IRANIAN GAMBIT [RALPH PETERS]

New York Post ^ | 6/23/2004 | Ralph Peters

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

THE seizure of eight British servicemen by Iran's Revolutionary Guards isn't about a border violation. It's meant to test the Coalition in Iraq, punish Britain for criticizing Tehran's nuclear quest — and recharge domestic support for Iran's hardliners.

Those eight hostages are pawns in a great strategic game for stakes far beyond the minor scale of the incident itself. Iran's hardliners are gambling. If the West — with London in the lead this time — fails to call their bluff, our weakness will virtually guarantee future conflict in the Persian Gulf.

[RKV]

Future conflict in the Persian Gulf is already guaranteed. The only thing in question is the timing. The mulahs days are numbered.

[SMARTY]

I think it's true. If we cannot take care of them while their power and presence is focused in the Middle East, (which means, IMMEDIATELY) then they will have time to entrench themselves all over Asia and in this Hemisphere.

[bayourod]

Has anyone heard if Kerry has made any statement about this? Or is he just waiting to oppose anything Bush says?

[genefromjersey]

You might want to take a look here :

http://www.biohazardnews.net/news.shtml

About the 3rd para. down you'll see something interesting.

[Billthedrill]

I think Peters is broadly correct about this being a test, but a bit too hard on Bush for loss of will, evidence of which he draws from Fallujah and Najaf and which I submit he may have misinterpreted.

It certainly is a test of Blair, but it also serves to strengthen his case domestically, which seems to have become a classic Middle East strategic mistake with respect to Western politics. Certainly it is so with respect to Bush and American politics - every time his opponents start to gain traction with their hysteria du jour somebody cuts a head off over there and puts the whole thing back into perspective. I chuckle when I hear the tinfoil-hat Left speculating darkly that al Qaeda is on the Republican payroll, but I can see where they're coming from.

Iran's broad strategic objective is simply to change its status from just another Islamic country on our feces-list to something that we won't dare mess with, because they know perfectly well they have it coming. Their means of accomplishing this is the possession of nuclear weaponry. Their timetable makes it a race between their ability to test the Big One and the inevitable day when their entry makes it to the top of Bush's "to-do" list. And after November all bets are off.

In this context any effort to magnify their own pretensions by "winning" a contrived, controlled incident with a major player is a winning move, and the temporary seizure of the Brits will fill the bill nicely. But just as they did in 1980, they've miscalculated the long-range damage in preference to short-term gains. Had they made nice with Reagan after they released the hostages they wouldn't have faced the detrimental effects of a quarter-century of genuine enmity with what became the world's only superpower. Part of the fix they're in now is a result of that overestimation of their own power, and more of the same policy is likely to garner them more of the same result. And the clock's ticking.

[RKV]

Sorry, but I am not spending a significant amount of time tracking what Kerry says. Your characterization of his expected response follows my logic as well.

[hosepipe]

Iran is a balloon of unrest. The Mullahs should let some air of the balloon not fill it further.. A little prick here or there and Iran could go boom.. And there lots of pricks in Iran..

[RKV]

Pardon me being obtuse, but what detrimental effects has Iran endured by our "genuine enmity?" The mulahs are still in power and driving Mercedes. They don't give a rat about what happens to their people, nor whether they are liked. The opposition is making noise, but no actual power has changed hands. The mulahs are winning. We have hurt their ability to export terror, but nothing short war/revolution is what is needed in Iran. As far as I am concerned a state of war has existed since the hostage taking of our diplomats. My suggestion is to attack, not to wait around for the islamic bomb. If I can quote Michael Ledeen "Faster please."