Iran hostage crisis, British edition

Just send in 007 and get it over with

I suspect that if Iran hasn't let those guys go by the end of the week, there's going to be trouble. Blair has nothing to lose politically, and doesn't have a whole lot of patience with the hard-line Islamists. A confrontation would suck, though, so here's hoping Iran wises up.

*Golf Clap*

I couldn't give you a comprehensive summary of how the media is dealing with it across the board, but from what I have seen the BBC line, for example, is fairly neutral and seems generally to be in favour of the "softly, softly" approach on the basis that to have gone in hard, or for the sailors to have resisted, would have been a bad move.

If the talkback on the BBC website is anything to go by, there's interestingly a signifcant voice advocating a "hawkish" response (a curiously high number advocating one policy in particular - solving two problems at once by decommissioning our Trident nuclear arsenal (a recent hot topic) by detonating them over Tehran. Of course, there are also those who are taking a line that we deserved it for being there in the first place. I guess I am surprised at the vehemence and popularity of the more "hawkish" view, as well as the lack of a middle ground in favour of a patient, diplomatic solution. I guess there's no underestimating the strength of the public's sympathy for "our boys" (and girls) when they get into trouble. File it alongside the fascination with the royal family and warm beer.

The press conference today seemed fairly convincing - essentially producing documentary and photographic evidence that the sailors were in Iraqi waters, in case anyone hasn't seen the coverage - but then so did Powell's presentation to the UN.

It seems pretty obvious to me that this hasn't got much to do with whether a limited force in rubber dinghies was or was not in whose waters. It seems a pretty obvious "tit for tat" move by the Iranian government in response to the arrest of their diplomats the other day, and a fairly clever, tactical "fuck you" in general to the bad press they have been getting over here about their alleged involvement in Iraq.

Given the cluster-fuck that was the situation in Lebanon last summer, the ongoing mess that is Iraq, and the general public attitude towards British military engagement in the Middle East, the options available to HM Goverment are significantly limited right now and no doubt the Iranians responsible for handling this situation are making full use of that fact.

I love how Iran gave coordinates for the inspected vessel's location as proof that it was in Iranian waters. When it was pointed at that those coordinates were, in fact, in Iraqi waters, Iran responded, "Oh, well. Then here are the real coordinates!"


I don't understand Iran's game, here. Perhaps it has something to do with internal Iranian politics, a topic on which I have much to learn.

Your link isn't working. Try this one instead.

'Molly's birthday party' is clearly code for 'We escape at midnight on the 4th.'

My guess is every 2nd letter after that is a cipher for their current location.

"Crush of the Authority?"

Last night I watched Newsnight, the daily latenight news program on BB2, and they had the former British Ambassador to Iran and an Iranian academic (I believe) on discussing this. Basically both felt that everyone needs to calm down over this. The Ambassador thought it was foolish to have gone to the UN so quickly and that the Iranians generally hold on to their capitives for a decent length of time and then do eventually let them go. It seems to me that at least the BBC seems pretty neutral on the whole thing and doesn't take everything the Blairites say at face value (with slimy shits like them, you can't be too trusting).

My favorite thing I saw in the newspapers though was what an American Lt. Commander said:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2393337.ece

Yes, because obviously we need yet another war in the Middle East.

The Britsh don't have many options, and I do think a diplomatic fix is possible and still probable. But the longer this drags out the likelihood of diplomacy goes away. I think Iran is really hurting themselves here. Not that they seem to give a shit though.

Britian won't admit fault (and I don't think they should based on what I read on where the sailors were operating). I think the next step is another week or two of diplomacy. If that doesn't work, then we're looking at one helluva ugly situation at the end of April. Not only does Blair have nothing to lose politically, but he is royally pissed and I think he's going to take this personally. He isn't going to Jimmy Carter this situation.

When this is over (taking the positive view that diplomacy works) I'm very interested to hear the sailors non-edited views on how they were treated, forced or not forced to say, etc.

JS

I disagree with that ambassador. Why shouldn't the UK have gone to the Security Council so soon? It's pretty clear that Iran took the soldiers by force in Iraqi waters and is detaining them illegally, while coaxing "confessions" out of them. Just because they tend to release their captives eventually is no reason to sit back and just say "please" until they do. I'm not close to advocating a military solution to this, but Iran can't continue to do things like this.

About 100 Iranian students protested in front of the British Embassy in Tehran today, throwing projectiles at the building. Over 14 guys and a girl in a boat who may have accidentally wandered over an imaginary line in the water. Do they just sit around waiting for something to be outraged about?

Well, congratulations George, looks like you might get your Iranian Gulf of Tonkin.

We're talking about a culture who wanted to kill a cartoonist for drawing a picture of Mohammed. I don't think they feel they're over-reacting in the slightest.

I've heard that the Supreme Leader Khamenei is actually trying to calm things down, and wants to release the female soldier.

That sort of generalization probably isn't productive in these situations.

At present it would seem that Iran is taking advantage of the opportunity to grandstand and show how tough they are against the West. The real question is who ordered the sailors' capture, and what was that person's agenda?

I don't know why, but this whole affair has made me very nervous.

And speaking of broad generalizations, that picture of the guy holding a sign calling for the execution of the sailors doesn't exactly help that "generalization".

I imagine that there are many Iranians who are very nervous as well.

I strongy suspect that Iran was hoping to provoke an armed British response, thus giving Moqtada al Sadr reason to go ballistic in the British-controlled south of Iraq.

They didn't get what they wanted, so now they're angling to see just what they can get.

I'm just spitballing here, but it could be.

Well thanks to this Chud thread and these two Daily Kos articles, I'm reading that this is due to the US's raid and kidnapping of Iranians last December. Figures. Iran's probably waiting for a switch between kidnapees

Sailors released

The sad thing is that Iran now looks better than the US/UK in the way they treat their foreign prisoners. The majority of oppressed people around the world will lap this up, when the west nabs someone they strip them naked and make pyramids or detain them in Guantanamo, but everything's pretty civilised in Iran!

Of course they had a much higher profile than some poor bastard that got picked up during a security sweep, but don't think for a second that Middle Eastern news networks aren't going to run side by side comparisons between the UK sailors and Abu Ghraib, for example.

The West can ill afford more fuel to the Barbaric Crusaders vs. Chivalrous Defenders of the Faith rhetoric while fighting this battle.

I'd say that the only difference is that Iran can ill afford to treat their prisoners so roughly. It's not a comparison that says anything good about Iran, but it certainly serves as a reminder of how terrible our conduct has been.

I hate it when the hippies at Daily Kos turn out to be right.

My question is will the Brit's put the sailors on trial for treason if they don't testify to torture to making the statements they may or may not have made.

No way this happens. They're going to get a welcome back card and then be quickly swept under the rug. This has been too much of a public relations nightmare already.

...Treason?!?

That would just be the last fucking straw when it came to demonstrating that the West has gone utterly batshit nuts. Please tell me you came up with that yourself and no one is seriously suggesting it.

No-one is seriously suggesting that. Not over here they aren't, anyway.

Speaker Pelosi travels to Syria, in a move widely criticized by the White House.

British sailors are released.

Syria claims to have had a significant role in this.

Anyone else reading between the lines here? I've said it elsewhere in these forums: engage Iraq's neighbours, treat them like sovereign nations (I'm sorry, but anyone giving even a cursory glance to a map of the Persian Gulf can see that Iraq's territorial waters are pretty small), and utilize diplomatic pressure to affect change.

The Iranians aren't the good guys here. But neither is the United States. There's been a moral vacuum in that part of the world for some time, and until a free, democratic, egalitarian republic emerges there (and I'm not saying a distinctly Islamic country cannot evolve into that role, but I am saying Israel fails that definition) we will face these sorts of morally ambiguous situations. Pragmatism is the best shot we have at this point.

This comment has stuck with me, as it's an excellent example of the lasting effects American policy re: prisoners has and will have. When a nation like Iran commits an act of war, imprisons uniformed sailors doing their jobs in the waters of another country, then forces those sailors to eat shit on international TV, we should expect outrage. The West has lost so much moral standing over its treatment of prisoners, however, that presumably sympathetic audiences such as this one can muster little more than an, "Ah, well, at least they weren't treated as badly as the people at Abu Ghraib."

David Hicks, I believe, is the Australian who pleaded guilty for a reduced sentence. Among the requirements: he say nothing of his treatment for (nine?) months.

Reading that, I really have to wonder whether David Hicks did anything at all. I mean, he was held without trial at an extra-legal detention center, beholden to no international standards, for years at a time. Given those circumstances, I can't say with any conviction I would hold fast to the premise of my own innocence, even if I hadn't done anything.

Don't get me wrong, I recognise this as masterful PR on Iran's part rather than a genuine reflection of their hostage treatment policy. And I've felt real concern over the possible escalation of hostilities due to the crisis, as well as the safety of the people involved. But it's pretty hard for me to muster moral outrage when we've seen similar shit to this pulled routinely by our "side" for the better part of four years.

El Capitan's picture and quote are indeed surreal.

FC, not only did Rumsfeld's (and, by extension, Bush's) torture policies contribute to this hardening, the Rove-controlled punditocracy and its idiot sea of followers insisted on the talking point that it was just "a few bad apples" "having some fun" rather than institutionalized criminal abuse. The lemming-like public had no idea how to react other than to do what Hannity and Rush told them to do. There was never the kind of outrage in this country that Abu Ghraib warranted. It should have been the end of Rumsfeld, but it wasn't.

Thus, Ahmadinejad is setting a far better example than Bush did for the proper treatment of "enemy combatants" in a very public way, and the world is watching. There is no way around that fact.

Bush also showed his irritance at Pelosi to soon too, he should have waited to see if her meeting panned out well or not, now he just looks like even more of a petulant prick.

UK captives tell of ill treatment

No shit.

This is great. So typical what the US's options would be in this situation.

Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace

Excerpts:

Has Blair evolved from a poodle to, maybe, a Basset Hound, perhaps?

The world is still watching, yt. It's now quite clear how Iran treats its victims.

What happened to them is terrible, but they were released quickly. And what was done to them is a far cry from being electrocuted, beaten to the brink of death, or forced to watch their daughters raped. And that's just Abu Ghraib. No one knows what's going on at Guantanamo and those enemy combatants are there for years, not days, with no outside contact and no counsel.

What Iran did - and this is at a time when they fear an imminent US invasion - was far more humane than the kind of prisoner treatment the US has displayed to the world.

Are you serious? Did you expect them to torture their kidnap victims? This has no bearing on how Iran treats prisoners. This was a calculated move possible because of sanctions and the pressure they are under and trying to divert attention away from them.

It was all a piblicity stunt.

I'm not saying Ahmadinejad is a saint and maybe this was a PR move, but clearly Iran doesn't want to be invaded and releasing those sailors was a positive step towards preventing that.