Niall Ferguson on the Iranian UK-Hostage Taking

Distinguished Professor Niall Ferguson has authored an exceptional opinion piece in the Telegraph (UK) discussing the act of surrendering to the Iranians without a shot as emobodying traits heretofore not seen in the British navy, and the incompetency of Britain's Minister of Defence, Les Brown, a man with no military experience:

Captain Christopher Air of the Royal Marines declared after his release: "From the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so, then many of us would not be standing here today."

I have some sympathy with Capt Air, who has at least resisted the temptation to flog his story to the tabloids and Trevor McDonald. But can you imagine a Victorian naval officer talking this way? "Our rules of engagement stated," Capt Air explained, "that we could only use lethal force if we felt that we were in imminent danger of a loss of life." That's certainly how I would have characterised their predicament, surrounded as they were by RPG-toting members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. "In addition," added Capt Air, "any attempt to fight back would have caused a major international incident and an escalation of tension within the region." Whereas being taken prisoner by the Iranians didn't cause these things?

. . . Having risen through the ranks of the Scottish legal profession, Mr Browne [the Minister of Defense] was handed the safe Labour seat of Kilmarnock and Loudon in 1997. His area of expertise - as befits a man who is "the Ruler of the Queen's Navee" - is child law. He has come into his lawyerly own in the row over who authorised Faye Turney to sell her story.

It is, of course, a great English-speaking tradition to undervalue military experience in politicians. In the days of Gilbert and Sullivan, frock coats were supposed to out-rank brass hats. Countries where the opposite was true - such as Prussia - suffered from "militarism".

Yet there is a lot to be said for militarism where military matters are concerned. The besetting problem of both the United Kingdom and the United States before 1914 and again before 1939 was the tendency to leave decisions about grand strategy to hacks like Sir Joseph. Neither Stanley Baldwin nor Neville Chamberlain, the architects of appeasement, had served in the Armed Forces. The same was true of their American counterparts, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. Their legacy was a near-fatal unreadiness for the greatest conflict of all time.

It was a different story in the Cold War. All but two prime ministers from Winston Churchill to James Callaghan had seen active service before entering politics, as had every president from Harry S Truman to Jimmy Carter. Significantly, five of them (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter) were naval officers. That helps explain why both Britain and America were able to maintain such a high level of military preparedness throughout the years from 1945 until 1989 - sufficient to deter the Soviet Union from all-out aggression.

Unfortunately, with the end of the Cold War we have lapsed into our old ways: politicians with no military experience whatever (Clinton, Blair) or, in the case of President Bush, military training without the hard test of combat. The effect on the Royal Navy has been especially disastrous. Anyone wondering why there was no fighting spirit - no vestige of the Victorian sense of honour - among Capt Air and his colleagues need only consider how the Senior Service has fared under New Labour.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

The U.K. Military's Insane Folly

Britain is reeling in the wake of the Iranian hostage crisis. How Britain handles the aftermath of that crisis will have significant and lasting effects on national identity as well as the morale and effectiveness of the military. As you will see below, Britain is now off to an incredibly bad start.

The facts of the crisis are simple. Fifteen British sailors and marines are taken hostage by Iranians without shot one fired. Within days, they begin appearing on Iranian television spouting propoganda on behalf of their captors - and even an officer gets in on the bit.

In days gone by, a person captured by a hostile force was expected not to cooperate with the enemy. From the U.S. military, Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale and John McCain come immediately to mind as role models. They endured years of true torture and solitary confinement. At some point, these men, in refusing to cooperate with their captors, went beyond what would be expected of the average soldier, and clearly went into the realm of the heroic.

Nobody can expect those type of heroics from the average soldier, but the actions of the 15 sailors and marines in this instance were craven by any measure. The sailors and marines were held captive for thirteen days. They suffered "psychological pressure." They participated with Iran in a propoganda offensive against the country they were sworn to serve.

There is only one thing that ameliorates their horrid performance. That is that, no matter how you look at it, they were captured because of truly unconscionable negligance by the Commander of the HMS Cornwall in allowing them to operate outside of support at a time of heightened tension and in the same area where a kidnapping had occurred before. The first discipline in this case should have been - and should be - publicly relieving of duty the Commander of the HMS Cornwall. Such mistakes by those to whom we entrust the lives and well being of our soldiers cannot be countenanced. There are no second chances for that type of negligence by a Commander. The importance of relieving the Commander is to send a clear and unambiguous message to every officer in Her Majesty's navy that their first duty is to take care of their charges, and a message to every enlisted man and woman that their lives matter - that they are not pawns for an officer to move about with no consequence.

As to the hostages themselves, how to deal with them is a decision that should be left to anaval board of inquiry. In any event, the performance of the hostages while captives of Iran is not something that the UK military wants to be the model for future instances when a soldier is taken by coercion and confined by a hostile force.

So what has happened up to this point? The Commander of the Cornwall is still in place, Tony Blair has defended the Rules of Engagement (ROE), the First Sea Lord has fully supported the actions of the sailors and marines both in giving up without a shot and then their actions while captives. That is all very bad, but now it get's much, much, much worse. The 15 are being feted as heros and being rewarded with treatment reserved for Her Majesty's soldiers that have earned the Victoria Cross:

The 15 British military captives who were released by the Iranians have been authorised by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to sell their stories.

MoD officials claimed that the move to lift the ban on military personnel selling their stories while in service was justified because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the case. The hostages are expected to earn as much as £250,000 between them.

. . . The MoD said: “Serving personnel are not allowed to enter into financial arrangements with media organisations. However, in exceptional circumstances — such as the awarding of a Victoria Cross or events such as those in recent days — permission can be granted by the commanding officer and the MoD.”

Read the whole story here.

Now, to understand just how incredibly, utterly, supremely insane that is, the Victroia Cross is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Medal of Honor - which with Vice Admiral Stockdale was rewarded after lasting through six years of torture and hell while refusing to betray his country. It is awarded for incredible acts of bravery at threat of loss of life. As to the 15 hostages, beyond fully cooperating with the Iranians in all that they asked, what did these sailors and marines do? Absolutely nothing of bravery. They survived. That is it. And in surviving, they managed to display cowardice that brought humiliation upon their country - all within the record time of thirteen days of capture. I feel deep sympathy for their plight. That does not excuse their performance.

And now the Ministry of Defense is going to allow them to profit from their performance as if they were heroes or their actions otherwise so laudible as to justify their profit therefrom? Using extreme tact in my choice of words, I would describe that as a permissive act wholly contrary to promoting military virtues.

What messages have just been sent to every member of Britain's armed forces? Is a premium being placed on bravery and service to country? Are those who have spilled their blood while acting with bravery under fire being applauded and upheld as the model? I can imagine nothing worse for the morale of the British forces and for the parents of every child wounded or killed in combat then this craven lunacy. And its long term impact on Britain's national identity must be equally horrid if tales of the Falklands are to be replaced by tales of the Iran crisis told with tones of approval and acceptance. It is not a tale to be publicized. It is not a tale to be approved of in the national consciousness. It is a tale only to be told in the stiff verbiage of an official inquiry, and it is a tale whose ending should only be with the words "never, never again."

Their needs to be a purge of everyone in a leadership position between the Ministry of Defense, through the naval chain of command, and right down to the Commander of the HMS Cornwall. This insanity needs to end or Britain's military will not be a fighting force much longer. The legacy of Nelson will be but a dim shadow indeed.

Update: It appears the BBC has pulled the plug on a 90 minute documentary about a British soldier in Iraq who in fact earned the Victoria Cross for exceptional acts of bravery under combat:

Private Johnson Beharry's courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle's crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict. . . The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.

Read the story here. One, what does it say about a country that will not give publicity to its true heroes, but will give publicity to the story of 15 hostages who betrayed their country? Two, one of the first steps in restoring reality, sanity and morality to the UK has to be getting the news division of the BBC off of the public tit.

Update: The Telegraph has an op-ed that shows, one, that there is a segment of the population that understands just how wrong and inappropriate this action by the Ministry of Defense was. Unfortunately, it also shows why the conservatives in Britain will not be effective in addressing the problem. The Telegraph decrys the problem with what can only be described as a shrugging impotence. There is no demand that anything be changed, there is no call for people to be fired or relieved, there is no call for the public to organize and march on Downing Street. I cannot imagine how beaten down the conservatives must be in the UK only to criticize this situation and nothing more. Is their no leadership in Britain that will not just criticize, but challenge the insanity?

Update: Perhaps my criticism of the UK conservatives is not quite fair. The UK has reversed itself is now refusing to allow the sailors and marines who have not already done so to sell their stories, and there is an excellent op-ed in the Telegraph that fully notes the rot in the MoD and calls for change.

Update: As to the effect on the morale of British soldiers, see here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred Thompson on the Iranian Hostage Taking

Fred Thompson, should he choose to enter the presidential race, will be a strong candidate indeed - as this insightful essay Mr. Thompson penned in Red State demonstrates:

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Ahmadinejad must be particularly pleased to see "deep thinking" journalists making the case that American actions in Iraq were the true cause of the kidnappings. To believe this, all you have to do is ignore the history of the Iranian Revolution, which has been in the extortion business ever since it took power. Between the 1979 American embassy crisis in Tehran and the seizure of Israeli soldiers last year by Iran's Hezbollah proxies, there have been more than a hundred other examples.

If you include the imprisonment of pro-Democracy dissidents and non-Shi'a Muslim minorities within Iran, the number reaches easily into the tens of thousands. The dwindling and persecuted Christian population of Iran, I suspect, found little joy in Ahmadinejad's explanation that he was freeing his victims as an "Easter gift."

It is critical that we see this incident as part of a long pattern of behavior -- that will continue as long as the current leadership is in power. More importantly, it will escalate unimaginably if Iran achieves nuclear status, and with it the ability to hold millions rather than individuals hostage.

I have no idea if Ahmadinejad and those who put him in power really believe the Shi'a Twelver doctrine that they can spur the messiah to return by triggering Armageddon. You have to admit, though, that the possibility that they look forward to entering paradise as martyrs would make them a whole lot scarier as a nuclear power than the USSR ever was.

There is hope, though. The Iranian people are not an anti-Western horde. They're an educated and freedom-loving people for the most part, and reformers there have been begging us for support and sanctions that would weaken the ruling theocracy. Instead, they've just seen the Iranian dictatorship successfully bully the West into impotent submission. This is not a good thing.

We need to understand this and use every means at our disposal, starting with serious and painful international sanctions, to prevent Iran's rulers from becoming the nuclear-armed blackmailers they want to be. Unfortunately, we are hearing demands that we abandon the people of the Middle East who have stood up to Islamo-fascism because they believed us when we said we would support them.

If we retreat precipitously, the price for that betrayal will be paid first in blood and freedom by the Iranian people, the Kurds, the Afghanis, the secular Lebanese, the moderates in Pakistan and the Iraqis themselves. And America's word may never be trusted again.

Right now, the pirate Ahmadinejad is clearly more confident about the outcome of the Global War on Terror than we are. That ought to give us pause.

I will admit to being a bit jealous of the communication skills of Mr. Thompson who is able to say forcefully in a page what seems to take me a tome. Mr. Thompson's communication skills are a major consideration when one reflects upon the tremendous problems of the Bush administration and the current crop of Congressional republicans, none of whom seem to have the communication and debating skills of a moderately talented high school student.

Read More...

Summary only...

So What to Believe - Your Lying Eyes?

Here are the smiling and happy hostages in a spontaneous burst of appreciation for Ahmedinejad . . .


And here they are in a slightly wider view, not all seem quite so happy . . .

And you have to get to the Scotsman to get the whole story, where not all faces are happy and the Iranian stage manager is attempting to get the best shot . . .



This is a bit of insanity. I hope that the choice of photos and the cropping was not done to make a journalistic point by either the Guardian or the Telegraph. The two papers occupy the far left and the conservative viewpoints, respectively, of major British papers, so I think it more likely just sloppy work by the publishers. Still, it does give one pause about accepting what one sees in the news at face value.

Hattip: Sigmund, Carl & Alfred, Small Dead Animals, and Innovation In Newspapers

Read More...

Summary only...

The United States as an Ally to the UK

In the wake of the Iranian UK-hostage crisis, I was appalled by many things, not the least of which were Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow the House to condemn Iran and support the UK, as well as numerous opinion pieces in the British press - including the conservative press - which opined that the U.S. was not assisting the British. I found this belief to be most distressing.

True, the U.S. government announced nothing publicly, but as I wrote at the time in response to those allegations, Nancy Pelosi does not yet run our foreign policy, no matter what she may think. There was no doubt whatsoever that the U.S. had passed word to Tony Blair that we would support the U.K. by any means he requested, including with the full force of our military. The utterly craven wing of the Democratic party aside, I could not see America doing anything less for the loyal ally that Britain has been to us.

And as it turns out, that belief has been fully vindicated. This from the Guardian today:

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.

This was precisely what we should have done. And to those in Britain who seemed to believe that the U.S. would leave Britain to its problem while offering no help, I hope this is a bit of a slap of realism in the face. There are literally only a handful of nations left in the Western world whose governments are motivated by at least a patina of idealism, loyalty, and long term goals above and beyond pure self interest - Brtitain's is one, the U.S. another. Do not go looking for any on the continent of Europe. The EU - and the UN - have already spoken to that.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Hostage Crisis Ends . . . So Where Are We?

The hostage crisis has come to a surpassingly anti-climatic end. We were treated to the sickening spectacle of a smiling Ahmedinejad making a “gift” to the UK of the hostages “for Easter.” Does anyone believe that was Iran's true motivation? So where does this leave all the players in the Iran UK-Hostage Kabuki dance?

Iran –

1. They did themselves no favors by this act of hostage taking. They let the hostages go after twelve days for the same reason they apparently took them – i.e., no clearly discernable logical reason. Most of the world will likely look on this rouge action by Iran – one which fits right in with their historical pattern of such actions – and have to wonder if the U.S. is not right, that Iran can under no circumstances be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Update: Walid Phares has his own analysis up of the detailed logic of the mullahs. See here. As does Victor David Hanson. See here.

2. A few, such as the hard left in Britain and our own hard left appearing in the New York Times, argue that Ahmedinejad’s agreement to end this charade of Iran’s own making demonstrates that Iran is amenable to diplomacy. They reason that we should forgo the military option against Iran over the nuclear issue, withdraw our carriers from the Gulf, and, darn’it, just start acting nicer. I kid you not. See this NYT editorial and this one from the UK’s Guardian. They could have been written Ahmedinejad himself. Such a position defies belief. It ignores Iran’s rouge nature in causing this hostage crisis, their incredibly bloody history in much of the death and destruction occurring to this day in the Middle East, and Iran's history of both duplicity and failure to engage in any diplomacy over its nuclear program. The words craven, contemptible, and out of touch with any semblance of reality are just a few of the descriptive terms appropriate for that crowd.

3. This event clarifies, as well as any, Iran’s power structure when it comes to foreign policy and the acts of the IRGC. Ahmedinejad is a mouthpiece, nothing more. The person calling the shots is the Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei and his band of mad mullahs. It is quite interesting that Ahmedinejad was effectively muzzled by the mullahs throughout this whole event, until he was allowed before the camera's at the end to announce Iran's "grand gesture" of "good will."

4. Iran took this action likely in an attempt to rally support for their cause at home and abroad. They found neither. As the WP explained:

. . . Iran is also likely to pay a long-term price for the detention drama, again appearing to undertake rogue actions in violation of international law, experts and officials said. In the end, Iran recognized that the crisis was beginning to exact a cost, as it came under pressure even from allies and other Islamic countries, officials and experts said. Even Syria urged Iran to release the Britons, Syrian and U.S. sources said.

"They are so consumed with short-term issues -- how to undermine the West and how to gain leverage -- at the expense of long-term strategy. They have undermined themselves," said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They're playing the immediate moves of checkers and not the long-term strategy of a chess game. In the long term, it undermines their ability to attract foreign investment and have good relations" with the outside world.

Tehran was also unable to rally significant public support for another long-term showdown like the 1979-1981 hostage ordeal involving 52 American diplomats, experts added. "There was no nationalist bounce out of this," said Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "All the usual people you'd expect to be frothing at the mouth simply weren't."

5. The USS Nimitz, a third U.S. Carrier Group, is enroute to the Persian Gulf at this moment. I am waiting to see if it acts as a replacement for one of the two carriers already in place, or adds another to their number. In any event, I think Iran made a tactical error with this one. Overall, the likelihood that Iran will face a military strike on its nuclear facilities and other strikes aimed at its economic infrastructure went up palpably with this hostage taking.

The EU –

The EU established their bona fides as worse then utterly useless by refusing to help one of their own members against a regime that ultimately threatens every one of the EU members themselves. See here. Also see Krauthammer today here. The EU holds the key to shutting down Iran, stopping their nuclear program in its tracks. And we hold the key to making the EU do that. I suggest we all start a campaign to convince the Republicans to dust off the Iran Freedom Support Act and see if we can’t sanction every EU and US foreign subsidiary doing business in Iran today. It would take political courage – something that seems in short supply these days beyond Bush and Lieberman – but it is the next logical step.

Britain

1. The Brit's are more then a little upset. This is a people who learn about Nelson and Trafalgar while still suckling at the tit, and they remember with pride Britain’s travelling half way around the world to spank Argentina when they tried to seize the Falklands. The majority, judging from the news coverage, are not in a mood to play games with Iran again. They are asking all of the right questions (See Updates here). Iran will never get another free shot at British soldiers, sailors or marines again.

2. What this means for Britain’s long term deployment in Basra, Iraq is an open question. Even as they draw down, it appears that Iran is picking up the pace of its actions in Basra. I do hope this gives the Brits the kick in the ass they need to become as deadly efficient in clearing out Basra of the mullah’s infestation as I know that they can be.

Overall:

The US needs to continue doing what it is doing in terms of targeting Iranians inside Iraq as well as seeking regime change inside Iran and hurting the mullahs everywhere else that they are weak. If anything, this event shows that Iran is feeling the heat -- which usually is a good sign that it would be appropriate to turn the heat up a lot more in the coming weeks.

Let's leave the final words to Amir Taheri, the Iranian author speaking in the UK's Times today:

The seizure of the British naval personnel is the latest episode in a low-intensity war that the Islamic Republic has waged against the West for almost three decades. In this war, Iran has killed hundreds of Western, especially American and French troops, in suicide attacks in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. More recently, its agents have killed at least 200 American troops and an unknown number of British soldiers in Iraq. Its influence against Nato in Afghanistan, against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan and against Lebanon and Israel, through Hezbollah and Hamas, are well known.

So far, the West’s response has been timid and occasional. The mullahs play a long-term game, acting as carpet-weavers, knotting one mischief at time, day in and day out. They know that their fragile regime, hated by a majority of Iranians, would not survive a full-scale clash with the West. This is why they deal their poison in small but steady doses, enough to weaken the foe but not too much to mobilise Western opinion in favour of full confrontation.

The debate on what to do about the mullahs hits a deadend because it is limited to two options: regime change or surrender. Those who blame the West for the world’s evils urge surrender, in atonement of sins supposedly committed against Iran over centuries. They hope that once the mullahs are given everything, they would start behaving reasonably. This argument ignores the fact that the Khomeinist regime’s political DNA would not allow it to act reasonably. A scorpion does not sting because it wants to misbehave but because it is programmed to do so.

When it comes to the regime-change option, the usual suspects who still cry for Saddam Hussein would be up in arms. President Ahmadinejad knows that no American or British leader can garner popular support for preemptive war against Iran.

The alternative, however, is not one of surrender or regime change. The Western democracies could give the Islamic republic a taste of its own medicine — and engage it in the kind of low-intensity warfare that Iran itself indulges in. The mischief must not be cost-free. It would be resisted though diplomatic and economic means as well as through support for the democratic and reformist forces inside Iran. Throughout history, adversaries end up by adopting aspects of each other’s strategy.

The Islamic Republic wants a Khomeinist Middle East. The “Infidel” want a democratic, pro-West Middle East. The two visions are incompatible. Eventually, one must win as the other loses. As the British celebrate the return of their hostages they would do well to decide which vision deserves support.

Read the entire article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kissing Ahmedinejad's Ring

I am watching the hostage release on CNN as the British sailors and marines are being paraded single file up to Ahmedinejad to thank him for his hospitality. In a few days, I am sure that it will be possible to put this entire charade into perspective. There are many questions that the Brits must answer concerning their Rules of Engagement, there allowing small groups of soldiers to act without adequate cover or support, etc. Now they must also explain why 15 sailors and marines would become willing accomplices in Ahmedinejad's propoganda war.

The sailors and marines, unconscionably placed into a horrid situation by their commanders, have not distinguished themselves. While one or two of these sailors appearing on national television is to be expected, I never expected to see an officer willingly take part in the televised theatrics, which occurred two or three days ago when a lieutenant in the Royal Marines appeared on Iranian television. And what we are being treated to at the moment is the entire contingent parading up to Ahmedinejad, thanking him profusely and with many smiles, all in a ceremony where Ahmedinejad just gave a decoration to the IRGC commander in charge of the unit that took the Brits hostage.

Let me put this in perspective. I had the honor of knowing James Bond Stockdale. Vice Admiral Stockdale was the most decorated man in the history of the United States Navy. He also had been a prisoner of war. The North Vietnamese tortured him (the real stuff, not waterboarding or the Abu Ghraib faux torture that has the liberals wetting their panties) and was subjected to years of solitary confinement. The Vietnamese on several occasions offered to give him easier treatment if he would only appear on television and denounce the war. He refused, and on at least one occasion before he was to be shown on television, he actually beat his own face with a piece of wood to prevent the Vietnamese from using his image in their propoganda effort.

I do not expect that type of heroics to be shown by the average human, and I include among that nunber the 15 hostages still in Iranian control. But I cannot beleive my eyes watching these 15 sailors and marines honoring Ahmedinehad, each duly marching up to him and thanking him. Is there not one among there number that will not refuse? My respect for Britain and Her Majesty's military is dropping by the minute. I will attempt to keep an open mind for the next week or so until hearing from Britain's military spokesmen and the sailors and marines themselves. But my gut reaction to all of this is not promising.

I sincerely doubt that the willingness of the sailors and marines to participate in Ahmedinejad's propoganda will ever be addressed by Blair directly. But what Blair can do is address how and why this hostage taking was allowed to happen. The Commander of the HMS Cornwall needs to be disciplined and relieved of command, and Blair needs to publicly announce the steps he is taking to insure events such as this will not happen again. I think that necessary for the UK, the UK military, and for the mullahs in Iran who need to be disabused of any notion that the West does not have the stomach for military confrontation if Iran is going to push us to the wall either by events like this or by their continuing drive to create a nuclear arsenal.

Update: There is an excellent article in the UK Daily Mail that lays out precisely what needs to be done now by the Brits. And another here from The Telegraph. All the right questions are being asked. I suspect that a lot of the answers won't be pretty, but that is of no matter so long as things get fixed - and publicly so.

Update: And here, the Brits are questioning the how and why the sailors and marines degree of cooperation with Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

U(K)tter Bull – Answering the Independent’s Claim that the U.S. is to Blame for the UK’s Hostage Crisis

The article “The Botched U.S. Raid That Led to the Hostage Crisis,” appearing in the British newspaper, The Independent, is a just a horrid hit piece. It's rank speculation masquerading as fact with a twist of moral equivalence that turns reality on its head. In the scenario posited by the Independent, hostage taking Iran is simply an innocent victim who has struck back only after unreasonable provocation by a bellicose and reckless U.S. It’s dangerous and utter nonsense.

The Independent claims that Iran’s kidnapping of 15 sailors and marines was a response to an unjustified U.S. provocation - a “botched” raid it claims was aimed at securing two high ranking Iranians, the head of intelligence for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and the deputy head of Iran’s National Security Council. The Independent tells us that these officials were openly in Iraq for meetings with Kurdish leaders on “bilateral security issues.”

As the Independent describes it, the alleged U.S. attempt to secure these two men has “provoked a dangerous escalation.” Moreover, the Independent asserts that the raid was unjustified, describing it as the moral equivalent of “Iran . . . kidnap[ing] the heads of the CIA and MI6 while they were on an official visit to a country neighboring Iran, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan.” The raid ultimately netted five people the Independent describes as “junior liaison agents,” but not the two senior Iranian officials supposedly targeted.

The premise that Iran is an innocent victim that the U.S. should be leaving Iran alone is ridiculous. The Independent is either wholly ignoring the larger picture surrounding Iranian actions, or they have they been asleep for a few years and need to catch up on current events. There is precious little of anything innocent about Iranian involvement in Iraq. Nor is there anything innocent about Iran’s surge towards acquiring nuclear weapons. By ignoring these, the Independent distorts reality and engages in a suicidal game of moral equivalence.

As to Iran’s involvement in Iraq, there is no question of the theocracy’s complicity in the death and mayhem going on inside the country. For example, see here and here. And that mayhem is not just aimed at Americans and Sunnis – and Shias for that matter, it’s taking the lives of British soldiers in Basra also. See here.

Such acts are a provocation to the US and UK -- a real one, involving blood and brain matter splattering across streets, limbs lost, and hearts taking their final beat. In various forms, it has been going on since 2003. And the instruments of that bloodshed are the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Quds Force operating inside Iraq. Such provocation demands an adequate response. It justifies not only covert action against Iranian interests, but also overt actions if the U.S. or U.K. were inclined to take it.

Two, there is nothing innocent about Iran and the pending nuclear crisis they are imposing on the world. How dangerous is a nuclear armed Iranian theocracy? No less then the preeminent scholar of Middle Eastern history and culture, Bernard Lewis, spoke to the world on this issue some months ago:

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

See here. Then today there was this assessment from the brilliant scholar, Thomas Sowell:

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.

See here. The threat posed by a nuclear armed Khomeinist theocracy is palpable and existential. George Bush has promised to meet it. He has flatly stated that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I trust he has said what he means. Indeed, even Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made noises indicating that they would take military action to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

Everyday, we inch closer to open warfare with Iran as they refuse to give up their quest for a nuclear weapon. Iran has not responded to years of European diplomacy. Nor has the theocracy responded to sanctions. Quite the opposite, they have increased the speed of their nuclear program. If Iran is going to be made to stop, the mullahs must understand the price to be paid to continue on their current path will be be real and it will be severe.

Doing absolutely nothing beyond diplomacy and tepid sanctions leaves Iran’s theocrats with a belief that the West is a eunuch. And indeed, as any student of the Iranian Revolution knows, that is a cherished belief among the mullahs. One of Ayatollah Khomeni’s favored expressions was that the West “can’t do a damned thing.” Unfortunately for the world, Jimmy Carter was President when Khoemeni popularized that phrase. Interestingly, the U.S. hostages were released the day Ronald Regan was inaugurated as President. I have no doubt that there were limits to how far Khomeini was willing to test his thesis – and Regan’s inauguration as President marked one of those clear limits.

The only way we will stop Iran’s nuclear program short of open war is to make Iran’s mullahs understand that we are able and willing to engage Iran. As long as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei feels safe and secure, Iran will not turn from its path of murderous complicity in Iraq and the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Thus, unless we want open war in the very near future, we have to aggressively engage Iran on the margins and make them feel the pain. Put another way, in the larger context that takes into account Iranian direct support for warfare targeting the US and Britain inside Iraq, as well as the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, the U.S. raids on Iranian high value targets are not only wholly warranted, they are a necessity born of self-defense.

But all of that is mere context, for having now justified covert actions against Iran, such as targeting their senior officials in Iraq, it matters not to the instant case as the Independent provides no reasonable proof that the "botched" raid happened as they allege. The sole proof the Independent offers to establish that U.S. troops were targeting the two senior Iranian official is a bald assertion by the Chief of Staff to the governor of Kurdistan Regional Government. It is more then curious that the Independent should fail to tell us how he acquired his knowledge or give us any other indicia of the reliability of his statement. Certainly the Independent would have included anything that might have buttressed his assertion. Since I seriously doubt the Kurdish staff official was included in the planning of the raid, we can safely assume that he is not stating first hand information. In other words, it is apparent that this “source” is speculating or repeating speculation as to the target of the U.S. raid in question.

Moreover, as a logical matter, I have a lot of trouble believing that the U.S. could have “botched” a raid targeting the two senior Iranian officials given the scenario painted by the Independent. The target location of the raid was in a secure area regularly trafficked by Kurds. The two Iranian officials were operating in the open. In such circumstance, it is more then difficult to believe that the U.S. would pull the trigger on a raid by its Special Forces when the alleged subjects of the assault were not present at the target location. Raids such as this are not spur of the moment operations. With the two officials making no attempt to conceal their presence, they would have been easy to track, and the raid would not have commenced until intelligence confirmed the location of the two men. In short, there is no alternative reason to support the Independent's claim that the raid was actually targeting the two senior Iranian officials.

Further, the Independent takes some cheap shots at the U.S. regarding the five Iranians seized during the raid, surmising that they were cleary inocent diplomatic staff:

US officials in Washington subsequently claimed that the five Iranian officials they did seize, who have not been seen since, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraq and coalition forces". This explanation never made much sense. No member of the US-led coalition has been killed in Arbil and there were no Sunni-Arab insurgents or Shia militiamen there.

Neither you, I, nor the author of this piece has any clue what intelligence the U.S. was operating on when it took these five Iranians into custody. But that does not stop the Independent. Let me ask, if you wished to set up a headquarters for a covert network, do you want it at a location crawling with US and British forces, or would you prefer an area that is easily accessible, in reasonable proximity, and with far less security roaming about? The Independent’s speculation based on just geographical location is nonsensical.

Next, the Independent speculates as to Ali Khamenei’s motivation in taking the 15 sailors and marines as hostages. The author gives not one shred of evidence for his assertion that the taking of the 15 hostages was a strike in retaliation for the “botched” raid. The fact that IRNA portrayed the U.S. raid as targeting the two senior officials tells us nothing. There is more then one reason to take the fifteen sailors and marines hostage that make more sense then simple revenge for a “botched” mission by the U.S.

One, the kidnapping fell on the eve of a Security Council vote to impose more sanctions on Iran for their failure to halt their nuclear program. That seems too fortuitous to be coincidental. Thus, it is conceivable that this kidnapping is meant to slow the pace of pressure being brought to bear on Iran over the nuclear program.

Two, given that the UK was targeted and not the US, it is quite possible that Iran is attempting to drive a wedge in the alliance between the US and the UK. If so, then the Independent is doing the work for Ahmedinejad and company by writing articles such as this one today, blaming the US for the kidnapping – not Iran.

Lastly, the Middle Eastern scholar and terrorism expert Walid Phares has written that the kidnapping is most likely a gambit by Khamenei to draw a limited military response, and that the kidnapping is directed squarely at quelling internal dissent in Iran that threatens the theocracy. See here.

I could go on here, but, what it boils down to that nothing in this article by the Independent blaming the US for the Iranian kidnapping withstands even minimal scrutiny. In sum, this is a hit piece that blames the U.S. for the an abominable act by the thuggish Iranian theocracy. And this is certainly not the mullahs first act of kidnapping. Actually, kidnapping is a well established part of Iranian foreign policy. Iran has been involved in kidnapping over 1,000 people since the mullahs came to power in 1979. But I digress.

Is the U.S. targeting Iranians in Iraq and elsewhere? I certainly hope so. Does that make the U.S. morally guilty for any Iranian retaliatory act? The answer is yes only if you are an apologist for Iran, or so steeped in the doctrine of moral equivalence that you cannot see a difference between Iran and the U.S. If so, please see the differences here. At any rate, I am not sure which of the two categories the Independent fits into, but it is at least one of them.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Sauds Read Ahmedinejad the Riot Act

The Arabs are getting a bit nervous and upset with their Persian brethren across the Gulf. Saudi Arabia has evidently read the riot act to Ahmedinejad in recent meetings:

On the 15 British hostages late of the HMS Cornwall:

The Saudi foreign minister . . . said it was "a catastrophe" for Iran to be holding 15 British sailors and marines it had captured on March 23. . . "This is just not the time for them to have a problem like that looming."

On the reality of the US threat to stop the Iranian nuclear program by force:

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah warned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he should not underestimate the US military threat on Iran.

Ahmadinejad met with King Abdullah on March 4 in Riyadh, and publicly the two leaders agreed to fight growing Sunni-Shiite strife in the region.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said that the king meanwhile warned Ahmadinejad to take seriously threats of US military strikes over Iran's refusal to halts its uranium enrichment program. "On the nuclear issue, we warned him: 'Don't play with fire. Don't think the threat [of an American attack on Iran] is a nonexistent threat; think that it's a real threat, maybe even a palpable threat,'" Faisal said in the interview posted on the Newsweek website Friday.

On Iran's meddling in internal affairs of other countries:

Faisal said, adding that his ruler bluntly told Ahmadinejad: "You're interfering in Arab affairs," a reference to Iran's alleged interference in other Middle East countries.

The Saudis also told the Iranians "that their interference in Arab affairs is creating a backlash in the Arab world and in the Muslim world. Other Muslim countries are complaining of [Iranian] interference in internal affairs," Faisal said.

Read the story here. It seems that acting thuggish can only go on for so long before everyone starts to get really annoyed. In this case, its taken 28 years, but still, it seems that the world's collective patience - other then the vile EU (see here) - is running out for Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

The EU Disgraces Itself - There Must Be Consequences

Yesterday's acts by the EU will reverberate long into the future and with consequences that likely cannot be seen at this point. The UK asked for assistance from EU members in bringing pressure to bear on Iran to return the kidnapped 15 sailors and marines late of the HMS Cornwall. The EU placed their economic ties with Iran above the moral imperative of assisting Britain -- and even had the gall to lecture to the UK that this matter should not be taken to the point of confrontation -- no doubt because it would endanger their trade with Iran.

European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.

Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.

A first written message from the Tehran Government offered some hope of a deal, but time is running out before the Iranian new year holiday ends and militant students and politicians return to business.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but ruled out any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers.

France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.

Read the entire article here. One can make several observations from these acts. Indeed, one can even do so with relative calm and without the use of expletives -- but only after a long walk and a couple of glasses of 30 proof mead. The EU is beneath contempt.

1. The EU places their individual pecuniary interests above the interests of EU solidarity. There can be no future expectation of support by the EU for any particular member in any given scenario.

2. There is likely a huge element of anti-Americanism playing into the EU decision to rebuff the UK and it is motivated in part to punish the UK for allying with America. Anti-Americanism has been a hallmark of leftist politics throughout Old Europe, and the constant drumbeat of negativity has had its effect. For example, in Germany, more people consider the U.S. to be a greater threat to world peace then Iran and radical Islam.

3. The EU, which faces the same existential threat from Iran and radical Islam that the US and the UK face, is unwilling or unable to put its national security interests ahead of its short term pecuniary interests so long as the EU member nations feel safe under the umbrella of U.S. and U.K. protection.

4. The EU is willing to rely on the United States and the UK to provide and pay for their security while they feel free to reap economic benefit wherever possible, including trading with the the very nation that threatens their security.

5. The EU itself is wholly amoral with no sense of institutional loyalty. To motivate EU countries, one must offer them lucre or threaten their trade.

6. The EU member states cannot be counted upon as allies as a group.

7. In the wake of this rebuff, the UK will never go along with agreeing to an EU constitution. That is dead and buried.

8. In the wake of this rebuff, Angela Merkel's call for the melding of member state armies into a single EU military is beyond ridiculous.

9. It is unlikely that the UK will leave the EU over this incident - which is too bad really. However, there will be loud calls to consider it in the UK in the coming months and it will be an outside possibility.

10. The greed of the EU is blinding them to the ramifications of their refusal to support the UK. Their decision will embolden Iran and make the liklihood of this whole matter ending without the use of brute force far less likely. I seriously doubt that the UK will sit through a show trial of their troops without issuing an ultimatum on a date certain. George Bush is loyal. When Tony Blair asks, I have no doubt whatsoever that Bush will pull the trigger on the air craft carriers in the Gulf.

Having said all of that, the US can and should take actions to motivate Britain's fellow EU member states. A law on the books since the Clinton administration and recently revised under the rubric of The Iran Freedom Support Act allows for sanctions against companies, foreign and domestic, who trade in certain matters with Iran. No one has ever been sanctioned under it. Given the incredible greed and shortsightedness of the EU actions in rebuffing the UK, the U.S. should dust off this law immediately and announce its intentions to enforce the sanctions. It is likely the only coercive act the craven and despicalbe EU members could understand. There can be no more free rides when it comes to their own defense for the EU members.

Further, the U.S. should give serious consideration to whether it wishes to continue to be a member of NATO. We can certainly engage in treaties with those nations such as Britain and the members of new Europe who are willing to be loyal allies and pay for their share of their own defense. America's next military threat is coming from China, not Europe. Leaving NATO would allow us to free up significant military and command capability and refocus it to the true threats that we face in the future.

Hat Tip: Dinah Lord

Read More...

Summary only...

Someone Tell Nancy Pelosi, The British Hostage Crisis Is OUR Crisis

Do You Really Want Nancy Pelosi Leading The US?

The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the Mad Mullah's kidnapping of 15 British sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release." That was an appropriate response.

But what of Nancy Pelosi and the House of Representatives? A measure was indeed offered, but Pelosi refused to allow it to come to the floor for a vote despite personal appeals from Republican House members (see here). This decision by Pelosi and company was explained today:

Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.

"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.

More harm then good? You have got to be kidding. Is standing up to Iranian provocation by simply speaking out against it going to do harm? No, there is more going on here. While a Resolution condemning Iranian actions is symbolic and of no practical effect, Pelosi’s refusing to allow such a resolution to be heard on the floor of the House has significant practical effect. The message is clear. The Democrats in control of the House will not support our allies, nor will they support anything that might lead to retaliation against the Iranians, regardless of the provocation. She just handed the Iranians a free pass - for this act of provocation as well as for their continued meddling in Iraq. I am sure that message is being heard loud and clear in Terhan.

Let there be no doubt. Pelosi is keeping her eye on the prize – Democratic political gains in Congress and the Presidency - and all else is meaningless to her. She will fight tooth and nail to prevent the use of force against Iran for any reason, just as she is fighting to see us out of Iraq while the going is still tough, before Petraeus’ surge has any chance of succeeding. She is banking on the anti-war left in America carrying the day and insuring long term partisan political gain. This refusal to even condemn the Iranian actions is simply one more manifestation of that strategy.

Pelosi’s spokesman's assertion that this is “AN’ international crisis is both craven and false. This is “OUR” crisis – not just the Brits. There is no doubt that this act of Iranian aggression is aimed at the US and the UK, even though it was only the UK that was targeted. See here and here.

Pelosi’s refusal to acknowledge that this is a crisis shared by the US is simply more of the same type of dissembling she regularly engages in for partisan political purposes. On the day that the House passed HR 1591, legislating retreat from Iraq on a date certain, Pelosi claimed in a speech before the House that the war in Iraq was “not related to the war on terror.”

This is sheer lying to the American public. It is not spin. It is not opinion. It is a lie. It contradicts every pronouncement from bin Laden and Zarqawi since 2002 that Iraq is the central battle for al Qaeda. It ignores the reality that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. It shuts off any assessment of the likely ramifications that will arise from leaving Iraq without a functioning democracy.

I have posted on this insanity before, see here, and Charles Krauthammer has weighed in on the subject today. See here.

This is all just par for the course for Nancy Pelosi and company. Pelosi’s refusal to allow the resolution condemning the Iranian kidnapping of 15 of Her Majesty’s sailors and marines is a scandal. It needs to be portrayed as such by all people more concerned about our national security then they are about partisan political gain.

Read More...

Summary only...

In Addressing the Hostage Crisis, One of the First Steps Must be Publicly Addressing ROE and Force Protection

EU Referendum is reporting:

. . . As more details emerge of the snatch, it has emerged that only two boats were initially used by the Iranians. Video footage has been released by Iranian television showing close-ups of one of the vessels, a small speedboat with a crew of three, armed with what appears to be a single 12.7mm machine gun.

This was hardly a formidable force and one which, with the right assets in place and an alert overwatch, could easily have been seen off. Given the enormous repercussions of the kidnapping – to say nothing of the national humiliation – questions as to how the British service personnel were so easily ambushed now become increasingly urgent.

I had previously posted (see here) that Tony Blair needs to be called to the carpet for this, and the British ROE that allowed this to happen. Tony Blair's bald assertion before Parliment the other day that the ROE would have allowed for Her Majesty's sailors and marines to defend themselves and saying that they made the right decision (see here) is wholly insufficient. The fact is they did not defend themselves. The problem lies in that they saw surrendering without defending themselves as either the appropriate course of action or the only possible course of action.

I do not doubt the bravery of the 15 captured. So the reason for their allowing themselves to be captured must be a systemic one - and that inquiry has to start with the Tony Blair and the ROE. The former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West,has stated,

British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

It may be that that the British ROE is not as stated above, but rather would have been sufficient in this case, but that an altered ROE was communicated to the sailors and marines. This happened with the U.S. military, with the soldiers at ground level being given more restrictive ROE's by their immediate commanders because the commanders wanted to protect themselves from criticism. General Petraeus handled that by drafting new ROE and that included an order that his ROE could not be altered in any way. See here. In either event, whether the problem is as the Sea Lord has posited, or whether it is in translating the ROE to the troop level, there is a systemic problem that Blair needs to publicly admit and fix - not gloss over with praise for the decision forced upon the 15 sailors and marines.

And two, the commander of the HMS Cornwall needs to disciplined for dereliction of duty. Regardless of the ROE - these were his soldiers and marines and he is responsible for their safety and security. It is bad enough to have to lead troops into combat knowing that, despite your best efforts, some will become casualities. But to not reasonably protect them at all times during their deployment is unforgivable. That this kidnapping came on top of a previous kidnapping in the same place, and following recent warnings that Iran was likely to try and retaliate for the people they have lost in Iraq (see here), only adds more fuel to the fire.

There are several reasons these things need to be done. One, it is a necessary component of the myriad of things that need to be publicized to the mad mullahs that Britain will not tolerate provocative acts like this. Clearly establishing that Britain will fight back at the point of open provocation does not mean open warfare - it means self defense. The policy of de-escalation, if that in fact is the British navy's policy, is counter productive - it is what has allowed this kidnapping travesty. There is no need to provoke the Iranians, but there has to be an absolute line in the sand that the Iranians cannot pass without bloodshed. That line must clearly be drawn at the point of protecting from death or capture those who have volunteered to serve their country. Do you think for a moment that the Iranians would have tried this if they thought the British would fight back? We are much closer now to open warfare with Iran then we would have been had we engaged the Iranians and not let them take hostages.

Two, the troops who volunteer for Her Majesty's military need to understand that they will be supported and protected in the future. That means providing them with ROE that allow them to defend themselves and deploying them so that they can be reinforced or supported by fire in an event such as this kidnapping attempt. This whole situation has got to be horribly damaging to the morale of the British forces. Military leadership demands caring for and protecting one's troops. In the rush to get the hostages back - addressing why this happened and publicly correcting it must be among the top priorities.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Navigationally Challenged Mullahs

The UK Times is reporting that, over the weekend, Iran, provided "proof" to the British governement that the abduction of 15 of the U.K.'s sailors and marines occurred in Iranian waters by providing GPS data. The only problem - the coordinates placed the sailors and marines squarely in Iraqi waters. When the Brits pointed out this error and demanded the return of their sailors and marines, what they received intstead was a different set of GPS coordinates from the mad mullahs.

In response, the UK has released GPS data that shows the boarding party of 15 sailors and marines were 1.7 miles inside of Iraqi waters when they were abducted by the Iranians. See here. Their location was verified by the captain of the vessel the Brits were inspecting at the time of the abduction.

This will add clarity to the Britain's call for the return of their soldiers, though, in reality, the location of the abduction, either in or out of Iraqi waters, is really a red herring. See here. There is no legal justification for the Iranian action - it is Iran's rouge theocracy acting as it always has.

In addition to the GPS data, Britain outlined its course of action in dealing with the Iranians, and Tony Blair answered questions about the Rules of Engagement (ROE).

[T]he Prime Minister and . . . Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, . . . told MPs that Britain was immediately freezing all bilateral ties with Iran - except for contacts directly concerning the seized personnel.

"They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," Mrs Beckett said.

. . . Minutes after the MoD press conference, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Britain was mobilising international support to show Iran how isolated it was. Mr Blair described the seizure as “completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”.

Responding to a question from David Cameron, the Conservative leader, about the rules of engagement the patrols were operating under, Mr Blair said that the sailors and Marines could have used force in self defence. But he was was quite satisfied that they had taken the right decision in not drawing their arms after being surrounded by six heavily armed Iranian Republic Guard vessels.

"If they had engaged in military combat at the stage, there would undoubtedly have been severe loss of life," he said.

Mr Blair added by the time the crew of HMS Cornwall realised that the 15 had been detained and a Lynx helicopter dispatched to find them, they were already in Iranian waters - making intervention that much more dangerous.

As much as I like Tony Blair, I think this blithely passing over the ROE and acts of the Commander of the HMS Cornwall are very much in the wrong. See here.

This Iranian provocation is an act of war. For one, Tony Blair should clearly announce what steps he will take for force protection in the future -- i.e., that all boarding parties will operate within the support range of the fleet, and that future provocations will be met by overwhelming force. And two, while Tony Blair is taking the proper diplomatic steps, he should get the UN involved immediately, as this was a UN mandated mission the sailors and marines were undertaking. And last, diplomacy may not win out - and If this travesty is allowed to play out long, it will only further embolden the mad mullahs who already believe that, with the West, they are fighting a eunuch unable to defend itself. At some point, an ultimatum needs to be issued, backed up with all of the firepower that the UK and its ally, the US can provide in the Gulf. See here.

Update: The NYT is reporting (see here) that the Iranians have posted videos of the captured sailors and marines, including a video of the female sailor captured, now with her hair covered in Iranian style, praising her Iranian captors for their treatment and "admitting" that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters when kidnapped. Further, the mullahs are now demanding that Britain officially "admit" that their sailors and marines were in Iranian waters.

Read More...

Summary only...

Taheri on Iran's Act of War

Amir Taheri has an excellent article on Iran's kidnapping of the 15 British sailors and Marines. His point is that this was no simple act of border defense, irrespective of whether the Brits had strayed into Iranian territorial waters.

We may never know what actually happened. The area where the sailors were captured is at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab, a border estuary that has caused two wars between Iran and Iraq since the 1970s. Iraq claims ownership of the entire estuary, while Iran wants it divided between the two neighbors. It is possible that the sailors thought they were in Iraqi waters while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard's Marines believed them to be on the Iranian side.

What is certain, however, is that the sailors would not have been captured without Tehran's approval at the highest level. The Brits based in Basra have often strayed into waters that Iran regards as its own; Iranians have also often passed into Iraqi waters.

In other words, these are almost daily incidents. The standard procedure is to warn the trespassers and guide them back to their own side of the water. If that procedure was abandoned this time, the reason must be someone's desire to provoke an incident.

If trespassing were the cause of the incident, one wonders why the Islamic Republic turns a blind eye to American vessels often straying into its so-called continental-shelf territorial waters. A casual boat ride in the Persian Gulf would offer the visitor countless examples of this on a daily basis.

It is possible that the mullahs don't yet wish to provoke a direct clash with the United States, and have used the incident with the Brits as a means of testing the waters. They may also hope that they could force London to press Washington to release the Revolutionary Guard commanders held in Baghdad in exchange for the British hostages.

The mullahs' move cannot be fortuitous: The Brits were captured on the eve of a new Security Council resolution, drafted by Britain, to impose harsher sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

It also came after months in which the Western powers have been exerting what is known as "proximity pressure" on the Khomeinist regime. A former deputy defense minister of the Islamic Republic, Gen. Ali-Reza Askari (Asgari), was kidnapped or defected and is presumed to be in the United States. Five senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its head of special operations, Gen. Mohammed Jafar Sahraroudi, remain under lock and key after having been arrested by U.S. forces in Baghdad.

Tehran is full of rumors about supposed secret contacts established by the Americans with several senior political and military figures with a view toward a regime change. The contacts supposedly include a former prime minister and a former defense minister.

Not surprisingly, the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei appears to have concluded that the best defense is to go on the offensive. In a tough speech last week, Khamenei in effect put the Islamic Republic on a war footing. He endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "no compromise" position on the nuclear issue and threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Ever since it erupted on the scene, the Khomeinist revolution has always accompanied a hardening of its position by seizing hostages. In November 1979, just eight months after seizing power, the Khomeinist regime endorsed the seizure of American diplomats as hostages in Tehran.

During the following quarter-century, the Islamic Republic was involved in seizing more than 1,000 hostages from more than 30 countries in Iran or through its Hezbollah agents in Lebanon. These included a French ambassador to Tehran, Guy Georgy, two German bankers and eight American and French journalists - plus dozens of businessmen, priests and tourists from countries as far apart as South Korea and Italy. Right now, in addition to the 15 Brits, the Islamic Republic is holding a German hostage.

Western apologists for the Khomeinist regime have already started blaming the United States for having made the mullahs nervous. The argument of the apologists is simple: Don't do anything that makes the mullahs unhappy, or else they will do more mischief.

The truth, however, is that making the mullahs nervous may be the only way of persuading them to end their defiance of the United Nations and stop trying to export Khomeinism to neighboring countries.

Read the entire article here. Without going into extensive detail, I can attest, from my one year plus spent on the DMZ in Korea, of the accuracy of Taheri's description of how minor border are regularly treated between two countries without a clear border line and who are not in open hostilities.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Proposed Course of Action Against Iran

Jules Crittenden gives a thorough and sound analysis of the Iran problem and, in light of their abduction of the 15 British sailors, recommends an entirely appropriate course of action:

Typically in the past, in cases such as the Chinese detention of American naval aviators forced down in a collision with a Chinese fighter in 2000, and the seizure of British soldiers by Iran in 2004, the aggrieved party puts up with some public humiliation and plays it low key in order to get its people back alive.

The case here is different. The extent of Iranian interference in Iraq has become clear since 2004. The state of cold war that has existed between the United States and Iran since 1979 has turned into a hot proxy war as Iran floods weapons and cash into Iraq, training terrorists to fight there and even sending its own special forces in to support militias and insurgents. It is on the verge of turning into a direct military confrontation, though arguably with this act against an American ally and other acts against Americans, it already has.

Iran is a party to the intentional murder of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. There is also evidence that Iran is heavily involved in southern Iraq, and may well be responsible for the murder of British soldiers there. The British are our allies in this fight. The seizure of Britons is no different than a seizure of Americans. The Iranians have chosen to pick on them as the weaker party, calculating that Blair as a lame duck, with anti-war sentiment high, will do nothing. Iran calculates that new British leadership will want less to do with the United States in Iraq and may be more willing to deal on terms favorable to Iran. Iran’s timing is impeccable.

The question now is whether Iran has miscalculated, and if our leadership has the will to present a strong, united front against Iran in the interest of peace in the Middle East. The United States, conscious of political weakness at home, has been slowly building the case against Iran and acting in a measured fashion with the seizure of Iranian agents well inside Iraq. It has not attacked the supply lines and terrorist training camps in Iran. But it is increasingly clear that security in Iraq relies in large part on Iran’s respect for Iraq’s borders. But Iran has shown no desire to stop meddling violently in Iraq, and it is time for the next step in a measured response to Iran’s aggression.

The British crisis is a provocation that provides an opportunity to send a big-stick message to Iran. It is precisely the message Jimmy Carter should have quietly conveyed 28 years ago. You’ve had your fun. If they are not free in two days, we will blockade your country. Nothing gets in or out. Two days after that, we will destroy your oil-producing infrastructure. We then have a very long list of your military, political and civilian infrastructure that supports your terrorist and nuclear ambitions that we will begin destroying. We do not intend to invade you. We have no need nor interest in doing so.

When the ships and aircraft are in place and the cruise missiles have been launched, George Bush and Tony Blair can announce that in defense of Allied and Iraqi lives, to prevent further incursions and terrorist acts that are destabilizing Iraq, it has become necessary to reduce Iran’s capacity for causing further mayhem in the Middle East.

There may be a perception that Bush and Blair as lame ducks are incapable for forceful action. Bush has already shown that not to be the case, and in wartime, aggressive leadership in defiance of domestic political weakness is often called for. It should not be a political calculation … both leaders are increasingly immune from that concern. It is a military calculation. Do we have the capacity to reduce and contain Iran militarily? If that answer to that is no, then we need to develop it. Quickly.

There may be a public impression that precipitous action will endanger the lives of the British sailors and Marines and risk open warfare with Iran, at a time when the public is weary of war. This needs to be countered with the clear illustration that lack of action by the United States, Britain and the rest of the free world against Iran has cost, and continues to cost, thousands of lives, in open warfare from Lebanon to Iraq.

Iran can forestall this by releasing the prisoners. They may couch their magnanimous action in any face-saving terms they care to.

Should Iran see reason and release the British prisoners, an additional message needs to be quietly conveyed.

Any and all incursions into Iraqi territory henceforth will be met with overwhelming force, to include hot pursuit across the border and targeting of terrorist infrastructure there. We might finally then see a formal end to the Carter era of U.S.-Iranian relations and let the mullahs know: The party’s over.

Read the entire post here.

Read More...

Summary only...

British Rules Of Engagement Allowed For Capture by Iranians

I wrote here that I could not understand how a British naval force would allow its sailors and marines to be kidnapped by Iranians for a second time without firing a shot. It turns out that the British Rules of Engagement prevents their fleet from effectively defending themselves against the Iranians, even in response to such an incredibly provocative act as occurred with the kidnapping of the fifteen sailors and marines.

A senior American commander in the Gulf has said his men would have fired on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard rather than let themselves be taken hostage.

In a dramatic illustration of the different postures adopted by British and US forces working together in Iraq, Lt-Cdr Erik Horner - who has been working alongside the task force to which the 15 captured Britons belonged - said he was "surprised" the British marines and sailors had not been more aggressive.

Asked by The Independent whether the men under his command would have fired on the Iranians, he said: "Agreed. Yes. I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation."

The executive officer - second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall - said: " The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'"

His comments came as it was reported British intelligence had been warned by the CIA that Iran would seek revenge for the detention of five suspected Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq two months ago but refused to raise threat levels in line with their US counterparts. The capture of the eight sailors and seven marines - including one young mother - will undoubtedly renew accusations that Britain's determination to maintain a friendly face in the region has left its troops frequently under protected.

. . . Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were "very much de-escalatory, because we don't want wars starting ... Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away."

Read the entire article here. I think it self evident that the best way to insure a belicose enemy acts ever more reckless is not to defend one's self when reasonably provoked. That is craven insanity.

This kidnapping occrured in almost the exact same place as the kidnapping of sailors two years ago. And in this instance, the British commanders allowed their boarding party of sailors and marines to conduct operations outside of the HMS Cornwall's ability to support it if, as happened, the Iranians made another kidnapping attempt.

The failures here are multiple. One, the rules of engagement for British forces are directly responsible for allowing this kidnapping to occur - and responsiblity for that starts with Tony Blair. And two, in light of the known threat, the commander of the Cornwall , in allowing his boarding party to operate outside of a range in which the commander could timely reinforce or support by fire - or even just by a bluff - is guilty of dereliction of duty.

There can be no aspersions cast on the bravery of the individual sailors and marines. In light of the ROE, and with no expectation of support, they really had no other choice then to go belly up without a shot fired. Were this the U.S. navy, I can assure you there would be at least one admiral's head on a pike by now. Let us hope that this leads to a revision of how Her Majesty's Navy does business in the Persian Gulf.

There is no need to provoke the Iranians, but there has to be an absolute line in the sand that the Iranians cannot pass without bloodshed. That line must clearly be drawn at the point of protecting from death or capture those who have volunteered to serve their country.

Read More...

Summary only...