Hostage update: Blair threatens to move from pleading to cajoling
posted at 9:31 am on March 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
With the “begging” option still very much on the table.
Britain hopes that diplomacy will win the release of 15 sailors and marines detained by Iran but is prepared to move to a “different phase” if not, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Tuesday…
“I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them,” Blair said in an interview with GMTV. “If not, then this will move into a different phase.”
Asked what that meant, Blair said: “Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran.”
He means sanctions, I’m sure.
Never mind this nonsense. Go read Verum Serum’s timeline of U.S./Iranian confrontations in Iraq, which will take you right up to the sailors’ kidnapping. My only quibble with it is that it omits the latest piece in the puzzle — the Times’s own timeline this morning of EFPs being used in country. EFPs are those hyperdestructive IEDs Bush has accused the Quds Force of supplying to Iraqi militias; according to the Times, some Democrats who have looked into the issue now agree with Bush about their Iranian pedigree. With good reason:
American officials said their assessment of Iranian involvement was based on a cumulative picture that included forensic examination of exploded and captured devices, and parallels between the use of the weapons in Iraq and devices used in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah.
“There was no eureka moment,” said one senior American official, who like several others would discuss intelligence and administration decision-making only on condition of anonymity.
The entire E.F.P. assembly seen repeatedly in Iraq, including the radio link used to activate it and the infrared sensor used to fire it, had been found only one other place in the world, American officials say: Lebanon, since 1998, where it is believed to have been supplied by Iran to Hezbollah.
According to one military expert, some of the radio transmitters used to activate some of the E.F.P.’s in Iraq operate on the same frequency and use the same codes as devices used against Israeli forces in Lebanon.
More evidence came from the interception of trucks in Iraq, within a few miles of the Iranian border, carrying copper discs machined to the precise curvature required to form the penetrating projectile. Wrappers for C4 explosive, among other items, were traceable to Iran, officials say.
EFP designs used in Iraq later turned up in Lebanon to greet the IDF during last summer’s war. One source describes it as “cross-pollinization” among Iranian proxies.
As I say, though, the key is the timeline. The Times claims our first protest to Iran about the use of EFPs came nearly two years ago, in July 2005. Which presents two exit questions. One, where does this leave the left vis-a-vis its dark hints that EFPs are the 2007 equivalent of Saddam’s WMDs, conjured up by Bush out of the ether as a convenient casus belli? And two, if we’ve known for two years that Iranian weapons are killing U.S. troops, why did we only start targeting Iranian operatives in earnest within the last few months?
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Again I reiterate, why have the B2’s not yet been employed against these cavemen, or are we seeing things through Colmes’s eyes these days..
Viper1 on March 27, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Al-Alan Colmes is NOT carrying the water for Iran!
He vehemently denied this and it is as bad as questioning his patriotism!
benrand on March 27, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Bombs solve everything and they will certainly ensure that Iran does not harm these soldiers.
JaHerer22 on March 27, 2007 at 9:59 AM
What’s so funny about peace, sanctions, and understanding?
Tru2my2 on March 27, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Sanctions won’t ensure that Iran doesn’t harm them, either, now will they?
Allahpundit on March 27, 2007 at 10:05 AM
I guess JaHerer22 would rather us get down on our knees, beg and plead??? Oh pretty please, release the British hostages…
That would be the same kind of crap that the left’s hero, Carter, did in 1979. And look where that got us.
pullingmyhairout on March 27, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Actually, JaHerer22, I have a great idea! why don’t we ask all those brilliant minds over at moveon, dhimmiunderground or kos for their insight? I’m sure they can solve the problem. after a few hits on the bong, I’m certain they’ll be able to come up with a peaceful solution.
pullingmyhairout on March 27, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Should begging fail, I understand British diplomats are fully prepared to take drastic measures and move all the way to wingeing.
And since Jimmuh received the Nobel Peace Prize, his handling of America’s Iran hostage crisis is being carefully studied for guidance.
eeyore on March 27, 2007 at 10:09 AM
The correct response is to treat the 15 Soldiers as if they are already dead. An unfortunate casulty of war. The issue is national honor and vengeance.
Even as recently as the 1980s when Argentina siezed the Falkland island, Britain was able to respond appropriately.
You can’t run a Foriegn Policy by treating Soldiers as bargaining chips, if you do then you create situations like… this one.
Tony Blair, this is no time to go wobbly on us!
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 27, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Am I the only one who thinks this is kind of sad?
Britain, a country that was at one point a stone’s throw from ruling the world, is now groveling to the mud hut barbarians, like a woman begging her rapist to give back her kids, careful not to ask too loudly lest he strike her again.
Lehosh on March 27, 2007 at 10:27 AM
JaHere22 the liberal troll sayz: “Bombs solve everything and they will certainly ensure that Iran does not harm these soldiers.”
Obviously you didn’t read John McCain’s autobiography, did you?
The purpose of bombing in this case is to make the PAIN of holding hostages EXCEED the benefit. Is this too difficult for useful idiots like you to understand?
For example: Turning Iran (an oil exporting nation) into an OIL IMPORTING one for the next several years by successively destroying, one at a time, in a progression of strikes, their (a) oil fields and distribution network, and (2) their oil terminals, and extending the strikes into their their naval and air force assets, as necessary, is a way to induce such pain, until such time as either they release the hostages or their economy collapses.
The strikes would stop the minute that the hostages are released. Should a hostage be injured or killed, then strikes against their government infrastructure are undertaken.
No invasion, and no manned aircraft required.
When one has the ability to strike when and where they choose, at a level of violence that is sufficient to destroy what ever target is engaged, then outlaws like the Iranian mullahs face a simple equation: Release the hostages and cease taking them in the future or see their economy destroyed and your government overthrown by a popular uprising while we watch and cheer them on.
Consider it an upgrade from the old Roman practice of REPRISAL raids.
georgej on March 27, 2007 at 10:29 AM
What is wrong with this Admin? Why haven’t they laid this all out on the table and showed anybody who wanted to look and warned Iran that if one more of these exploded in Iraq against US troops it would be considered and act of war by Iran upon the United States and will result in a full scale military response?
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2007 at 10:30 AM
You know, I actually saved one of those ubiquitous “Free the Hostages” flag stickers from ‘79.
And now we need to print a new run? You have got to be $#@*ing me.
What’d we do last time? Drop bombs? Oh yeah, elect Reagan.
saint kansas on March 27, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Instead of bombs, how about we use witless sarcasm? That’ll teach ‘em.
Maybe we should send them a Hallmark card instead. Are there any greeting cards that express the sentiment “Sorry to embarass you by calling attention to your war crimes, you theocratic Iranian f*cks?”
Enrique on March 27, 2007 at 10:51 AM
AP, you are off your usual game. We did nothing because GWB was allowing the Europeans, lead by the British, to play out the diplomacy card. We did nothing to provoke Iran because diplomacy was supposed to work this time.
JayHaw, I would like to see someone with a military strategy background comment on that. It seems to me that this cold and heartless policy would actually reduce the incentive for future hostage-taking; but it does conflict with the ethos of “leave no man behind” cultivated by the US and British military.
Anton on March 27, 2007 at 11:06 AM
I would be embarrassed if I was a British citizen. I can’t believe they are negotiating. I also heard that these sailors were ordered by their superiors not to resist capture – if that is true, then they have more problems than I thought.
WisCon on March 27, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Saint Kansas, I actually have one of those stickers in my scrap book from high school as well as that t-shirt that had the eagle head and the body that said America that came out during that time at my parent’s house in FL. Maybe I should have mom dig that stuff out too.
I wish there was another Reagan in the wings.
Catie96706 on March 27, 2007 at 11:23 AM
The Brits have always been slightly different from us. That doesn’t mean better or worse, just different (example:Canada). They often do stuff that makes us wonder why. It’s their soldiers, let’s see what they do, after all they’re not the french…
tormod on March 27, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Anton, you are exactly right. Trying to appease the radical left, W let the EU3 have its shot at diplomacy to solve this problem with iran for 3 years. The effort has proven to be a total failure and iran’s theocracy has only grown stronger. Just like the 12 years of appeasement to saddam, negotiation is pointless and futile.
Diplomacy has failed. The sanctions, weak as they currently are, and the internal unrest of the Iranian People are our best hope for avoiding a really ugly hot war with iran.
techno_barbarian on March 27, 2007 at 11:58 AM
“That’s it Mahmoud, no more games, we’re sending you a stern letter, and if you don’t comply, we’ll move to very stern.”
Bad Candy on March 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM
How ironic that the Iranians prove to be better disciples of the Special Air Services’ motto than the Brits themselves:
“Who Dares, Wins”
That’s just the problem for Tony Blair: he doesn’t dare send a signal that force is an option to free 15 British hostages, because he – and everybody else, unfortunately – knows that his country isn’t up to the challenge, either militarily or in terms of political will.
How sad to see a once-great nation reduced to little more than mumbling platitudes and vagueries in this way. Lady Thatcher must be consuming sodium bicarbonate by the case right now.
Spurius Ligustinus on March 27, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I’m worried that Blair is considering the comfy chair as his next step, because no-one expects the spanish inquisition.
I agree that the preservation of the lives of the soldiers have to be considered forfeit. They’ve spent too much time already with the diplomacy–which Iran, of course, fears not at all and fully anticipated. They’re just giving Iran currency with which to buy whatever they want.
Bomb an empty field for demonstration purposes and then start hitting targets on a published timetable until the boys are released–but it’s Britian’s credibility they really have to play for, not the hostages.
TexasDan on March 27, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Jeez, I just caught Blair’s video on CNN World making this statement. He looked and sounded like a frightened, neutered puppy dog. How pathetic. A great way to instill morale into the remaining “un-captured” military personnal under your command Tony!
Roark on March 27, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Elvis has left the building.
silenced majority on March 27, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Warning nuke anyone?
- The Cat
MirCat on March 27, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Give Blair a chance. He is more likely to respond with force than the US at this point. I just hope he does.
duff65 on March 27, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Line up the ships, bring in the carriers, identify the political leaders as targets (and let them know who you are targeting), Tell them you understand mistakes can be made but give them 24 hours to return the men back to the spot where they were the illegally taken, unharmed…or the bombing will stop when all of the targets are eliminated. Do this once, and they will never do it again.
right2bright on March 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM
But has Blair tried beseeching them yet? Or how about some good old-fashioned imploring?
Dudley Smith on March 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM
This is the legacy of Political Correctness and the feminization of the West. Great Britain is neither Great or Britain any longer.
This is also a preview of how a Hellary Clinton administration would handle a similar confrontation. Let’s negooootiate and “start a conversaaaation”.
mountainmanbob on March 27, 2007 at 5:43 PM
This is why we have a covert paramilitary in the CIA. The Iranian delivery boys carrying bomb parts into Iraq should be quietly intercepted, vigorously interrogated until everything of value has been squeezed out of them, and then quietly shot. We then roll up their networks, capturing who we can and killing who we can’t. The IEDs they are smuggling into Iraq should be smuggled back into Iran and given to resistance groups. Some should be used to assassinate selected mullahs running this covert war against America.
Tantor on March 27, 2007 at 8:35 PM
The problem was allowing the sailors to be captured in the first place. The HMD Cornwall could have surgically taken out the Iranian Gunboats with ease. On top of that, the sailors were under orders not to fire on the Iranians.
I would be willing to bet the commander of HMS Cornwall was ordered not to take any hostile action and allow his sailors to be captured because of some Politically Correct idiot back in Great Britain.
If they had attacked and had taken action we would not be in the position of letting Iran start another show trial with 15 hostages. Instead there would have been two Iranian Gunboats blown out of the water by ship to ship missiles launched by the Cornwall.
ScottyDog on March 27, 2007 at 8:55 PM
I remember when the Brits had to kick Argentina’s ass to rescue a bunch of shepherds. What’s taking them so long now?
sibobr on March 27, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Yes, I’ll hold…
profitsbeard on March 27, 2007 at 9:51 PM
What are you in marriage counseling?
The ONLY thing that works in international politics is force or the threat of force. Everything else has been historically proven to be a waste of time.
Mojave Mark on March 27, 2007 at 10:16 PM
A lot of folks will think I am whacked, and perhaps already do …
And then beheaded, quartered, castrated, and all six parts returned to Iran HQ in five boxes (up to you to figure out the packing). This continues until it ends.
Regarding the hostages, I would be dropping a JDAM every 60 minutes on a different Iranian target until they were released unharmed.
Maybe this post is HA banishment material, but I am not a liberal multiculturalist. I play to win.
AZ_Redneck on March 27, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that. It doesn’t mean that you’re no longer interested in getting your men back, it just means that it’s no longer the first priority.
Because if you MAKE it a priority, you’re playing right into the hands of the hostage takers, not only making the current hostages valuable to them as bargaining chips, but also guaranteeing future hostage takings.
Ironically, the very BEST way of getting them back is by treating them as they’re already written off and resuming full scale retaliatory measures. That way, the continued holding of the hostages becomes without value to the hostage takers, indeed it turns them into a LIABILITY because continuing to hold them will only ensure further retaliatory measures.
In other words, you turn the table on the hostage takers and fight the battle on YOUR terms rather than THEIRS, the latter always, without exception, being the single most stupid and counterproductive way of fighting a battle.
Misha I on March 28, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Comment pages: