How do we deal with our conflicting feelings about Iran’s release of the 15
illegally captured British sailors and marines? The first thing, surely, is
to acknowledge that conflicting feelings are perhaps the only legitimate
thing to have. As an Englishman who has been settled in America for some
time let me vent my first response: this was a national humiliation.
You could see it on Tony Blair’s face: his recognition that he had been bested
in global public relations by a psychopathic religious fanatic, and had been
forced into what was at best a stand-off with an unscrupulous thug who is
busy trying to help kill British soldiers in Iraq.
The captives — subjected to physical threats — had little choice but to
cooperate minimally with their captors. We could all have done without the
Eurovision boy-band outfits the mullahs creepily put on them for show, but I
don’t feel of a mood to condemn sailors and marines held captive by the
Revolutionary Guards of an unstable theocracy.
The question of why or how such painfully young, insufficiently armed recruits
were deemed suitable for the front line in a global war remains in the air.
The Royal Navy will have to answer a lot of questions in due course. But
this was surely not its finest hour. What Nelson would have said at such a
spectacle of incompetence followed by submission is unprintable in these
pages.
And yet I was also intensely relieved to see the stand-off resolved and the
young hostages delivered home. Who in their right minds wouldn’t be? Their
press conference underlined this relief. There’s always a lot of rhetoric,
especially in America, about supporting the troops. But sometimes, that
means understanding them as human beings and not merely as pawns.
According to them, they were subjected to blindfolding, mock executions,
stripped and told they were in line for up to seven years in an Iranian
jail. I don’t know what I’d do in those circumstances. And yes, a lone boat
of lightly armed sailors deciding to precipitate a full-scale war between
the West and Iran might not have seemed the best idea at the time. In my
book, they get a pass.
But do the Blair government and Bush administration? One is naturally
sceptical of the assertion that the release was accomplished, in Blair’s
words, “without any deal, without any negotiation, without any
side-agreement of any nature whatsoever”. But there is no obvious quid pro
quo staring us in the face.
Iran’s state-controlled media reported that an Iranian diplomat would now have
access to the five Iranians arrested in Irbil — captives whose whereabouts
bears close scrutiny in the weeks ahead. And an Iranian official, Jalal
Sharafi, also detained in Iraq two months ago, was returned to Tehran last
Tuesday. Hmm. In The Washington Post last Friday the very well connected
neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer bragged that “American action
is what got this unstuck”. Last week, Vice-President Dick Cheney told ABC
News radio that he “did not know” if any deal was made. That is, to say the
least, an interesting nonresponse to the question.
Nonetheless, when Tehran and London both insist there was no deal, it’s going
to be very hard to figure out if there really was one, and we may not know
the full details for years. The impact of the event on the global war on
terror, however, is still being felt and will continue to play out in the
coming weeks. From the American perspective, the response has been, to my
mind, revealing about the state of play at this juncture in the war.
The first thing to say is that most Americans seemed indifferent to the
crisis. By Friday it wasn’t even on the front pages any more. In my own
canvassing of Washington elite opinion, I was struck by how many said they
hadn’t taken enough notice to even form a view. This is a memo to Britain,
in some respects. An authoritative neoconservative used the incident to
berate British weakness and claim American credit for the resolution. Other
Bush allies harrumphed at the alleged pusillanimity of their closest ally.
The rest barely noticed.
But there was another response as well. Americans in the centre of the debate
about the war — those neither in the deadend Cheney-Bush camp nor in the
antiwar extreme — saw something new in this incident. They saw actual,
sophisticated, calm diplomacy. I don’t think anyone has any illusions about
the nature of the regime in Tehran — it is a despicable, inhuman theocracy.
But many Americans outside the Bush inner circle also grasp one other
central fact: the Iraq debacle has profoundly weakened the leverage the
United States has against Iran.
If this incident had escalated to a casus belli — and seizure of another
country’s military personnel is a classic departure point for hostilities if
ever there was one — then the United States, to put it bluntly, is not ready
for conflict.
It is not at all clear whether bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would
actually do real damage to the nuclear potential of the country or whether
it wouldn’t actually strengthen the elements of the Tehran regime we need to
weaken. Moreover, if Tehran decided to ally with Shi’ite militias in waging
war on American forces in Iraq, then Bush’s entire surge strategy would be
swiftly overwhelmed by new, chaotic, sectarian violence.
It’s also not clear what would happen to the American body politic if the
United States had used this moment to launch an attack on Iran. My bet is
that the country would hurtle towards a constitutional crisis, with Congress
coming close to a veto-proof majority against a commander-in-chief at a time
of war. The damage this would do to America internally and in the world at
large would be immense.
No sane person in the White House — and one hopes there are a few left — would
take such a gamble. The plain, unfortunate truth is, then, that in this
moment in time, the West had no real choice but to deal and put the best
possible face on it. That goes for Washington as much as London. That’s how
boxed in we are — a box of Bush’s making.
The other hideous truth is that the United States could not aggressively
invoke the Geneva conventions in this affair. The treatment of the British
sailors and marines was a profound violation of Geneva: they were threatened
with mock executions, paraded in front of the media and subjected to
personal indignity. All of these acts violate the Geneva conventions.
But the United States itself has done far worse in the war on terror, even in
those areas of conflict, such as Iraq, where not even Donald Rumsfeld said
Geneva did not apply. There is a memo with the president’s signature on it
relaxing adherence to Geneva — and one he refuses to revoke. The incident
revealed, with painful clarity, how severe the damage that Bush’s detainee
policy has done to the long-term war of ideas against Islamism.
And so an obvious lesson emerges: that military force against Iran is not a
viable option for the foreseeable future, and that, at some point, some
diplomatic attempt to deal with Tehran on a limited agenda may well be
necessary. If Iraq had not been bungled, none of this would be the case. In
fact, the entire rationale for democratising and liberating Iraq was to
undermine the real threat, Iran. Instead, the reverse has happened: failure
in Iraq has made Iran immensely stronger and even, thanks to Bush’s
detention policies, nonplan for the occupation and awful public relations,
robbed the West of the moral high ground.
To any patriot, British or American, this is infuriating. To anyone who
loathes Islamist dictatorship, it is demoralising. But it is the hard
reality we now face. And the low-key, patient diplomacy that Britain showed
last week may have prompted some Americans to think about what the
near-future of this war will have to look like.
It’s Easter, and one wants to hope for something better — but that’s as silver
a lining as you’re likely to get for the time being.
www.andrewsullivan.com
Simon Jenkins is away
I am now at a loss what constitutes a dictatorship, I was under the impression that it was when power was userpt, Whatever one thinks of the Iranian leadership they where elected by the people of Iran in a fair vote. Unlike some leaders in the west who had to rely on their friends in the Judisciary. The artical above conveniently omits the fact that the British navy where using out of date maps of the area, Has for mad men and fanatics you need look no further than Bush and Blair. God told them what to do.
waine UK, st helens, UK
I am quite young and i do not really understand politics and things like that. i think that Bush is an idiot (sorry americans) and he bullys Tony Blair into doing what he wants. America is losing the war and we should have nothing to do with it. also what Iran did to us is out of order.
Dan, Lincoln, England
The Iranian government senses that this is their moment because it feels confident that public opinion in the west is so low following developments (or the lack of them) in Iraq, that to wage another war in the middle east would be politically suicidal for the US and British governments.The danger for Iran in this approach is to associate present American foreign policy exclusively with the Bush administration. America is the dominant world power and I suspect that a democratic administration would be just as keen on securing US influence in the middle east. A nakedly anti western Iran will always be perceived as a danagerous thing in what is already a volatile area and it simply doesn't make sense to suggest that the US would leave the region (i.e. quit Iraq) without taking care of the Iran issue. It made that mistake at the end of the first Gulf war when it failed to capitalise on its strategic advantage and topple Saddam then.
NC, York, UK
I think Sullivan is overreacting on the whole issue. It is war like situation with Iraq and Iran and such incidents do take place during war. The US has succeeded in its mission Iraq and has successfully got rid of Saddam Hussain. It is the over sensitivity of the western world which is time and again been capitalised by such countries and groups.
rajeev singh, Jaipur, India
I never believed we, i.e., America, should have invaded Iraq, but now that we have done so in the name of the war on terror; I firmly believe we should regroup and focus on the war in Afghanistan. To do this, I would withdraw all of our troops and park one or two divisions in Greater Kurdistan. We would invoke the mandate of the League of Nations; remember that group, first proposed by one of our own, President Wilson that indigenous groups have the right to self-determination. America could declare the Kurds have a right to their land; the Kurds are the only ones that welcome us plus they have half the oil. The Turks would have to accept it and the Syrians could do nothing about it. The Sunnis and Shiates could fight it out for what's left and the rest of our troops could go to Afghanistan and finish the job that NATO troops cannot or will not accomplish.
Robert marsh, soquel, Santa Cruz, Calif., USA
The lesson is simple. When Western democracies fight just wars - both World Wars for instance - they win, because they are truly defending the best ideals, even if their geopolitical interests are also at stake, and because that lets them fight without reservation and hold the high ground morally. When they attack countries which have done nothing to them on shaky grounds or on the basis of outright lies - Vietnam and now Iraq - they loose because they end up facing a guerilla war supported by the population and because being democracies answering to their public opinion, they can't resort to the methods required to quell popular resistance. The utmost irony is that the US and the UK have neglected the one legitimate war they are involved in, the fight against the Talebans and Al-Quaida in Afghanistan, to concentrate on this undefensible campaign against Iraq.
A country can be a democracy concerned with human rights or a dictatorship prepared to murder civilians. Not both.
Yvan Nantel, Montreal, Canada
That is why "failure" is not an option. These are the Allies that defeated Hitler, and this threat is as dangerous as that one!! We(the USA) are the only World Power left and how dare anyone say we "can't" win, if we put ourmind and will to it we can do anything. This Willing participation in defeat is not only extremely dangerous, it is traitorous . Since when has adversity been a problem, Revolutionary War, our own Civil War, and WW2 as examples.
Miranda, Cleveland, OH, USA
I could never understand who benefits from the apparent self destruction of Iraq. However it occurs to me that when the Americans and Brits get fed up of trying to do the right thing and leave the country in the abyss, Iran will surely be there to pick up the spoils of the old Iran Iraq war. Ironic that the West will have defeated its old ally Iraq for the benefit of Iran. Maybe these guys are cleverer than we realised.
MD, Leeds, UK
Since the bottom line is oil reserves, the West's supply interests can be negotiated without the US attacking Iraq's neighbour, too. Iran's desire to take the high ground implies that negotiation on a mutual gain basis (a la Kissinger) would succeed - at least more probably than a regime change. As far as the nuclear program is concerned, it is fundamentally an Israeli issue and one would like to see that State build a diplomatic machine that can conduct dialogue with its neighbours in the ME. A lot of the posturing of the Bush/Blair camp is complete baloney. Both men are proven liars and both countries subverted Iran's democracy in 1953. Let the UK look after its own interests diplomatically and quit the region militarily.
Tony Gold, Bournemouth, UK
Three recent events have occurred to make Iran the leading Middle Eastern power.
- Its number one enemy, the "secular" Baathist regime on its doorstep, was destroyed.
- The Taliban, another group opposed to Iran’s interests was almost wiped out.
- Finally, a naturally friendly Islamic "fundamentalist" Shiite regime was imposed in a nearby state. (Note the term “fundamentalist” as opposed to secular.)
These facts all share two commonalities: they strongly favour Iranian interests and they were initiated by a major Western power. I’ll let historians speculate on why said major Western power would initiate such counterproductive actions as, on the surface, they certainly do not favour Western interests.
Ed Chan, Chelmsford, UK
Claudia,
I agree with James. Although you make an interesting point, Claudia, the fact remains that dabbling in the politics of the Middle-East has only ever resulted in disasterous consequences for the West. Illegal or otherwise, entering into Iraq was a very bad move.
And like him or hate him, Sullivan does make some very valid points, particularly concerning the orientation of America on this fiasco. It's all giggles and back slapping when Blair follows Bush blindly into the fray, but when British servicemen an women get captured, gung-ho Americans are up in arms at the seemingly sanguine British response.
It seems we're operating on two different levels here. However American forces are eyeball deep in the shit-pit and Britain is currently the only life line, so a bit of co-operation seems beneficial.
TeeBone, London,
Claudia,
for a war monger, you seem to sit very snugly in your own borders. Just because you are over enlistment age does not mean you don't have an opportunity to go to Iraq. If you had the guts and the belief you would go, the fact you don't just shows the paper thin values of your argument.
The same goes for all the gung ho people eager to send others to fight, but don't want to get their own hands dirty. The word Hypocrite comes to mind.
Akram, London,
I am amazed that some people think the invasion of Iraq was authorised by the UN. But apparently a good number of Americans think Saddam was responsible for 911. Just shows the power of the big lie.
The British sailors were rather better treated by the Iranians than Muslim prisoners have been treated by both the British and Americans. They were not tortured or detained incommunicado for an indeterminate period in a country thousand of miles from their families.
Who is the civilised country in the treatment of prisoners?
Game, set and match to the Iranians on this one.
Tom, London, UK
Claudia - I agree with you, but only in part. Yes, Islamist fanatics would gladly behead me, if they found me walking around in Afghanistan. What else should I expect? The fundamentalists in charge of that part of the world are nothing more than barbarians. But that doesn't absolve us of our own responsibilities. I don't care if we've never signed a treaty to the effect - we should treat all of our prisoners humanely, including those that were captured out of uniform. That means, among other things, giving them full legal representation if they're charged with a crime. It certainly means not torturing them. We should do this because we're better than the Islamists, regardless of what they do to our prisoners. We are not going to win this struggle by being slightly more moral than a terrorist.
James, Arlington, VA
I think what people are failing to realize is the fighting in the middle east isn't over "ideals" or "freedom" but control over assets (sources of income). We must not allow them to fall into the wrong hands.
Unfortunately Iran made the British military flinch (blink) during this fight.
Kevin, Arlington, Virginia
"Have you enlisted? If not, when do you plan to enlist? "
Well Bradley, I have to be honest, no, I haven't in fact enlisted in Iraq. I'm a little too old to enlist and too young to have children at enlistment age. And, okay, you got me, I have to be totally honest with you. I did not fight in WWII, the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War either! But just because I didn't fight in them, it doesn't mean those wars were illegal too! So let's try to be relevant and stick to one argument at a time please.
Claudia, Atlanta, USA
The comments from our US friends demonstrate the the number one strategic priority for the US government should be to teach its own people basic spelling and common sense. That would be progress in world affairs.
Richard, Nottingham, England
Actually, judging by the incoherent speech of your sailors and marines at the press conference and sending untrained personnel into harms way in rubber dingys with no cover, and the frightfully evident fact that your Navy is not only severely unqualified for military operations, but its leaders are incompetent cowards.....
Seems to me Richard England should take your advice.
M.Paul, Springfield, USA
Two points to be repeated to the brainswashed global left:
1. The Iraq War was not "illegal".
2. The prisoners at Guantamino Bay are not covered under the Geneva Convention,
Claudia, Atlanta, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You make excellent points Claudia. Have you enlisted? If not, when do you plan to enlist? Do you have a son or daughter that you are encouraging to enlist. If you are too scared to fight, have you tried to become a contractor, translator, journalist, blogger, technician or serve in some capacity in Iraq. Have you been to Iraq. Females are serving there, so don't throw the gender card at me!
I totally agree with you hundred percent regarding Iraq. The troops MUST stay there for 5 years, 10 years, 30 years -- no amount of dead British and American troops, nor any amount of dead Iraqi civilians should stop this war until the mission is accomplished.
Bradley, austin, TX
and to Mr.Lahori from pakistan,the invasion of Iraq was NOT illegal,please read before you comment,it was oked by the U.N.
Barry Heath, halifax, Canada
Two points to be repeated to the brainswashed global left:
1. The Iraq War was not "illegal". It was a legal revocation of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War in which Saddam Hussein ILLEGALLY invaded Kuwait. Remember that little war??
2. The prisoners at Guantamino Bay are not covered under the Geneva Convention, as they do not fight for a country under a uniform. They are not "soldiers", they are Islamic terrorists, who if they had seen any of you commentators from say, Sweden or UK , innocently walking around in an Afghan mountain village, would have seized you and made a nice beheading video out of you. Spare me the false sympathy and comparisons. How about instead we take all those Guantanimo prisoners and release them into Stockholm. Would that make you feel better? Let us know where to send them.
Claudia, Atlanta, USA
Sullivan's exercise in revisionist history is astounding: "In fact, the entire rationale for democratising and liberating Iraq was to undermine the real threat, Iran." Most assuredly, the Bush and Blair governments did present Saddam Hussein's regime as a grave threat. The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq was never justified as merely an attempt to contain or subvert the Teheran regime. The spectre of the mushroom cloud was raised in reference to Iraq's stockpiling of aluminum tubes and African uranium to produce weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that would be delivered to terrorist cells for deployment against the United States. The neocon doctrine of pre-emptive war was brandished against Iraq because Iraq itself was portrayed as a menace, not because Iran was "the real threat" that could somehow be neutralised by Iraq's "liberation". Sullivan's distortion of this history is an example of the disarray among conservative thinkers in the face of abject failure in Iraq.
Raymond Hetu, St Albans, England
The United States is a conglomeration of paradoxes and one of them has to be that it accommodates all races and creeds within it’s boundaries but outside them it shows an arbitrary intolerance. What does it matter if Iran is a theocracy? It is their country and they are entitled to their own arrangements. If they wish to change their circumstances they have much the same opportunities to do so as we have. I say much the same, because we don’t have Iran intermeddling in our internal affairs, while Iran does have to put up with Anglo-American interference inhibiting normal processes in their country.
Henry Percy, London, UK
The invasion of Iraq was without doubt illegal. Those who voted for the action in Congress and the House of Commons are war criminals lead by the Bush/Blair partnership. Is the Iranian action any more flagrant a violation of human rights than Guantanimo Bay? The Admiralty must explain why these members of the services were ask to operate in disputed waters without suitable equipment and without adequate air cover. More incompetence from the present government.
Derek K, Ashford , England
What failure in Iraq? US had planned and executed an invasion of sovereign nation, pillaged its wealth, Directly caused a civil-war by sowing seeds of discontent and reprisals on both sides, and is taking the oil from the rightful owners who is too busy killing each other. Sounds to me like a success story for anyone wishing to rob somebody. The same formula of "Mission Accomplished" can be applied in Venezuela, Iran, and Syria.
Sohail Khan, Toronto, ON
I am worried by Eric Laimins' prediction that "the US armed forces will go into Iran" if any American president discovers that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Does this prediction mean that the US has dumped the United Nations - its own brain-child - and has reverted to cowboy justice as the only pragmatic way of dealing with world affairs? Believe it or not, there are friends of America who consider that democracy and the rule of law - the founding principles of the UN - cannot be upheld by dictatorship, which is what Mr. Laimins is actually advocating.
Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England
To Richard of Nottingham:
You are no doubt right about the impotence of the American Military in Iraq.
Therefore,my advice to you and all you American hating Brits is this:
Next time the enemy reaches the channel call on the French to come to your aid If they have not already surrenderer.along with the rest of Europe.
Saladin, Greenwich,
Richard of Nottingham your statement, “The comments from our US friends demonstrate the the number one strategic priority for the US government should be to teach its own people basic spelling and common sense. That would be progress in world affairs.”, should have been written as follows.
The comments from our U.S. friends demonstrate that the number one strategic priority _ ,_ for the U.S. government_,_ should be to teach its own people basic spelling and common sense_;_ that would be progress in world affairs.
I, and a great majority of Americans, have a deep love for England. Lack of reciprocation will not diminish it.
Rex Ireland, Fort Wayne, Indiana, U.S.A
Millions of people in the West actively blame the U.S. for the problems in the Middle East and put GWB on the same level as the theocratic thugs of Iran. I'm not fan of GWB but I dislike irrational thought more. The U.S. has only been a major player in world affairs since WWII. The problems you see in the Middle East are much older than 75 years. And GWB was elected (sort of) and will soon be replaced. Why? Because the U.S. is a liberal representative republic. How does that make him different than the Iranian thug leadership? Words like "liberal representative republic" ought to be a clue. Anyone in the West that enjoys the freedom of speech, expression and the right to participate in their own governance should reject theocratic dictatorships not make excuses for them. Hating GWB is not a good foundation to build a political perspective. A history lesson and some critical thought would be helpful to many here. Till then, Iran Nukes coming to world near you soon. Enjoy blaming GWB.
Kris, Chico, U.S.
According to the CIA and Scott Ritter (interview Antiwar.com, Antiwar Radio, Scott Ritter) there is NO EVIDENCE to support the allegations by the Bush adm. that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. NO EVIDENCE. War for no reason ? That´s sheer madness.
Yours faithfully
Claus-Erik Hamle, Silkeborg, Danmark
Iran is dismissed as a thoecracy even though a higher proportion of the voters in Iran turn out, than in either the US or UK.
repeating ad nauseam that project "Iraqi freedom" was a good idea, is like saying Hitlers invasion of Poland was a good idea, its just the stupid allies who reacted badly.
4 years after neo con ideas have been exposed for the trash they were, the times continues to publish this rubbish.
My question is why are all these people in London lecturing us? If they believe this nonsense why aren't they donning a tin hat in Basra?
Akram, London,
All the jokers of the world who think that Iran is going to use nuclear energy because oil is running out , need to answer two questions or atleast consider them.
How can you conclusively say that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons ? What ever happened to the fact the AQ Khan's smuggling ring was provding Iran with nuclear centrifuges design ? It seems oil has been running out for ever. I have been listening to this crap for the better part of the last 2 decades. How can you prove that there are no more "new" oil reserves - and ofcurse that oil cartel called the OPEC regulates the supply of oil so that it can milk the last buck out of this most precious commodity.
Oh, Iran also wants to sell natural gas to India with pipelines that run thru a nuclear armed, unstable country that also happens to be India's arch enemy. No, wonder they are energy "starved".
Also in display here is that condescending attitude of Europeans for USA. What a bunch of PATHETIC SNOBS!!
NAGA, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Resurrecting Nelson and quoting Krauthammer?
Same old stuff. Don't fall into the trap of painting too much power on Iran, or it won't be long before Bush sends in another "coalition of the willing".
If Britain wants to lead in any arena of foreign dipolmacy, it must divest itself of the stupidity of the American foreign policy that has failed to recognize and attend to the festering boil in the Middle East for decades.
The people of the UK are strong and sturdy enough to tell the truth about the American policies that were designed and implemented by the likes of men named Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Libby. Investigate Elliot Abrams who was pardoned for illegalities by Bush's dear old dad.
Quit being duped. Step away and lead in a more sane direction.
CSE, Tampa,
I hope to God Sidney is pulling our legs. How the hell are we going to "ruthlessly subdue the population" even of Iraq without several times more troops -- and, if we did manage to do it, how the hell could we "ruthlessly subdue" all the rest of the Moslem world after its people were roused to a fury (genuinely righteous, for once) by our widely publicized "ruthlessness" in Iraq? (I suppose Sidney -- given the quality of his thought up to now -- may say that we should just terrorize the other Moslem countries by threatening to drop the Big One on them, but in that case there would be that little problem with Pakistan...)
Bruce Moomaw, Cameron Park, CA, US
If the US and its lackeys can invade Iraq illegally, what is so terrible about Iran trying to influence events there?
The hypocrisy and double standards expressed here are nauseating.
Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, Pakistan
To draw the conclusion that Americas difficulties in Iraq are as a result of being militarily weak is a rather juvenile analysis (Richard). America defeated the Iraqi forces in a matter of days. They could do the same to the Iranian forces in a few weeks. The problem in Iraq is that they're playing the role of liberators - if they went in as conquerors with an iron fist to ruthlessly subdue the population they'd have no problems. Its the same sort of thankless task we had in Northern Ireland. However I'll assume you're just disingenuous rather than thick and don't mind purveying ill contrived arguments to bash the Americans.
Sidney, Winchester, UK
Conspiracy theory. Tony wants to stand 'shoulder to shoulder with the US on the fight against terrorism ...etc' and he's got next year's US lecture circuit to think about so they hatch a plot to justify bombing Iranian nuclear installations. What to do to get the public on your side? Sacrifice Americans? Don't be silly. You sacrifice the British. You drop 15 young sailors in inflatable SAS style boats near to where the Iranian Islamic loony guard are known to be exercising. The Royal Navy mother ship and the attendant helicopter then disappear over the horizon to wait and it works a treat. The young sailors are captured. At first, it seems the Iranians are going to fall for it but rather than put these kids on trial, they suss out what Blair/Bush are up to and make fools of them by a magnanimous Easter release. Spot the April Fools.
ian, bath,
I do not see nor understand how these 15 sailors can complain about how they where treated after all they where much better treated than a Guantanamo Bay POW??
Andereas Svenson, Goteborg, Sweden
Iran has proved that they are not in mood of creating hostility.UK and US both should establish harmonious relation with Iran.
M.L.Sharma, Kathmandu, Nepal
"In fact, the entire rationale for democratising and liberating Iraq was to undermine the real threat, Iran."
And i thought it was about Saddam's WMD arsenal...
ben, henley-on-thames,
The US is declining as a world power. Its impotence
in Iraq is an embarassment - a supposedly mighty military is being caned by a few thousand rebels.
Despite the wild west rhetoric, the US will not try it on with Iran, because its trailer park troops would receive the same pasting they're getting in Iraq.
The comments from our US friends demonstrate the the number one strategic priority for the US government should be to teach its own people basic spelling and common sense. That would be progress in world affairs.
Richard, Nottingham, England
I agree with of Mr. Sullivan's thoughts on the current status of Iran's power in the region. We do indeed impower our enemies through our own incompetence, by which I mean the fantasies of American neocons. But I do not think the British position is enhanced or illucidated by reference to Lord Nelson. Good God, man, that is a long, long time ago. Get over it. Remember Suez. Whatever it takes to come closer to reality.
Dante, Portland/Oregon,
May I just say to my fellow Brits who don't necessarily follow the 'American scene'
Andrew Sullivan is seen as pretty much of a joke, he has all the consistency of a quark whose strangeness has overwhelmed it's charm.
Even Christopher Hitchens garners more respect, and he makes no bones about being a shill.
Make of that what you will.
Jim Quinnel, Salford,
Andrew Sullivan's view that any strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would be more likely to stir up a hornet's nest than achieve its intended goal parallels what I have thought for some time.
How ironic that the only safe way out of this mess seems to be the hope that the Russians will continue to insist that Iran pays its bills in full before getting any more work out of them. President Ahmadinejad cancelled his new year's address to the UN, postponed his Prophet's birthday address and when he did give it, freed some hostages when he probably would have preferred to announce some nuclear milestone or other. One might reasonably ask whether the Russian strategy of hard-nosed diplomacy is having more effect than the Bush strategy of threats that can't be fulfilled.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
Do not belive it.
Michael Zeng, Lishui Zhejiang,
Now that the British Government have decided that blindfolding people and telling them that they face a long time in prison constitutes torture and coercion, and has stated that it is likely lead to false confessions I assume that they will cease these practices and campaign for their allies to do the same.
Bill Adams, New Delhi, Indian
Geeze, I'm no tactical wizzard but sending out an underamed boat full of underarmed troops, probably supported by an underarmed ship near Iran which is looking for any excuse to cause an "incident" makes me think that somebody needs to investigate the admiralty for gross stupidity or negligence.
Ken Peacenick, Centennial, Colorado USA,
Oh please Iran was nearly defeated by Iraq. After 5 years it was a stailmete. They failed to win a decisive victory over. They are nothing and they have proved it again and again. Nuclear weapons will do nothing but make them a legitimate target.
Doug Forbes, Wheeling, USA
US must draft 2 million men as must Europe. US and Europe need to invade Iran, surround and denuke Pakistan and make Saudi Arabia separate religion and state.
Old Atlantic, Atlantic City, NJ
Desmond from Texas, I think perhaps the purpose of this exercise as you call it really just demonstrated Irans increasing nervousness at having two American battle fleets just a few miles off their coast while your President makes increasingly alarming threats of unprovoked nuclear strikes against Iran for pursuing their perfectly legal right to produce nuclear energy in a world fast running out of oil.
As far as most of the rest of the world is concerned the only 'nutcase with an atom bomb' is sitting in the White House even as we speak.
B Veale, Widnes, England
Jeez, Desmond, the point of troops is that they'll be available to fight when & where the senior officers choose, for considered policy outcomes desired by the politicos, not starting WWIV by getting all of themselves killed in under 3 minutes by flanking heavy machine gun fire. This groups' backs were up against the ship's hull with minimal firepower of their own. So the point of troops is not to use them until you use them for maximum effectiveness. Basic strategy.
Robert M., Acton, MA, USA
Sully,
You wrote: "It’s also not clear what would happen to the American body politic if the United States had used this moment to launch an attack on Iran. My bet is that the country would hurtle towards a constitutional crisis, with Congress coming close to a veto-proof majority against a commander-in-chief at a time of war. The damage this would do to America internally and in the world at large would be immense."
Keep away from the punters my friend.
If the US government-led by ANY American president-comes across incontrovertible evidence that Iran is indeed building nuclear weapons, the US armed forces will go into Iran. How and to what extent, who knows, but go in we will.
And the American people will fully back the President.
It's not 1968 here, Sully, and it will never be again, and for good cause...
Eric Laimins, Plymouth, USA - Massachusetts
The sole purpose of this Iranian exercise was to divert attention from nut cases getting atom bombs. Not crazy at all. Question, what is the point of having soldiers, marines etc. if they do not fight.?
Desmond Taylor, Houston, TX