I think I’ve mentioned it before but I was a paperboy during the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981. Every day the cover of the Trenton Times had a box that tallied the days since our hostages had been taken captive. I didn’t know anything about the history between our countries. I didn’t know about the CIA coup in 1953. But I did not like the fact that the Iranians were holding Americans hostage, burning American flags, and calling us The Great Satan. I developed an intense dislike for Iran and for Iranians.
As I grew up, I learned about the history and the underpinnings of the Iranian Revolution. I also met and became friends with people that had fled the revolution. I began to develop a much more nuanced view.
As I watch clips of the British hostages I feel some of those same raw emotions I felt as an eleven year-old paper boy. And, it occurs to me that the Iranians do not really understand the kind of emotions they are conjuring up in a lot of Americans, not to mention Brits. Most people haven’t studied the history of U.S.-Iran relations or befriended Iranian ex-patriots. I don’t think most people have ever really learned about the legitimate grievances of Iranians toward our country. Some Americans that are very educated about U.S.-Iran history, but who haven’t spent time with ex-pats, have an overly sanguine view about Iranian actions and intentions…in my opinion.
It’s a very mixed picture that is greatly complicated by the chaos in Iraq. But Iran is making a very grave error by holding hostages. I can’t think of anything better designed to arouse feelings of anger and intolerance in Americans (at least, those Americans that lived through the hostage crisis). I think it is a visceral thing. I know I have a visceral reaction. I can step back from it and take a bird’s-eye view of my emotions. I suspect most people cannot.
This could easily lead to war. And I honestly cannot see how Britain and America can fight a war with Iran without it becoming a total war, with drafts and WMD’s and a takeover of the oil fields.
Iran is playing with fire. I hope they release these hostages very soon.
I don’t share that visceral reaction. It is not clear who breached what, but the Iranians have a right to security, and those security concerns are particularly heightened in the middle of this half-cocked Anglo-American adventure of “region building.” Iranians and Saudis both appear to want to avoid total chaos, with the Saudis signaling a lack of confidence in Bush.
I guess part of my point is that this will not do much for their security. I’m glad you don’t have a visceral reaction though.
practically breaking out in hives from the entire mess; any escalation with Iran is, of course, extremely troubling, but not simply because “Iran took hostages.” It could just as easily be due to the fact that the UK breached Iran’s territorial waters with no good intentions. To what extent should Tehran allow such breaches just to avoid confrontation? Destabilizing incursions by the MEK in the southwest, possibly special forces, as well. It’s a no-win situation for them. US-UK blatant aggression in the ME has counter-conditioned my response to this latest incident.
Me too. That’s what I mean by the distinction between my visceral reaction and my actual complete reaction.
It didn’t have to be a “no win situation”. Even if the Brits were in Iranian waters they could simply have been picked up, questioned, Iran could have said wtf to Blaire and then they could have been kicked out of the country two days later. Nobody would have said shit. Instead the Iranian government has chosen to antagonise the brits (and by extension Englands allies).
This behaviour is flat-out bat-shit crazy imo. It strikes me as a test. They want to see what they can get away with. If it is indeed a test then I have no reason to believe that the Brits were in Iranian waters at all. Not that it makes any difference to me at this point.
that if the Brits admit being in Iranian waters (and adequately explain why), then the soldiers go home, which is not unreasonable if they were in Iranian waters. Last I heard, the Brits were hesitant to prove it one way or the other, but said they could and would if the situation didn’t improve. Why not just come out and prove it immediately?
Since there is no fomally agree boundary between Iran and Iraq at that location then all this talk about “Iranian” or “Iraqi” waters is nonsense. The area is disputed.
Suppose a bunch of armed Iranian military personnel had entered the disputed waters around the Channel Islands (only recently settled with France) – what would the UK do?
Why arent’ the Iranian diplomats that have been held by the US illegally labelled as “hostages”?
Do you think the public would stand for a draft, given the utterly discredited and unpopular administration?
I don’t know about that. And how long would it take to mobilize an army, essentially from scratch (if you’re talking conscripts)? Can the military we have take on the insurgency and hot war with Iran at the same time?
I gotta quibble with your “hostage” language. like you pointed out in an earlier post (i think it was you, I apologize if i’m wrong), bush and blair’s record puts me in a position where I can’t just assume that the British weren’t in their waters. I simply do not know. If you know something I don’t please correct me.
If Iran’s account is accurate, I don’t see how members of Britain’s military detained for intruding on the territorial waters of an unfriendly sovereign nation can be compared to the Iranian hostage crisis. It’s apples and oranges. If we caught the north korean navy buzzing the california coast, would their detention constitute taking hostages?
I do think Iran is playing with fire however, and i also hope the sailors and marines are freed soon. The consequences of a hot war are pretty horrible to fathom.
they are treating them like hostages with their staged confessions (probably at gunpoint). I don’t know any more than you do.
thing, and could lead to escalation, but it remains acute, localized, and reversible at the moment. What do you make of the “illegitimate occupation” statement by the Saudis? That seems to indicate a relatively seismic and potentially chronic change (for the worse).
“they are treating them like hostages with their staged confessions (probably at gunpoint).”
Not to quibble, but that doesn’t make them hostages. And, sad to say, we can’t point fingers agt the Iranians for staged confessions and parading prisoner before cameras. not anymore.
Yup. Any pretense by Americans of taking the high road in that regard is dead and buried.
The last time the Iranians took hostages, it signaled the beginning of the Reagan conservative revolution, maybe because the Democrats under Carter did not know how to look macho although they did know the value of life. Maybe this time is a mirror image of that former time and will lead to the liberal revolution. But then again??????????
i was in high school during the crisis….wasnt it the same time as 3 mile island? i seem to remember them overlapping as things i was worried about………i went to kansas city for the national ffa convention and we were locked down in the arena with jimmy carter for 8 hours because there were iranian protestors outside…..when i got to college i was very good friends with lots of iranian students….i learned to cook many persian dishes and its still my favorite food….persian new year just passed and im still celebrating…i got my fish today….im having dinner with my ex husband at the persian grille this weekend for his 50th bday….he also loves persian food and culture and he speaks some farsi….i hate that we have this crappy relationship with iran.
I don’t think it would require a draft or WMD. A massive bombing campaign followed by a short sweep across Iran on their way out of Iraq in order to help fortify the Afghan border with Pakistan. The country would be a mess after but it would no longer be in a position to build a nuclear weapon, no longer have a navy, no longer have a medium range missile system and would have too many of its own problems to fund outside terrorist groups or meddle in Iraq and Lebanon.
Yeah, the price of oil would skyrocket but that would make a lot of powerfull people in the west happy.
The Iranians have played right into the neo-cons hands.
Frankly, I find their behaviour in this completely bizarre and it has convinced me that there IS absolutely no way that a country that exhibits such behaviour can be allowed to have Nuclear weapons. I too remember the first hostage crisis and I would have hoped that Iran would have matured since then. Apparently not.
Yup folks, because of this incident I now think the neo-cons are right about Iran and I was wrong.
They are playing with fire indeed!
Top three Iran stories as they appeared in my browser. The headlines pretty much say it all:
Iran shows video of captured British soldiers – Chicago Tribune – 1 hour ago
Iran limits cooperation with atomic watchdog – Daily Times – 4 hours ago
Why Iran matters to oil markets – CNNMoney.com – 8 hours
That’s what happens when you rely on headlines as a source of information.
Iran’s limit to IAEA cooperation was a reference to the extra cooperation Iran was providing over and above what it is legally obligated to provide.
Specifically, Iran will no longer advise the IAEA ahead of time if it plans to build additional nuclear facilities – but it was never required to do so anyway (nor does Iran plan to build any new facilities anytime soon)
The Brits were taken in waters that are disputed. There is no formal boundary so all this talk about “Iraqi territorial waters” is nonsense.
The problem with this theory is that Iran is more than capable of destroying our naval assets in a matter of minutes. The sophistication of their Russian and Chinese made anti-ship missiles (and, for that matter, anti-aircraft missiles) doesn’t get nearly as much play in the media as it should. The technology they have arrayed against us in the Gulf is twenty years ahead of our countermeasures.
Maybe the Iranians just want us to release the hostages we are holding. Or maybe they’ve made the calculation that the US Congress is too weak to keep Bush from attacking Iran, and they’re gambling that a little provocation will be enough to push our impetuous president into playing a losing game on their timetable. It’s been widely noted that we do not have the resources to actually invade Iran. Iran, on the other hand, is more than capable of invading Iraq, and if the Americans fire the first shot, they have the excuse that they need.
It’s actually a classic American tactic — think about the outbreak of the 1847 Mexican War, the resupply mission to Ft. Sumter in 1861, the Gulf of Tonkin incident: park a bunch of forces in or near disputed territory and wait for the other guy to start a fight.
I can’t believe the hysteria in this thread. The Iranians are behaving perfectly rationally. This is called tit-for-tat. No one here has mentioned this:
The Hostage Game
The Iranians said that they would respond to their diplomats being held illegally by the Americans, and now they have.
And it is jingoistic and incendiary to call the British sailors being held “hostages”. If people are held against their will by private individuals, those people are hostages. But if they are held by the state, they are prisoners. To call the British sailors “hostages” is to imply that the Iranian government is illegitimate, and thus to adopt the world view of AIPAC and the neocons.
And I wouldn’t be too worried about this provoking an American attack, unless the media beats the public into a frenzy, something they would have an uphill battle doing. It is Brits, not Americans being held, and Americans don’t really care about Brits, even if they are our allies, or anyone else, for that matter. The Iranians were smart to capture Brits and not Americans.
At this point, Iran is probably the most advanced Islamic nation. It probably would have shed a good part of its fundamentalism long ago if it wasn’t for U.S. belligerence toward it. The way in which Europe has continued to go along with the U.S. in demonizing Iraq has saddened me.
I agree with you Alexander in that the Iranians are not being irrational nor spur of the moment here. It is an almost standard escelation tactic. And while I’m not sure if it was the smartest decision on there part, I can definately see that it was a thought-out decision. That being said, I always hate to see such political games being played with people as pawns (though that is truely what happens most of the time). I found a good timeline of events and an alternative view presented by an Iranian newspaper editor. Both are found in my blog Alter Thinking
Thanks for the link to your blog with its helpful timeline. You say, “I always hate to see such political games being played with people as pawns.” I agree, but I can’t get too worked up about this, for the following reasons:
The British version
Note, the Iranian’s seems to have changed their version about where the Brits were apprehended after the British pointed out to the Iranian’s that their first positioning of the Brits was within Iraqi waters.
The British version seems to be corroborated by the Indian captain of the vessel that was boarded.
According to both Iraqi sources and the Indian captain the GPS position shown on the map was indeed correct.
The display of the British soldiers on television is very much akin to how Saddam Hussein displayed captured soldiers in the first gulf war and how terrorist groups display their “trophies” as a kind of political statement.
Since the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq is illegal, Iranian forces have as much right to operate in Iraq as do British or American forces. So the question of whether the British sailors were captured in Iranian or Iraqi waters is moot.
I guess that when push comes to shove, even participants in the progressive blogosphere are imperialistic nationalists. May God help us all.
The Iranaians think the world will notice that Iraq is on their border and not Britains border. It will be a miracle if we do not go to war with these guys. We have 200,000 troops on their border and carrier groups off their coast. We are the ones playing with fire but we do it at their house.
Arminijad and Bush are talking with God now so stay tuned. Bush always gets good advice from God…Invade Iraq…torture…possess cocaine…steal elections…drink liquor…fire attorneys…call Rove “turd blossom”…blow up frogs with firecrackers…cut taxes and raise military spending…raise a mercenary army…hire Rumsfeld…make Cheney VP…put FEMA under DHS…not necessarily in that order and not complete by a long shot.
The Iranaians think the world will notice that Iraq is on their border and not Britains border.
It’s interesting how no one’s questioning why there are British warships in the Persian Gulf to begin with. Last I heard, the British Empire was a thing of the past. But evidently, Tony Blair didn’t learn that little bit of history when he was in school.
I guess that when push comes to shove, even participants in the progressive blogosphere are imperialistic nationalists.
Would care to elaborate?
That map is worthless for this discussion: that border shown on it in dispute. As far as I can tell, both Iran and Iraq claim that that area is their territory.
Worthless or not, at least it gives you a general idea of the dispute. If most of this area is disputed then that shows more than anything that that you cannot going about taking hostages in such an area will only exacerbate the dispute and make conditions even worse. The area is after all not acknowledged as their area.
What do you do if you see forces not your own boarding ships in your (in your view) territory?
Well, that is the key words: in their view. The Brits are allowed to patrol these waters by the de facto Iraqi government. The issue at hand was a ship full contraband and the Brits were trying to uphold law and order in accordance with the Iraqi government and a UN mandate. The captain of the ship has himself admitted to the British version.
Just because some of the area is disputed some kind of order have to be upheld. This was a suspected smugglers ship and the Brits boarded the ship, a routine mission I might add, in accordance with the UN mandate they had been given to patrol the area. The thing is that as long as an area is disputed non of the two parties involved have any legitimate claim to the area and in order to uphold order the international community through the UN is the most legitimate authority to do so, don’t you think? Even so, Iran is allowed to inspect, and have indeed done so, vessels of foreign nationality in the area and even Iraqi ships, so this is nothing special.
What prompted the Iranians to take the Brits hostage at this moment in time is for anyone to speculate on, but I have a strong feeling it has something to do with the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program. British soldiers have been taken hostage before in 2004 and that might be the very reason why they decided to take Brits instead of Americans, because it didn’t escalate into an armed conflict at the time. You would assume that Iran was just as much interested in apprehending contraband as the Iraqis, so why then take action against a patrolling unit on a routine mission apprehending a non-Iranian vessel in disputed waters? unless of course the contraband was bound for Iran.
Still nothing can justify taking hostages no matter whom people sympathize with, period.
Armed military personnel who cross into another country’s claimed territory and are detained have not been taken “hostage” – you can repeat the “hostage” claim all you want but the fact remains that it is the IRANIAN DIPLOMATS WHO HAVE BEEN TAKEN HOSTAGE by the US.
Well, it seems that the Iranian government have got a habit of taking hostages when they don’t get what they want. I’d say my definition is more in accordance with the general understanding of the concept of hostage taking than yours, but be that as it may, I think we have reached the end of this discussion. 🙂
Don’t get high and mighty. It wasn’t so long ago that Europeans were murdering each other bunches at a time, remember?
Well, I don’t see the relevance to the current topic, but yes Europeans have their share of nastiness.
And see Bernhard’s post on MOA, where he goes to the trouble of working out where the forces were.
Maybe you shouldn’t board vessels in disputed areas to avoid exactly this sort of problem with the neighbours?
I’d say this is as speculative as the you claim the British version is so, I guess when debating it all boils down to who you sympathize with and are more inclined to believe.
I don’t believe either of them. You seem to assume the British version is correct.
Well, whether the British are correct or not the there are no justification for taking soldier of a foreign country hostage when they are patrolling in disputed waters, taking into account the fact that GB and Iran are not at war with each other.
If the waters are disputed then foreign soldiers have no business being there and SHOULD be detained.
No, they are there on a UN mandate and working for the Iraqi government so they have a business being there.
The UN mandate does not extent to Iranian territory. Sorry, try again.
Well, maybe I have to repeat myself once more. The Brits were not within Iranian territorial waters it is a disputed area and according to the Brits they were well within Iraqi territorial waters. You can not enforce your sovereignty in areas were you don’t have any legal jurisdiction.
The Iranians say it is their waters, and until the matter is resolved between Iraq and Iran, the Brits have absolutely no say in the matter.
No, not in resolving the issue at hand, that can only be done in negotiations between Iran and Ira, but the Brits are there on a UN mandate sanctioned by one of the two disputing parties so blame the UN and the Iraqi government for their presence.
Concerning the issue of the 15 British hostages, which now has become the primary issue, the Brits have very much a say in the matter. And for your information the British have no interest and never have expressed any interest in going into this bilateral dispute between Iran and Iraq because, surprise, it is not their territory they are there on request by the Iraqi government.
PS. And yes, in general, I have no problems admitting that I am more inclined to believe the version of a state that has a long democratic tradition and are known to respect basic human rights over a country with a authoritarian regime well known for breaking the most basic human rights, so yes I guess in the end it is a matter of trust.
I don’t really see any of these governments as credible, but my diary was really a response to the video of the captives. And that was a hostage video if I’ve seen one.
That authoritarian regime was installed by a massive revolution that got rid of a dictator who was placed into power by that “democratic” country which has been known to engage in torture and napalming of civilians and supporting nun-raping death squads.
Yes that is true, but it doesn’t make it any better non the less.
NONSENSE! The boundaries have NOT formally agreed upon by the Iraqi or the Iranians. THIS IS A BULLSHIT MAP.
See Amb. Craig Murray’s post
LOL, well argued!
When the boundaries are not set all the more reason not to move in and take hostages, don’t you think?
At what stage would they be allowed act in your view? A landing on their shore? Attacks against their vessels? When would Iraq be allowed act against an Iraqi vessel?
In disputed areas the parties ought to resort to violence only as a last resort and to protect themselves. the best solution with be for third parties to patrol the areas under a UN mandate.
Very nice but in the meantime, there are no UN patrols, and there has been no “resort to violence”.
Well, it depends on what you define as violence, no physical violence, no, but being taken hostage at gun point is certainly a violation of a persons integrity and a mental well being.
Nope as you know very well the UN have no military units, that is why military units from member states have to be used. The Brits were enforcing a UN resolution and thus under a UN mandate.
Are illegal entrants into your country “taken hostage by violence” when they are arrested and detained?
LOL, as I have said before it is a disputed area and not acknowledged as Iranian territory, ask the Iraqis, so let’s leave it at that.
Apparently English isn’t your mother tongue. See, “disputed” means its status is not ‘acknowledged’ by anyone. Each side has their own claim, and each side attempts to enforce its claim. Iran enforced its claim against an foreign presence on its claimed territory.
i think you are showing an agenda. It is not as simple as ‘the border is disputed’. For one thing, Iran gave one set of coordinates and then corrected them when the Brits pointed out that they were within Iraqi waters. They didn’t just declare that those coordinates were in their waters, they changed the coordinated a mile east to reflect that.
So…
Plus, they are certainly treating them like hostages, filming them and making them make coerced statements against their own government.
The only source about “changed coordinates” are the Brits – and you’ll excuse me if I don’t accept their claims automatically.
I’m not defending the cheap charade put on by the Iranians – they’re apparently not as good liars as the Brits and the Americans are.
If these people are hostages, so are the Iranians taken by the Americans. Oh, and the hundreds of people in Gitmo.
No, you are quite observant I have to admit, English is not my mother tongue. Correct, a disputed area means its legal status is not acknowledged and thus you can not enforce your sovereignty in such waters, you must settle the dispute through negotiations before you can do that.
Yes I can tell that English isn’t your mother tongue since you persistently refuse to acknowledg a fact: disputed means each side DOES claim and tries to enforce their law. THAT’S WHY ITS DISPUTED. Get it?
And once negotiations happen and the issue is resolved …. THEN ITS NO LONGER DISPUTED.
What language do you want me to type this in so you get it? LOL!!
Yes, you have finally got it right. And if anyone are going into your territorial waters after they have been acknowledged in a treaty then you are in your right to uphold the sovereignty. That wasn’t to hard was it?
They haven’t been “taken hostage” anymore than any illegal entrant into any other country is “taken hostage” when they are detained.
Iran has detained several fisherman who entered into Iranian waters around three islands in the Persian Gulf that the UAE claims. The fisherman claimed they didn’t know the waters were Iranian (because they were relying on UAE charts, I guess) No one accused Iran of “taking hostages” on that account, because any country has the right to detain people who enter into their territory (or what they claim is their territory.)
Note also the context of repeated media reports of US/Mossad operatives instigating separatist movements along Iran’s borders – giving the Iranians plenty of reason for concern.
Again – why aren’t the Iranian diplomats taken by the US labelled “hostages”?
Well, maybe not if you swallow the Iranian claim that they were in Iranian territorial waters, but that is exactly what is disputed so no matter how you try to figure this one out they had no right apprehending these soldiers because they were, at worst, in disputed territorial waters.
Don’t be intentionally obtuse.
Its not an “Iranian claim” – its a fact. Iran asserts a claim on the waters, and as such is REQUIRED to enforce its laws over the area (asserting sovereignty is required to have a claim)
Well I hear you, but you are wrong. Norway has got a similar dispute going with Russia over territorial waters in the Barents sea for over two decades now and non of the two parties are going about taking hostages, showing a presence with military ships yes but yet in a civilized manner and certainly not taking navy personnel enforcing a UN resolution hostage. Some would label that as straight forward piracy.
Again, you’re being intentionally obtuse. If Norway and Russia have a disputed body of water, and Iranian naval patrols came along and stopped ships in the disputed area, you can be certain that either Norway or Russia would detain the Iranian armed patrol. This would be legal and to be expected. Its not hostage taking. You have an agenda, and it is quite obvious.
Nope, you are wrong, in that disputed area today there are lots of foreign vessels mostly fishing vessels but also military vessels. A UN sanctioned mission would certainly not have been apprehended.
You want to be in denial, go ahead. You’re clearly pushing an agenda and aren’t interested in accuracy or the truth.
The accuracy and the truth are there for everyone to see, but some choose to ignore it and I am not one of those.
Go argue with these fellows:
Discord over gulf borders runs deep
By Kim Murphy and Ramin Mostaghim
The Los Angeles Times
March 30, 2007
Hm, yes that would be an interesting discussion indeed. 🙂
that Brits are lying and provoking. Fall for it if you like.
Ultimately, provocations can always be successful. The art, for the resister of provocation, is to play to a wider audience.
Arguably, Americans will fall for Brit propaganda like good morons, but the real audience is wider, and ultimately more important.
If Bush really does launch his war (and Iran CANNOT prevent that) the question is who will be on which side?
The Iranian goal must be to isolate the USuk. The information here does not indicate how well they are doing that. True, the French have weighed in (cautiously) on the Brit side; the Russians have weighed in strongly anti-Brit, even hinting they might veto a UN Security Council resolution.
And everyone else?
If war is unleashed, USuk will not last long without at least tacit allies.
is wondering if this was some sort of plan between Blair and Bush — definitive action by Britain could shore up approval numbers for Blair’s party in their next elections, and of course the US would have to come to the aid of our closest (only?) ally.
I just started reading the paperback edition of John Dean’s Worse Than Watergate — and I wouldn’t put anything past the crew we’ve got in the executive branch…
The use of the word “hostage” is inappropriate here. Unlike the poor bastards in Guantanamo, these British sailors are being held prisoner in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Whether they actually crossed into Iranian waters — and really, everyone in this confrontation has a strong motive to lie, so who knows? — is another question.
If the motive of the Iranians is to coerce the US into releasing the Iranian hostages we are holding, then yes, the Brits are hostages. But as of right now, they actually seem to be progressing through the Iranian legal system.
“I honestly cannot see how Britain and America can fight a war with Iran without it becoming a total war, with drafts and WMD’s and a takeover of the oil fields.”
So true, but arent’t the former worth it for the latter?
Get your war on!
Time to start smuggling Iranian fish eggs and crocus stamens while we still can.