Iran and Britain in the Gulf, contd.

The 15 British naval POWs arrived home yesterday, after having been freed by Iran late Wednesday night. But even as they were boarding their plane to freedom in Teheran, four British soldiers on a patrol in Basra were killed— along with their Kuwaiti interpreter– when a roadside bomb blew up their vehicle.
A good friend of mine here in London who watches such things closely told me yesterday that every time the British forces in and around Iraq do something to pique the Iranians, then the pro-Iranian militants inside Iraq hit back by killing one or more British soldiers… Interesting, if so.
But quite evidently, everyone involved in the potentially extremely lethal military tangle in and around Iraq has been deeply engaged in probing and counter-probing each other’s forces and capabilities in a host of different ways, over the past four years.
Anyway, here in England, there have been some discreet but mounting questions over two aspects of the sailors’ capture: firstly over why they did not resist capture in the first place, and secondly over why they had not had firmer orders to give only “name, rank, and serial number” to their captors, resisting the Iranians’– as it turned out, fairly successful– attempts to interrogate them further and even to get them to utter filmed “confessions”.
Royal Navy head Lord Admiral Jonathan Band said today that the crew “reacted extremely well in very difficult circumstances”.
However, Lt Gen Sir Michael Gray, former commander of the 1st Battalion of the (always much more gung-ho) Paratroopers, was reported by the BBC there as describing the situation as a “shambles”.
And then, from what I very much hope is his comfortable wheelchair in Washington, here is neocon blowhard Charles Krauthammer:

    Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran’s intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the impotence of all those transnational institutions — most prominently the European Union and the United Nations — that pretend to maintain international order.
    You would think maintaining international order means, at least, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.

I suppose he would rather have seen this small engagement lead to the outbreak of World War 3? What a sad guy.

19 thoughts on “Iran and Britain in the Gulf, contd.”

  1. I try to ignore what comes out of DC regarding Iran these days, because it typically just makes me ignorant in its selective and emotionally-informed interpretation of evidence.
    Regarding your question of why the British didn’t resist arrest. The reason for this is, I think, that they were greatly outnumbered. But more importantly, I am sure that British sailors in the Gulf, especially people like these who gave an interview beforehand admitting that they were squeezing local fisherman for information about Iran, are under strict orders not to provoke a firefight over such things. Britain is keenly aware that, if they were to take an approach similar to the U.S. and use excessive firepower whenever the smallest threat emerges, that would result in ordinary soldiers starting a war with Iran, if unintentionally, and making it so that British leaders are unable to frame policy. Britain is keen to avoid the kind of unintentional war that comes about from having lax operating rules.

  2. you said: “A good friend of mine here in London who watches such things closely told me yesterday that every time the British forces in and around Iraq do something to pique the Iranians, then the pro-Iranian militants inside Iraq hit back by killing one or more British soldiers… Interesting, if so.”
    I would like to let you and your friend know, British soldiers are being killed very simply because Iraq is not their country and would you please let us know what the heck they are doing over there?they are being killed because Iraqis don’t like to be occupied. Is it too hard for you guys to understand????? like your beloved president was claiming they(sailors) were in the Iraqi water and not in the Iranian part, as if Iraqi water is Blair’s heritage.LOL. Get out of Iraq. NOW

  3. The celebrations surrounding the release of several low-ranking British pirates by the Iranian government begs the question of what defense the British government could possibly have for granting itself license to stop and search (and who knows what else?) shipments of automobiles on the high seas far, far away from England’s shores. As I recall from my high-school history days, the United States itself once went to war with England over similar self-entitled British acts of maritime piracy in 1812.
    Anyway, the British have more than enough trouble with their Visigoth soccer hooligans and could really stand to butt out and leave Iraq and Iran to sort out their own shipping and smuggling arrangements. Adding British and American state-sponsored piracy and wars of aggression to the mix only makes things predictably worse.

  4. “neocon blowhard Charles Krauthammer”
    You know I can’t resist piling on here. Krauthammer’s column is so typical of neocon thinking. The British sailors and marines captured by Iran were released, unharmed, in a little under two weeks, without any escalation of violence between the countries involved. To Krauthammer, this is an outrage. Nothing upsets him more than diplomatic success, especially when it involves our side (the good guys) having to make concessions, such as giving up one Iranian diplomat illegally captured and detained for two months by forces under our direct control in Iraq. To people like Krauthammer, violence is not only an acceptable response to any insult or challenge, it is the only response (to be carried out, of course, by other people’s children). Clearly, his Momma didn’t raise him right.

  6. Krauthammer says the European Union did nothing. Could this have something to do with Tony Blair’s low standing and lack of credibility with his European counterparts?

  7. John,
    It depends upon what you call doing something. If Krauthammer had in mind an attack on Iran, then of course the EU wasn’t ready to that.
    However here EU newspapers pointed to the contrary, aka that :
    1) Blair has pressed all the EU government to take a global position condemning Iran on this question.
    2) Blair didn’t ask nothing from Bush, because he knew he couldn’t await anything.
    3) The Brittish have never been so European in their diplomacy in years.
    4) The irony is that Angela Merkel, the actual EU president made the condemning statement from Israel, where she was visiting. Some aknowledged that it wasn’t the best timing.

  8. This cartoon
     appeared last week in a Swiss newspaper; the Brittish sailor is says : “We should never have ventured in American waters”.

  10. It is quite sad commentary on British “liberalism” to see their “lefty” media such as the Guardian and Independent tow the Blairite flag-draped jingoism. Oh those Western humanist democratic values !!

  11. Oh Albion, what a shameful outcome, the Mullahs picked your Marines in Iraqi waters, in spite of their Marine designation and weapons they gave in like old ladies stopped for a traffic violation, the Iranians commended their own sailors for bravery (?), they paraded the Britons and made them confess, and then benevolently returned them in Borat suits and carrying pink bags.
    The Britons swore to stop their maritime inspections, and an Iranian diplomat somehow recovered his freedom in Iraq.
    How low Albion. And to top this off, the 15 heroes will monetize their bravery by writing books. Reminiscent of another Briton that monetizies her cowardice by writing, talking, and running blogs.
    And of course the 4 killed to prevent all pretense of British spin about diplomacy and compromise. Four body bags that no diplomacy or appeasement can mend. Are these the same Britons that stoically endured WWII? Maybe Britain should be run by James Carter soon. Take him, youdeserve him.

  12. There is hope:
    http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media%2Dcentre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=36
    Open Europe today releases further findings from a poll of all 27 EU member states, looking at Europeans’ attitudes to globalisation and a range of foreign policy issues. TNS surveyed 17,443 people during March.
    Key findings:
    Foreign policy
    A majority (51%) of people in the UK would back military action against Iran. A majority agreed with the statement “We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action”. Across the EU as a whole, 52% said they agreed with the statement. A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.
    More people in the UK are concerned about Islamic fundamentalism than in any other EU country. 71% agreed with the statement that “Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat for our country”, compared to an EU average of 58%.
    However, few voters in the EU would be prepared to see cuts in other spending programmes to finance higher defence spending. Only 37% of UK voters and 23% of all EU voters agreed with the statement that, “Our country should spend more on defence and less on other things.”

  15. Hi Frank, you also have a nice name. I guess Muhammad Al Masri was already taken and it is problematic for getting on airplanes. Hi David, I miss Albion the proud. Penetrated at home by their mosque fanatics, and humiliated abroad by the mullahs. I guess Brits can always hide in Gibraltar with the monkeys.

  16. I suppose he would rather have seen this small engagement lead to the outbreak of World War 3? What a sad guy.
    Helena’s point about minor incidents being used to trigger larger conflicts is well made.
    This example from the history of Perfidious Albion’s Imperial Expansion illustrates how things get out of hand.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins'_Ear
    There are times when the international situation has become too unstable for anything but war to resolve it. Barring the nightmare of the Nile Basin going into meltdown we dont actually have the requisite conditions to have a war at the moment.

  17. War resolves nothing. War always resolves back to negotiations. Who says so? I say so. So does Clausewitz, by the way.
    And what’s this rubbish about the “Nile Basin”? Why do Imperialists keep on inventing new warmongering jargon? Jenkin’s Ear, Black Hole of Calcutta, Khyber Pass, Horn of Africa, it’s all the same boy’s-comic fantasy. Pack it up!

  18. Hi Dominic
    Mmmn Not sure I quite agree about war always going back to negotiation. Mr Chamberlain had no option but to declare war in 1939. Negotiation was not entered into before the unconditional surrender in 1945.
    Nile Basin is a recognised geographical term, and is one of the more worrying situations in the world.
    Yet another of the arrangements made in the early 1920s is now coming apart. Sudan are building a dam on the Nile (the biggest electrification project in Africa with a lot of Chinese Finance) which may interfere with the flow of water to Egypt. The artifical lake thus created will decrease the water flow in the Nile by a few percent due to the extra evaporation
    If you read into the water balance in the Nile Basin you will see why an unmanaged dispute over water flows could easily escalate into a shooting war.
    This is not comic book fantasy. This is the reality of economic development issues.
    http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/newgeog/Africa/waterwar.htm

Comments are closed.