To repeat what I have said on other threads on this topic: I am getting peeved by the apparent impression on here that Britain lacks what I believe Texans call 'cajones'. People seem to misunderstand the UK calm approach and national trait of supreme understatement as weakness and a sign we are all talk and no trousers. Iran needs to think on this: In the last 10 years alone we have moved from talking to shooting in: Sierra Leonne, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq + 1 or 2 other incidents in Africa that don't get so much press attention. That makes us, with the United States, the most trigger happy nation on the planet at the moment. Aside from yourselves, no other nation on Planet Earth have shown themselves as willing to use force against other Sovereign states. No prime minister since world war two (including Thatcher) has sanctioned the use of lethal military force as often as Tony Blair. The Iranians are making a mistake and are foolish if they think there is a line we wont cross. We don't do the sabre rattling. But when need be we do do the sabre.
Brit Guy, I hope I am wrong. But I dont think Tony Blair has it in him to start what could be a very messy war with Iran. Backing us up yes he has been a strong ally in the WOT. But you have to admit he is reacting exactly like Iran thought he would. Iran wouldnt have considered this if Thatcher was in office especially with Reagan in the Bullpen.
I apologize for the behavior of our ungrateful, unloyal posters. They do not reflect how the majority of Americans feel.
I have no worries about Britain taking care of this situation. Tony Blair has stood with the Bush/US during all 6 years of Bush/US bashing since we were hit on 9-11. IMO, He's going to react strongly against this insane aggression from the psycho Iranian regime.
BRAVO, Brit_Guy!
In From the Cold, Sunday:
(also note the PM used the Cobra room to discuss this as reported in a comment by Wretchard's Belmont Club)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Swap
When the Iranians announced Friday that they had captured 15 British sailors and Royal Marines, it didn't take a military or intelligence analyst to see how this drama would play out. First, the captives--taken during an anti-smuggling enforcement mission along the Shatt al-Arab waterway--were moved to Tehran, for potential media exposure, and to reduce the chances of a lightning raid by allied SOF to free them.
Next, the Iranian government announced that the captured Britons would be tried on espionage charges, supposedly highlight the "gravity" of the incident. And, almost as quickly, Tehran claimed that it had obtained "confessions" from some of the captives, providing more evidence for a "show trial," should that need arise. Obviously, any confession procured at this point in captivity was likely the result of duress; press reporting from both the U.K. and the Middle East indicates that the British personnel are now in the hands of the Iranian intelligence service, which has few qualms about using sensory deprivation--and more extreme forms of "persuasion"--to obtain desired information.
At first, there was some speculation about Tehran's motives behind the hostage-taking. Was it aimed at influencing the U.N. Security Council's vote on tougher nuclear sanctions? Or, merely a reminder to London (and Washington) that Iran can easily influence events in the gulf region, and make it more difficult for our British partners to maintain a limited military presence in Iraq.
Britain's Sunday Mirror offers another--and more plausible--rationale for the event, claiming that Tehran will demand the release of up to 50 Iranian spies (previously captured by the British in southern Iraq), in exchange for the return of the sailors and marines. The paper says that the Iranian agents have been captured in recent years, by British forces operating in the Basra region.
I'll take that analysis a step further and predict that Tehran will also demand the return of some of the high-ranking IRGC and Qods force personnel recently arrested by U.S. forces. At least one of those detainees is reported to be a general officer, and a senior Iranian diplomat is also among those captives. Iran is clearly concerned that those officials could reveal vital information about Tehran's terrorist support network in Iraq and would like to get them back, to minimize further damage.
Talks between Britain and Iran over the matter and continuing, but the crisis shows no indication of being quickly resolved. Indeed, the Blair government would be well advised to prepare for the long haul. Tehran clearly wants some of its captured spies back, and it's clearly willing to detain the British personnel to exert more pressure on the British--and on us. Officially, the matter of those captured diplomats and IRGC personnel hasn't surfaced (yet), but it almost certainly will in the coming days. The Iranians understand that demanding the return of the Brits (in exchange for operatives held by the U.S.) could create a divide between London and Washington, something that Tehran would clearly welcome.
At this point, no one is predicting an extended captivity for the British prisoners (along the lines of what our embassy personnel endured in 1979-80), but--given the present circumstances--the odds of a quick, negotiated settlement seem almost nil. Both the U.K. and the U.S. will have to resist the temptation to give in to some--or all--of Iran's demands, despite some of the televised "confessions" and humanitarian pleas that will likely follow. We should all keep those brave sailors and Marines in our prayers, with the realization that this was a carefully planned and orchestrated kidnapping, aimed at achieving critical political goals. And, from the Iranian perspective, the incident was necessary because our policies against Tehran are working. All the more reason to sustain the pressure against Iran, and make it clear that the country's rulers are directly responsible for the captives' safety and well-being.
# posted by Spook86
"...that Britain lacks what I believe Texans call 'cajones'...."
Any Brit I've ever served with seem to be able to kick someones ass, and have them either appologize or thank them for the ass kicking. If Iran thinks they can screw with the SAS then it should be amusing.
I have no end of admiration for the British military, having worked/fought with them. It is the populace in Britain (and the West in general) that I have doubts about.
I don't understand for the life of me why NATO hasn't invoked the charter on this, and made a demand for the release of your people.
Its time to stop pulling our punches.
Extremely well said, and I agree with you. The Brits are stalwart, Tony Blair will do what is necessary. He has said that the most important thing is the welfare of the 15--if Iran takes their welfare out of the equation (by executing them, by refusing to return them, whatever) then I have no doubt the UK will deal with the situation in some effective way.
(See? Americans can be understated, also ;-D )
We have a lot of posters who prefer to be flippant for a laugh than to speak to the obvious fact that Iran's attack on these Brits is no different than if Iran had attacked America. Both nations are serving in a coalition in a mission approved by the UN and both share the same risks of being killed by Iranian-funded and supplied IEDs. I've rubbed shoulders with Brits in Iraq, and don't appreciate those who take any pleasure in the plight of these fine sailors and marines or the predicament it presents for PM Blair. And many of the posters do not understand Britain's character.