Aw, Hell, Nuke ‘em Anyway…
Now that the Iranian incarceration of British forces has been successfully resolved through diplomacy, it might be instructive to revisit what some of our thoughful conservative analysts proposed just a few days ago.
At this point the British, and Tony Blair have not a thing to lose. They have to deal with this as a hostage crisis and recognize that there can be no negotiation with terrorists. Which means that the 15 sailors and marines must be taken as dead. Tough, you bet. Politically suicidal? Yes, but Blair claims to be stepping down at any moment. So now what?
Level, or, for the less militant, threaten to level the sole Iranian gasoline refinery. Then blockade all fuel imports to Iran. Not as a negotiating chip. Once the hostages are presumed dead negotiations are over. Rather as a means of punishing the Iranian “government†for this outrage. Now, for fun, the Brits might want to start flying the mission to hit the refinery just to see what the Iranian air response will be.
Here’s the thing. This is war. It is past time for the British to recognize it as such.
“Misguided advocates of negotiation with the mullahs, beware.”
If Britain wants their people back, they have two choices. They can either submit to Iran, or they can escalate the conflict to the point where it damages the mullahcracy. They had better commence deciding between the two.
They’re likely going to TORTURE them. And probably murder them. Therefore, the Free World must bomb Iran into unconditional surrender and total submission. Period. Iran asked for it. The capture of the British Marines in non-Iranian waters is an ACT OF WAR. That’s right: I declare Iran as having deliberately committed an act of war, hoping to either spark an international war or cause the Free World to submit. Don’t submit. Destroy the Iranian regime.
Go hunting for your own examples. It’s pretty funny. Such sophisticated analysis – and what an astonishing ability to look ahead and anticipate outcomes.
Yup, these are the kind of people I want running my country.
You stole my thunder this morning Balb. I was going to write a similar post.
Not 48 hours ago posts and comments on some of the sites you note were suggesting the “emasculation” of the British calling Tony Blair a “coward” and noting it’s decline from the “enlightened” times of Maggie Thatcher. Some had to mention Churchill, of course, as if this situation had any resemblence to that of WWII.
Had any of these knee-jerking boobs been in charge we would be on the verge of, or engaged in, another world war. Instead, diplomacy proves fruitful. The sailors are home and the silence is deafening from the right corners of the blogosphere although the war drums continue to beat faintly waiting for the next opportunity to hysterically over-react.
My, my. Imagine how charmed those fifteen sailors who arrived home this morning would be to meet Jay Currie. And Canadian Sentinel has the power to declare war all on his lonesome?
Do you ever wonder whether the mere act of typing causes some of these people to wet their pants?
PS: Balbulican, I think there’s a promising Young Liberal hyperventilator you missed in your travels.
I know, I know…so little time, so many chest-thumpers…
I saw on a news show (not anything on Fox) that there is a growing discontent/protest in Iran. People are supposedly growing tired of the mullahs. I wonder if that’s true or just wishful thinking.
Hey Cait,
I have no doubts that there is growing discontent in Iran, and people are growing tired of the leadership.
The funny thing (maybe it’s just me) is that I hear the same thing is happening in the United States.
I guess, however, that anyone in Iran who questions the leadership in these dangerous times could be labelled as ‘unpatriotic’, an ‘enabler’, or a far-left activist, and subsequently dismissed.
I don’t doubt serious discontent in Iran. I am a great believer in my own little version of Social Darwinism, which holds that people exposed to a Good Idea for long enough time will eventually adopt it. It used to be possible to keep Good Ideas like democracy in boxes, out of sight of the folks who might get interested. As the Chinese government is discovering, that doesn’t work very well anymore.
Theocracy stopped being a Good Idea quite some time ago, and its days in Iran are numbered. In my opinion, truculent thugs like Bush and Co. are helping to prolong its life in Iran by providing a rallying point, much as America’s inability to come to terms with Castro has kept his regime in power.
nteresting definition you have of “successful” there Balb. But I expect that you’re just indulging your usual partisan blather.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don’t think that any reasonable interpretation would hold that diplomacy “resolved” this–Iran got exactly what it wanted in this confrontation. It was able to demonstrate itself as a regional power able to take on the British Government–and win. Once they achieved the propaganda objectives, they had no further use for the captured sailors. Tony Blair and members of the Bunker may fool themselves into thinking that diplomacy resolved this crisis, but what the Iranians did was hand a very solid diplomatic defeat to the British.
Iran is not ready for a war at this stage, but the Iranian government needs to cultivate external enemies in order to keep a lid on the nation’s own internal dissent (nationalism is a powerful factor in keeping a population doing what you want them to do). Iran also sees an opportunity to bring Iraq under its dominance by funding terror groups in Iraq and launching cross-border raids. By demonstrating that it can take on the once-great powers of the world, Iran is sending a message that it, not the US or the UK, is the dominant player in the region.
This is the rationale for Iranian belligerrence of late.
The kidnapping and return of British Sailors is an Iranian victory and a British defeat. Period.
…so attacking Iran in knee jerk fashion would have achieved what exactly?
I do believe MyBlahg called this outcome.
RJ, I always wonder why when it comes to situations like these, many conservatives always see it as a “win or lose” situation.
Winning or losing in something implies a competition of some sort is taking place. From what I gather about this whole thing, I thought it was just a case of a sovereign nation protecting it’s borders, much as any other sovereign nation in the world could and would do in the same situation.
When the United States detains people in Gitmo, and then releases them, is this a victory for them? A defeat? Somewhere in between?
When the United States border guard service catches illegal immigrants trying to sneak in from Mexico, is this a victory? A defeat? Is there a ‘war on immigration’?
Please, do tell.
RJ:
Yes, that grim construct is certainly one of the two hasty retrofits being feverishly slapped up by your soulmates this morning to explain why Britain’s successful negotiation was somehow a failure. The other, amusingly, is its exact opposite – that this was a capitulation by Iran brought about by steely American resolution and arms, disguised with face-saving bluster.
Isn’t there somewhere you guys are supposed to coordinate your talking points before going public?
‘Interesting definition you have of “successful†there Balb.”
You’ll forgive me if I view you as a dubious adjudicator of “success”, given that that’s how you defined the American occupation of Iraq just a couple of months ago. Do you still thinks it’s going even better than you expected?
“They’re likely going to TORTURE them. And probably murder them.”
Who is the Sentinel talking about there? The Americans at Abu Ghraib, it’s funny how concern for the Geneva convention is highly flexible on the right.
Dan, the Geneva Conventions are quite clear on the protections offered to enemy combatants out of uniform. They have none.
Under the Geneva Conventions, terrorists, insurgents, and guerillas can be shot out of hand. Uniformed soldiers, however, have to be treated according to certain rules which a simple viewing of Hogan’s Heroes ought to educate you on.
Uniforms = protected. No uniforms = no protections. It’s that simple.
Throbbin, the Iranians gave two sets of GPS coordinates for the abduction in Iraqi waters before they gave their third and final set in Iranian waters, which makes the third set of coordinates highly suspect. That kind of blows your “protecting its borders” theory right out of the water, so to speak. As well as the rest of your analogies.
We on the right celebrate a diversity of opinion. You could learn something from us.
Yes, it is. Kurdistan has been amazing, as has the area of Iraq outside the Sunni Triangle. And even within the Sunni triangle, we are seeing Iraq growing and improving–and we have seen that since 2003. The fact that opinion polls say otherwise–well, let’s just say that according to opinion polls, Elvis is still alive.
I am fully aware of the various security issues in Iraq (far more so than you), and unlike you, I do not look for excuses to declare defeat in Iraq. Security challenges exist and will continue to do so for years–after all it took years for the civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua to die out even after the NATO/WARPAC conflict went into history’s dustbin. This does not mean that Iraq is a failure. There is a proclivity among the Bush-haters and America-bashers to magnify any security challenge to the point where it is grounds for declaring Iraq/America defeated. The reality is far from the consensual worldview created by Daily Kos, and others of his ilk.
It probably would have made Jay Currie and Newt Gingrich feel better, but it would have been the wrong approach. There would have been little that Britain could have done here to have recovered the hostages militarily. That they allowed their people to be abducted in the first place ought to be grounds to have a few Admirals heads roll.
Iran’s calculations in this case were very effective. Britain was not going to go to war with Iran over 15 sailors and Iran got the opportunity to humiliate the British and demonstrate itself as a regional power.
However, the longer game here is going to see things ratcheted up against Iran. Britain knows that it has no allies in the EU, so expect Britian to chart its own course here. The Anglo-US alliance will probably be stronger. Tony Blair is a lame-duck anyhow, but I would expect some significant changes in the next British election as a result of Britain’s handling of this. Do not expect Tony Blair to wield much more influence in the UK from this point on.
As far as Iran goes, expect even stronger economic pressure against the regime to be applied, while external support will flow towards the internal dissidents. Expect the US to double down in Iraq as the Americans start to react in horror to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats–with GWB out of the picture, there is little incentive for the Americans to vote Democrat and we will likely see a Republican resurgence in the US to mirror the Conservative resurgence in Canada. The two nations have typically synchronized their voting patterns since WWII.
If war comes to Iran, it will not be because of a small provocation–it will be because of terrorist attacks causing massive casualties directly linked to Iran. And then the response will be the devastation of the Iranian economy–which is 95% state-owned, and 95% oil-based. Do the math.
Chamberlain’s diplomacy was successful, too, as far as anyone could tell at the time. Has anyone figured out what the Iranians gained by all of this, so that we can conclude whether the label “success” can be correctly attached to the outcome?
“We on the right celebrate a diversity of opinion. You could learn something from us.”
Drivel, dear boy. I am reminded of a post we had up here long ago on how “We” and “They” describe the same event. I would add a new entry to that list:
When WE do it, it’s diversity of opinion. When THEY do, it’s a reflection of the fundamental inconsistency of their views.
“Yes, it is. ”
Excellent. I do hope you you keep asserting that. It give us a good sense of how a Bush supporter defines “success”, it’s wonderful fodder for subsequent discussions, and it’s helpful to remind new readers who you are when you get that Very Serious Voice on. RJ, folks, is the guy who thinks things in Iraq are going even better than he expected.
“Chamberlain’s diplomacy was successful, too, as far as anyone could tell at the time.”
Wrong. The goal of Chamberlain’s diplomacy was to achieve “peace in our time”. It was a goal whose achievement could not be verified at that moment: and as it turns out, it was NOT achieved. The British goal in this negotiation was to achieve the safe return of their troops. Their goal WAS achieved.
WAS achieved versus WAS NOT achieved. See the difference?
And in a flurry of pique, Balbulican concedes the argument by resorting to ad hominem.
Let me know when you’re prepared to argue on the facts, dear boy–I’ll be glad to prove you wrong again.
As I wrote, “…as far as anyone could tell at the time.” Try again.
>The British goal in this negotiation was to achieve the safe return of their troops
And another British goal was to avoid escalation. Time will tell. All the Iranians have to do is pull one more bullshit move because they’ve learned the British are willing to concede B in exchange for A which was stolen in the first place, and time will have told that one of the British goals in this round, and arguably a more important one in the long term, has been negated.
‘And in a flurry of pique, Balbulican concedes the argument by resorting to ad hominem.”
Not quite, although I congratulate you on a most amusing Nixonian declaration of victory and swift retreat.
As the person who started the thread, let me gently help you refocus on what the “argument” is about.
A number of conservative bloggers declared that no negotiated end to this crisis was possible. They were wrong. Britain’s goals for the negotiation were met.
If your own (once excellent) blog is active, I’ll be pleased to join you for a discussion of American strategy in Iraq.
As for the “ad hominems”…please. I accused you of supporting Bush and of claiming “success” for his Iraq invasion – both statements that you then confirm.
lrC, you are, of course, free to ascribe goals to the British and then declare them unmet to your heart’s content. Okayh, I’ll make one up too. Let’s see…the real goal of the British was to collect spiffy civilian clothes from their captors and get free Iranian gift packages. Let’s see…browse browse browse…oh, HEY, it worked! They DID get clothes and gift packages! How ’bout that? Yet ANOTHER triumph for my side.
I’m not ascribing anything. The British went into discussions without threatening anything specific, let alone undertaking any one act of escalation to establish a position for negotiations.