Good question. Ken Timmerman;
The announcement Wednesday by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his government would release the 15 captured British sailors and marines came after an intense and often bitter internal debate, sources in Tehran told NewsMax.
The capture of the British naval inspection team was clearly a coordinated effort by the Iranian government aimed at demonstrating Iran’s ability to confront the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq and to divert international attention from the nuclear showdown. The decision to release the hostages showed the limits of Iran’s power and the fears of some leaders that too much provocation could backfire.
[…]
Khamenei’s top advisers argued that by striking out against a U.S. ally in Iraq, they would be sending a message to other European nations to step back from supporting the U.S. strategy of increasing pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. They saw the move as a clear test of Western resolve.
But as Britain refused to apologize for the behavior of its boarding party, continuing to insist that they were operating in Iraqi waters – not inside Iran’s territorial waters, as Tehran alleged – some of Khamenei’s advisers began to have second thoughts.
Adding to those doubts were reports that the USS Nimitz was steaming toward the Persian Gulf – making it the third Carrier Strike Group in the area.
Victor Davis Hanson, on the popular theory that Iran was looking for a shooting war;
What should we make of the Iranians’ behavior?
Namely that the country’s leadership is in deep political trouble. The Iranian government is desperate to provoke the West to win back friends in the Islamic world, and to quell growing unrest at home. Subsidizing food and gas, providing billions for terrorists and building nukes all cost money at a time when the state-run Iranian economy is in shambles.
Because of incompetence in their oil industry, the Iranian mullahs have achieved the impossible: Despite having among the world’s largest petroleum reserves, their production is shrinking and they have managed to earn increasingly less petrodollars even as the world price has soared.
Robert Mayer thinks it was an exercise in image rehabilitation. “See? These Holocaust deniers aren’t such bad guys, after all.”
There is no way to know what the now-released British sailors will say once they’ve been debriefed. But one thing is certain — they will be the most sought after people in the media. Iran knows this. Do not be surprised if they tell all of Britain that they were not tortured, forced to confess, and kept in a jail cell. Do not be surprised if they tell us that they were treated with respect, fed well, and allowed to play games. Do not be surprised if they say that they freely confessed to crossing into Iranian territorial waters after being told that there is no clear agreement specifying the border. And last, do not be surprised if they think that Ahmadinejad is a pretty swell guy after they met with him.
A few informed opinions to chew on.
Now did the exit strategy from Iraq help you Tony?
Now for the vastly less informed opinion:
Iran lauded by Canuck diplomat Taylor
“There may be some good out of this misadventure,” said Taylor, who helped save six Americans during the 1980 Iran hostage crisis. “I think the Iranians will probably say: ‘Look, we’re reasonable people, we just resolved a very explosive situation with the British without going to war.'”
It would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.
Step one: Kidnap British forces in Iraqi waters.
Step two: see if the UN and EU will support Britain to the hilt. If no demonstrable support from UN (Useless Nincompoops) and the EU (Equally Useless) go to
Step three: threaten to sentence British service personnel to death as spies.
Step four: after the sentence has been settled, consider have a show trial for image propaganda purposes.
Step five: new plan.. let them go for Easter and see how many idiots will believe Iran is a “rational members of the international community”.
Step six: Plan the next holocaust denial party and ramp up the nuclear weapons program.
Sneaky Weasels. Where’s Maggie Thatcher when you need her?
Anyone would be a fool to trust Iran.This was just a staged event, when the opportunity arose they took it. The outcome was planned to show them as compassionate and caring, ya, right.
They’re hoping to avoid any interference with their nuclear facilities in the next two years, by then they’ll have the big boomer.
The West should smarten the hell up and cut gasoline supplies to them, bring them to their knees, show them we can call a few shots if pushed.
What a dangerously gullible world we live in. Is it any wonder the crazed Muslims hordes feel confident they will bury our civilization in short order?
EyesWideShut:
You forgot Step 5. b)Give all 15 snazzy Ahmadinejad style suits to wear home for the photo op.
What kind of agreements did england agree to to get them released what kind of person is PHONEY TONY BLAIR?
EyesWideShut:
Step 7 – ramp up sanctions against Iran, send strong signal you are considering military strike as retaliation
Step 8 – update Brit standard operating procedure and rules of engagement to – any Iranian ship coming within 500 metres of any British ship will be sunk immediately without warning.
Step 9 – wait for Imadinnerjacket (too funny!)to come up with some other stunt to divert domestic attention from their plight and international attention from their existence as a rogue nation, bent on nuclear war with Israel.
A propaganda ploy directed at the Iranian people.
I think the third one, Robert Mayer has it right.
Iran is strong. Iran is good. Iran is compassionate. Iran is right. Iran has a concious
The one crucial element for this ‘plan’ to work is our beloved Western Media.
Think the Neil McDonalds and Julie Van Dusens and Wolf Blitzers of the world will comply ??
Will the sun rise tomorrow ??
I agree with Warren Kinsella (NP article) on this.
To extend the Mayer thinking a little. . .
Mullahs:
** Jeez, the Nimitz will be here soon, joining the other two carriers, and those damn Russians, barking about the million$ we owe them for subs, Nuke concentraors and yellow cake.
Guess Putin is right. Not the time to behead fifteen Brits. Whew, this should buy us some time. = TG
I’m with Hanson on this – Iran’s leadership is in deep political trouble. Ahmadinejad would like the West to attack it; he’s been trying to get it to do so for several years.
These include his funding of the Iraqi insurgents, the funding of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The former is making the error of Muslims fighting Muslims; the latter was able to only get Israel into a fight rather than the West. He’s tried Holocaust denial; and now, the 15 British who were working for the UN. Why does he want the West to attack? To enable Iran to move into Iraq, Syria, Jordan etc. To cover and validate their development of nuclear weapons.
And, a war would enable Iran, possibly, to set itself up as the savior of the Middle East and emerge as ‘Top Dog’ in that area.
The problem is that the other ME states definitely don’t want Iran assuming such a role.
I don’t think it was a PR relation to show how nice and kind Iran is. The Holocaust conference, Ahmadinejad’s UN speeches, the nuclear rhetoric all show the opposite. I think it was originally a diversion from the UN sanctions, but the internal politics of Iran had the mullahs winning versus Ahmadinejad.
The part that caught my eye (and something that I’m surprised is not getting more attention), is the mention of the Nimitz moving into the area.
An old buddy of mine is an ex-crewmember of the Nimitz and still has old friends serving aboard her. More than a month ago, I heard that she had left San Diego and, while it wasn’t official, it didn’t take a genius to figure out where she was going.
What’s interesting is, as the post points out, that makes three carrier battle-groups in the same area. As far as I can tell, such a concentration of US naval power hasn’t happened since WWII. And those carrier groups are extremely expesive to maintain. In other words, you don’t put them out there unless you mean business.
So, what’s that business? Obviously, they don’t need them to ensure “air superiority” over Iraq. And if they were looking at a quick air strike over Iran (to hit some nuclear facilities), why on Earth would they need three entire carrier groups (complete with frigates and fast-attack subs)? Why would they need carriers at all? Iran is well within range of what they’ve got on the ground in and around the area (Iraq and Turkey).
Me spidy senses are tingling. Something must be coming…but what is it?
How about an extra $5 a barrel? That’s all this was, start to finish. The Saudis loved it, too.
Iranian hostage crisises = higher prices in oil without OPEC supply restrictions
Lost on these writers is this: when somebody does you wrong and then you forgive them, most reasonable people will see the second party has holding the moral upper hand. The Friends of Israel (FOI), are so desperate for a war with Iran that it is getting in the way of their ability to think straight.
It was political theatre from day one of course. However you have to admit, it’s kind of embarassing when a country like Iran treats prisoners better than you do.
Jose don’t think Zahra Kazemi or her son would agree with you on that.
We are surprised to open the old Soviet files on the decision making processes of the Communist dictators. What is surprising is that the notion that there was one person in charge and there was a detailed long term plan turns out to be false. Just like in the West there were competing interests and difficult compromises to be made.
There is no difference now with Iran. The internal issues are challenging for them and they may not have a long term plan that is holding up to the changing world. All we can do is monitor their behavior, establish our objectives vis-à-vis Iran and let them know what we will tolerate. Of course we have to be able to “correct their behavior” as needed. Perhaps that is the problem, we can pick fights but we have not the will to finish them?
bryceman – Thank God for a modern navy with some teeth behind it. I hope that the Brits are reassessing the dismemberment of their once fine fleet. Probably not. Like the rest of the wussified EU, they’ll sit on their hands watching the US and Israel exhaust themselves fighting a war they have as much or more at stake in. Their dhimmitude will be coming long before mine, if ever.
Jose – for heaven’s sake, grow up.
The British were not terrorists; they were not caught carrying out terrorist actions; they were not carrying out a military action; they were carrying out a UN sanctioned – I’ll repeat that for your edification – a UN sanctioned duty of checking, in Iraqi waters, for illegal shipping.
The Iranian show of them on TV was propaganda. Again, I’ll repeat that for you; it was propaganda – which you swallowed hook, line and sinker.
As has been pointed out – as far as treating prisoners well – try to remember Kazemi; she was snatched by them for taking photographs and beaten to death in their care. OK? How’s that for ‘treating people well’.
Go to hrw.org, the human rights watch, on ‘Torture, Detention and the crushing of dissent in Iran’ for details on exactly what goes on with Iranian prisoners. Since Ahmadinejad’s era, independent newspapers and voices have been almost destroyed, arrests of journalists, writers, dissidents – with routine violation of human rights, torture, solitary confinement, etc.
Grow up and don’t wallow in propaganda.
All is right with the world as long as Ahmadinejad continues to buy his jackets and suits from Walmart.
680news in Toronto is reporting that the British sailors spent weeks detained by Iran:
http://www.680news.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20070405_072345_4936
13 days isn’t weeks.
“Iran – What Were They Up To?”
Defending their territory from yet another illegal incursion by British forces.
Oh, you read in the mainstream media that the British weren’t in Iran?
Since when do we as conservatives believe, without a shred of doubt, what we read in the MSM?
Oh, Tony Blair says they weren’t in Iran?
Since when do we as conservatives believe a word Labour PM Tony Blair says?
Prior to this event Britain had established a documented pattern of violating Iran’s borders. It’s not the first time this has happened. The last time it happened Britain admitted they crossed the border too.
Fifteen solidiers cheerfully admit that they crossed the border; nobody believes for a second they were tortured into doing so.
And then there is the Gulf of Tonkin.
The preponderance of evidence is on the side of the Iranians. I feel sorry for the low-wattage warmongers who are unable to accept this, though their conspiracy theories are amusing.
“Real Conservative”, re, your 3:52 PM …
“when somebody does you wrong” [like the Iranians did) “and then you forgive them,” [like Blair did] “most reasonable people will see the second party has holding the moral upper hand. The Friends of Israel (FOI), are so desperate for a war with Iran” [whoah nelly! cognitive dissonance, here!] that it is getting in the way of their ability to think straight.” [ayep; got a mirror handy?]
Posted by:
Bob: “Oh, you read in the mainstream media that the British weren’t in Iran? Since when do we as conservatives believe, without a shred of doubt, what we read in the MSM?”
The Iranians themselves gave coordinates at the outset that showed that the British were not in Iranian waters, then realized their mistake and changed them. The whole thing was manufactured by the Iranians.
Bryceman.
It’s called saber rattling. Nothing more.
What’s interesting is, as the post points out, that makes three carrier battle-groups in the same area. As far as I can tell, such a concentration of US naval power hasn’t happened since WWII
During Desert Storm, the US had 6 CVs in the area – 2 in the Gulf itself, 2 in the Northern Indian Ocean and 2 in the Red Sea.
During the early part of the Afghan campaign (ie before there were major air bases in Afstan) there were 3 CVs operating off of Pakistan.
About a year or so the USM surged 4 CVs to Westpac as part of an exercise to game a response to an invasion of Taiwan.
The USN has ended the practice of spreading out the CVBGs all over the globe – instead they have a few on an action station and the rest ready to surge to whereever they are needed. Showing the flag and exacuating embassies can best be done by SAGs or PhibRons.
CV = Aircraft Carrier
CVBG = Aircraft Carrier Battle Group (ie the carrier plus 3 to 6 surface ships for escort)
SAG = Surface Action Group
PhibRon = Ambhibious Squadron – 3 or so ships landing ships + escorts with a battalion of Marines on baord – lots of choppers and a few Harriers.
Bob and Jose,
**Since when do we as conservatives believe ** you boys could have a clue?
Any rock solid links? A little quality please.
Hot air is not enough =TG
I like the last holdout angle…
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-sailors_050407_0900,00.html
Anyone catch former ambassador Taylor on the O’Reilly Factor?
I was both shocked and dismayed at his apparent warmth for the Iranian’s – especially after his role in the embassy hostage taking of thirty years ago.
He defended the Iranian gov’t as an ‘elected democracy’and when O’Reilly caught him out, he said “well sure, some parties weren’t able to run…”.
A Liberal through and through.
Rattfuc:Bryceman It’s called saber rattling. Nothing more.
Maybe. But, that’s one hell of an expensive exercise in brinksmanship. I think they could have rattled their sabres (if that’s really all it is) without going to those lengths.
The Cuban Missile Crisis and both Gulf wars didn’t take that high of a concentration of carrier groups.
I actually agree with Ken Taylor’s comments in a sense (in fact I posted a similar comment in the Telegraph a few days ago).
I think the way Blair handled this is brilliant – he turned this situation into an opportunity. The big picture is to get Iran off of it’s nuclear spin, it’s support for terrorists and make it relevant in the world again. These negotiations to free the hostages was the right approach because it has now opened a potential relationship/dialogue with Iran. The US is seen as the big bad guy – Britain may be the way to help drive a nuclear disarmament plan with timelines and incentives, etc. (with support from Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). You still need the big stick which is what the US provides just in case Iran really won’t comply.
(It is analogous to the 6 party talks with North Korea – and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. NK is supposed to shutdown it’s reactor on April 14 and allow in inspectors – this is an important first step – somehow the US managed to get China to step up and become the main conduit for communications – and so far the plan for North Korea is working.)
Still wondering if the western media would comply with Iran’s ploy to propagandize “Iran the Good” ?? See Kate’s post today, “Its not what they put in”.