Iran: All sailors have confessed — but we won’t show any more confessions; Update: Iran backs off trials for sailors?

posted at 11:20 am on April 2, 2007 by Allahpundit

Instead they’ll just edit them into quickie montages with no audio to use as intros for clips of the sailors they’ve already shown. Like they’ve done here.

Makes you appreciate McCain’s resolve in the tiger cage that much more.

The reason they’re toning it down now is because of “positive changes” in the negotiations. The AP thinks it was the note sent from the British:

In a letter sent in response to a note from Iranian officials, Britain agreed to consider discussions about how to avoid similar disputes in the future, said the British official. Britain’s response — most of which has been kept secret — may have prompted the report Monday from Iran’s state-run radio.

Bush is playing the bad cop role to Blair’s good cop here, prompting Iran this morning to warn him to mind his own business. Is Bush the big winner politically in all this? The LA Times considers the horrifying possibility:

Whatever Ahmadinejad’s motives, this much is certain: Iran’s actions give credence to hard-liners in the U.S. who view Iran as a rogue state headed by a Holocaust denier who supports terrorism and flouts international norms, whether nuclear or maritime.

None of which was in doubt before the sailors were seized, mind you. That’s like saying that 9/11 “gave credence” to the “view” that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group whose leader wants to wage jihad on the U.S. It’s simply more evidence of a fact long since proved. The debate to be had about Iran isn’t whether they’re a rogue state, it’s how best to hurt them while minimizing damage to ourselves. The California state legislature has some good ideas about that, surprisingly. What’s the Times’s plan?

And for the record, Iran isn’t “headed” by Ahmadinejad, to whom that passage obviously refers.

Exit question: Is Iran going to try to wait out the lame duck? They did it to Jimmy Carter, after all. The idea, I guess, would be to gift Gordon Brown with the 15 sailors when he enters office as a way of warning him that bad things happen when you side with the U.S. From what I know about Brown, he won’t need much warning.

Update: This is good news, I guess, until we find out just what it is Blair promised them in return.


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

Rumor has it Pelosi and her band of traitors have worked out a back-door deal. They have it setup that the Syrian President supposedly asks Ahmadinejad to release the sailors and Ahmadinejad does release the Brits. This will be to show that sit downs without the warmonger Bush works.

Wade on April 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM

It’s my understanding that the “infamous” tiger cages were used by our side in Viet Nam; and that they were above ground structures with a secondary ceiling for ventilation purposes.
Prisoners of the NVA were generally kept in dank cells, not tiger cages.

Of course, if McCain says different, I must be wrong in my understanding.

Hiraghm on April 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Brown’s not guaranteeded to win the election. The polls are all over the place and this might finish off the Labour Government(yay!).

aengus on April 2, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Today we stand on the edge of war, a wider war, world war III. When I think of how this could have been stopped I know that the chances to stop this war most likely past us by 20 some odd years ago when we knew Iran had direct responsibility in the Lebanon barracks bombing and we did nothing. After that all of our enemies tested us, pushed us, and we held or wrath. Then 9/11 and we had to respond we did well, our enemy backed off for a bit then they saw a weakness return. We don’t see it as a weakness and really it isn’t but to our enemies they saw it as such. Groups like ANSWER formed just days after 9/11 to fight any attempt to show strength, at first they failed, but with time and with the constant media attacks on our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq (for partisan political advantage) We began to question our response, we thought of ways to lessen the negative impact on our enemies. To us it was a strength showing thru we found compassion as a way to combat hate. But the hate only grew and was emboldened by our compassion and soon that hate took steps to use our compassion against us… as they turned their weapons against their own people and then pointed our cameras to the carnage, we turned our compassion to sympathy for the victims of this dreadful violence… the enemy then took up the mantel of victimhood. He began to fight where the cameras could see where the reporters could hear. Taping and sending images of the death and destruction to CNN. The fact that every night we find only calls for our surrender on the news now has put us on the brink of a wider war. Emboldened, Iran is sending solders to fight in Iraq, providing bombs to kill our people and the only outrage here is that we can’t get out fast enough? They take people and hold them on trumped up charges, force them to make confessions in violation of Geneva. And here we say that maybe the Britons were on the wrong side of the river? That maybe Iran is just trying to get us to stop being mean to them? I hope we see soon that fighting a war with compassion is the only way to surely lose that war. America is a strong nation and any enemy who thinks our compassion will lead us to suicide will very quickly find that line he could not cross, and find America and her allies at their doorstep. If the anti-war left wants to live in the peace and security they have enjoyed for these many years, when they come home from their rally they should pray for our anger to be brought forth in a manner that unites us fully as one nation in a war that must be won. If we fail to rally in time, if the enemy can drive us away from the fight, then our friends who oppose this war should pray that those who thought this battle was going to be settled by talking with madmen will be able to find for them a safe place to pray 5 times a day.

Gwillie on April 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM

CTF 158 is currently commanded by Royal Navy Commodore Nick Lambert and operates as one of three coalition task forces in the Combined

Maritime Forces under the leadership of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. Fifth Fleet, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff.

From

http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/articles/2007/071.html

Centcoms own website.

An American Admiral was in ultimate charge… This is our fight folks.

Romeo13 on April 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Exit question: —-lame duck….

I tried….I went here http://www.aryanpour.com/ and typed in ‘duck’……the result….a Hardy Boys novel would weigh 300 lbs.

Seriously, this has nothing to do with what the West thinks….it has to do with what the Arabs/Persians think.
They know war is coming. They are trying to make sure they have backup when the time comes. At this rate they will get it. If we would have put a daisy cutter on a oil refinery there would have been a lot of screaming and hollering but rich oil princes in other nations would have gotten the message. Now….all bets off.

Limerick on April 2, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Iran, Syria and Hizbullah preparing for war, not so much from Israel, but from the U.S.

And, caution, source = the Russians, the U.S. ready to strike.

Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Forgot to share – the USS Nimitz left the San Diego port this morning.

Entelechy on April 2, 2007 at 12:38 PM

“…one of three coalition task forces in the Combined Maritime Forces under the leadership of Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command/U.S. Fifth Fleet….”

If he were chopped to Fifth Fleet, why would HMS Cornwall be operating under different rules of engagement that we do?

From the UK’s Independent (as captured by Hot Air on 3/25/07):

The executive officer – second-in-command on USS Underwood, the frigate working in the British-controlled task force with HMS Cornwall – said: “The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They [the British] had every right in my mind and every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, ‘Why didn’t your guys defend themselves?’”…

Yesterday, the former First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West, said British rules of engagement were “very much de-escalatory, because we don’t want wars starting … Rather than roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were, in effect, able to be captured and taken away.”

So, who was in charge? Was this Lambert’s decision to not intervene? Did the guy in charge in the boats decide that surrender was the better part of valor?

georgej on April 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM

georgej on April 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Good question, one I’ve been asking for days.

I’ve had experience with multinational battle groups and ops… and in the past ROE’s were handed down by command authority… ie regional or tactical command, not by the Admiralty….

It sounds to me like basic British training and thought conflicted with the ROEs in theatre… and they blinked.

But my basic point remains… these guys were under US CentCom command when they were taken… we need to be part of this fight too.

Romeo13 on April 2, 2007 at 12:56 PM

An American Admiral was in ultimate charge…
Romeo13 on April 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Looks like Rosie’s been vindicated: All the Brits have confessed, even though well-treated, and the US was at the top of the chain of command. So – it’s dispositive – it was a Bush ploy to start a war with Iran. (I haven’t seen the show – did she say that today?)

eeyore on April 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM

It’s my understanding that the “infamous” tiger cages were used by our side in Viet Nam; and that they were above ground structures with a secondary ceiling for ventilation purposes.
Prisoners of the NVA were generally kept in dank cells, not tiger cages.

The term “Tiger Cages” commonly refers to the dank, dark, maximum security cells (originally built by the French in 1907) that held political prisoners at the Con Son Prison on Con Son Island in South Vietnam untill 1970. These cells, actually built below ground with two levels of cells above, were similar to those used to imprison such POW’s as Mr. McCain in North Vietnam, like the infamous Hanoi Hilton. These “Tiger Cage” prisoners were released shortly after exposure by Time magazine and a Congressional Investigation which caused an international furor.

After closing the infamous “Tiger Cages” of Con Son, additional maximum security cells were constructed as you described above. These cells were used to house violent and disruptive prisoners and these prisoners were treated humanly, according to the International Red Cross which conducted numerous interviews and medical inspections of the prisoners.

RedinBlueCounty on April 2, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Brown’s not a shoo-in, as everyone seems to believe. There are several other candidates waiting in the wings – when the first candidate declares (known as a ‘stalking horse’, in British politics), the others are free to join the fray.

And nobody outside his circle likes Brown.

I doubt the Iranians much care about who’s running the show in the UK; it doesn’t matter when your oft-declared plan is to exterminate them.

I’m appalled that the Brits are busily twittering away, talking about things they cannot know, handing propaganda to the enemy. The Iranians aren’t about to start killing them – they should shut their mouths and help their own side, not Iran’s.

Martin on April 2, 2007 at 2:49 PM

I saw park a battleship right outside Iranian waters. “I dare you to try to board this one. See what you’re up against when not pirating a patrol boad.”

- The Cat

I’m just wondering what they were thinking having such a small boat next to such a hostile country. Or was it that they weren’t and the Iranians came (very much) into Iraqi waters?

MirCat on April 2, 2007 at 4:43 PM

First, the Iranians should have been fired on and not permitted to board. Second, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, the game changes. Blair is right to do what he can to get these sailors back safely–eating a little humble pie is small price to save these lives.

One wonders just how crazy these Iranians are–will they, as some suggest, seek to block the waterway and drive oil up to %150/barrel. (At which time I have no doubt our johnny on the spot President and ace Congress will pull together an energy policy).

honora on April 3, 2007 at 9:15 AM