I don't think it's cause for war. But sadly, I think it shows a growing contempt that others have for the West. We have shown them that, even in the face of physical threat, we will gladly fall upon one another and beat each other to a pulp. This is just Iran pushing the lines, seeing what happens, watching, and waiting. We are digging ourselves into a hole where no matter what we do, it will not help.
Dave G. | 03.30.07 - 1:55 pm | #

Mark:
I do not believe we will conduct attacks against Iran anytime soon due to the British hostages. First Britian does not have the capabilites to launch any attack that could hurt Iran and force them to release the hostages. Iran will conduct brinksmanship and "toy" with the west for because in order to emerge as the world leader of Islam. They also have a desire to control the waterway and the land where the Brits were captured, but will pull back just in time to avoid having their air foce and navy destroyed. Also I can only hope if we or anyone else decides to "whack" Iran, they have a plan for what happens post attack. Iran will retaliate by assymterical attacks (terror) that we would need to be ready for...We cannot simply bomb them and fly/float away. Please do not confuse that with occupation, but we need a very comprehensive plan because Iran refuses to be intimidated by the West. And they have everything to gain from an attack by the west. Pray for Peace.
Tom | 03.30.07 - 1:58 pm | #

Some months ago, I was being told that I was an idiot for thinking there was good reason to suppose the war would be expanded to Iran. Now the people who called me a fool for thinking that are themselves cheerleading for expanding the war to Iran.

Forgive me for quoting the Monkees, but that was then, this is now. There wasn't a good reason to attack Iran months ago. That doesn't mean that there will never be a reason to attack Iran. You don't get any points for prescience for saying that warmongers will eventually push for unjust aggression if aggression eventually becomes just and necessary.

I don't think this crisis amounts to a good reason to go to war. I'm just saying that the day might come when war with Iran becomes just, and if that day comes, that doesn't vindicate your prediction.
K the C | 03.30.07 - 2:21 pm | #

I listened to the Leeden interview on Prager's show. He said that the British should destroy a terrorist training camp in Iran. He's said repeatedly that he doesn't favor an invasion. I realize that any attempt to defend Leeden on any score in frowned upon on this blog, but it is important, I think, to be accurate.

Also, if attacking a military vessel and seizing its crew is not a causus belli, then I'm at a bit of a loss to think what would be one.
Blackadder | 03.30.07 - 2:31 pm | #

"Also, if attacking a military vessel and seizing its crew is not a causus belli, then I'm at a bit of a loss to think what would be one."

How about taking over an embassy, which is sovereign territory of the nation that it belongs to? Iran has been at war with us since 1979. They just haven’t been good enough at it for most of us to notice. I suspect this is about to change.
John J. Simmins | 03.30.07 - 2:38 pm | #

Evidence that the ship was, indeed, inside Iraqi waters is detailed here:

http://www.mod.uk/ DefenceInterne...IraqiWaters.htm

"The Iranian government has provided us with two different positions for the incident. The first we received on Saturday and the second on Monday. As this map shows, the first of these points still lies within Iraqi territorial waters. We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts.

"After we did this, they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters over two nautical miles from the position given by HMS CORNWALL and confirmed by the merchant vessel."
Blackadder | 03.30.07 - 2:53 pm | #

You don't get any points for prescience for saying that warmongers will eventually push for unjust aggression if aggression eventually becomes just and necessary.

Shoot, people all over the world have understood since before the Iraq war began that a domino effect of aggression was about to be set off. Read the words of the Catholic Bishops of Japan (released in Feb 21, 2003):

If war is not avoided and Iraq is attacked, many precious lives, including many civilians, will be lost. Moreover, we can easily foresee that the people of Iraq who are already suffering much will suffer even more because of regional strife, armed clashes and economic sanctions. Furthermore, this attack will not only destabilize Iraq but also the entire Middle and Near East. We have no doubt that an attack will not solve any problems; rather, it will create a whole set of new problems. http://www.cbcj.catholic.jp/eng/edoc/e03iraq.htm

And so I say: if the Bishops of Japan knew that the situation in the Middle East would escalate once we occupied Iraq, then why didn't we? Why do we persist in thinking that all of Iran's actions are motivated by pure evil while none of our actions could possibly have evil consequences?
David | 03.30.07 - 3:02 pm | #

How many Iranian diplomatic personnel are the U.S. holding from when it took over a consulate recently which is sovereign territory of Iran?

Russian sources are reporting that the joint American/Israeli attack is scheduled to begin on Good Friday, will not include a ground invasion, and may include tactical nuclear weapons. How reliable those sources are, God only knows.
Michael | 03.30.07 - 3:14 pm | #

Blackadder:

Here is what my reader reports Ledeen said:

"It would be nice if someone in a position of power noted that the Iranians have committed an act of war on a NATO country, and that the other members of the alliance can be obliged to join in common action against the aggressor if the relevant terms of the treaty are invoked, as they should be. That should be the first move, showing the Iranians that the West is united and determined to act. It should be accompanied by the appearance of some vessels from what is left of Her Majesty’s Navy, buttressing our own warships and — shhhh! — the French carrier now in the area. If we have actionable intelligence from the recent wave of defectors/prisoners, we should step up the campaign against Iranian officials and agents in Iraq. And we should undertake the legitimate self-defense to which we are entitled, by moving against the terrorist training camps, and the improvised explosive device assembly lines and manufacturing sites inside the Islamic Republic."

Sound like beating the war drums to me.

As I have documented repeatedly, Ledeen is a duplicitous, double-talking man who has advocated evil such as murdering wounded and unarmed men on the battlefield in cold blood. It does not follow that "any attempt to defend Ledeen on any score in frowned upon on this blog". I'm sure he has some good qualities. Al Capone was reportedly generous to friends. Henry VIII was a good dancer. Doubtless Ledeen has his good points too. What I object to is not "any attempt to defend Ledeen on any score", but the attempt to defend him when he advocates evil, or, in this case, tries to stampede people toward a morally dubious attack on Iran. Murdering people is evil. Ledeen suggested that we do it (while artfully denying he was doing any such thing). Here he is not advocating murder exactly. He's just beating war drums for another dubious war. Not as grave as directly advocating murder, but still not somebody I'd trust as far as I could throw him.

If attacking a military vessel and seizing its crew is not a causus belli, then I'm at a bit of a loss to think what would be one.

And that's why we declared war on North Korea after the Pueblo incident.

Lesson: just because provocation has been offered doesn't mean we should be stupid enough to take the bait.

And I want to have more than the word of the Brits that their ship was in Iraqi waters. I'm sorry, but we've already seen that when our government is itching to go to war it will shape the facts to suit the agenda and persuade allies to do likewise. These seems like an awfully convenient incident for the War Party.

That doesn't mean I don't think Iran needs to let the prisoners go. I just remain skeptical that this is grounds for war.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 03.30.07 - 3:18 pm | #

If the British were in Iranian waters what should the Iranians do about it? I'm sorry, but the governments of the USA and Britain have shown themselves to be non credible when it comes to justifying their use of force. Iran has had two of its neighbors invaded and occupied,so its not unreasonable to see them touchy about their borders. I don't see the Iranians as the belligerents here. The UN security council (all of which are nuclear powers) has recently santioned Iran for their pursuit of nuclear power, even though the peaceful use of nuclear power is the right of any nation. It looks to the Iranians that the UN security council itself is just a tool of the superpowers to impose their will on less developed countries. I can't say that I disagree with them on that one. If the fear is nuclear weapons, then the answer should be rejecting their possession by all countries, not using their possession to threaten those who don't have them. The Iranians are constantly charged with being supporters of terrorism. They say they are aiding people in Palestine and Lebanon who are fighting the illegal occupation of their homelands. While the tactics resorted to in these kind of conflicts often don't measure up to just war principles, they are to be expected when the weak go up against the strong. The resort to violence in international affairs needs to end, so those with military strength shouldn't play the bully.
canwetalk? | 03.30.07 - 3:47 pm | #

"Russian sources are reporting that the joint American/Israeli attack is scheduled to begin on Good Friday, will not include a ground invasion, and may include tactical nuclear weapons. How reliable those sources are, God only knows."

You've got that right - God only knows.

Lots of people have read that RIA Novosti report. I wouldn't take the source to be authoritative, though it could be used to carry a message: The Russians are nervous.

If we you hear it from Putin or Ivanov, then take it seriously.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 03.30.07 - 3:53 pm | #

Mark,

First, if you want more than the word of the Brits that the ship was in Iraqi waters, you can read the article I linked to at 2:53.

Second, the fact that an attack on a military vessel by a foreign nation is a casus belli (and it is a casus belli) doesn't mean that that nation has to go to war over it, or even that it would always be prudent to do so. It only means that such a war would have a just cause.

Third, if you follow the link your reader gives, you'll find that the cited quotes come from an article on NRO, not Ledeen's interview on the Prager show.

Fourth, I don't want to revisit old controversies, but Ledeen did not advocate murdering wounded and unarmed men on the battlefield in cold blood. What he said was "I don't know what I would order my soldiers to do, but I would certainly insist that my National Security Council made a clear decision."
Blackadder | 03.30.07 - 4:14 pm | #

Considering that the Brits cannot pacify Basra and that the US cannot pacify an area the size of Connecticut and the mighty Israelis could not wipe out the Hezbos or find their still captured soldier (Gilad Shalit) I think the likelyhood of a shooting war with Iran is zero.

NATO (France, Germany Italy) are financing Iran at this very moment (they buy Iran's oil).

I suggest that the next time a Royal Navy frigate comes to NY a few of you guys join me and we capture it for the Knights of Malta.
Michaelus | 03.30.07 - 4:21 pm | #

Slightly off point, but worth reading:


A peculiar outrage
The treatment of Faye Turney is wrong - but not in the same league as British and US abuses

Ronan Bennett
Friday March 30, 2007
The Guardian

It's right that the government and media should be concerned about the treatment the 15 captured marines and sailors are receiving in Iran. Faye Turney's letters bear the marks of coercion, while parading the prisoners in front of TV cameras was demeaning. But the outrage expressed by ministers and leader writers is curious given the recent record of the "coalition of the willing" on the way it deals with prisoners.

Turney may have been "forced to wear the hijab", as the Daily Mail noted with fury, but so far as we know she has not been forced into an orange jumpsuit. Her comrades have not been shackled, blindfolded, forced into excruciating physical contortions for long periods, or denied liquids and food. As far as we know they have not had the Bible spat on, torn up or urinated on in front of their faces. They have not had electrodes attached to their genitals or been set on by attack dogs.

They have not been hung from a forklift truck and photographed for the amusement of their captors. They have not been pictured naked and smeared in their own excrement. They have not been bundled into a CIA-chartered plane and secretly "rendered" to a basement prison in a country where torturers are experienced and free to do their worst.

As far as we know, Turney and her comrades are not being "worked hard", the euphemism coined by one senior British army officer for the abuse of prisoners at Camp Bread Basket. And as far as we know all 15 are alive and well, which is more than can be said for Baha Mousa, the hotel receptionist who, in 2003, was unfortunate enough to have been taken into custody by British troops in Basra. There has of course been a court martial and it exonerated the soldiers of Mousa's murder. So we can only assume that his death - by beating - was self-inflicted; yet another instance of "asymmetrical warfare", the description given by US authorities to the deaths of the Guantánamo detainees who hanged themselves last year.

And while the families of the captured marines and sailors must be in agonies of uncertainty, they have the comfort of knowing that the very highest in the land are doing everything they can to end their "unjustified detention". They can count themselves especially lucky, for the very same highest of the land have rather different views on what justifies detention where foreign-born Muslims in Britain are concerned. In the case, for example, of the Belmarsh detainees, suspicion justified arrest; statements extracted under torture from third parties justified accusation; and secret hearings justified imprisonment.

With disregard for the rights of prisoners now entrenched at the very top of government, it comes as no surprise that abuses committed by rank and file soldiers go virtually unremarked. No one in politics or the media dares censure the military, surely today the only institution still immune from any sort of criticism, even when soldiers are brutal and murderous towards captives. Instead of frankly facing up to the wrongs soldiers have perpetrated, officers and ministers speak of difficult work done in testing conditions, deliberate provocations, and propaganda by the enemy.

We all know in our bones that soldiers and civilians in revolt don't mix. Ask any historian. Ask them about what British soldiers did in Kenya, French soldiers did in Algeria, and Americans in Vietnam. While you're at it, ask them what the RAF did in Iraq under British rule in the 1920s (gassed Kurds, in case you've forgotten).

We must all hope that Faye Turney and her comrades are returned to their families safely and soon. Then perhaps we can compare their accounts of their treatment with what Moazzam Begg and the Tipton Three have to say about Guantánamo, what Prisoner B has to say about Belmarsh, and what the men arrested with Baha Mousa can tell us of his screams on the night he died.

· Ronan Bennett's latest novel, Zugzwang, is published by Bloomsbury in July
HJBoitel | 03.30.07 - 4:55 pm | #

"And I want to have more than the word of the Brits that their ship was in Iraqi waters."

Is this CAEI or Rosie's Blog?
Tom | 03.30.07 - 5:48 pm | #

We know both the Administration and the UK gov's massaged information to stampede us into the last war. Why do we have any particular reason to assume they would not do it again? I'm not saying they did. I just would like something more than their word. Last war, I had Colin Powell's word. Turned out to be no good.

Fool me twice, shame on me.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 03.30.07 - 5:54 pm | #

Well the last comment was more of a joke BUT I believe both administrations have learned a lesson (at a great expense) about rushing into war. That being said, Iran is a much greater threat than Iraq and must be dealt with at some point if they continue their road to nuclear weapons. As I stated in an earlier post Britian cannot do much about this nor will they. The free world must do something about Iran's nuuclear ambitions but I can only hope that they develop a solid plan with all Nations involved before doing so. Pray for Peace and mercy...
Tom | 03.30.07 - 6:33 pm | #

Here's a Brit who doubts his gov't. http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/ arc...maritime_b.html
canwetalk? | 03.30.07 - 6:54 pm | #

Tom:

I sincerely hope you are right. However, at this point I have no particular reason to *think* you are right. Bush doesn't seem to me to have learned much of anything.

And judging from NRO recent calls for war, neither do the End to Evil crowd.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 03.30.07 - 7:46 pm | #

Nuclear weapons are a consequence of how the universe works. You can no more prevent a determined nation state from achieving nuclear weapons than change the laws of physics. The only way to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, short of occupying the whole country and imposing a dictatorship is to convince them that they have no need for them.
Richard Bell | 03.30.07 - 9:56 pm | #

The British Commander should be hung for letting these sailors be captured without a shot being fired. The Iranians and all of us will pay a very heavy price for letting barbarism take another step foward in the world without being challanged.

May God forgive us for doing nothing in the face of such grave evil and granting it license throughout the world against the innocent.

There may be hell to pay.
Isabelle | 03.30.07 - 10:09 pm | #

Richard,

Mother Theresa said, the fruit of abortion is nuclear war. There is no way to stop it from happening now unless abortion ceases overnight.

Iran will probably develop nuclear weapons and we will probably nuke them because we are not going to live according to sharia law. It really is that simple.
Isabelle | 03.30.07 - 10:53 pm | #

Isabelle,
How many countries has Iran invaded in the last 100 years? Why shouldn't they have the same weapons to defend themselves that their neighbors have? BTW, they say that using nukes is contrary to Islamic practice and that they are not interested in aquiring them.
canwetalk? | 03.31.07 - 10:11 am | #

Richard,
The Iranians are already convinced that they don't need nukes, it's the rest of the world that needs convincing.
canwetalk? | 03.31.07 - 10:16 am | #

canwetalk,

I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.
Blackadder | 03.31.07 - 12:03 pm | #

Mark,

If you think that the British ship was deliberately sent into Iranian waters in the hopes that this would provide an excuse for the United States to attack Iran, and that Britian (not the Bush administration, but Britian) then faked evidence to prove that the ship was in Iraqi waters, then I'm afraid you're approaching "9/11 was an inside job" waters.
Blackadder | 03.31.07 - 12:40 pm | #

Blackadder:

Don't be silly. 9/11 was a "lucky break" (so to speak) for the End to Evil crowd, who had wanted to move against Saddam for a long time. It made that move sellable. But it was not engineered by them. But the massaging of intelligence was. Colin Powell, as we know, remarked on the paucity of actual evidence for WMDs, but saluted like a good soldier and made the case even though he knew the evidence was highly dubious.

Bush himself has telegraphed his desire to move against Iran numerous times. This incident provides, again, the perfect excuse for attacking Iran. Given the Administration's past use of intelligence to help it see what it wants to see and stampede others into supporting what it wants to do, one need not be a 9/11 Truther nut to be distrustful of this rather convenient situation arising just when Coalition forces seem to be all arrayed for an attack on Iran.

However, you critique does signal the way in which Administration defenders will characterize critics. Again, I'm not saying I know what happened. I merely note that one would be a fool to trust the Administration at this late hour.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 12:58 pm | #

While I agree caution is necessary, is it really that hard to believe that possibly Iran used a boat passing close to the zone in these long-disputed waters to prove its point?

I mean, they even first gave a location that was outside of their waters, and then said "oops, I mean here" - not exactly credible.

Just because there are warmongers looking for an excuse doesn't mean we blind ourselves to actual agression by another country. While we should work for a diplomatic solution, if we are not prepared to defend ourselves against agressive actions, we invite them.
Jarnor23 | 03.31.07 - 1:18 pm | #

No. It's not hard to believe at all. I never said it was. I merely said that I saw no particular reason to trust the Administration.

I hope and pray Iran hands the prisoners back because I don't want this be an excuse for yet another war from our End to Evil Geo-Planners. Personally, I'd like to finish the Just War we undertook in Afghanistan and kill bin Laden.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 03.31.07 - 1:46 pm | #

Blackadder,
Thanks anyway, but I don't need the bridge. How many have you bought?
canwetalk? | 03.31.07 - 3:47 pm | #

Mark--
I don't see killing bin Laden as a worthwhile enterprise at this juncture. He has either gone permanently to ground, because he fears for his life, in which case let a sleeping dog lie. If, on the other hand, he's cornered, he may well put up a fight and die a martyr's death in the eyes of his fellow Islamists, to whom he's now maybe worth more dead at our hands, than alive. To make matters worse, the whole thing would probably go down not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, where we would be ill-advised to do anything to create more chaos for the shaky, nuke-holding, government. Be careful what you wish for.
Rob | 03.31.07 - 10:41 pm | #

Mark,

If "massaging" intelligence means saying "Iraq could have the bomb in as little as a year" when intelligence said it could have a bomb in 1 to 3 years, then I'll give you that the Bush administration "massaged" the intelligence before the Iraq war. If it means faking evidence (which is what would have to be involved in this case), then no, I don't agree that the Administration massaged intelligence, and I'm pretty sure that Powell has admitted to no such thing.

You say that you won't take the Administration's word for it that the ship was in Iraqi waters. Fine. But it isn't the Administration that is claiming this. It's the Brits, and they have produced evidence to support this claim, including the fact that the Iranians intially gave coordinates placing the ship within Iraqi waters. I'm sorry, but if you think that the British government faked this evidence as part of a plot to provoke a war with Iran, then you have floated into 9/11 truther territory.
Blackadder | 04.01.07 - 12:30 pm | #

Blackadder,
If you haven't learned by now that the first casualty in war is the truth, then yours is a hopeless case.
canwetalk? | 04.01.07 - 1:12 pm | #

"If the fear is nuclear weapons, then the answer should be rejecting their possession by all countries, not using their possession to threaten those who don't have them."

Which will have an effect similar to rejecting the possession of Speedos by people with body fat percentages over thirty.

"If you haven't learned by now that the first casualty in war is the truth, then yours is a hopeless case."

No, the first casualty in war is the first guy that gets shot.
Ed the Roman | 04.02.07 - 1:29 pm | #