News from the New Party

Action or appeasement?

When Iran abducted 15 British sailors and Royal Marines on 23 March, it was relying on tried and trusted tactics. After all, the Iranian regime famously announced itself to the world in 1979 by seizing over 60 hostages from the US Embassy in Teheran. It held 52 of those hostages for a total of 444 days. Some have even suggested that the current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was one of the “students” taking the Embassy staff captive.

Since then, kidnappings have become a normal part of the Iranians’ weapon of war. Last year’s war in Lebanon was kicked off with a few kidnappings, the first by Iranian-backed Hamas and then further kidnappings by Iran’s main proxy, Hezbollah. It may be noted that those hostages have yet to be freed.

And let us be clear that it is an act of war by the Iranians, as Melanie Phillips argues:

... Britain seems to be in some kind of dreamworld. There is no sense of urgency or crisis, no outpouring of anger. There seems to be virtually no grasp of what is at stake.

Some commentators have languidly observed that in another age this would have been regarded as an act of war. What on earth are they talking about? It is an act of war. There can hardly be a more blatant act of aggression than the kidnapping of another country’s military personnel.

So why did the Iranians engage in this reckless act of war? One possible reason is to obtain bargaining chips to negotiate the return of Iranian revoutionary guards captured by the US in the Iraqi city of Irbil. It might also be an attempt by the Iranian revolutionary guards to forestall the possibility of successful negotiations which might slow Iran's drive to become a nuclear power. Respected commentator Kenneth Timmerman presents a different argument:

Has the Iranian leadership miscalculated, as some analysts believe?

The short answer is: No. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his supporters don't think as Westerners think. They aren't analyzing costs vs. benefits or looking at their "bottom line." For them, the only bottom line is perpetuating their regime.

They believe attacking Britain and America will encourage their supporters, rally the faithful beyond Iran and launch their worldwide jihad to "destroy America" and "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" -- two goals Mr. Ahmadinejad set for his presidency.

This thesis may be correct, but not responding forcefully will only reinforce the Iranians' contempt for the West and the belief in their own invincibility, just as Israel's failure to destroy Hezbollah last summer - partly due to the war being prematurely curtailed under pressure from Washington - persuaded the Iranians and many others in the Middle East that Hezbollah had emerged victorious. In military terms, the Israelis were far superior, but by not finishing off their opponents they handed them an unnecessary political victory.

We can dwell on why the rules of engagement did not allow HMS Cornwall to take aggressive action, or why there was inadequate helicopter backup, but the question now at hand is how the UK responds. So far the response has been derisory, with the Foreign Office sounding almost apologetic and the prime minister slightly more forceful but hardly promising Iran the severe consequences it deserves. Our European Union "partners" have failed dismally too, refusing to consider trade sanctions against Iran (and remember that they, not we, control our trade policy). At the United Nations, notes Mark Steyn, it has been business as usual (i.e., not much):

The British Ambassador to the UN had wanted the Security Council to pass a resolution “deploring” Iran’s conduct. But the Russians objected to all this hotheaded inflammatory lingo about “deploring,” and so the Security Council instead expressed its “grave concern” about the situation. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they’ve got to show for years of the UN’s “grave concerns”—heavy on the graves, less so on the concern.

It now all hangs on "diplomacy", apparently. There has been much talk about finding a way for the Iranians to "save face", to finding a "formula" that will enable a release to take place, to avoiding "inflammatory language" that will only escalate the situation. But this is an act of war that should not leave the Iranians with a victory or even a score draw - they must receive the retribution which says to them and the international community that our military will defend itself from attack.

It should be to our eternal regret that the Iranians did not receive this message three years ago when they pulled a similar stunt. On that occasion they released our personnel after only two days, and they will have observed how unwilling the UK was to respond forcefully. This time we would hope that it must be different, but somehow the signs are not good.

Update

Within an hour of posting this article, it was announced that the 15 sailors and marines would be freed by Iran after receiving 'pardons'.  Ahmadinejad has also conspicuously awarded medals to the commanders who kidnapped our naval personnel and claimed that their return is a 'present' for the British people.

The British government response so far has been to welcome the words of Ahmadinejad, an unsurprisingly cautious response while the hostages remain in captivity.  We may see in the days ahead whether there has been a tough ultimatum from the British or a complete diplomatic cave-in.