March 26, 2007

Developments In the Gulf

Now the Iranians have seized 15 British seamen, possibly hoping for a trade for Iranians seized in Iraq.

Although I've been critical of those who want to pick a fight with Iran, this is a horse of another color. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but seizing this many sailors of another nation and not returning them promptly is a casus belli (justification for war). Such a war need not imply "total war" or an invasion; it could be a blockade, along wiht a seizure of assets, or short of formal war, a raid or two to seize Iranian soldiers or sailors. Moreover, Britain is our ally in the Gulf, and if asked we might have some obligation to participate.

It doesn't follow, of course, that just because a state of war or something approaching war has historically resulted from actions of this kind, that an immediate military response is necessary or wise. However, without tit-for-tat retaliation at a minimum, more incidents of this kind are invited.

I doubt Britain has the stomach for such action, and I hope diplomatic measures and pressure short of military action will be successful, although if the events in the Embassy a quarter-century ago are a precedent, diplomacy and pressure may not have much success.

And of course, if neither we nor the British were there in the first place, none of this would have happened.

4 comments:

Renegade Eye said...

I found your blog at Louis's.

Invading Iran implies being in an alliance with Sunnis. Al Qaeda is possible.

Grumpy Old Man said...

That's one of many reasons why I don't favor bombing Iran, let alone invading her.

What I'm trying to say is the Iranians have provided a ground to attack them, which presumably they want to avoid.

They must be calculating neither the British nor we will do it.

bossman said...

Seems a bit of a dangerous move for Iran.

The British government, (and a great deal of the populace) are nasuetingly proud.

They really would (and have) send a fleet halfway across the world to mend an injured ego.

Perhaps Iran genuinly believes (for whatever reason?) that the sailors were in their territory?

Given the climate (and the fact that they have refused a prisoner exchange) it seems unlikely they would do something like this just to antognise us.

I sincerely hope this will all be sorted out peacefully over the next few days, especially now that evidence is being presented proving the sailors innocence

Woody said...

I seem to remember something like this happening to our Iranian embassy employees when Carter was president, and he didn't have our forces over there. If anything, he allowed the radical Islamics to take control in that country inviting more of this.

Our presence in the mideast did not cause this. Don't blame the victims. Blame the criminals, who were going to do something like this no matter what. We are legally there outside of Iran's borders. They illegally take hostages and parade them on television after threatening them.

Want to know what to do? Think like Ronald Reagan, whom the Iranians feared and knew that he would take action, thus releasing the hostages. Their fears were proven when Reagan bombed Khadafy for his terrorist acts.