Iran Hostage Crisis Day 12 – Submission
John on April 2, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Update: 6:30PM: Sky News and the Telegraph are reporting further contacts between the UK and Iran. The Independent is saying that there was a discussion last night between “Britain and Dr Ali Larijani, of the Iranian Supreme Security Council.”
At the same time Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is warning that no one should be overly optimistic about the possibility of a swift release.
Update 9:15AM: Big things happening. Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat, who was seized on the streets of Bagdad Feb. 4th has suddenly reappeared and is on his way to Iran. Though he was apparently seized by an Iraqi commando unit, Iran believes the US was behind it. This AP story makes clear that the government of Iraq exerted pressure on the unnamed group that had been holding the diplomat. Furthermore:
A senior Iraqi foreign ministry official said on Tuesday that the government was “intensively” seeking release of five Iranians detained by the US military more than two months ago in northern Iraq.
For those that haven’t been paying attention to the details, this was the raid in which US soldiers seized six men on January 11th. One was later released because he had diplomatic papers. The other five were tied to the Revolutionary Guard and have been held since then. There have been several suggestions since this crisis began that the Iranians were looking to get these individuals back. It’s also likely that the Karbala raid which involved the kidnapping, and later the killing, of five US soldiers was a previous attempt to create a hostage situation like the one now involving the 15 Brits.
Finally, Debka has a behind the scenes look at decision making in Tehran. It’s a battle between those who want to provoke war now and those who want to resolve the situaion. According to Debka, Iran’s plan if its oil refineries are attacked is to strike out at oil production in nearby Saudi Arabia, thereby creating a crisis on the world oil market.
[End Update]
The Brits seem to have resigned themselves to giving in to Iran’s hostage demands. In this case the demands are simple:
Laying out what appeared to be a vague road map for the freeing of the British personnel, Mr Larijani said that, if it was found they had crossed into Iranian territory, there should be an apology and they would then be released.
Capitulate and you’ll get your soldiers back. Then Khameni and Ahmedinejad can go on TV and declare another “Divine Victory” over the infidel. The Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, Hezbollah will all celebrate and prepare for the next strategic kidnapping. (Perhaps if Israel will simply agree to stop existing Cpl. Gilad Shalit will be returned as well.)
No doubt related to this weakening of the knees, the Brits have opened a new round of recriminations. Instead of blaming themselves this go, they’re blaming the US. Somehow I should have guessed this would turn out to be our fault. I can’t offer any better analysis of the story than Allah has already done at HotAir, so go check him out for details.
This is dhimmitude on a grand scale. Just submit to Iran’s wishes and we’ll all get along fine. Where is King Leonidas when we need him? 
Category: Foreign Affairs |
I’ve slightly shifted my view – to view this more LONG TERM… strategy-wise based on this:
The issue is and something I recently recalled… on watching “the latest” propaganda – with the guys pointing to the maps…. (edited – with obvious prompting).
Also – on reading Robert Fisk’s IDIOTIC – The Independent headline today…
This isn’t a national humiliation. Not at all. This is something we (Britain) should bear in mind for future.
This is a great reminder – for us Britain not to show HUBRIS..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
“Hubris or hybris (Greek ὕβρις), according to its modern usage, is exaggerated self pride or self-confidence (overbearing pride), often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greek hubris referred to actions taken in order to shame the victim, thereby making oneself seem superior.”
Aristotle defined hubris as follows:
“to cause shame to the victim not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has happened to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hubris is not the
requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.”
Britain must be careful to not allow itself to be drawn into a trap (at this stage). Even with superior technology. Indeed – Iran is currently embarked on a policy that embraces hubris… a great mistake for them in my view.
What we must do – is wait. Bide our time…. and when the dust settles, take remedial action – in a manner and at a time of our choosing.
Currently, Iran has the initiative. Lets wait awhile until Britain and her allies retake the initiative… Then we’ll hear the theocracy squeal…
If Britain is clever… time is on our side… remembering that a confrontation over the nuclear issue is potentially unavoidable. We should learn from this – and the nature of the Iranian-theocracy threat…
Iranian HUBRIS is the key here…
Not exactly without historical precendent …. in that area of the world… Rather than be cryptic – on this:
I suggest people read up on:
Aeschylus, The Persians (Persai), performed in 472 BC
The Persians focuses on the popular Greek theme of hubris…. by blaming Persia’s loss on the overwhelming pride of its king at the Battle of Salamis….
All quite ironic really given some vocal Iranian complaints over a recent Hollywood film… John has kindly highlighted by Leonidas.
The clever thing is to not go wading in… but to wait until conditions become right for us to do something about this.
Sun Tzu would confirm I am sure the folly of initiating things without the conditions for action to be right and in our favour!
Iran has made a mistake with this. International opinion can see what this is – this is the crucial point.
April 3, 2007 @ 8:38 amJohn,
No one I know blames the US. The Independent’s headline is apocrypha at best.
It certainly follows the anti-US line the paper follows anyway – as such due to it’s political activist-like behaviour I view it’s stories with a high degree of suspicion.
April 3, 2007 @ 8:44 amI’ll just add John – that SKY NEWS (UK) has probably followed the best and most balanced line on this of any media outlet (BBC included).
Tim Marshall’s analysis has (as usual) been top class – seeing exactly what has been going on in the region.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31100-1010194,00.html
He hasn’t been biased – merely telling the objective truth as he sees it. For this reason – I listen to Tim Marshall (rather than even just “Sky News” – this individual does know what he’s talking about, and offers straight forward opinion that doesn’t go to far – if he doesn’t know something he says so).
However, the BBC in my opinion has followed a “pandering” line – one that has pandered to the Iranian-theocracy.People making unqualified statements – and inviting on obvious activists for the Iranian regime (something Sky News also has done – but the points have usually been challenged in the main).
But that is not unexpected – from a news room that is known to have a “picture of Bush equated to Hitler” posted on one of it’s desks…
The BBC has lost something over the past 10 years. I do not doubt that this will come back to how it probably should be before long.
April 3, 2007 @ 9:00 amm,
I’ve been checking Sky News. They seem to always have the video first.
The Independent story, as bombastic as it is, may be correct on one point. The purpose of the kidnapping may indeed be to secure the release of the five “diplomats” seized in Irbil by the US on January 11th. Of course these guys were in Iraq to undermine the US and assist in the import of EFPs, 50 cal sniper weapons and other munitions causing serious harm to US and UK troops.
Two UK soldiers have been killed by a sniper in the last week. If he’s caught, he’s likely to be using a rifle purchased by Iran and smuggled into Iraq by the sort of people we seized in Irbil Jan. 11th.
April 3, 2007 @ 9:56 amOh I support whole heartedly the US/UK have the right to seize “third parties” unlawfully trying to disrupt the rebuilding and reconcilliation process in Iraq.
I said previously in a comment on USA Today that it was a mistake not to have challenged (the murderer) Al-Sadr jnr earlier on.
I suspect he is directly responsible for US / UK troop deaths.
John I am entirely in agreement with you. The thing is, ironically The Independent is right like you say – but spins it to make it look like it’s the US’s fault. Since American-bashing is fashionable … and they think they’ll get extra readership if they take that angle. How cynical have we become?????
Oh I do not doubt Iran has blood on its hands in Iraq – despite not “officially” being a combatant there…
But these so-called peace activists here simply don’t wish to know that… they have one agenda and won’t acknowledge anything contrary to their own viewpoint!
I think you have done a good job in untangling the Iran-interference timeline for people John.
April 3, 2007 @ 3:32 pm