Weakness invited Iran's capture of British sailors

Tim Montgomerie writes:

At the start of this year I hoped (without much expectation) that 2007 would see a revival of American power.  I based my hope on my belief that problems are more easily solved when the world's less desirable regimes feared US power.  After Iraq had been liberated we saw a succession of improvements to the world order.  Libya disarmed.  Syria was humiliated in Lebanon.  Pakistan's clandestine nuclear secrets programme was exposed.  Since then - in rough proportion to the White House's unwillingness to abandon Donald Rumsfeld's disastrous light footprint doctrine - we have seen American authority decline and the world's despots reassert themselves.  The 18DoughtyStreet.com video at the foot of this post summarises my message.

The capture last week of fifteen Royal Navy personnel by Iran was clearly premeditated and, legally, could be interpretated as an act of war.  We should not be in any doubt as to why this has happened.  Iran thinks we are weak.  They have seen us promise sanctions on many occasions during the protacted negotiations with them over their nuclear programme and fail to act on as many occasions.  They see British troops withdrawing from Basra even though their work is far from finished.  Tehran has calculated that Britain does not have the stomach to stand up to Iran.  What is clear is that Britain and the west still have options at the moment.  Tehran is a conventional power.  Once it becomes a nuclear power that range of options becomes a lot narrower.

Comments

[JF]

Jfkalltheway, the situation is admittedly complicated. But if Iran knows one thing, it's that hostage-taking results in no retaliation. We need not engage in full-scale war, but why not take the opportunity to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure? Terrorists will operate as long as they know terrorism produces results, and especially so if they face no retribution.

[Pat]

Tim,

"Just to be clear to those who have suggested I support a particular course of 'gunboat' or other form of military action in response to the kidnapping, my post was not intended to recommend any course of action."

What kind of mealy-mouthed piffle is this? If you acknowledge that displays of weakness and lack of resolve will contribute to further humiliations, then why do you not directly advocate the British military actually doing what their presumably paid to do?

[Adam]

*Sigh* So many armchair generals blithering on about killing millions of Iranians and declaring their intention to fight to the last drop of another man's blood. It's all so pathetic.

We need to wake up to the simple reality that our failures in Iraq have handed regional hegemony to Iran on a plate - and this is the result. We can't take military action against Iran because we can't risk reaping the whirlwind in Iraq - we are exhausted and pinned down. Now is instead the time to build up the other regional powers into an anti-Iran alliance to counterweight Tehran, with this incident as a prime example of how dangerous and destabilising they are.

[Umbrella man]

What rubbish Adam. You advocate a balance of terror with the balance in the hands of unreasonable people. Other regional powers? Does that include Saudi Arabia and its propagation of extremist propaganda? We must stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. Otherwise the world changes beyond recognition.

[Tim Montgomerie]

What precisely do you recommend, Pat?

[jfkalltheway]

If you bomb Iran now you will kill the 15 hostages.

[JF]

Adam, Iran is exacerbating the problems in Iraq. If we destroy the regime in Iran, it will actually improve prospects for Iraq. No more JAM deathsquads, no more Quds force, no more EFPs. It seems like you're content to surrender before the battle is even joined. You're not French by any chance?

[Pat]

"What precisely do you recommend, Pat?"

A simple, effective, yet measured response would be to destroy the Iranian naval base where these six fearsome speedboats are harboured.

It would be interesting if the London bookies had such a wager available. The odds would be astronomical.

[Adam]

Wake up Umbrella Man - we have to play the cards we are dealt. You may wish we could institute nice, quick, clean regime change across the whole of the Middle East - but wishing doesn't make it so.

How exactly would you propose we stop Iran getting nuclear weapons? We can't bomb the facilities - they're numerous, well-defended and underground (Iran have learnt the lessons of Osirak). We can't do a bit of 'light' general bombing to scare them into submission, because we can't take the risk that they hit back. We can't launch a full-scale invasion because we simply do not have the resources to do it. So what, Umbrella Man, is your master plan? Or are you simply advocating we 'do something' without giving a moments thought as to what that something might be?

[Michael McGowan]

In dealing with the British political establishment, the Iranians must surely know that terrorism does bring results. If they don't by now, they should simply talk to Gerry Adams who is a tinpot terrorist compared to them.

[Adam]

JF, "if we destroy the regime in Iran" - that's an almighty big if! Any idea how you'd do it, or are you blustering over the difficult bits?

[jfkalltheway]

here, here adam

[Steevo]

Most of the UK's view of the disposition and threats from Moslim countries and Islamofanatics has been shaped by the likes of your BBC, Guardian, etc. Inside your own 'multicultural' homeland to those abroad, the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascism continues full stride while blame goes on Blair, America and particularly Bush. You've had to digest constant emphasis on being sensitive to Muslim hate and intolerance... through protecting the "rights" of terrorists, while soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being killed because of Bush and Blair not the terrorist activity itself.

This has served a wonderful primary function to erase from consciousness what is really happening in the world today, and serving a secondary purpose giving the feeling of control of what might come, through parting with these free world leaders in the future. People predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens - whatever horror has been released by Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and now and no doubt the future with Iran - was/is/will be caused a bit by Blair and a lot by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick).

How can anyone wonder about resolve? As an American and to a slightly lesser degree the same applies to my country. Those who wanna cut and run will see a bloody Middle East emerge far more threatening to your home land than you imagine. Maybe a couple of dirty bombs on London and NY City will bring the wake-up call? Maybe then after hundreds of thousands are dead will the Left-wing media elites and feel-good citizenry come to their senses?

[Pat]

Here's a master plan to defeat Iran: Reports have been given that current regime's support is not especially solid. Draw the Iranians into a naval war in the Persian Gulf, and then humiliate them internationally by inflicting a naval defeat as memorable as Salamis. Let the Iranian people do the rest.

[JF]

Adam, while I can't speak to specific tactics, I know that we can dismantle NATO and our presence in South Korea, neither of which reciprocate their defense obligations to us. Combined with a long range air attack, the troops freed up from that should provide enough to do the job. Without having to occupy the country afterwards, it's not as difficult as you believe.

[jfkalltheway]

Pat

The Iranians are not stupid!

[JF]

Steevo, the bitter irony is that dirty bombs in large cities will wipe out the Left, as their greatest concentration is in the large cities. It is up to the Right, as always, to protect the country.

[jfkalltheway]

JF

That seems a little sick for my taste - we are talking about the lives of service personel.

[Steevo]

So true JF. And jfk lighten up, it is a very real future scenerio directly linked to the actions and inactions of the present which includes Iran and the current situation.

[jfkalltheway]

Steevo

"lighten up" - we are talking about war. Its like being on a blog with Dr Strangelove.

[Steevo]

Jfk he was making a pertinent point over the Left's delusional security, hypocricy, and payment in lives they will bear along with the rest of us in complete disagreement with them. Those of us who want to fight this fight of terrorism.

[jfkalltheway]

Steevo

Please tell me that you do not hold a position of either power or influence. I want to sleep tonight.

[jfkalltheway]

eek - the verification code on the last posting started WMD!

[Steevo]

Lol bro you'll have to do it in paranoia.

[Pat]

"Pat, The Iranians are not stupid!"

jfk, Indeed they are not stupid. That's why they accosted the British marines: They knew that the British marines would not fight, and that the British government will do nothing to punish them.