Posted on 07/05/2004 4:18:22 PM PDT by Pokey78
This past week these pages have been filled with daily meditations on the British embrace of loserdom - Boris Johnson, James Delingpole, our friends in the leader pen opposite. I'm not sure I'd pass Norman Tebbit's cricket test myself, but, if I did, I'd be as upset as the rest of the Telegraph types at Accrington Stanley losing in straight sets or Annabel Croft blowing the penalty shoot-out. Hard to take, year in, year out.
None the less, it seems to me this morbid obsession with the national loser fetish obscured the really big British defeat - to Iran, in the Shatt al-Arab water polo. Six Royal Marines and two Royal Navy sailors were intercepted in Iraqi waters, forcibly escorted to Iranian waters, arrested, paraded on TV blindfold, obliged to confess wrongs and recite apologies, and eventually released. Their three boats are still being held by the Iranians.
Mullahs 8, HMG nil.
The curious thing is the lion that didn't roar. Tony Blair has views on everything and is usually happy to expound on them at length - if you'd just arrived from Planet Zongo and were plunked down at a joint Blair/Bush press conference on Iraq or Afghanistan or most of the rest of the world, you'd be forgiven for coming away with the impression that the Prime Minister's doing 90 per cent of the heavy lifting and the President's just there for emergency back-up. Yet, on an act of war and/or piracy perpetrated directly against British forces, Mister Chatty is mum.
Likewise, Jack Straw. The Foreign Secretary goes to Teheran the way other Labour grandees go to Tuscany. He's got a Rolodex full of A-list imams. When in the Islamic Republic, he does that "peace and blessings be upon his name" parenthesis whenever he mentions the Prophet Mohammed, just to show he's cool with Islam, not like certain arrogant redneck cowboys we could mention. And where did all the ayatollah outreach get him? "We have diplomatic relations with Iran, we work hard on those relationships and sometimes the relationships are complicated," he twittered, "but I'm in no doubt that our policy of engagement with the Government of Iran… is the best approach."
Even odder has been the acquiescence of the press. If pictures had been unearthed of some over-zealous Guantanamo guards doing to our plucky young West Midlands jihadi what the Iranian government did on TV to those Royal Marines, two thirds of Fleet Street (including many of my Spectator and Telegraph colleagues) would be frothing non-stop.
Instead, they seem to have accepted the British spin that there's been no breach of the Geneva Convention because the Marines and sailors weren't official prisoners of war, just freelance kidnap victims you can have what sport you wish with.
Why didn't Bush think of that one?
The only tough talk came from an unnamed official, briefing correspondents on the Iranian ambassador's summons to the Foreign Office for a diplomatic dressing down: "It was very much a one-way conversation," the FCO wallah assured the gentlemen of the press.
Do you think that's true? Or do you think it more likely that it was, in fact, a two-way conversation with lots of cajoling and pleading on the British part and reminders that London and Teheran are supposed to be friends?
Washington's position is clear: Iran is a charter member of the axis of evil. (Well, it's clear-ish: State Department types are prone to Jack Straw moments.) But London opted for "engagement" on the usual grounds that if you pretend these fellows are respectable they're more likely to behave respectably. In return, Britain's boys got hijacked and taken on a classic Rogue State bender. And the version being broadcast throughout the Muslim world is that Teheran swatted the infidel and got away with it.
That's what matters: getting away with it. Do you think Mr Straw, fretting over the "complications" of Anglo-Iranian relations, will make the mullahs pay any price for what they did? And, if he doesn't, what conclusions do you think the Islamic Republic will draw from its artful test of Western - or, at any rate, European - resolve? Right now, the British, French and Germans are making a show of getting tough on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Is that "tough" as in "Go ahead, imam, make my day"? Or is it "tough" as in that official's "one-way conversation"? Just a bit of diplo-bluster. If you were the mullahs, you might well conclude that the Europeans don't mean it, that they've decided they can live with a nuclear Iran, and you might as well go full speed ahead.
One difficulty in dealing with the Islamic Republic is that the fellows out in front are sock puppets. Jack Straw is the real British Foreign Secretary. His Iranian counterpart is a man playing the role of foreign minister for international consumption. The big decisions are taken elsewhere. A couple of years ago, there was a lively speech by Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president and now head of the Expediency Council, which sounds like a committee of EU foreign ministers but is actually Iran's highest religious body. Rafsanjani was looking forward to the big day when his side got nukes and settled the Zionist question for ever "since a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world."
I'm inclined to take these fellows at their word. Next to Mr Straw and his "complications", these dudes are admirably plain-spoken. But let's suppose Rafsanjani is more cunning, and he understands that perhaps he won't have to use his bomb - that the mere fact of it will enable the country to get its way, in the region and beyond. Wouldn't the events of recent days have confirmed this view? And, if this is what he can get away with now, what might he try to pull when Iran is the first nuclear theocracy?
We Bush warmongers have grown fond of Mr Blair: often, he's a better salesman for American policy than the President. But in the Shatt al-Arab incident for once he was on his own, and Britain's Number One seed was unable to return a single volley. Iran is emboldened, and that's bad news for everyone else.
Something like that is the only thing that makes sense.
Prairie
Thanks for the ping, Pokey!
I think Steyn is wrong on this one, and that's probably the first time I've ever thought that.
I'm guessing it was very much a one way conversation with the Iranian ambassador. "We're going to give you a day or two to let them go. If you do, we won't ratchet up the rhetoric and embarrass you publicly. If you don't, than we and the United States are going to be extremely unhappy." So the "tradoff" was that the Brits don't force the Iranians to look like they're caving it to westerners, but the Brits get their guys back quickly.
If Teheran really wanted to play hardball, they'd have kept them for a few weeks to embarrass the Brits. They didn't.
Who? Quidnuc?
This postmodern world is just too weird. The British press doesn't complain about weak-backboned actions of state??
Hmmmm? I don't agree with Mark on this one.
I don't know why .. I can't put my finger on it .. but I wondered at the time the British were taken if they had been scouting just to see what strength of the defenses were along the river .. and because the Brits came with NO weapons .. I'm even more suspicious.
Maybe they got caught on purpose ..??
He has a nice British accent that you can hear on Hugh Hewitt's show on Wednesday afternoons.
Pictures, I'm not aware of.
Whoever it is, it won't be the Tories. After Thatcher, they became completely useless puppies.
The UKIP offers Britain its only hope, but it has a long way to go yet.
Tho Steyn has a major point about fleet streets willingness to accept the mistreatment of their own citizens while squalling over islamists with panties on their heads.
I havent followed this event since it occurred during my vacation, but perhaps the lack of resolve on the part pf the British government and the lack of backup by America was Meant to embolden them.
Lets face it, Iran and Syria have to be dealt with. Politically it may be best to coax them into crossing the line.
I'm sure that was the reference.
That's the salient point. Iran committed an Act of War and the Brits gave them a stern talking to - almost.
And compared to Spain, the Brits are pretty tough.
If Israel takes all its enemies with it, Europe goes too.
Just because "resolve" is communicated in the papers doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I suspect the U.S. gave Britain plenty of backup on this. IMHO, the tactic was to first try diplomacy behind the scenes so as not to embarrass Iran and make them hold the Brits longer. The Brits were released bery fast, as these things tend to go. Compare it to the China incident with the U.S.
<< This past week these pages have been filled with daily meditations on the British embrace of loserdom ..... [But] it seems to me this morbid obsession with the national loser fetish obscured the really big British defeat - to Iran, in the Shatt al-Arab water polo. [Eight Brits] ... intercepted in Iraqi waters, forcibly escorted to Iranian waters, arrested, paraded on TV blindfold, obliged to confess wrongs and recite apologies ....
Mullahs 8, HMG nil ....
.... if you'd just arrived from Planet Zongo and were plunked down at a joint Blair/Bush press conference on Iraq or Afghanistan or most of the rest of the world, you'd be forgiven for coming away with the impression that ['Blare'] is doing 90 per cent of the heavy lifting and [United States of America's] President [And Armed-Forces Commander-In-Chief, George Walker Bush] is just there for emergency back-up ....
Blair often [Is] a better salesman for American policy than [Our] President. But in the Shatt al-Arab incident for once he was on his own, and [Once-great] Britain's Number One seed was unable to return a single volley. >>
As, on its own, once-great Britain hasn't for more than one hundred years.
And, for at least a hundred years before that even then only against Gunga Din and its various other assorted colonial Fuzzy-Wuzzies, serfs, slaves and sychophantic subjects.
Seems to me Blair -- including, lately, to those hostile third-world colonialists and Brussells-based Neo-Soviets now safely-established within its own once-sovereign shores --is doing a very fine job indeed of holding tightly to once-great Britain's already long-established solo tradition of surrendering at every opportunity and to every comer -- and settling back 'till America's Blood and Treasure bails it out again.
[Just ask any grey-haired Singaporean -- any Israeli and/or any one of the enslaved millions of Arabia's one-time British "trust territories" and "protectorates" -- any formery East-African Asian -- any Rhodesia/zimbabwean -- or any of Once-FRee-British Hong Kong's recently-cravenly-surrendered-and-enslaved seven and a half million Once-FRee-British-Hong-Kong citizens!]
Great and perceptive piece, Mr Steyn.
Thanks for the ping, Pokes.
BUMPping
<< Servant of the 9
If Israel takes all its enemies with it, Europe goes too. >>
Rubbish!
If Israel takes all its enemies with it, Europe goes FIRST!
Blessings -- Brian
<< Where are the tories on this? I want to see some real toughness for a change. >>
The [Socialist] tories are squabbling about who gets the next thirty pieces of silver for surrendering the next few million colonialists into medieval slavery and serfdom -- apropos Arafat fan 'Hong-Kong' Patten's seven and a half million Once-FRee-British-Hong Kongers.
Blessings -- B A
bttt
Steyn's on target as usual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.