and wrong".
Tony Blair today condemned the "completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal" detention.
"Our thoughts are with our servicemen and the servicewoman and their families and their safe return is our paramount concern.
"Those personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine."
So, if the map in the article is accurate (and I believe it is), Iranian Revolutionary Guards invaded Iraqi waters by 1.7 nautical miles, attacked British sovereign territory (Royal Navy boats) and are illegally detaining 15 British sailors. These are the facts as I see them, and it looks clear-cut that Iran is once again flouting international law. The Brits have casus belli if they choose to take it, which is doubtful.
Prime Minister Blair is understandably livid, and he is right to demand their unconditional release. Iran is digging the hole deeper, publishing a letter under Seaman Faye Turney's name and withdrawing their pledge to let her go. Blair will take his case to the UN Security Council where little will likely happen. He would do better appealing directly to his allies in pressuring Iran to do the right thing. Austin Bay has an interesting take:
Britain says it has definitive evidence its personnel were in Iraqi territory. Even if they strayed into Iranian water, the fact the sailors and marines were surrounded and outgunned suggests a planned operation.
The British sailors are now hostages in an intercontinental game of brinksmanship. Once again, a tactical (small-scale military) engagement in the War on Terror has strategic (large-scale) political and psychological consequences.
It's also a reminder that when confronting terrorists and terror states, everyone is a potential hostage. In 1979, Iranian theo-fascists took the entire U.S. embassy hostage, in what many have come to regard as the first attack in the War on Terror.
But this latest hostage-taking incident smacks of desperation, not revolutionary fervor.
Late spring 2007 finds the Iranian "revolutionary government" facing an extraordinary range of internal and external problems.
There's a war inside Iran -- several wars, actually. Minority Baluchis, Azeris, Kurds and Arabs are restive.
The mullah's core problem is the Iranian people. Under-30 Iranians have had it with the mullahs' failed revolution.
A recent visitor to Iran described a twenty-fold increase in "the standard bribe" Tehran bureaucrats demand for a building permit. Call it indicative rumor, supporting the assertion that Iranians now believe their current government is more corrupt than the Shah's. Moreover, Iranians are aware of Iraq's political progress. There's a war in Iraq, yes, but also an emerging Arab democracy -- and that irritates Iranians who regard themselves as being more sophisticated than Arabs. The latest U.N. sanctions resolution increases political and economic pressure. It also freezes the economic assets of 28 people and organizations -- so the sanctions are tailored to hit specific Iranian actors (bad actors). The resolution passed unanimously, meaning the mullahs cannot count on China and Russia.
Confronting these problems, Iran's Islamist hardliners take Western hostages.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Ahmadinejad's rough week. Perhaps Ahmadinejad's act of war will boost his domestic approval ratings, but it's hard to see how this will utlimately benefit the declared president down the road. If the mullahs thought this act would turn the Brits away from their support of the U.S. in Iraq, they are sorely mistaken. Blair should hold his ground, but give Ahmadinejad a small face-saving crumb in order to secure the release of the captives. If Iran digs in for the long haul, then I wouldn't blame Blair for taking out a few oil Iranian refineries and sending back to UAE a few of those tankers of refined oil en route to Iran.
Segueing and rambling a bit, I'm a sucker for timelines, mostly because it helps in seeing the bigger picture in these situations. Verumserum put together a pretty good one of Iran's meddling in Iraq from August 2003 to present. And PajamasMedia reports the following:
American forces in Iraq now hold some 300 prisoners tied to Iran’s intelligence agencies, Pajamas Media learned from both diplomatic and military sources.
This is believed, by both sources, to be a record number of prisoners tied to Iran. Virtually all were captured in the past two months.
Iran is also taking a more direct role in training and financing Shiite militias:
The Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with as many as 3,000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal to the firebrand cleric Moqtada Sadr, adding a potentially even more deadly element to Iraq's violent mix.
Finally, it looks like the ambush on the British Navy men and woman could be part of a larger Iranian strategy:
The seizure of 15 British Sailors and Marines by Iran was not an isolated incident, but part of a long-running Iranian program to control the Shatt al-Arab.
The Narrows: A waterway beset by ethnic cleansing.
- • Native Arab population of up to 500,000 "relocated."
- • Resistance jailed, forced to confess, and executed.
- • Most politically sensitive area in the Middle East.
- • Controls oil shipments and trade routes
- • Iranian zone is the launch point for Iranian covert operations in Iraq.
- • Iran now controlling up to 40,000 agents in Iraq.
From that perspective, perhaps the ambush makes sense to them. Nevertheless, it was still a major miscalculation on the part of Ahamdinejad and the mullahs who control him.
this could be Blair's Thatcher moment, and we'll see if he has the stones to act or not. Their oil refineries are vulnerable, and their economy is dependent on the UAE for petroleum. We could cripple their GDP and put the regime in political turmoil without much effort. The question is whether Blair would face the risk of Iran using this crisis to escalate their country to a wider war. Far as I'm concerned, we're already fighting a low-level war with Iran anyway. The Brits may have a hard choice to make: engage in it or be pushovers.
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
There is no doubt that Iran is extremely vulnerable to military action that does not include marching on Tehran. Seizing the Iranian side of the Straits of Hormuz and the facilites at Abadan would not only secure the transit of oil from the Gulf but would shut down Iran's ability to earn foreign exchange. Both are easily defended by a small number of ground forces in concert with naval gunfire and air power.
Further resolve that if this ends up in a shooting war Ahmadenijad is probably dead.
Further, further resolve that we have been at war with Iran for a couple of years and not all of it has been them shooting at us in Iraq.
Having said all that, I don't think the Brits will do anything. The Iranians don't think the Brits will do anything. The Brits don't think the Brits will do anything.
If this ends without Iran being smacked about their action will have been, going back to my post, neither irrational or a miscalculation. To the contrary, they have taken the measure of their man.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Precisely!
Which is why the correct least provocative response to it is to park a naval group at that location and close the straits until such time as the sailors are returned. Nor is this an action which the British should undertake alone. G.W. Bush and Tony Blair should hold a news conference announcing a naval group will be parked at the straits and no shipping will pass through them until such time as the soldiers/sailors are returned.
It is also an action the Iraqi's should forthrightly condemn as an assult on their sovereignty, and request US, British, and other allied assistance in repulsing a War of Agression initiated by Iran. If the two events are conviently timed, and messenger arrives at the US-British news conference with the Iraqi request, they can announce this is exactly the sort of thing we are there to help them with and we will work with them to repulse the Iranian invasion. G.W. can even throw in a line about how we will never again allow citizens to he held for 444 days by a terorist government.
Personally, I'd still start with sinking the largest Iraqi naval ship and telling them the soldiers will be returned immediately or the next one won't be a warning shot.
"Blair should hold his ground, but give Ahmadinejad a small face-saving crumb in order to secure the release of the captives"
1. They are hostages, not captives.
2. Has this site turned into Daily Kos?!! Why should any Western government give Teheran "face saving crumbs"?!! Are you insane? What happened to "not negotiating with terrorists"?!
3. This kind of mindset will get us all killed once Iran has nuclear weapons.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
1. Noted.
2. dKos insult aside, piddling crumbs would be just that. A meaningless face-saving device. The alternative is to go right ahead and wipe out their ability to get petroleum, which works as a good Plan B for me.
3. Speculative.
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
Why have none of the male sailors been shown "confessing"?
Is this for some propoganda reason? Perhaps there is a domestic benefit to depicting British sailors as female?
has been on tv today, so they say on ABC radio news.
I suspect they found the weakest links.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
they no how squeemish the West will be seeing a hostage, let alone a woman hostage. There is a reason behind everything.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
That's my question for Tony Blair. If we allow the Iranians to keep playing these kinds of games, it's only going to embolden them and make things worse. Tony has to get on the ball here. We have to nip these things in the bud, before they get worse. That was our mistake with that fat piece of cr*p Sadr and we shouldn't make the same mistake with Iran. They feel emboldened b/c of high oil prices and this administrations incompetence in Iraq. We have to show them them that these antics are unacceptable. If that requires a naval blockade or some diplomatic or military show of force then so be it.
One highlight is that while the world would lose some crude oil that Iran would otherwise ship, we would also gain a whole lot of refined petrol that Iran would otherwise have consumed.
Considering the choke point is in refining currently, the world might not be over the barrel Iran thinks it is.
what's the big whoop about hostages? There have been few columns posted here at Redstate (except for mine) calling Iranian killings of Americans in Iraq acts of war but it seems everyone and their brother is all up in arms about the UK hostages.
Could it be that not just elected GOP in DC members but also too many conservative rank and file are still slaves to what the MSM puts on TV, even to the point of the absence of wall to wall coverage about Iran's killings of Americans.
Why is it only gamecock and Becker and a few more?
truly?
And don;t say its because we don't have a handwritten letter from Iran's mullahs or their prez.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
Starbucks: Coffee, good. Cups, bad, but
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Their act will only be irrational if a war ensues and that is pretty doubtful. If they are operating from the assumption, as am I, that the Brits won't pull the trigger here then their action makes perfect sense.
I'll bet that if we were privy to the information that we would find that the non-US portion of the naval operation in the Persian Gulf is already pulling its punches in boarding and inspecting suspicious ships. I'll bet, given what we do know about the British rules of engagement, that they've stopped intercepting vessels until they are substantially in Iraqi waters.
In the Gulf, the Iranians have shown Oman and the various Gulf States that they aren't afraid to get in the face of the Brits and that the Brits won't do anything. Not a big confidence builder.
The Brits are ultimately going to get the sailors back after doing a public mea culpa by admitting their people "might" have strayed into Iranian waters. Here I'd note that the boundary the Brits are basing the GPS data on is not recognized by Iran. The dispute over the boundary in the Shatt al Arab, which was a casus belli in the Iran-Iraq War has not been settled.
So I see this as irrational and a miscalculation only if war results. Otherwise it is a good strategic move, and one they will try again.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling