Posted on 03/24/2007 5:21:18 AM PDT by radar101
The capture of British Navy servicemen by Iranian forces is not simply an incident over sea sovereignty in the Persian Gulf. It is a calculated move on behalf of Teheran’s Jihadi chess players to provoke a “projected” counter move by London and its American allies. It is all happening in a regional context, carefully engineered by the Mullahs strategic planners. Here is how: The Iranian regime’s master plan is to wait out the remainder of Tony Blair’s mandate (few more months) and the remaining “real time” of President Bush (till about the end of 2007). For the thinking process in Tehran, based on their Western consultants, believe that Washington and London have reached the end of the rope and will only have till 2008 to do something major to destabilize Ahmedinijad regime. As explained by a notorious propagandist on al Jazeera today the move is precisely to respond to the Anglo-American attempt to “stir trouble” inside Iran. Anis Naccash, a Lebanese intellectual supporter of the Ayatollahs regime, appearing from Tehran few hours ago on the Qatari-based satellite and “explained” that the “US and the UK must understand that Iran is as much at war with these two powers in as much as they support the rise of movements and security instability inside Iran.” He added that Khamenei is clear on the regime’s decision to strike: “we will be at war with you on all levels: secret, diplomatic, military and other.” Pro-Iranian propagandists in the region, via media and online rushed to warn that this movement is part of Iran’s counter-strike against any attempt to destabilize the regime. Two major tracks emerge from these statements, the Iranian military maneuvers and the capture of British Navy personnel.
1) Iran’s domestic front is putting pressure on the Ahmedinijad regime.
From internal reporting, dissidents and anti-Ahmedinijad forces from various social sectors are practically in slow motion eruption against the authorities. Students, women, workers and political activists have been demonstrating and sometimes clashing with the regime’s security apparatus. Western media didn’t report proportionally on these events over the past few weeks. In addition, ethnic minority areas have been witnessing several incidents, including violence against the “Revolutionary Guards,” including in the Arab and Baluch areas. And last but not least, the defection of a major intelligence-military figure early this month to the West was, according to internal sources, a “massive loss” to the regime and a possible first one in a series.
2) The regime “need” an external clash to crush the domestic challenge.
As in many comparable cases worldwide, when an authoritarian regime is faced with severe internal opposition it attempts to deflect the crisis onto the outside world. Hence, Teheran’s all out campaign against the US and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon and the region is in fact a repositioning of Iran’s shield against the expected rising opposition inside the country. Hence the Khomeinist Mullahs plan seem to be projected as follow:
a. Engage in the diplomatic realm, to project a realist approach worldwide, but refrain from offering real results
b. Continue, along with the Syrian regime, in supporting the “Jihadi” Terror operations (including sectarian ones) inside Iraq
c. Widen the propaganda campaign against the US and its allies via a number of PR companies within the West, to portray Iran as “a victim” of an “upcoming war provoked by the US.”
d. Engage in skirmishes in the Gulf (and possibly in other spots) with US and British elements claiming these action as “defensive,” while planned thoroughly ahead of time.
3) The regime plan is to drag its opponents into a trap
Teheran’s master planners intend to drag the “Coalition” into steps in engagement, at the timing of and in the field of control of Iran’s apparatus. Multiple options and scenarios are projected.
a. British military counter measure takes place, supported by the US. Iran’s regime believe that only “limited” action by the allies is possible, according to their analysis of the domestic constraints inside the two powerful democracies.
b. Tehran moves to a second wave of activities, at its own pace, hoping to draw a higher level of classical counter strikes by US and UK forces. The dosing by Iran’s leadership is expected to stretch the game in time, until the departure of Blair and of the Bush Administration by its political opponents inside the country’s institutions and public debate.
In a short conclusion the “War room” in Tehran has engaged itself in an alley of tactical moves it feels it can control. But the Iranian regime, with all its “political chess” expertise, may find itself in a precarious and risky situation. For while it feel that it can control the tactical battlefield in the region and fuel the propaganda pressure inside the West with its Petro-dollars, it may not be able to contain the internal forces in Iran, because of which it has decided to go on offense.
The Ahmedinijad regime wishes to crumble the international consensus to avoid the financial sanctions: that is true. But as important, if not more, it wants to be able to crush the revolt before it pounds the doors to the Mullahs palaces.
Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington
"No one wants sailors or soldiers killed, but 15 men are not worth the loss of national credibility. Ever."
Just like that spy plane of ours that landed in China. How much intel did it provide to the Chinese and how foolish did it make us look?
Its about more than looking like a fool though. Prestige in these cases can prevent further conflict or lead to conflict and the loss of many more lives.
Islam is playing an international chessgame without a king and queen.
They set up command and control centers on British and U.S. soil and fill them with pawns.
I'm sure they have quite a few, mostly 'Rats sitting in congress and actively doing their best to help.
Precisely so. If the two-bit (and even the six-bit) dictators and warlords understand that any attack on American or British forces will result in the immediate application of overwhelming force against them, they will be significantly less likely to get into harm's way.
As Theodore Roosevelt is said to have put it (remember The Wind and the Lion):
Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead
Well, that was true some years ago. With the current batch of 'Rats in congress, its: Apologize profusely for any offense, offer to go into rehab, then surrender.
Not yet, we'll wait and see.
Bingo! FNC interviewed the Commodore of their ship, and he said there were helicopters flying nearby, as was routine. Ok, so why didn't THEY open fire on the Iranians? My guess--current ROE didn't permit it. They might as well have left the helicopters at home and saved the gas.
Most of the operational software running on that plane would have been trashed by the time it hit the tarmac.
IIRC, Iran has almost no gasoline refinery capacity and has to import gasoline. Currently, gasoline is being rationed. The Brits could stir up an Iranian hornets nest by turning away gasoline deliveries to Iranian ports.
Been there done that. We would get dropped off, the radios would crap out, and we would have to wait untill Mother came back six to ten hours later.
Indeed ... when their chief nutcase realized he could not address the UN, it was time to punctuate that event with an act, hence the provocation. I am still amazed that the Brit navy was so undersupported in their region. It must have been calculated so as to avoid a military clash during a rescue. The small boat teams must have been told off that they were expendable but that diplomatic help was right around the corner so surrender meekly. We've gone wobbly.
Brave words for someone not there. Imagine if the Iranians got the drop on the party by training and cocking a few large calibre machine guns on them? Imagine a scenario where the boarding party commander went to speak to the Iranians and was held at gun point?
Would you still go down fighting if one of your guys was being held at gunpoint?
You make a valid point: the larger craft could sit back out of small arms range -- and hose the inflatables with, say, .50 cal fire all day long... No contest!
Is there any possibility that these Brits were sent into Iranian waters in the hopes that it would provoke a confrontation with Iran? In other words - so that Tony Blair could shore up some support at home by getting British citizens to rally around the troops and against Iran?
No.
I can imagine, it goes something like this:
The British marines, seeing the Iranian naval vessels approaching, radio to their mother frigate, (the HMS Cornwall), for help. They inform the captain of the Cornwalll that they are surrounded and being ordered to lay down arms. The Cornwall's captain radios his Admiral and the Admiral radios 10 Downing Street for permission to challenge the Iranian vessels and rescue their troops. Meanwhile, having no orders yet from the Cornwall, the British marines are overpowered and taken aboard the Iranian boats. Then word comes back to the captain of the (heavily armed) Cornwall from 10 Downing Street...... "Hold your fire, we don't want to create an incident with Iran at this time". End of story.
Since when did the words "no contest" find their way into the vocabulary of Her Majesty's Royal Marines?
You need to keep in mind that the mother ship, the HMS Cornwall, was nearby. She has a heavy compliment of anti-ship missiles, anti-missile-missiles, and big guns. She has state-of-the-art radar and surveilance equipment. She KNEW the Iranian boats were encroaching on her marines in the rubber rafts. She did nothing, the marines did nothing. What does this tell you? It tells me that the Cornwall radioed for help and advice and was told to stand down.
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.