Video: Iran begging for some daddy time with Blair

posted at 11:51 am on March 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

Short of kidnapping more sailors, I don’t know what they could do to make it worse. The second sailor’s hostage video is airing on Iranian TV; the woman sailor’s been forced to write a third letter, this time complaining about the “Bush and Blair governments” and the treatment at Abu Ghraib; and despite it all, Ahmadinejad’s demanding that the Brits apologize.

Look at this poor bastard.

Either they’re trying to invite an attack, or … what? I don’t get it. It doesn’t make things any easier for them in the UN nuclear kabuki; on the contrary, it puts their apologists in Russia and China in a tougher spot. As Blair himself put it, “I really don’t know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. All it does is enhance people’s sense of disgust.” An op-ed writer at the Daily Telegraph suggests the public is getting restless, too: “I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us.” Unless this is all part of a prisoner swap proposal for the Quds Force guys taken at Irbil, which Bush — I hope — would never agree to, then I’m at a loss.

They’ve sent the British a note asking for a guarantee that incidents like this won’t recur. Reuters makes a point of noting that, unlike Ahmadinejad, it doesn’t appear to demand an apology. It does, however, seem to demand an admission of culpability, so it’s a non-starter although the Brits claim they’re considering it. The EU, to its credit, is siding squarely with Blair.

Is a rescue operation possible here? Retired special ops guys tell the New York Sun that it’d be tough given Iranian air defenses, the need for good surveillance inside Iran, and the likelihood that the hostages will be dispersed soon to different locations. But there are other alternatives:

In Washington, American officials were emphasizing alternatives to freeing the British other than a daring commando-style raid. One such official said he foresaw a series of escalating sanctions and censure in the coming days to pressure Iran to release the hostages. These would include economic sanctions, a possible embargo, and efforts such as a blockade to prevent Iran from importing refined gasoline. While Iran is one of the world’s leading exporters of petroleum, it still lacks refining capacity to turn oil into gasoline.

Also being considered is a plan to expel known spies from Iranian embassies in Europe and other allied countries…

Yesterday an American intelligence official who has watched Iran said that there was consensus that the decision to take the sailors was approved by the Supreme National Security Council in Tehran, a body composed of the supreme leader, president, and representatives of the guardian council, the military, the revolutionary guard and the ministry of intelligence and security. The Iranian commander who likely ordered the kidnapping, according to this source, was Brigadier General Qassem Sulamani, who heads the Quds Force. The incident caught American intelligence off guard, according to this official…

Another American official yesterday said that plans were underway to move rapidly to escalate economic pressure and other measures on the Iranians. “The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated,” this official said. “Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

This is ridiculous. Iran is nothing compared to Britain alone. It should not be able to get away with this.

Esthier on March 30, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Not just two days ago I started to feel some sympathy for Iran. I took the side that these poor guys were stuck in a sandwhich between American and coalition forces in Afganistan and Iraq.

But now I see Iran’s government for what they truly are: terrorists. Once again, the real victims will be the population there. They will have to suffer for the regime’s insistance to act like common street thugs, kidnappers, and murderers.

I guess in a few weeks we’ll be liberating Iran.

Vincenzo on March 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Has the Iranian government been coordinating with Nancy Pelosi on this, I believe her approval is required for steps this provocative.

Sven on March 30, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Either they’re trying to invite an attack, or … what? I don’t get it.

I don’t think so. I think they want to appear like they are inviting an attack because they don’t think we will resort to military action. Their plan is to look strong while at the same time making us look impotent. I really think this is the time to call their bluff.

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Not just two days ago I started to feel some sympathy for Iran. I took the side that these poor guys were stuck in a sandwhich between American and coalition forces in Afganistan and Iraq.
Vincenzo on March 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM

What?! Could you elaborate on this please.

IrishEi on March 30, 2007 at 12:11 PM

It doesn’t make things any easier for them in the UN nuclear kabuki;

For the simple reason that, with the majority of the Useless Nitwits, the IAEA-OOOO! chief among them, on the take, it can’t possibly get any easier for them.

on the contrary, it puts their apologists in Russia and China in a tougher spot.

A tougher spot than defending Saddam Hussein, one of the worst mass-murderers in history? Gee, I guess they’ll both be on board with us any moment now, then.

As Blair himself put it, “I really don’t know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. All it does is enhance people’s sense of disgust.”

When was the last time that disgust won a war? Come on, I’ve got all day.

Somehow, but I may be going out on a limb here, I don’t think that a terrorist, Islamofascist regime are all that concerned about being liked.

Misha I on March 30, 2007 at 12:14 PM

With every verbal statement we and the Brits make on this matter we may as well just be saying, “We are not using military force, we are just going to talk and talk and talk.” It doesn’t matter what words are said because that is the message with every single statement uttered.

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 12:14 PM

The motivation is simple. They want to be attacked because they see it as 1: survivable 2: a rallying point for all other Arab countries. Cut and dried. They have put all their chips on one number…..we are too weak to hurt them and if we try they will win the war hands down. Israeli jets better have pilots sitting in them right now.

How many times has the Osama boys been yelling for unity and a mass response to the ‘Crusaders’?

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 12:15 PM

One Iranian city destroyed an hour, until the hostages are released.

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I feel dirty just watching that video. Each day this goes on, I get more worried this is not going to turn out well for them.

frankj on March 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM

I don’t want to sound like our only two choices are military force or nothing. I just want some sort of reaction to this mess. That reaction whatever it is must bring the Iranians to their knees.

Zetterson on March 30, 2007 at 12:19 PM

The truly sad part is that as soon as it starts, we in the West, will have friggin riots and finger pointing. They are counting on us eating our own.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Iran is playing to two audiences.

The government is having internal problems. Awanakillajew has been having real economic problems, and is now trying to create a situation where he can show how strong he is by standing up to the West. IF the West does not do somthing quickly, he will be able to continue his internal propoganda which will help keep the minds of the populace off the fact that they now have gas rationing. He feels the West will NOT do anything because of the scandal in GB (Blair’s in trouble there), and because of the US Surrender Monkey Congress (Face it folks, we are about to have a Constitutional Crises over War Powers).

Second audience is cultural. He is showing the entire Moslem world that Iran can stand up against the West, and win… he is directly attacking the credibility and honor of the US, by showing we will do nothing to help our Allies, and, are not faithful (as shown by VietNam, Lebanon, and soon Iraq). He is trying to show the Sultanates that we are not to be relied on… (look at the Saudi King’s statement a couple days ago… its working).

Big game… big map board, and our own internal politics are not allowing us to make our moves…

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Our first step needs to be to form a strong blockade around Iran, letting nothing in, nothing out. Halt their economy and flow of products. Cut off their lifeline.

amerpundit on March 30, 2007 at 12:24 PM

The first thing to happen after Congress approves the US timetable for withdrawl from Iraq is that Iran will ‘annex’ large segments of Iraqi land Iran (ala Warsaw style).

Iraq will be divided up into several political regions. China will get the oil. US credibility will be forever damaged. No potential ally will ever trust our word again.

Egfrow on March 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM

No potential ally will ever trust our word again.

Egfrow on March 30, 2007 at 12:26 PM

match, point, and set

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Hello Iran? You have 36 hours to return our sailors to us safe and sound. On the 37th hour we will take out your one and only gas refining plant and embrago all ships coming into your waters with gasoline.
We invite you to clear the area of any civilians and to inform your people as to why they are going back to the donkey and the cart.

Babs on March 30, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Either they’re trying to invite an attack, or … what?

Don’t overthink it. This is Freudian – Iran is showing the world that it has a giant dick. And they’ve got Tony Blair on his knees.

When your whole culture is founded on male hyper-sexuality and the subjugation of women, what more reason do you need for kidnapping infidel sailors?

Enrique on March 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Accordinbg to the Beeb, there are those in Iran saying that they should be traded for the 5 we hold right now. It was planned, no doubt.

Hardliners are arguing that any release of the British sailors should be conditional on the release of five Iranians held by the US.

Crusader on March 30, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Sooo… lets see… they want to trade Legaly taken Non uniformed combatants, taken in a war zone…..

With illegaly taken uniformed combatants illegally taken???

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Speaker Newt Gingrich said it best.

Hugh Hewitt had a very interesting interview with Newt at Townhall.
Newt has the cajones to act on the world stage.

HH: Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran…

HH: Would you do, would you urge them…

NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.

HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%. Would your recommendation to the United States President be the same if Iran seized our forces?

NG: Absolutely. I mean, the reason I say that, it is the least violent, least direct thing you can do. It uses our greatest strength…you know, the mismatch in Naval power is absolute. And so you don’t have to send troops into Iran. Everybody on the left is waiting for conservatives to say things that allow them to run amok and parade in San Francisco, and claim that we’re warmongers. I want to avoid war by intelligently using our power to eliminate the option of sustaining an economy, so that the Iranian dictatorship will be shown to be the hollow dictatorship it is, so the people of Iran decide they’d like to have a decent government with real electricity and real gasoline, so they overthrow it. And I want to do that without risking a single American life, or being engaged in a single direct confrontation. And Naval power lets you do that.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/7057beba-c66b-4a5f-a8fe-d8da01fe61db

tormod on March 30, 2007 at 12:49 PM

“This poor bastard” is just a poor chap – I have no idea what I would say/do in the same situation. The world-rights-bodies, who so pride themselves on their inflated idealisms, are saying what about this?

Europe is busy officially eliminating the term “jihad” and “terror”. Their Military Services have about 3-7 airplanes, at best, some of them…OK, ok, I’m not writing about NATO.

Vincenzo, get that brainwashing-halo away from your head. It’s important to think clearly at this time, and Rosie and Cafferty are not good guidelines.

One of the most disgusting articles on this ‘trespassing’ incident is this one from the BBC Socialists (never thought they ever were for the West, but now I read clearly point, by point, how they aren’t). It’s very succinct, from their vantage point. Look at the subtitles/subchapters:

- Iran crisis reflects growing isolation (our fault, the West’s)
- siege mentality (our fault)
- act of desperation (our fault)
- president (Ahmi) missing

Strategically, those who wish to realize, can see that the war in Iraq wasn’t only about oil and Saddam Hussein. A Soldier’s father, a friend who has a son in Irag, and who’s changed his mind on being there (the father) argued the “war for oil” theory lately and I said “just look how encircled Iran is becoming”. He went silent for a long time. He’s a very intelligent and not politically ossified man. Here an excerpt from above article:

Iran is now also militarily encircled by the US forces. American troops are based in almost every country bordering Iran – Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan.

The US Navy has been conducting a series of exercises in the Gulf – the biggest war games in the area since the invasion of Iraq four years ago.

The next few weeks/months will be very delicate in what happens next. It’s an extraordinary opportunity, so long as we don’t lose the Iranian sane population. The Revolutionaries are running Iran. Ahmadinejad is finished, if he ever had started to lead at all – I believe he was a rudimentary puppet the entire time.

I see things totally different from the BBC. We are there due to the escalation/accumulation of terrorist acts in the 90s and beg. 2000, the threat to the West as we know it, the threat to Israel, the threat to the free flow of oil, the maniacal aim of Iran to control the Arab world, the nukes in Iran and what that would mean to the world from so many points…

May the West not obliterate the small cojones it has left, may it use its brains wisely, and may good win. Yes, there is good and evil in the world, and this is not a religious statement.

And, most important of all, may we be thankful that Tony Blair is still in office and our president is one George Bush and not Jimmy Carter or John Kerry.

Entelechy on March 30, 2007 at 12:52 PM

They’re doing the same thing Saddam did, paying too much attention to the NYTimesWashPostCNNABCCBSNBCetc.

They’re all acting as if it’s Bush’s and Blair’s fault. Heck, they might even get the View and have already searched for “Gulf of Tonkin” and are sitting there thinking they have Bush/Blair on the ropes.

They also probably have some commitments from certain Security Council members to block any serious resolution.

It’s sort of like when Wile E. Coyote has the Roadrunner right where he wants him. Just before the anvil comes down.

Veeshir on March 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM

You need to start thinkin like a Muslim to understand this. In the old days, if one Sultan was very comptetive with a neighboring Sultan, a daring raid to kidnap his daughter, and hold her for ransom would be an acceptable thing to do. It would show who was boss on the block.
Don’t expect these sailors to be released anytime soon. And of course we will probably choose sanctions over military action. A punishment taken upon the helpless Iranian people. Then Iran will be able to show how rotten the West is wreaking misery on a civilian population. All the while, the nuclear thing fades into the background. Eventually through back door negotiations that allow Iran to save face, and get some ransom for the kidnapping, the sailors will be released. Pay the dhimmitude, wait and see.

paulsur on March 30, 2007 at 12:58 PM

Veeshir
You should see ‘majority opinion’ in britain. Makes nutroots look sane

Defector01 on March 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM

I remember “Desert One” very well…. I wasn’t “there” but I was part of ground support for that and similar operations that “never happened”. :(

I hope they don’t wait until the hostages are dispersed.

Oh, and let’s call them what they are, HOSTAGES. Since there is not a war with Iran, they can’t be called “prisoners of war” and the Iranians are foolish to call them “spies” because they are military personnel, operating in international waters (or from waters in Iraq where they were authorized to operate anyway).

I have a very STRONG suspicion that the Iranians were the one’s in the wrong and were in the wrong waters themselves.

So, they are trying very hard to hide that fact from the world public.

Rick Donaldson on March 30, 2007 at 1:00 PM

The weird beards in Iran want war, the apocalypse to be precise, but they want someone else to start it. If it’s war they want then it should be war that they get. Destroying a oil refinery and a naval blockade is a good idea, but I don’t feel it will be a solution to the problem. I feel a little “shock and awe” is in order, by the way these sailors unfortunately are going to be casualties of war. Britains rules of engagement didn’t allow them to fight back just to be taken hostage “peacefully”, if we have the same rules of engagement I would hope our sailors would say the hell with the ROE and fight back. Enough carrots for the Iranians it’s time to break out the sticks.

NeverSubmit on March 30, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Also being considered is a plan to expel known spies from Iranian embassies in Europe and other allied countries…

Ummmm… maybe there is a perfectly good reason, but why would known spies be allowed to remain in embassies in Europe and other allied countries??

And I second Newt’s proposal. “…you’re tiny…” I hope Ahmadamnjihad reads that!

lan astaslem on March 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Ian,

Better the spy you know, etc….

jeffshultz on March 30, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Why have we become such a society full of pansies? What would Churchill do??!!

Viper1 on March 30, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Either they’re trying to invite an attack, or … what? I don’t get it.

The only rational explanation I can come up with is rooted in the shame/honor thing.

The Iranians know that while we and the West in general wield great power, we never, ever, ever use the full extent of it. Witness the cries of “disproportionate force” leveled against Israel as they fought Hizb’allah proxies in Lebanon.

If we or the Brits were to use force, the addled Rosie O’Donnells of the world will emerge full force screaming “FALSE FLAG GOOGLE GULF OF TONKIN ETC.!!!” Any response will be limited and hampered by our (and the UK’s) own citizens.

In the US, legislative branch has voted for a time line for withdrawal from Iraq. Even though this is going to be vetoed by Bush, it sends a powerful message to the likes of the mullahs. We’re not out yet, but get a Democrat in the White House in ’08 while maintaining the majorities in the Senate and House, and we’re out of there. It’s only a matter of time.

So, given all this, why not nab a few sailors and marines? The cost will be minimal and you humiliate Britain, and by extension, the United States, and gain great standing among those that oppose them.

It’s a win/win for them.

Another American official yesterday said that plans were underway to move rapidly to escalate economic pressure and other measures on the Iranians. “The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated,” this official said. “Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days.”

Believe it when I see it.

Citizen Duck on March 30, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Limerick, I don’t understand why you say we are too weak to do anything about this.

Taking out their refinery would be an elegant and decisive solution to all of this.

Watch when the Stennis or the Ike moves back into the Indian Ocean. If an attack is imminent, they won’t have both carrier groups in the gulf, in my opinion. When one of the group steams out of there – all bets are off.

Dr. Gecko on March 30, 2007 at 1:45 PM

The incident caught American intelligence off guard, according to this official…

I guess our intelligence agencies were too busy listening to all our (Americans’) cell phone calls and reading our emails, huh?

aero on March 30, 2007 at 1:49 PM

“Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days.”

True. But we have a majority in congress (the dems) who act exactly like he did. Absolute cowards. Sucking their thumbs, with crapped pants, hiding under the bed.

csdeven on March 30, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Dr. Gecko….
I don’t think we are too weak….they think we are. I don’t get my points across sometimes….me and Jethro Bodine were classmates.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 1:56 PM

A former hostage on FNC this morning made the point that the hostages may not be entirely sure they weren’t in Iranian waters.

mikeyboss on March 30, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Dr. Geko.
The reason why the US is in a weak position is the number of infiltrators, and their allies in the US who will set US cities on fire, if we attack Iran.

Think Breslan multiplied by 10.

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 2:06 PM

As Blair himself put it, “I really don’t know why the Iranian regime keep doing this. All it does is enhance people’s sense of disgust.”

Blair is right. People’s sense of disgust is enhanced…OF THE COWARDS IN THE WEST!!! What does Iran have to do to get bombed back to the stone age?

The EU, to its credit, is siding squarely with Blair.

Wrong. The EU is still doing business with Iran. They’re just giving lip service to the UK.

I guess our intelligence agencies were too busy listening to all our (Americans’) cell phone calls and reading our emails, huh?

If that’s not a joke, you’re a dumba$$.

Andy in Agoura Hills on March 30, 2007 at 2:06 PM

On a side note, anyone see the news about Argentina making new noise about wanting the Falklands back? Anyone think the timing’s a coincidence?

I give 30-70 odds at least that Argentina will re-invade teh Falklands before their next election, especially if Britain bows to Iran’s demands (which I give better than even odds for)

Lancer on March 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

Either they’re trying to invite an attack, or … what?

They’re making a fool out of Britian, their historical enemy, in front of the entire world and shoring up support within Iran. It’s Blair who’s acts confused and irrational.

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 2:10 PM

“Unless this is all part of a prisoner swap proposal for the Quds Force guys taken at Irbil, which Bush — I hope — would never agree to, then I’m at a loss.”

This guy isn’t too bright. The answer is on yahoo news:

LONDON (AFP) – The week-old standoff between London and Tehran over the Iranian detention of 15 British naval personnel sent oil prices surging past 69 dollars here — a near seven-month high — and analysts warned they could rise further.

Maybe the people at the Telegraph need to read AFP. Iran is making a bundle on this mess. Oil was at what … $63 when this started? Iran is now making $15 MILLION A DAY more than they were making when this started. And who runs their oil infrastructure? The Revolutionary Guards. Who took the hostages? The Revolutionary Guards. All these guys picking their butts wondering why this is going on need to attend a high school level economics class. There is no down side for them. Once they decide that we might actually do something, they release the hostages. “Sorry, just kidding!” and in 6 months or so they will pull another stunt.

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Iran just hired a bunch of Iraqis at $500 a month to be special forces inside Iraq. Iran has cash trouble. How can they get enough money to pay these people $500 a month AND pay the Russians for the nuke plant … hmmm ….

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 2:13 PM

I agree with paulsur about the victims being the Iranian people. The mullahs in Iran need a scapegoat for their bumbling incompetance as managers of the Iranian economy.

So, they simply do do what glorious Kim in Korea, Castro, little castrato Chavez, and numerous tin horn African and Arab dictators do – blame the West for all their troubles. Blame especially the USA with its omnipotent CIA (oh, I wish they were only have as good as they are blamed to be).

Of yes, Britain and the US also need to train their servicemen and women how to respond if taken captive by enemy forces – especially during the photo ops which are disgusting. To have emotionally fragile people working along the border with Iran may not be such a good idea.

Texas Mike on March 30, 2007 at 2:14 PM

I spent some time today researching the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.

Blair, like the Iron Lady during the Falkland Islands War, has a large enough and capable fleet and air force to deal with Iran without our assistance, if Blair has both the will and the political muscle.

As of last month, the Royal Navy has 91 commissioned ships. Their order of battle is:

2 Invincible-class Aircraft Carriers
8 Type 42 Destroyers (air defense)
13 Type 23 Frigates (general purpose, including anti-ship and anti submarine)
4 Type 22 Frigates (suitable as command and control flagships)
1 Helicopter Amphibious Carrier (equibalent to the USN LPH class of ship)
2 Landing Ship, Dock
16 minesweepers
24 “riverine”/small patrol boats
4 SSBN submarines
9 SSN attack subs

plus 8 miscellaneous survey and training ships

A 3rd aircraft carrier (HMS Invincible) is mothballed and can be reactivated within 18 months.

The Royal Air Force’s order of battle:

5 squadrons of Harrier GR7 fighters
2 squadrons of Jaguar GR3 bombers
8 squadrons of Tornado GR4 bombers
4 squadrons of Tornado F3 fighters
3 squadrons of Typhoon F2 fighter/bombers
3 squadrons of Nimrod MR2 AWACS/ASW
1 squadron of Nimrod R1 AWACS/EC
4 squadrons of Chinook helos
2 squadrons of Puma helos
1 squadron of Merlin helos
4 squadron of Sea King Helos

plus a number of training and transport squadrons

Some of the above are assigned to NATO (and are in Afghanistan). Some are deployed to the Falklands. Some are in Iraq or already in the Persian Gulf.

Blair has the capability to blockade and destroy Iran’s navy and air force, their oil fields, their transportation network, their civilian population, and blockade all their ports (especially the oil terminals) without America’s assistance. In fact, their 4 SSBN (ballistic missile submarines) are strategic weapon systems and could destroy Iran as a nation all by themselves.

The British Lion has fangs and claws.

The big question is whether Blair has the political will and the political backing to order punitive strikes against the Mullahs.

georgej on March 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM

Lancer: “I give 30-70 odds at least that Argentina will re-invade teh Falklands before their next election….”

If they did, then they’d lose their SECOND war.

georgej on March 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM

If we or the Brits were to use force, the addled Rosie O’Donnells of the world will emerge full force screaming “FALSE FLAG GOOGLE GULF OF TONKIN ETC.!!!”

What do you mean, would emerge?

Damian P. on March 30, 2007 at 2:28 PM

The big question is whether Blair has the political will and the political backing to order punitive strikes against the Mullahs.

No and no. If he does I’ll be just as surprised as the mullahs.

However, I think a coordinated US/UK strike some time before Jan. 2009 is possible and I hope we’ll see it.

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 2:30 PM

What do you mean, would emerge?

Yeah, I noticed that as well once I posted it.

AP, just as a feature upgrade suggestion, an ‘edit post’ feature would be great!

Citizen Duck on March 30, 2007 at 2:31 PM

I agree with Citizen Duck – an edit feature for our posts and also a spell checker would makes us all look a whole lot smarter.

Texas Mike on March 30, 2007 at 2:42 PM

reel men don’t use spelchekers

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Georgej
Victor David Hanson has a piece in the National Review online,
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGNmMzdmOGM5OTlmMzMxZDAzYjBiZDc4NjI1NjViYzU=
and there was another article which I don’t recall about the British Navy being a ‘hollow shell’. (Oh thank you google desktop) On frontpage magazine, if you want to go there: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27615

The article that has me upset is in the Washington Times by
Scales http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm.

If you are going to throw Argentina-Falklands into the pot, I want to add Pakistan. Is it soup yet?

Note: to the power at HotAir — we need a preview button–

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Yes they would lose-IF the Lion regained his backbone to use his teeth and claws. What I am saying is that the Lion is now an invertebrate, and Iran is proving it everyday

Lancer on March 30, 2007 at 2:55 PM

I say we (USA) stya the hell away from this. Let the Brits take care of the Brits. We’ll see if they can, or are willing to, hold their mud.

I’m sick & tired of us being the world’s nanny to a globe filled with unappreciative reprobates who care nothing for anyone but themselves… so let them take care of themselves for once. They have the resources and some semblance of gray matter between their ears. After all, they manage to use that gray matter to belittle and chastize us often enough. Let them fend for themselves. It sure as hell IS NOT worth sending more of our young men & women to die for those who don’t even give us the courtesy of a reach-around whilst shagging our bums!

SilverStar830 on March 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM

I’m really surprised that the British Hostages are on TV and writing letters after only a week. Do they not have ball one? Sorry, Faye doesn’t and she’s already wearing a burqua? WTF? Are they a squatron of pu55ie5 or what? Why don’t they tell the Iranians that they are a bunch of tossahs?

Donkeys and carts for a couple of months, then teach Amenthejihad and the Mullahs about the Tomahawk. If we let them continue shaking their sticks, they will go nuclear while we ignore them or put them in timeout like a little kid. When they go nuclear, we are going to be the one’s glowing in the dark for the next 500-600 years.

doginblack on March 30, 2007 at 3:37 PM

SilverStar830 on March 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Only prob here Silverstar is that they were under US command at the time of capture.

They were working under the auspices of the UN mandate to search for weps going into Iraq… this is a coalition problem, not just the Brits. The Chain of Command on these missions probably leads straight to a US Admiral…

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 3:42 PM

ugh… pathetic excuses for so-called soldiers. I just can’t get over it. They don’t give signals, don’t blink morse code, nothing. No signs whatsoever of performing under duress. Not bruise one apparent, not disheveled, not even glum. Well groomed, clean shaven, and cheerfully animated and just happily being the puppets of their captors with a “tea and crumpets eh wot?” demeanor right out the gate for the most part. Especially for the female.

Pip pip cherrio and all that sort of rot!

I’m so thoroughly disgusted with their willingness to cooperate with such a total lack of even a hint of resistance of any kind that I almost don’t even care what happens to them at this point. I’m sure the ‘conversion’ video with their new Muslim names is just around the bend. After all, they’re starting to dress the part already. I wonder what they did… threaten her with a good time if she didn’t wear the hijab? She sure seems chipper for being under oh so much duress.

/bleh

*spit*!

SilverStar830 on March 30, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Way to go SilverStar830. Stockdale DNA all through you.
You just made all the Mullah’s propaganda FACT. We will eat our own. To hell with the ally.

Wait…
She was in the Persian Gulf while you were at a keyboard.
She was in a raft boarding possible hostile targets while you were making a crapp-a-chino.
She was writing letters home to her kids and wishing them well while you were deciding how many testicles you have and how best to display them.

Name, rank, serial number….thats all you are gonna get from me. Yes sir. Mama raised me right.

Stabbing these people in the back. Stabbing your ally in the back.

Present your evidence. Prove your case Rambo. If it is displaying all the same evidence the Mullahs already are showing then I guess that makes you the Mullahs ally.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Lancer: “I give 30-70 odds at least that Argentina will re-invade teh Falklands before their next election….”

If they did, then they’d lose their SECOND war.

georgej on March 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM

There wouldn’t be a war, Blair would talk about it and do nothing.

Tim Burton on March 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Limerick, you have a kinky thing about Stockdale don’t you?

Besides, fact is fact. Show me where I’m actually wrong, not just how your sensibilties are hurt.

I was there in Kuwait City during the liberation. It took a grenade hit to get me away from my crew and I have the scars to prove it. That notwithstanding, and back on topic, I and everyone I was with over there with were trained professionals. My squad, who was eating dirt and sucking smoke for 3 days of fighting (before I caught some frag) all knew that it was possible we could be taken prisoner, however slim the chance. We all pledged we’d die first, because we’d be horribly tortured before we died in captivity at the hands of the Iraqi’s anyway. We also pledged we’d never ever participate willingly with any enemy’s propoganda efforts and we’d have to be beaten bloody and obviously physically abused before we did if it meant we reached our breaking point. I was there cupcake… so shut your sanctimonious pie hole please… and I mean that with all due respect.

SilverStar830 on March 30, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Way to go SilverStar830. Stockdale DNA all through you.
You just made all the Mullah’s propaganda FACT. We will eat our own. To hell with the ally.

Wait…
She was in the Persian Gulf while you were at a keyboard.
She was in a raft boarding possible hostile targets while you were making a crapp-a-chino.
She was writing letters home to her kids and wishing them well while you were deciding how many testicles you have and how best to display them.

Name, rank, serial number….thats all you are gonna get from me. Yes sir. Mama raised me right.

Stabbing these people in the back. Stabbing your ally in the back.

Present your evidence. Prove your case Rambo. If it is displaying all the same evidence the Mullahs already are showing then I guess that makes you the Mullahs ally.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Well, I have sworn to accept death, because I curse Christ. Many many Christians in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and else were do the same and live it. Just because I (nor he) has been placed in that situation, we both have honor.

He isn’t even asking for her to take a beating. He said, things that aren’t painful to do. Heck, they wouldn’t even recognize the blinking of SOS or something small that would get past the Iranians.

Or change between print and cursive writing to signal a message.

Remember that Fabrizio Quattrocchi said, “This is how Italians die!” He wasn’t thinking about himself…He was thinking about his Country.

Tim Burton on March 30, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Well, I have sworn to accept death, because I curse Christ.

Edit: I meant to say: Well, I have sworn to accept death, because I refuse to curse Christ.

Tim Burton on March 30, 2007 at 5:29 PM

All due respect taken SilverStar830. Thank you for being there. As much a leader as you were, you have forgotten a lot.

Every bit of your ‘evidence’ against this woman comes from the enemy. You say ‘i don’t see no scars’….you seen their backs? have you seen the bottoms of their feet?. I really do appreciate your service, but your argument against this lady is crap. Your argument is tantamount to saying these people don’t deserve rescue. As far as my pie hole goes…..good luck on that score.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Thugs.
‘Nuff said.

SouthernDem on March 30, 2007 at 5:33 PM

“Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days.”

*Whew*! I keep forgetting.

Mark V. on March 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Sadly, I spent quite a bit of time in the US Navy doing these exact missions. We talked and trained about how to act if ever captured… and what I’ve seen so far, is NOT what was in our training.

I was also one of those Politicaly Incorrect NCOs who said putting women on combatants was a BAD IDEA, and this was ONE of the reasons I cited.

She NEVER should have been on a boarding action anywhere near this culture… with how they treat women.

And anyone on boarding teams doing this should have gone through SERE school…. or the Brit equivalent.

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM

“Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days.”
*Whew*! I keep forgetting.

Mark V. on March 30, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Yeah… Nancy is…

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Limerick, Star
We don’t know what is going on over there. We don’t know what games are being played. Don’t draw any conclusions from Iranian propaganda.

After the USS Pueblo was captured by the North Koreans, and the crew tortured, the USMCJ was changed; the rules about resisting torture were changed. I don’t know the details, but Star, as a recent vet, you do.

What ever your personal feelings about being captured, sometimes you don’t get to make that choice.

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 5:55 PM

I agree Romeo13. I do not in any way ‘condone’ collaboration or assistance to the enemy. The point I am trying to make is we don’t know all the facts. In some domestic squabble about a politician, crook, whatever, I have absolutely no problem jumping to conclusions and shooting off my mouth. In this case, I am trying to use all the caution I have in my being to give these people the benefit of the doubt. If it ends up they didn’t deserve it I will be no worse off. If it ends up they did deserve it, and I hadn’t offered it, then I would be just like the mullahs. That’s how I see this situation. Until it is proven to me otherwise that is how I will act.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Articles of the Code of Conduct

Article I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

Article IV
Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability.

Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Heres ours…. still current as far as I know.

Romeo13 on March 30, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Romeo:
RE:http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/code_conduct.htm

The UCMJ, the regulations under which one is subject to courts martial was changed after the USS Pueblo affair.
The code you cite was approved 1955. The Pueblo was captured in 1968.

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 7:25 PM

[These 10mb .pdf files are killing my dial up connection.]
The nearest cite I have been able to find is pages 114-120
of the Law of War handbook (10mb pdf) from the Library of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf

There was a big stink after the Captain, and Crew of the Pueblo were released because they had signed ‘confessions’ which were made public by the North Koreans. The Captain was subject to a court of inquiry, and congressional inquiry.

The treatment of POW’s by North Vietnam was equally harsh.
Based on what I’ve read, it is my opinion that the only men who survived capture by the North Vietnamese were those men who were forced to, and did, sign confessions, and the men who did not break were tortured until they died.

In this current case, of the 15 Brits held hostage by Iran, I don’t care what they say now, I’ll wait to hear what they say when they are released.

Anyone who is concluding anything from this Iranian propaganda is as dumb as a box of rocks.

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 9:09 PM

rockhauler….I didn’t want to start a war with SilverStar…..but 3600 days in uniform gets my mouth a wagging sometimes. A lot of us are angry at the government for not fighting these bastards. We all put our asses on for hats every now and then.

Limerick on March 30, 2007 at 9:16 PM

This article, published before this all started is a must read on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM

By the way, one paragraph of that article written on March 18 is prophetic:

Today the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution — known in Farsi as the Sepah-e Pasdaran and in English as the Revolutionary Guard — is a mafia-like organization with a corrupting influence on Iran’s army, police, media, industries, judiciary and government. It is imperative that every effort now be made to contain the Revolutionary Guard’s powers, because its political and economic adventurism will ultimately lead to a serious crisis, not just in Iran but also across the Middle East.

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 10:31 PM

I’ve spent a couple of days pondering the “why” of it all. This was a calculated move on the part of Iran. They are essentially begging for a British strike. Why would you do that when, seemingly, you have no way of striking back? I have a hunch that they can do just that.

They have been quite successful at building their terrorist wings all across the west. All they need is a pretext to use the people already in place. That would be my suspicion, anyway.

There is method to this madness.

Krydor on March 30, 2007 at 11:24 PM

If you calculate that you are getting weaker in relation to a potential enemy with every passing month and you also calculate that conflict can’t be avoided, it is to your advantage to start the conflict earlier rather than sooner. There could be political reasons to such as taking advantage of the current political situation in Iraq. This decision might have been taken back when Hillary was on all the airwaves with the statement that Bush would have to go to congress before taking any actions against Iran (which was quiet dropped later for some reason). Maybe the Iranians think they can get away with this because they think the US wouldn’t be able to help the UK without going to congress who wouldn’t give approval.

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 11:36 PM

“earlier rather than sooner”

Earlier rather than later that is.

I don’t think Iran is attempting to precipitate an attack but I do believe they are trying to get just as close as they can get to that line without crossing it to jack the price of oil up.

crosspatch on March 30, 2007 at 11:40 PM

Priceless:

Prime Minister Tony Blair is under increasing pressure to act more forcefully after a leading British newspaper slammed the early response to the Iranian seizure as “pusillanimous.”

crosspatch on March 31, 2007 at 1:06 AM

The code you cite was approved 1955. The Pueblo was captured in 1968.

rockhauler on March 30, 2007 at 7:25 PM

And was taught to me in Boot Camp in San Diego in 1979.

Its also essentialy the code of conduct I was taught in SERE school.

People do break under torture, and the UCMJ was changed to reflect that, BUT, that does not mean you should not resist. That does NOT mean you cooperate.

Romeo13 on March 31, 2007 at 10:16 AM

“Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.”

Perhaps the Iranians are indeed deserving of some “daddy time” from the Brits, but it won’t be forthcoming without a lot of help from “uncle” – Uncle Sam, that is.

Looking over Georgej’s inventory of the British Navy and Air Force, one thing stood out right away: short legs. Those familiar with military logistics know what that means: the absence of any kind of supply train necessary to independently sustain those ships and aircraft far from home over a prolonged period of time.

Wherever the US Navy goes, the dedicated fast supply ships go. Look over the composition of any of our carrier task groups, and you’ll find one attached. These ships provide the fuel, ammunition, spare parts and other essentials necessary to maintain a long deployment far from friendly base facilities.

Where are the British equivalents?

Where, in the Royal Air Force inventory, are the long-range transport aircraft equivalent to our C-5s, C-17s and C-141s? There aren’t any. I don’t even see any C-130s in the inventory. How would the Brits propose to keep their ground and air forces supplied without our help?

Bottom line is that the Brits, like the rest of our NATO allies, have pared down their military to little more than a constabulary designed for local defense.

- The Royal Navy is structured to operate in defense of Europe; it’s not a power projection force. This is not Horatio Nelson’s Royal Navy, or the Grand Fleet of Admiral Jellicoe, or the Royal Navy of WWII. It’s a pitiful shadow of its former glory. Its ships, which increasingly suffer from poor maintenance, commonly leave port with undermanned crews. Indeed, Blair’s most recent defense budget proposal would cut the Royal Navy in half from it’s present already inadequate size.

They’re not serious international players anymore. Like the French and the Russians, the only reason they still sit at the grownups’ table is because they have some SSBNs. But will they use them? Please.

- The Royal Air Force is also structured to support NATO in Europe; it has no long range strategic or transport aircraft (save for a handful of ancient Nimrod maritime patrol planes), only tactical ones. It, too, is slated for further cutbacks.

The direct consequence is that the Brits can’t independently maintain more than a symbolic forward deployment without the US providing the heavy lifting when it comes to the logistics. It’s been this way for more than a decade now, closer to two decades.

The indirect consequence for Tony Blair today is that if he’s thinking about a military option against the Iranians, he’ll have to take us in with him – or the military option is off the table for sheer lack of capability. Question becomes, will he do this when there are no American hostages involved? When the US House of Representatives won’t even consider a resolution in support of Britain?

The Iranians understand the Brits’ limitations, too. That’s why they’re adamant about resolving this as a “bilateral” matter, because they know that’ll put the Brits into a position of weakness by removing any meaningful military option from consideration.

This is what it means to be a second-rate power. Thugocracies like the Iranians can push you around when you’re playing on their home turf, and you don’t have the means to push back without having to ask for help.

I’d hate to be in Blair’s shoes right now. Every choice carries with it the sting of national humiliation.

Spurius Ligustinus on March 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

/cut scene, White House Oval Office….

Phone rings… a hand comes in and pushes the Speaker phone button…

“George here”….

“Tony here George old freind… just wanted to ring you up and see if I could borrow a couple of squadrons of F-22s…”

Romeo13 on March 31, 2007 at 11:23 AM

WHEREAS Coalition forces operating within the territorial waters of Iraq, carrying out their mission of securing said waters, wer without provocation, kidnapped by agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and

WHEREAS the Islamic Republic of Iran has falsely claimed that the Coalition forces were in its territorial waters, and violated the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of those kidnapped servicemen and woman,

WHEREAS these acts are but the latest in a series of breaches of the rights of Coalition members, commencing with the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran, which is sovereign US territory, which constitute acts of war

THERFORE we consider that a State of War exists between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Coalition members (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America).

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, all vessels of the Islamic Republic of Iran are subject to seizure, even within its territorial waters, by Coalition forces. No shipping under any flag will be allowed into or out of Iran. The UK Prime Minister and the US President may direct their forces to take additional actions, which may or may not be publicised.

This condition will continue until the Islamic Republic of Iran formally renounces their acts against Coalition members, and returns our captured servicemen and women unharmed.

The Monster on March 31, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Hmmm… Now…. Congress can still assign Letters of Marque…

If anyone is interested, I’ve got a LOT of experience leading Boarding teams….

Anyone up for a little Buccaneer action on an Iranian Oil Tanker???

Would be VERY profitable…

Romeo13 on March 31, 2007 at 12:11 PM

An op-ed writer at the Daily Telegraph…: “I start to wonder whether it might not be time for us to get as nasty with other countries as they do with us.”

One can do something “as nasty,” less so, or more so. If one’s goal is to conform to an opinion about fairness, then it seems one will choose to do something “as nasty.” But if one’s goal is to make it impossible for the enemy rulers to go on doing nasty things, then it seems one will do something sure to stop them. In such a case, comparisons of nastiness are irrelevant and time spent thinking about them is wasted, for a practical man.

Kralizec on March 31, 2007 at 1:05 PM

I’d hate to be in Blair’s shoes right now. Every choice carries with it the sting of national humiliation.

Spurius Ligustinus on March 31, 2007 at 10:37 AM

On the contrary, it seems the sudden destruction of Tehran, at any time in the last 28 years, would have enhanced the reputation of the country whose rulers caused it. In 1979, it might have been swatting a fly with a cannon; in that case, it would have enhanced that country’s reputation for swatting flies with cannons, and flies would have become very, very careful.

Kralizec on March 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM

If anyone is interested, I’ve got a LOT of experience leading Boarding teams….

Anyone up for a little Buccaneer action on an Iranian Oil Tanker???

Would be VERY profitable…

Romeo13 on March 31, 2007 at 12:11 PM

You’ve reminded me generally of Mark Steyn’s comment in America Alone about men with Rolodexes, and of my own opinion that “counter-terrorism” has at least two meanings.

Kralizec on March 31, 2007 at 1:28 PM

Things are really heating up now! On the front page of CNN:

“Britain sends note to Iran”

Britain has now unleashed a new weapon against Iran … the NOTE! And we all know how Iran fears the use of the NOTE!!!!!

Maybe soon Blair will unleash the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

crosspatch on March 31, 2007 at 2:48 PM

We Need TEAM AMERICA… part Deux!

Romeo13 on March 31, 2007 at 2:54 PM

As a Brit, I’d like to see the Iranians we captured paraded on TV in clown suits telling the world that Ahmadinejad molests barnyard animals.

Oh…would that put us in breach of the Geneva convention?

uptight on March 31, 2007 at 3:18 PM

As a non-Brit, I am interested to see if that “taunting it by running away” trick really does work.

crosspatch on March 31, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Spurius Ligustinus wrote:

Where, in the Royal Air Force inventory, are the long-range transport aircraft equivalent to our C-5s, C-17s and C-141s? There aren’t any. I don’t even see any C-130s in the inventory. How would the Brits propose to keep their ground and air forces supplied without our help?

Actually, while I didn’t list them specifically (the post was getting rather long as it was), the RAF flies the following transport, cargo, and mid-air refueling aircraft:

C-17A Globemaster
99 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

Hercules C1 / C3 (K)
47 Squadron RAF Lyneham
70 Squadron RAF Lyneham

Hercules C4 / C5 (J)
XXIV Squadron RAF Lyneham
30 Squadron RAF Lyneham

L-1011 Tristar
216 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

VC10
101 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

I did not list the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships that are used for replenishment at sea. The most recent addition to the RN’s fleet is the Wave Ruler (A390), commissioned in 2003.

The RN also hires commercial vessels when needed for replenishment and troop transport. This is what they did during the Falklands War.

The Royal Navy is the second largest navy today (after ours) in terms of combatants. They are capable of blue water operations anywhere the world.

I listed only the RN’s combatants for brevity. The RN has been operating in the Persian and Arabian Gulfs for decades and has a robust supply chain that is anchored by their base Diego Garcia as well.

georgej on March 31, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2