The End Game To A Risky Gamble
April 3, 2007 – 1:02 amU.S. Iran Peace Project
ANALYSIS
Iran’s Seizure of British Soldiers: The End Game To A Risky Gamble
Hartford, Connecticut — The conventional wisdom regarding the seizure of 15 British soldiers by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard on the Arvand River two weeks ago, was that Iran would release the troops when it had milked the incident for all it could. Yesterday, President Ahmadinijad called a press conference and suddenly announced the British soldiers would be released as a “gift” in observance of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. Ahmadinijad said that despite the British soldier’s transgression of invading Iranian territorial waters, they would be granted “a pardon.” So what was it that Iran’s ruling clerics hoped to gain from the two-week crisis?
The taking of British soldiers by the Revolutionary Guard instead of Iran’s regular navy indicates that Iran’s leading clerics made a calculated decision to take the British soldiers. By taking British troops in contested waters, Iran sent an unequivocal message that despite being surrounded by 200,000 U.S. and coalition troops in the Persian Gulf region, it will not be intimidated. Neither will threats of use of force, U.N. sanctions and calls for regime change, push Iran to halt its nuclear program. Iran actions are a warning that the seizure of Iranians in Iraq will have consequences.
Brandishing a increasingly aggressive navy, Iran demonstrated its willingness to project power in the Persian Gulf, where where twenty percent of the world’s oil flows. The fact that Iran’s actions set off a temporary spike in oil prices, was a not so subtle reminder that Iran has the power to impact and even disrupt the global economy. Iran’s gambit was also meant to make British, and by extension American military power appear impotent, provided they didn’t overplay their hand by provoking a military response. This projection of Iran’s military prowess in the Gulf waters was particularly aimed at the smaller regional gulf states who rely on the U.S. umbrella of military protection, and have significant Shiia populations that share varying levels of affinity with Iran.
From the standpoint of Iran’s ruling clerics, they are fighting a life and death struggle to maintain their rule. In that context, Iran’s leaders are willing to take calculated risks. With the U.S. on its heels militarily in Iraq, and President Bush being increasingly marginalized at home, the Iranians are seeking to further isolate the U.S. by driving the British out of Iraq and the Gulf. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under tremendous pressure at home to withdraw British troops from Iraq. Iran gambled that the troop seizure would further diminish support in England for continued involvement in the Persian Gulf, and that Blair would not respond militarily to the hostage taking. They may have been right on both accounts. If there is one government that Iranians dislike more than the United States, it is Great Britain. England’s long history of colonial subjugation of Iran and their role in the overthrow of the Mossedegh government in 1953 is still a festering wound in Iran’s collective consciousness.
It is not incidental that the day prior to Iran’s release of British troops, an Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Baghdad some months ago was released and returned to Iran. While President Bush denied the release of the Iranian diplomat is linked to negotiations between Great Britain and Iran, the Iraqi government released a statement that it was also trying to secure the release of five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq in January. The Iraqi government’s statements were further evidence of Iran’s potent influence in Iraq. The U.S. claims the five men were Iranian agents involved in aiding the insurgency in Iraq. Not to be outdone, President Bashir Assad took advantage of the media blitz surrounding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus to suggest the Syrian government also played a role in the release of the British troops.
After all is said and done, the argument over whether the British troops were seized in Iranian waters was of no consequence. An incident of this type was all but inevitable given the tension and dramatic naval buildup in the Persian Gulf. Whether on land or the high seas, the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are pushing the region toward a conflagration, in a what is a rapidly changing “New Middle East.”
********************************************************
The author Webster Brooks is the Editor of usiranpeace.com. website. The site supports the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran. Brooks can be contacted at 860.778.0002
6 Responses to “The End Game To A Risky Gamble”
An Iranian water craft that is little more than a common row boat, and a “Navy”, if you want to call it that, is hardly worth charcterizing as a “…[projection of] power in the Persian Gulf…” Iranian naval threats and harrasment in the Persian Gulf is not new to the U.S. Navy.
What is new, is that Britan and the “Royal” British Navy, have become impotent. This is consistent with their Eurabian cousins; western europe has all but publicly surrendered to Muslim agression. There’s no England now. Its what the KINKS called “Living on a thin line.”
http://deadmessenger.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/msg-jan-1-2007-living-on-a-thing-line/
They’ve become a union of cowards. They’re afraid to teach their children to defend themselves as they did during the crusades. Its true, Enlish schools are omitting historical texts that refer to european opposition and wars agains Muslim invaders so they’ll be more acceptable to their growing militan Muslim populations. They’ve become so secular and “civilized” they don’t even remember their own history and the threats their ancestors overcame to establish their “world.”
Michael Savage suggested the other day that the Britan of old would not have allowed their marines to be taken without a fight. And, they should have responded to such a provocation with the destuction of one Iranian naval vesel for each day the hostage Royal Navy Marines remained imprisioned.
That little Iranian Hitler is a piece of garbage. And, as former speaker Gingrich suggests, we should go into Iran with a clandistine special force operation and destroy their one and only gas refinery. Let’m sit in the dark and walk while they contemplate their power in the region!
As for “speaker” Pelosi. What a disgusting spectacle; a San Francisco liberal who thinks she is qualified to conduct American Foreign Policy. SHE, is going to teach “W” a lesson!? Right! It should be noted how visable Rep. Keith Ellison is in her entourage. Remeber what I said about Britan? Watch out America!
http://deadmessenger.wordpress.com/2006/11/22/msg-nov-21-2006-here-they-come/
I expect we’ll soon see legislation proposed by her that requires all women to wear bukas when in public. I’m certain she’ll be sporting the most fashionable fabric and style available.
Here is what Brigett Gabriel had to say about it today on the Glen Beck program:
Glenn: After preaching radical reform and the birth of a new era, the democratically controlled congress is, as I see it, but I’m a conservative, done nothing but bush bash and I place the blame squarely on the leaders of the leader, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi. Nancy, quite honestly, and I think I speak for most of America, we’re bored with the bush bash thing. It’s one thing to be ineffective here at home, but then again it’s another to take your show on the road like Nancy is now doing on her trip to Syria, trying to broker a new peace talk between Syrian president Assad and the leaders of Israel. Nancy, in case you have forgotten, Syria declared a rogue terrorist state, a little honor they have held since 1979, maybe you should start reading the paper and maybe you would have seen the little story about how the ultraconservative United Nations implicated Syria in the assassination of Lebanon’s president. Now here’s a clip of what Nancy thinks she’s doing over there.
“Of course, the role of Syria and Iraq, the role of Syria of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, the role of Syria and so many respects that we think there could be a vast improvement so, therefore, we think it’s a good idea to establish the facts to hopefully build some confidence between us. We have no illusions, but we have great hope.”
Glenn: Yeah. President Bush sees her mission just a little differently. Roll this out.
“A photo opportunity and/or meetings with president Assad lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror.”
Glenn: Okay. Is she a peace-maker, is she a trouble-maker? Brigitte Gabriel, the president of American Congress for Truth, author of “BECAUSE THEY HATE” A Survivors of Islamic Terror Warns America. See — I’m a conservative who is not going to come out and say the democrats hate America because I don’t think they do. How could she be this wrong? How do you possibly see Assad as anything as somebody who harbors terrorists?
Brigitte: Well, let’s just say, Glenn, she’s misguided. I’m sure she’s a patriotic American and loves this country but she sees things differently than you and I do. She does not understand the Middle East and has no concept. If she did, she would not be parading down the streets of Damascus in a hijab.
Glenn: What is she missing? What do you know that she doesn’t know?
Brigitte: She needs to realize Syria has no interest in negotiating with the United States. Syria is using Nancy Pelosi as a puppet and a photo-op to give Syria credibility on the world stage, so Syria is not looked at as a dictatorship or as an axis of evil or as a terror-harboring state but as a state that the Speaker of the House of the United States goes and visit and gives them credibility and say, you know, we agree with you. We want to negotiate with you. We do not think our president is right in judging you, and, therefore, we’re going above our president to give you credibility and to show you and the world that we are representing the American government and we think that you are okay. That is wrong.
Glenn: All right. Brigitte, I know there are a ton of people in America who say I’m so sick of the Middle East. They can just open up and fall into a sinkhole because they have been fighting for 2,500 years, if not longer. Just shut up already. Why don’t you just let them fight it out themselves. How do you respond to that?
Brigitte: You know what, if we knew they can fight it on themselves and just let the world forget about them, we would. We would gladly let them fight it out themselves, sadly, Glenn, we have Israel as the only democratic country in the Middle East, the only civilized nation in the Middle East that is like the United States that is in the middle of a sea of hatred and venom that the Arabs are spewing to wipe her off the map. We also have a problem with the Middle East because now we are dependent on their oil. They are affecting us. They are imigrating to our country. They are infiltrating our country. They are studying in our universities. The world has become very small, and we can no longer ignore the fact that our enemies have repeatedly stated that had they want to destroy the great Satan, America. Let’s not forget that Iran made that statement back in 1979.
Glenn: Yeah.
Brigitte: They have not wavered. We are the bull’s eye. Israel is only the little Satan.
Glenn: It’s amazing to me that this really has been a week of propaganda.
Brigitte: It is.
Glenn: It’s — they are rolling 300s, strike after strike this week. You have Nancy Pelosi, Tony Blair folding, Ahmadinejad. What is the view of the west this week in the Middle East?
Brigitte: The view of the West in the Middle East this week is that we are cowards, that we are weak. We no longer have men with courage to fight and stand up for their principles. The Arab leaders have been giving that message to their population year after year after year. This has started systematically for 20 years. However, this week we have proven to the Arab world, to the Arabic dictators who show to their people using their television and media, that, look, the West is cowhering one after the other. Britain is no longer the power it used to be. America is no longer the power it used to be. The West is divided.
Glenn: You’ve got it. Thank you very much.
Brigitte: Thank you.
By DeadMessenger on Apr 5, 2007
Tomorrows headline: “Speaker Pelosi Asks Imam to Lead House Prayer; Members required to kneal toward Mecca!”
By DeadMessenger on Apr 5, 2007
I’m really confused about the uproar regarding Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. Her appearance in Syria sends mixed signals about U.S. policy? Republican Congressmen Darrell Issa and David Hobson are there now without any scorn from the White House. Condi Rice has been all over the region and that was ok.
How about the mixed signal sent by Bush’s father, Rumsfeld and Cheney supporting Saddam with weapons and money in the 80s and than 2 decades later, having him hung for, in part, possesing and using said weapons and money doing exactly what we set out for him to do?
By Joshua Rosenstock on Apr 5, 2007
JR, Issa and Hobson don’t belong there either. However, they aren’t The Speaker; 3rd in-line of Presidential Authority.
Damn right she’s sending the wrong signals. She’s ligitimizing the dictator of Damacus’ political and media propaganda. They’re sponsors of terrorisim and enemies of democracy/freedom. Not to mention, a puppet and proxy regime of the ignorant Iranian Imams.
Her actions are contrary to the wishes of The Commander and Chief. They underscore the U.S. division on the way forward in Iraq, and emboldens our enemy to keep fighting us. I have no problem with having a debate here at home and elections in the future, but the deliberate attempt to disgrace OUR President is a disgusting spectacle to me. Its a cheap political shot of the worst kind.
Condolezza Rice is the Secretary of State, and has a legitimate role and authority to visit Damascus, at the pleasure of the President; not Pelosi and her House Muslim and C.A.I.R. lackey Keith Ellison!
We armed Sadam to harass, destablize, and defeat Iran’s Islamic Republic, not become an ignorant menace to the rest of the region. It obviously wasn’t a good policy. But, neither is Speaker Pelosi going to negotiate with Syrian murderers.
If former President Carter hadn’t been such a pacifist and appeaser when the Islamic Republic Of Iran captured our Embassy and held our countrymen hostage we might not have had a Butcher of Bagdahd and the Iranian Hitler, Amadufusjad, we suffer today!
By DeadMessenger on Apr 5, 2007
“Peace in our time!”
Sounds familiar….NO?
The other guy was British also.
By DAD on Apr 6, 2007
“…1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: “Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it….”
wsj.com
Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908
By DeadMessenger on Apr 7, 2007